<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.</div>

The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="37b149d1-14d5-4221-933a-12c01811c4a6"></dynamic-object></div>”Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up...That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you're going to see it on the volume side.” <h3>Shift toward dedicated trucking </h3>Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-us-truckload-carriers-shifting-assets-to-expand-dedicated-services-5935831">toward dedicated trucking</a>, with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on mid-sized and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. ”Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up...That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you're going to see it on the volume side.” Shift toward dedicated trucking Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers toward dedicated trucking , with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on mid-sized and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Truck brokers

Surface

Werner acquisition boosts Truckload Capacity Index despite low demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The software vendor said shippers can move away from having intermediaries manage bookings by automating the process and tying it to performance data that FourKites holds. </div>

The software vendor said shippers can move away from having intermediaries manage bookings by automating the process and tying it to performance data that FourKites holds.

<div class="phx-topic">Software vendor FourKites has launched a tool aimed at helping shippers wean themselves off a historical reliance on third-party logistics providers to execute ocean freight bookings with container lines. The new tool, called Booking Connect for Ocean, automates the booking request, confirmation and shipment creation processes associated with international container moves. “The traditional ocean booking process, even for the largest and most sophisticated shippers, is highly fragmented,” Priya Rajagopalan, president of product, technology and operations at FourKites, told the Journal of Commerce. “Carrier-forwarder coordination loops run through email and phone over different continents. It’s hard to look at and say where there are opportunities for improvement. Structurally, this feel like it’s a valuable process to solve.” Rajagopalan said the new tool, unveiled this week, allows shippers to base booking decisions on ocean carrier performance, reliability and transshipment data that FourKites has accumulated for more than a decade as a transportation visibility provider. The company in early 2025 shifted its product focus to agentic solutions that comprise what it calls an artificial intelligence (AI)-led control tower solution. “This is not intended to be a better [user interface] for rate shopping,” Rajagopalan said. “It’s trying to deliver an outcome. So it’s not just recommendations, but you can enforce your routing guide on the fly using natural language.” <h3>‘Rational step forward’ </h3>The tool allows a shipper to prompt the booking process through a digital agent, including specifying rules or thresholds, such as limiting the number of containers on a specific sailing, or divvying up volume to different carriers based on a shipper’s allocation strategy. Booking Connect provides shippers with recommendations along four dimensions: cost, transit time, an optimized tradeoff between cost and transit time, and historical performance factors such as port congestion or schedule reliability. “The shipper can choose which one is most important to them,” Rajagopalan said. She described the development of the booking tool as a “rational step forward” in FourKites’ product development because confirmed ocean bookings need to be based on data that is currently scattered across systems or held predominantly by logistics intermediaries. It can also be more automated than it has historically been, she said. “Rejected bookings surface alternatives immediately and can re-book within pre-configured rules,” FourKites said in a statement about the product launch. “Tracking begins automatically upon confirmation, with milestone visibility from port of loading through final delivery.” While the tool is ideally used by a shipper, Rajagopalan said shippers who still prefer to outsource booking management to their forwarders could enable the use of Booking Connect. FourKites has some 3PL customers among its largely shipper-focused client base. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Software vendor FourKites has launched a tool aimed at helping shippers wean themselves off a historical reliance on third-party logistics providers to execute ocean freight bookings with container lines. The new tool, called Booking Connect for Ocean, automates the booking request, confirmation and shipment creation processes associated with international container moves. “The traditional ocean booking process, even for the largest and most sophisticated shippers, is highly fragmented,” Priya Rajagopalan, president of product, technology and operations at FourKites, told the Journal of Commerce. “Carrier-forwarder coordination loops run through email and phone over different continents. It’s hard to look at and say where there are opportunities for improvement. Structurally, this feel like it’s a valuable process to solve.” Rajagopalan said the new tool, unveiled this week, allows shippers to base booking decisions on ocean carrier performance, reliability and transshipment data that FourKites has accumulated for more than a decade as a transportation visibility provider. The company in early 2025 shifted its product focus to agentic solutions that comprise what it calls an artificial intelligence (AI)-led control tower solution. “This is not intended to be a better [user interface] for rate shopping,” Rajagopalan said. “It’s trying to deliver an outcome. So it’s not just recommendations, but you can enforce your routing guide on the fly using natural language.” ‘Rational step forward’ The tool allows a shipper to prompt the booking process through a digital agent, including specifying rules or thresholds, such as limiting the number of containers on a specific sailing, or divvying up volume to different carriers based on a shipper’s allocation strategy. Booking Connect provides shippers with recommendations along four dimensions: cost, transit time, an optimized tradeoff between cost and transit time, and historical performance factors such as port congestion or schedule reliability. “The shipper can choose which one is most important to them,” Rajagopalan said. She described the development of the booking tool as a “rational step forward” in FourKites’ product development because confirmed ocean bookings need to be based on data that is currently scattered across systems or held predominantly by logistics intermediaries. It can also be more automated than it has historically been, she said. “Rejected bookings surface alternatives immediately and can re-book within pre-configured rules,” FourKites said in a statement about the product launch. “Tracking begins automatically upon confirmation, with milestone visibility from port of loading through final delivery.” While the tool is ideally used by a shipper, Rajagopalan said shippers who still prefer to outsource booking management to their forwarders could enable the use of Booking Connect. FourKites has some 3PL customers among its largely shipper-focused client base. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Logistics Technology News

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Supply chain

FourKites takes aim at automating ocean bookings for shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A Journal of Commerce review found several instances where the promotional trucking awards appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel.</div>

A Journal of Commerce review found several instances where the promotional trucking awards appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers often assume the honors bestowed by freight brokers on the truck carriers they use mean the carriers are doing things the right way, including — and perhaps most importantly — operating safely on US highways. But a Journal of Commerce review found several instances where that assumption is not necessarily accurate. Indeed, the awards themselves — which are essentially self-congratulatory promotional marketing for the brokers and carriers involved — appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel. In a recent example that received a lot of publicity for all the wrong reasons, broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide gave a “Carrier of the Year” award to SuperEgo Holding last September, an honor the broker said recognizes those that “exemplify the best in the industry.” But SuperEgo later became the subject of <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">a CBS 60 Minutes investigation</a> that found the carrier and related entities were tied to 15,000 safety violations and 500 accidents over two years. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is also investigating SuperEgo over allegations it operated as a “chameleon” carrier, meaning a trucking company that shuts down and rebrands itself under a new name to evade federal safety enforcement, fines, insurance scrutiny or poor safety records while operating with the same management. But SuperEgo was not the only “award-winning” carrier with a high-risk profile. A review by the Journal of Commerce found that C.H. Robinson, Echo Global Logistics and Uber Freight have honored other carriers with serious safety or driver qualification issues on their records. While none of the carriers recognized were officially deemed “unsafe” by federal regulators, their records highlight a gray area: what shippers believe a “Carrier of the Year” award actually represents. Other large US brokers appear not to publicly announce their carrier honors, if they even have them at all. <h3>Gray area on carrier vetting </h3>Shippers rely on brokers to thoroughly vet the carriers handling their freight, but what that vetting entails can be nebulous. For the brokers that announce awards, they are typically made to recognize operational performance metrics such as accepting tenders, on-time delivery, providing tracking visibility, and offering competitive pricing. For shippers, however, the award designation may imply that the carrier is operating legally, safely, and with qualified drivers behind the wheel. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, said shippers often assume safety is a consideration when carriers are selected to haul loads. “The shippers I talk to, they just make the assumption you’re doing everything you can around safety,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “When a driver exhibits bad behavior or unsafe behavior, you are at a higher risk for having an accident, even a serious accident.” Miller said most “Carrier of the Year”-type awards are not tied to safety, but rather how much capacity a carrier provides and at what rates, even though shippers may view the awards as broader endorsements of safe, low-risk carriers. Knight-Swift <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/knight-swift-making-safety-related-cuts-to-brokerage-fleet-6210440">culled 30% of third-party carriers</a> out of its logistics division in the first quarter, citing increased vetting to ensure higher safety standards and in a bid to reduce the likelihood of cargo theft. But the brokerage industry as a whole, whether it’s handing out awards or not, passes no judgment on whether a carrier is fit to operate. For that, it relies on FMSCA, according to Chris Burroughs, president of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). The TIA represents 1,800 third-party logistics companies in North America. “If the FMCSA can’t decipher [who is safe to operate], how is the general public supposed to decipher it?” Burroughs told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Does safety scoring predict accident risk? </h3>Through its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, the FMCSA measures trucking companies on six criteria: unsafe driving, crash indicators, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle maintenance, controlled substances or alcohol, and driver fitness. The criteria are published in the online Safety Measurement System (SMS). Crash indicators measure patterns of high crash involvement, such as frequency and severity, according to FMCSA. The SMS data is used by FMCSA to prioritize carrier “interventions,” but Burroughs argues the scores are not reliable enough for brokers to make decisions on carriers. “Brokers may review publicly available data as part of their overall due diligence, but that data is incomplete, can be misleading, and cannot be used to make definitive safety determinations,” he said. The CSA scoring data does not constitute a safety rating, Burroughs pointed out. The FMCSA only assigns a safety rating of “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or “unsatisfactory” after an on-site review of a company’s safety procedures and regulatory compliance. Still, more than 90% of existing trucking companies in the US have not been rated by the FMCSA, according to the agency, and some companies have safety ratings that were assigned years or even decades ago. The FMCSA does not have the staff or resources to visit, inspect, and provide a safety rating for all motor carriers in the US. A 2017 review by the National Academy of Sciences found that the CSA safety scoring system is “structured in a reasonable way” and “defensible” for identifying higher-risk carriers. But the authors also questioned how precisely those scores reflect crash risk. The federal government has focused intensely on highway safety through its SAFE ROADS initiative, including <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/house-committee-advances-bill-targeting-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses-6188801">the high-profile crackdowns</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements. <h3>‘Winners’ with higher-risk profiles </h3>Despite the studies on CSA scores, some indicators have a clear nexus with highway safety. A carrier with repeated severe violations, such as operating a vehicle with defective brakes or excessive speeding, presents a higher risk of getting into an accident. The Journal of Commerce found several carriers that were given awards by brokers despite having enough serious violations to trigger FMCSA intervention or be officially deemed “high risk.” MEB Express, which won a C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” award alongside SuperEgo, had eight violations for traveling at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit in the last two years, two violations for inattentive or distracted driving, and two violations for not having a proper CDL or medical certificate, according to the FMCSA. Another C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” winner for 2025, Garesp Transportation, received six violations for either making “a false report in connection with a duty status” or “failing to have a record of duty status,” the FMCSA said. Both revolve around data from electronic-logging devices (ELDs), which are required for interstate commerce to “directly combat the primary cause of fatigue-related accidents,” according to the agency. Both are small carriers: MEB owns 80 trucks; Garesp owns 30. C.H. Robinson gives several “Carrier of the Year” awards, depending on the fleet size of the trucking company. Since last September when the awards were announced, both MEB and Garesp have continued to rack up violations. Five MEB Express drivers were taken out of service for failing an ELP exam, according to the FMCSA, while three Garesp drivers were taken off the road for not possessing a valid CDL or violating restrictions placed on their CDLs. Contacted by the Journal of Commerce about its award distribution and the companies that received FMCSA violations, C.H. Robinson noted that there were 24 different winners last September, including owner-operators, small carriers, large carriers, and holding companies with affiliated carriers such as SuperEgo. The broker also said all winners meet the standards set by the FMCSA to legally operate. “The awards are chosen by an internal committee and are based on exceptional service to our customers, such as reliable tracking updates, on-time performance and delivering on customers’ unique requirements,” C.H. Robinson wrote in a statement. But it also acknowledged it is considering changes in determining how carriers are chosen for recognition, saying, “As a part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we are reviewing our criteria for future carrier awards.” <h3>C.H. Robinson not alone </h3>Other brokers have also given promotional awards to carriers with high-risk profiles. Uber Freight named CloudTrucks a “Carrier of the Year” last month, even though federal regulators in February flagged the carrier’s driver fitness record, noting multiple out-of-service violations tied to driver qualifications. The FMCSA officially identified the carrier as “high-risk” in March 2025. “CloudTrucks’ on-road safety data, including driver fitness violations, indicate ongoing safety management concerns,” the FMCSA wrote in February. “CloudTrucks was cited for 27 driver fitness violations in the past two years during inspections, 20 of which were out-of-service violations." Uber Freight discloses the criteria for its “Carrier of the Year” award on its website; safety was not among them. Uber did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. In 2024, Echo Global Logistics awarded a “Carrier of the Quarter” award to Fortune Transport, despite Fortune triggering federal intervention thresholds for hours-of-service compliance and crash indicators. In a third category — vehicle maintenance — the carrier was only 0.9 percentage point below a formal FMCSA intervention, according to a carrier profile obtained by the Journal of Commerce through a third-party platform. An FMCSA intervention includes warning letters, increased roadside inspections, and possible on-site investigations. Fortune Transport owns 13 trucks. “Echo’s ‘Carrier of the Quarter’ awards are based on operational performance within our network, including factors such as on-time delivery, low cancellations, consistent tracking, and overall service,” the company said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce when asked about the award to Fortune. “Echo maintains a comprehensive carrier onboarding process and operates in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements and all applicable laws and regulations.” The broader issue for shippers remains: Operational excellence and highway safety are not always the same thing. While a “Carrier of the Year” award may recognize service performance, unless the criteria clearly state otherwise, it should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every load is being hauled by safe, low-risk and legally qualified drivers. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.       Senior Editor William B. Cassidy and Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report. </div>

Shippers often assume the honors bestowed by freight brokers on the truck carriers they use mean the carriers are doing things the right way, including — and perhaps most importantly — operating safely on US highways. But a Journal of Commerce review found several instances where that assumption is not necessarily accurate. Indeed, the awards themselves — which are essentially self-congratulatory promotional marketing for the brokers and carriers involved — appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel. In a recent example that received a lot of publicity for all the wrong reasons, broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide gave a “Carrier of the Year” award to SuperEgo Holding last September, an honor the broker said recognizes those that “exemplify the best in the industry.” But SuperEgo later became the subject of a CBS 60 Minutes investigation that found the carrier and related entities were tied to 15,000 safety violations and 500 accidents over two years. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is also investigating SuperEgo over allegations it operated as a “chameleon” carrier, meaning a trucking company that shuts down and rebrands itself under a new name to evade federal safety enforcement, fines, insurance scrutiny or poor safety records while operating with the same management. But SuperEgo was not the only “award-winning” carrier with a high-risk profile. A review by the Journal of Commerce found that C.H. Robinson, Echo Global Logistics and Uber Freight have honored other carriers with serious safety or driver qualification issues on their records. While none of the carriers recognized were officially deemed “unsafe” by federal regulators, their records highlight a gray area: what shippers believe a “Carrier of the Year” award actually represents. Other large US brokers appear not to publicly announce their carrier honors, if they even have them at all. Gray area on carrier vetting Shippers rely on brokers to thoroughly vet the carriers handling their freight, but what that vetting entails can be nebulous. For the brokers that announce awards, they are typically made to recognize operational performance metrics such as accepting tenders, on-time delivery, providing tracking visibility, and offering competitive pricing. For shippers, however, the award designation may imply that the carrier is operating legally, safely, and with qualified drivers behind the wheel. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, said shippers often assume safety is a consideration when carriers are selected to haul loads. “The shippers I talk to, they just make the assumption you’re doing everything you can around safety,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “When a driver exhibits bad behavior or unsafe behavior, you are at a higher risk for having an accident, even a serious accident.” Miller said most “Carrier of the Year”-type awards are not tied to safety, but rather how much capacity a carrier provides and at what rates, even though shippers may view the awards as broader endorsements of safe, low-risk carriers. Knight-Swift culled 30% of third-party carriers out of its logistics division in the first quarter, citing increased vetting to ensure higher safety standards and in a bid to reduce the likelihood of cargo theft. But the brokerage industry as a whole, whether it’s handing out awards or not, passes no judgment on whether a carrier is fit to operate. For that, it relies on FMSCA, according to Chris Burroughs, president of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). The TIA represents 1,800 third-party logistics companies in North America. “If the FMCSA can’t decipher [who is safe to operate], how is the general public supposed to decipher it?” Burroughs told the Journal of Commerce. Does safety scoring predict accident risk? Through its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, the FMCSA measures trucking companies on six criteria: unsafe driving, crash indicators, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle maintenance, controlled substances or alcohol, and driver fitness. The criteria are published in the online Safety Measurement System (SMS). Crash indicators measure patterns of high crash involvement, such as frequency and severity, according to FMCSA. The SMS data is used by FMCSA to prioritize carrier “interventions,” but Burroughs argues the scores are not reliable enough for brokers to make decisions on carriers. “Brokers may review publicly available data as part of their overall due diligence, but that data is incomplete, can be misleading, and cannot be used to make definitive safety determinations,” he said. The CSA scoring data does not constitute a safety rating, Burroughs pointed out. The FMCSA only assigns a safety rating of “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or “unsatisfactory” after an on-site review of a company’s safety procedures and regulatory compliance. Still, more than 90% of existing trucking companies in the US have not been rated by the FMCSA, according to the agency, and some companies have safety ratings that were assigned years or even decades ago. The FMCSA does not have the staff or resources to visit, inspect, and provide a safety rating for all motor carriers in the US. A 2017 review by the National Academy of Sciences found that the CSA safety scoring system is “structured in a reasonable way” and “defensible” for identifying higher-risk carriers. But the authors also questioned how precisely those scores reflect crash risk. The federal government has focused intensely on highway safety through its SAFE ROADS initiative, including the high-profile crackdowns on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements. ‘Winners’ with higher-risk profiles Despite the studies on CSA scores, some indicators have a clear nexus with highway safety. A carrier with repeated severe violations, such as operating a vehicle with defective brakes or excessive speeding, presents a higher risk of getting into an accident. The Journal of Commerce found several carriers that were given awards by brokers despite having enough serious violations to trigger FMCSA intervention or be officially deemed “high risk.” MEB Express, which won a C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” award alongside SuperEgo, had eight violations for traveling at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit in the last two years, two violations for inattentive or distracted driving, and two violations for not having a proper CDL or medical certificate, according to the FMCSA. Another C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” winner for 2025, Garesp Transportation, received six violations for either making “a false report in connection with a duty status” or “failing to have a record of duty status,” the FMCSA said. Both revolve around data from electronic-logging devices (ELDs), which are required for interstate commerce to “directly combat the primary cause of fatigue-related accidents,” according to the agency. Both are small carriers: MEB owns 80 trucks; Garesp owns 30. C.H. Robinson gives several “Carrier of the Year” awards, depending on the fleet size of the trucking company. Since last September when the awards were announced, both MEB and Garesp have continued to rack up violations. Five MEB Express drivers were taken out of service for failing an ELP exam, according to the FMCSA, while three Garesp drivers were taken off the road for not possessing a valid CDL or violating restrictions placed on their CDLs. Contacted by the Journal of Commerce about its award distribution and the companies that received FMCSA violations, C.H. Robinson noted that there were 24 different winners last September, including owner-operators, small carriers, large carriers, and holding companies with affiliated carriers such as SuperEgo. The broker also said all winners meet the standards set by the FMCSA to legally operate. “The awards are chosen by an internal committee and are based on exceptional service to our customers, such as reliable tracking updates, on-time performance and delivering on customers’ unique requirements,” C.H. Robinson wrote in a statement. But it also acknowledged it is considering changes in determining how carriers are chosen for recognition, saying, “As a part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we are reviewing our criteria for future carrier awards.” C.H. Robinson not alone Other brokers have also given promotional awards to carriers with high-risk profiles. Uber Freight named CloudTrucks a “Carrier of the Year” last month, even though federal regulators in February flagged the carrier’s driver fitness record, noting multiple out-of-service violations tied to driver qualifications. The FMCSA officially identified the carrier as “high-risk” in March 2025. “CloudTrucks’ on-road safety data, including driver fitness violations, indicate ongoing safety management concerns,” the FMCSA wrote in February. “CloudTrucks was cited for 27 driver fitness violations in the past two years during inspections, 20 of which were out-of-service violations." Uber Freight discloses the criteria for its “Carrier of the Year” award on its website; safety was not among them. Uber did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. In 2024, Echo Global Logistics awarded a “Carrier of the Quarter” award to Fortune Transport, despite Fortune triggering federal intervention thresholds for hours-of-service compliance and crash indicators. In a third category — vehicle maintenance — the carrier was only 0.9 percentage point below a formal FMCSA intervention, according to a carrier profile obtained by the Journal of Commerce through a third-party platform. An FMCSA intervention includes warning letters, increased roadside inspections, and possible on-site investigations. Fortune Transport owns 13 trucks. “Echo’s ‘Carrier of the Quarter’ awards are based on operational performance within our network, including factors such as on-time delivery, low cancellations, consistent tracking, and overall service,” the company said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce when asked about the award to Fortune. “Echo maintains a comprehensive carrier onboarding process and operates in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements and all applicable laws and regulations.” The broader issue for shippers remains: Operational excellence and highway safety are not always the same thing. While a “Carrier of the Year” award may recognize service performance, unless the criteria clearly state otherwise, it should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every load is being hauled by safe, low-risk and legally qualified drivers. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .       Senior Editor William B. Cassidy and Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report.

Safety assumptions appear misguided in ‘carrier of the year’ honors

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars.</div>

Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars.

<div class="phx-topic">An aging fleet, a declining number of cars, and a high volume of energy-related project cargo is pushing North American rail capacity to its limits, resulting in cost increases and scheduling delays for project cargo moves. Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars. The North American freight car fleet contracted by 24,149 cars between 2019 and 2025 to 1.66 million, a 1% decline, according to data from the Umler Index by researcher Railinc Corp., which tracks the rail equipment fleet. Mark Lockwood, vice president of key accounts and corporate counsel for the North American arm of international project cargo freight forwarder Fracht Group, told the Journal of Commerce that rail car maintenance and availability has been on the decline since the early 2000s, with many cars either approaching the end of their 50-year lifespan or becoming obsolete. Now with the data center boom and grid upgrades resulting in a surge of power generation and energy infrastructure projects, the rapidly increasing demand for these cargoes has placed a considerable strain on rail capacity at a time when project developers have made speed to market the order of the day. “The railroad service has been very poor lately on moving this type of cargo,” Lockwood said. “The transit times have increased. So, I see a perfect storm coming up of ships arriving that will not have rail cars [to move cargo inland].” The rail capacity shortage presents challenges specifically for heavy cargo pieces that weigh over 600,000 pounds, Lockwood said. “The car supply is very low for that. Sixteen axles and above are in very tight supply,” he said. <h3>Shipments held up at ports </h3>Carsten Wendt, head of sales for high and heavy and breakbulk at ocean carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, said rail-bound cargo shipments have not been getting picked up on time from US ports. That has been the case specifically for heavy-lift and oversized power generation project cargo such as transformers, gas turbines and steam generators that require transport by rail after being discharged at ports. “That is a big problem for us,” Wendt said. “And we’ve been seeing this more in the last few weeks and months.” Mark Davenport, logistics provider and rail specialist for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Energy, told the Journal of Commerce the lead time for rail cars can take months, whereas previously it used to take weeks. “The AI data centers just absolutely changed everyone’s perspectives very quickly,” he said. “I think it caught a lot of people off guard just how quickly the demand for electricity is increasing.” Davenport said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-onshore-wind-halt-deals-latest-blow-for-project-cargo-6215810">the slowdown of the US wind power market</a>, which relies on a high volume of rail cars to move turbines and other project cargo, has freed up some rail capacity to accommodate fossil fuel-based energy project equipment — at least for now. “But if that were to pick up, that could make this entire situation even more challenging,” he said. <h3>Rail car scarcity drives delays </h3>When it comes to transporting power generation project cargo and other heavy and oversized pieces, Davenport said rail is the “go-to” mode of transportation for any equipment that’s too big to truck. But if there’s no rail car available when a vessel carrying the cargo arrives at the port, then the equipment needs to be received onto a trailer and put in storage. Then when a rail car does become available, the equipment needs to be moved again, triggering additional costs and schedule delays. “If you expected it to arrive and land straight to a rail car, and now you’re waiting two weeks for a rail car to get back, you’re going to be under the gun to make deliveries on time,” Davenport said. For carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, their scope of work when transporting shipments typically ends once they discharge cargo at the port. From there, the cargo gets handed off to a receiver and moved to a rail car for the next leg of transport. But lately, Wendt said those heavy cargoes have been staying put at the pier — sitting idly on the carrier’s specialized cargo-handling equipment and leaving the carrier unable to move the equipment to the next port. That means the shipper either has to pay demurrage fees to keep the cargo on the carrier’s equipment or pay double handling fees to move the cargo elsewhere. Even more challenging, Wendt said, is that because these are specialized heavy-lift trailers, there is a limited number of them available for other shipments. “And if you keep them occupied for too long in the US, then we are lacking them at ports in Asia and Europe,” he said. <h3>In-house fleets expand </h3>Recognizing the increasing demand for moving project cargo freight by rail, Fracht has been taking steps for over a decade to expand its rail car fleet through acquisitions. Lockwood said Fracht now owns nearly 50 rail cars — including mostly eight- and 12-axle cars and one 18-axle car — sized to move breakbulk and project cargo, and the company plans to acquire or possibly manufacture additional cars to further grow its fleet. Although Fracht still must rely on outside rail car providers, Lockwood said the investment has given the company a competitive advantage by having ready access to its own cars for key moves and customers. “We can have more control and management of our shipments, which is important,” he said. Siemens Energy has also been working to make the most of its rail car fleet by extending the life of older cars it owns and has been using for factory storage, while leasing others. “We’re really trying to ramp up to be ready for what’s coming,” Davenport said. He said changing perspectives in supply chain management could push OEMs such as Siemens to acquire their own rail cars, versus leasing them as they had done in the past. In addition to rail, barge and heavy-haul transport are positioned to become more prominent modes of overland transport. “Previously, rail moves were rail moves, and truck and barge moves were truck and barge moves,” Davenport said. “But if the rail car supply is not there, other players in the industry will jump in and capture that part of the market.” Lockwood said he expects more companies will realize they need to invest in their own rail cars, but they will have to navigate challenges such as long lead times and higher steel costs because of US tariffs — and that’s if they are willing to put forth the capital for an asset with a 50-year lifespan. “Will it happen? We’re in a market society, so I’m sure it will,” he said. “How fast will it happen? Time to market — that’s the critical part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

An aging fleet, a declining number of cars, and a high volume of energy-related project cargo is pushing North American rail capacity to its limits, resulting in cost increases and scheduling delays for project cargo moves. Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars. The North American freight car fleet contracted by 24,149 cars between 2019 and 2025 to 1.66 million, a 1% decline, according to data from the Umler Index by researcher Railinc Corp., which tracks the rail equipment fleet. Mark Lockwood, vice president of key accounts and corporate counsel for the North American arm of international project cargo freight forwarder Fracht Group, told the Journal of Commerce that rail car maintenance and availability has been on the decline since the early 2000s, with many cars either approaching the end of their 50-year lifespan or becoming obsolete. Now with the data center boom and grid upgrades resulting in a surge of power generation and energy infrastructure projects, the rapidly increasing demand for these cargoes has placed a considerable strain on rail capacity at a time when project developers have made speed to market the order of the day. “The railroad service has been very poor lately on moving this type of cargo,” Lockwood said. “The transit times have increased. So, I see a perfect storm coming up of ships arriving that will not have rail cars [to move cargo inland].” The rail capacity shortage presents challenges specifically for heavy cargo pieces that weigh over 600,000 pounds, Lockwood said. “The car supply is very low for that. Sixteen axles and above are in very tight supply,” he said. Shipments held up at ports Carsten Wendt, head of sales for high and heavy and breakbulk at ocean carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, said rail-bound cargo shipments have not been getting picked up on time from US ports. That has been the case specifically for heavy-lift and oversized power generation project cargo such as transformers, gas turbines and steam generators that require transport by rail after being discharged at ports. “That is a big problem for us,” Wendt said. “And we’ve been seeing this more in the last few weeks and months.” Mark Davenport, logistics provider and rail specialist for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Energy, told the Journal of Commerce the lead time for rail cars can take months, whereas previously it used to take weeks. “The AI data centers just absolutely changed everyone’s perspectives very quickly,” he said. “I think it caught a lot of people off guard just how quickly the demand for electricity is increasing.” Davenport said the slowdown of the US wind power market , which relies on a high volume of rail cars to move turbines and other project cargo, has freed up some rail capacity to accommodate fossil fuel-based energy project equipment — at least for now. “But if that were to pick up, that could make this entire situation even more challenging,” he said. Rail car scarcity drives delays When it comes to transporting power generation project cargo and other heavy and oversized pieces, Davenport said rail is the “go-to” mode of transportation for any equipment that’s too big to truck. But if there’s no rail car available when a vessel carrying the cargo arrives at the port, then the equipment needs to be received onto a trailer and put in storage. Then when a rail car does become available, the equipment needs to be moved again, triggering additional costs and schedule delays. “If you expected it to arrive and land straight to a rail car, and now you’re waiting two weeks for a rail car to get back, you’re going to be under the gun to make deliveries on time,” Davenport said. For carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, their scope of work when transporting shipments typically ends once they discharge cargo at the port. From there, the cargo gets handed off to a receiver and moved to a rail car for the next leg of transport. But lately, Wendt said those heavy cargoes have been staying put at the pier — sitting idly on the carrier’s specialized cargo-handling equipment and leaving the carrier unable to move the equipment to the next port. That means the shipper either has to pay demurrage fees to keep the cargo on the carrier’s equipment or pay double handling fees to move the cargo elsewhere. Even more challenging, Wendt said, is that because these are specialized heavy-lift trailers, there is a limited number of them available for other shipments. “And if you keep them occupied for too long in the US, then we are lacking them at ports in Asia and Europe,” he said. In-house fleets expand Recognizing the increasing demand for moving project cargo freight by rail, Fracht has been taking steps for over a decade to expand its rail car fleet through acquisitions. Lockwood said Fracht now owns nearly 50 rail cars — including mostly eight- and 12-axle cars and one 18-axle car — sized to move breakbulk and project cargo, and the company plans to acquire or possibly manufacture additional cars to further grow its fleet. Although Fracht still must rely on outside rail car providers, Lockwood said the investment has given the company a competitive advantage by having ready access to its own cars for key moves and customers. “We can have more control and management of our shipments, which is important,” he said. Siemens Energy has also been working to make the most of its rail car fleet by extending the life of older cars it owns and has been using for factory storage, while leasing others. “We’re really trying to ramp up to be ready for what’s coming,” Davenport said. He said changing perspectives in supply chain management could push OEMs such as Siemens to acquire their own rail cars, versus leasing them as they had done in the past. In addition to rail, barge and heavy-haul transport are positioned to become more prominent modes of overland transport. “Previously, rail moves were rail moves, and truck and barge moves were truck and barge moves,” Davenport said. “But if the rail car supply is not there, other players in the industry will jump in and capture that part of the market.” Lockwood said he expects more companies will realize they need to invest in their own rail cars, but they will have to navigate challenges such as long lead times and higher steel costs because of US tariffs — and that’s if they are willing to put forth the capital for an asset with a 50-year lifespan. “Will it happen? We’re in a market society, so I’m sure it will,” he said. “How fast will it happen? Time to market — that’s the critical part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Rail News

Project cargo

Breakbulk ports

North-American rail

Breakbulk News

Growth in energy-linked project cargo exacerbates US rail car shortage

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says. </div>

But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. <h3>‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 </h3>Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. <h3>Overcapacity hangs over industry </h3>Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="65404dbe-8b60-43eb-9f13-4179bde44e2b"></dynamic-object></div>Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. ‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. Overcapacity hangs over industry Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume. </div>

Sarah McCoy, who recently led the renegotiation of the lease for the Virginia International Gateway terminal, will lead the sixth-largest port in the US by volume.

<div class="phx-topic">A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215876_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/virginias-deeper-harbor-could-allow-higher-usage-on-ulcvs-6189706">completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet</a>. McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com</a></div>

A 12-year veteran of the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) who led the renegotiation of the lease at one of the most advanced marine terminals in the country, has officially taken the reins of the sixth-largest US container port by volume. Sarah McCoy on Wednesday was named CEO of the Port of Virginia after serving as interim CEO and executive director since January. She replaces Stephen Edwards, who stepped down last November. “We have the infrastructure, people and performance to continue defining the future of American trade, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” McCoy said in a statement. “I look forward to putting these advantages to work to attract business to Virginia and continue delivering for our customers and communities across Virginia.” McCoy led VPA’s renegotiation of its lease for the Virginia International Gateway through 2065 with owner Alinda Capital Partners. She was also key in the port’s recent $1.4 billion investment plan that included the late February completion of the deepening of Norfolk’s harbor to 55 feet . McCoy was VPA’s general counsel from 2017 to 2022 and then served as chief administrative officer. Laden container volumes through the port in 2025 fell 4.2% year over year, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Comparatively, volume through the US East Coast overall increased 3.2%. News@joc.com

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

VPA veteran McCoy tapped as CEO of Port of Virginia

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">When importers control freight, they control options such as ocean carriers, transit times and service levels, thus helping to shield themselves from problems that can arise when the control is left to others, writes Andy Heller. </div>

When importers control freight, they control options such as ocean carriers, transit times and service levels, thus helping to shield themselves from problems that can arise when the control is left to others, writes Andy Heller.

<div class="phx-topic">Should an importer control freight or allow suppliers to route them? Without question, take control of one’s freight and help shield your company from supply chain disruptions. Most experienced importers control freight through free on board (FOB) or free carrier (FCA) terms. This isn’t about distrust, but control. Delivered duty paid (DDP) puts control in the hands of the supplier, creating a built-in conflict: the supplier’s margin versus the importer’s delivery date. When freight rates rise, the supplier commonly faces situations where the cost of freight rises above the allocation the supplier baked into a fixed DDP price. Not willing to absorb the difference, the importer may hear an update such as “no space this week,” ... “carrier rolled the container,”... and “port congestion.” When bookings peak, those explanations can be partly true. The issue is that the importer cannot police or control under DDP terms. A factory allocates $6,000 for freight, hoping to secure transport for less and pocket the difference. During peak season, freight jumped to $6,400. The supplier expected rates to drop in a couple of weeks, so the supplier told the importer an excuse and shipped the container two weeks later. The delay cost the importer almost $500,000 as the importer incurred a late penalty from their own customer, as well as losing two weeks of key sales during the holiday shopping season. If the importer had instead controlled freight, they would have paid the extra $400 without consequence. Instead, the decision was made for them. <h3>Other risks when suppliers control freight </h3>When importers control freight, they control options: different ocean carriers, transit times, service levels, and so on. Importers decide when to pay for fast transit, as well as when to focus on cost minimization. Suppliers overseas can have a “foreign power of attorney,” which will allow them to clear US customs despite residing overseas. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement is data-driven. The importer of record is generally responsible for the accuracy of the entry data, not the overseas factory. If a shipment gets flagged, the importer’s inventory sits and it is their customer that waits. International commerce terms define commercial responsibilities — they don’t eliminate customs scrutiny. Cheap DDP pricing that can’t be explained clearly should raise questions. In other words, overseas suppliers’ primary goal is to sell products. Cheaper DDP pricing facilitates that. For example, if the supplier uses a harmonized code that triggers a 15% duty rate, where the more accurate code would trigger a 43% duty, if or when customs discover the discrepancy, the fines and duty differential would become the responsibility of the importer. Again, under DDP pricing, the supplier completely controls the customs process. <h3>When DDP can make sense </h3>When you’re new and the factory offers to handle everything, it genuinely seems easier. DDP isn’t automatically wrong, and in some situations it works. If the supplier has a legitimate US presence, established compliance procedures, and is transparent about how entries are filed, DDP can be workable. In this case, importers should insist on receiving entry summaries (CBP Form 7501) and supporting documentation and having a US broker verify classifications and duties. While this should solve the problem of misclassification, it still doesn’t give the importer control of cargo routing and transportation pricing. The pattern we usually see starts with a DDP quote that’s mysteriously cheap. Then come vague answers about how that number was achieved, followed by delays no one can clearly explain. If a supplier resists a move to FOB or FCA without a clear logistics reason, the margin may be buried in the freight or the customs process. None of this by itself proves anything improper. Together, however, they signal misaligned incentives. <h3>Practical first steps </h3>Taking control doesn’t require a logistics department. In fact, the majority of smaller importers assign the responsibility for freight to an executive with other responsibilities. Speak with a freight forwarder that handles your trade lanes regularly. Evaluate them on communication and problem-solving, not just price. Interview them as well as their customs broker. Ask for references and what documentation you’ll receive. Ask your supplier for FOB or FCA pricing alongside DDP. Compare the numbers. If the DDP price is dramatically lower and no one can clearly explain why, that is a warning sign. Ask your forwarder for guidance on product lead-times, port handling, transit and clearance. Share it internally. Treat logistics as part of your business planning, not as an afterthought. DDP sounds simple. In practice, it often means less visibility and less control. Shipping terms aren’t minor details: they determine who makes decisions when something goes wrong. Isn’t control of important facets of business a key goal of most successful organizations? Logistics shouldn’t be an exception. Andy Heller is a 36-year freight forwarding veteran and president of Inspire International Forwarding, LLC. </div>

Should an importer control freight or allow suppliers to route them? Without question, take control of one’s freight and help shield your company from supply chain disruptions. Most experienced importers control freight through free on board (FOB) or free carrier (FCA) terms. This isn’t about distrust, but control. Delivered duty paid (DDP) puts control in the hands of the supplier, creating a built-in conflict: the supplier’s margin versus the importer’s delivery date. When freight rates rise, the supplier commonly faces situations where the cost of freight rises above the allocation the supplier baked into a fixed DDP price. Not willing to absorb the difference, the importer may hear an update such as “no space this week,” ... “carrier rolled the container,”... and “port congestion.” When bookings peak, those explanations can be partly true. The issue is that the importer cannot police or control under DDP terms. A factory allocates $6,000 for freight, hoping to secure transport for less and pocket the difference. During peak season, freight jumped to $6,400. The supplier expected rates to drop in a couple of weeks, so the supplier told the importer an excuse and shipped the container two weeks later. The delay cost the importer almost $500,000 as the importer incurred a late penalty from their own customer, as well as losing two weeks of key sales during the holiday shopping season. If the importer had instead controlled freight, they would have paid the extra $400 without consequence. Instead, the decision was made for them. Other risks when suppliers control freight When importers control freight, they control options: different ocean carriers, transit times, service levels, and so on. Importers decide when to pay for fast transit, as well as when to focus on cost minimization. Suppliers overseas can have a “foreign power of attorney,” which will allow them to clear US customs despite residing overseas. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement is data-driven. The importer of record is generally responsible for the accuracy of the entry data, not the overseas factory. If a shipment gets flagged, the importer’s inventory sits and it is their customer that waits. International commerce terms define commercial responsibilities — they don’t eliminate customs scrutiny. Cheap DDP pricing that can’t be explained clearly should raise questions. In other words, overseas suppliers’ primary goal is to sell products. Cheaper DDP pricing facilitates that. For example, if the supplier uses a harmonized code that triggers a 15% duty rate, where the more accurate code would trigger a 43% duty, if or when customs discover the discrepancy, the fines and duty differential would become the responsibility of the importer. Again, under DDP pricing, the supplier completely controls the customs process. When DDP can make sense When you’re new and the factory offers to handle everything, it genuinely seems easier. DDP isn’t automatically wrong, and in some situations it works. If the supplier has a legitimate US presence, established compliance procedures, and is transparent about how entries are filed, DDP can be workable. In this case, importers should insist on receiving entry summaries (CBP Form 7501) and supporting documentation and having a US broker verify classifications and duties. While this should solve the problem of misclassification, it still doesn’t give the importer control of cargo routing and transportation pricing. The pattern we usually see starts with a DDP quote that’s mysteriously cheap. Then come vague answers about how that number was achieved, followed by delays no one can clearly explain. If a supplier resists a move to FOB or FCA without a clear logistics reason, the margin may be buried in the freight or the customs process. None of this by itself proves anything improper. Together, however, they signal misaligned incentives. Practical first steps Taking control doesn’t require a logistics department. In fact, the majority of smaller importers assign the responsibility for freight to an executive with other responsibilities. Speak with a freight forwarder that handles your trade lanes regularly. Evaluate them on communication and problem-solving, not just price. Interview them as well as their customs broker. Ask for references and what documentation you’ll receive. Ask your supplier for FOB or FCA pricing alongside DDP. Compare the numbers. If the DDP price is dramatically lower and no one can clearly explain why, that is a warning sign. Ask your forwarder for guidance on product lead-times, port handling, transit and clearance. Share it internally. Treat logistics as part of your business planning, not as an afterthought. DDP sounds simple. In practice, it often means less visibility and less control. Shipping terms aren’t minor details: they determine who makes decisions when something goes wrong. Isn’t control of important facets of business a key goal of most successful organizations? Logistics shouldn’t be an exception. Andy Heller is a 36-year freight forwarding veteran and president of Inspire International Forwarding, LLC.

Importers can avoid supply chain disruptions by ‘controlling’ their freight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale.</div>

Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale.

<div class="phx-topic">Canada has long discussed trade diversification, but has not consistently organized for it. To move beyond slogans and achieve true economic resilience and prosperity, Canada should establish a unified national strategy, set clear diversification targets, and foster sustained collaboration among governments, industry, and trade infrastructure partners responsible for moving Canadian goods to market. Shifting from rhetoric to execution matters as the external environment is becoming more complex. For decades, Canada has relied heavily on the US as its principal trading partner. That relationship remains vital and deeply integrated, but supply chain shocks, geopolitical tensions and volatile trade policy expose the risks of over-concentration. Across Canada’s exporters and freight transportation sector, there is growing recognition that reducing that risk will require more than ambition. To address these risks, Canada should prioritize coordinated investment in infrastructure, regulatory alignment across jurisdictions, and targeted trade-enablement policies. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney used the metaphor “taking the sign out of the window” to describe a more open, outward-looking Canada. While it was a powerful image, signaling intent is not the same as executing a strategy. Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale. That is why the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gct-vancouver-port-to-jointly-study-roberts-bank-terminal-project-6207642">recently announced memorandum of understanding</a> (MOU) between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and Global Container Terminals (GCT) matters. It should not be seen as a narrow port story or simply as an agreement between two organizations. It signals a more integrated approach to delivering nationally significant trade infrastructure. The proposed collaboration to advance Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) reflects something Canada has too often lacked: alignment between public mandate, long-term system planning, operational expertise, and investment capacity. That matters far beyond British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. If Canada wants producers in the Prairies, in the North and across the West to expand into Indo-Pacific, European and other non-US markets, then the transportation system cannot remain a patchwork of disconnected decisions, fragmented approvals and recurring bottlenecks. It must function as a network. RBT2 is not just another project on a list. It has been identified by transportation leaders as one of the key trade-enabling investments needed to maintain export capacity, improve system reliability and support long-term trade growth. More importantly, the VFPA-GCT partnership points to a delivery model Canada needs more of, in which institutions align on execution rather than operate in parallel silos. <h3>Transport leaders seeking project execution, not promises </h3>In a country where major infrastructure projects are often slowed by fragmented planning, uncertain sequencing, and prolonged approvals, such alignment is not incidental. It is strategic, and it is not just about containers or one terminal. It is about whether Canada is prepared to treat trade diversification as a systemic challenge. Ports matter. Rail capacity matters. Inland terminals matter. First-mile and last-mile connections matter. Regulatory timelines matter. So does the ability of governments, infrastructure owners, carriers, terminals, and shippers to work from a shared understanding of priorities. When those elements are misaligned, congestion, delay and lost competitiveness follow. When they are aligned, the entire network performs better. Recent findings from the Western Transportation Advisory Council’s Compass Survey of transportation executives reinforce this point. Transportation leaders are not seeking abstract policy promises, but execution. The survey found strong alignment around three key recommendations: invest in trade-enabling infrastructure, ensure corridor reliability, and remove chokepoints. Among these, infrastructure investment was identified as the single-most-impactful government lever for reducing trade risk. The message is straightforward: Canada knows much of what needs to be done. The real test is whether it can deliver. This focus on execution is also why the VFPA-GCT MOU matters nationally. If it shifts RBT2 from prolonged debate to integrated delivery, it will do more than expand container capacity. It will demonstrate that Canada can still bring together the institutions, skills and capital required to execute projects vital to the national economy. It will show that collaboration can unlock efficiencies, reduce duplication and boost the nation’s competitiveness. Canada’s challenge is now delivery, not diagnosis. That is what makes the VFPA-GCT partnership so important. It is not the full solution, but it models the institutional alignment Canada needs: focusing on execution, not just intent. Trade diversification is not a slogan; it is a system. For that system to work, collaboration cannot be an afterthought. It must be the strategy. Lindsay Kislock is president and CEO of the Western Transportation Advisory Council. Contact her at <a href="mailto:lkislock@westac.com">lkislock@westac.com</a>. </div>

Canada has long discussed trade diversification, but has not consistently organized for it. To move beyond slogans and achieve true economic resilience and prosperity, Canada should establish a unified national strategy, set clear diversification targets, and foster sustained collaboration among governments, industry, and trade infrastructure partners responsible for moving Canadian goods to market. Shifting from rhetoric to execution matters as the external environment is becoming more complex. For decades, Canada has relied heavily on the US as its principal trading partner. That relationship remains vital and deeply integrated, but supply chain shocks, geopolitical tensions and volatile trade policy expose the risks of over-concentration. Across Canada’s exporters and freight transportation sector, there is growing recognition that reducing that risk will require more than ambition. To address these risks, Canada should prioritize coordinated investment in infrastructure, regulatory alignment across jurisdictions, and targeted trade-enablement policies. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney used the metaphor “taking the sign out of the window” to describe a more open, outward-looking Canada. While it was a powerful image, signaling intent is not the same as executing a strategy. Trade diversification is not achieved by rhetoric or trade agreements alone, but by building systems that enable Canadian producers to access global markets reliably, competitively, and at scale. That is why the recently announced memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and Global Container Terminals (GCT) matters. It should not be seen as a narrow port story or simply as an agreement between two organizations. It signals a more integrated approach to delivering nationally significant trade infrastructure. The proposed collaboration to advance Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) reflects something Canada has too often lacked: alignment between public mandate, long-term system planning, operational expertise, and investment capacity. That matters far beyond British Columbia’s Lower Mainland. If Canada wants producers in the Prairies, in the North and across the West to expand into Indo-Pacific, European and other non-US markets, then the transportation system cannot remain a patchwork of disconnected decisions, fragmented approvals and recurring bottlenecks. It must function as a network. RBT2 is not just another project on a list. It has been identified by transportation leaders as one of the key trade-enabling investments needed to maintain export capacity, improve system reliability and support long-term trade growth. More importantly, the VFPA-GCT partnership points to a delivery model Canada needs more of, in which institutions align on execution rather than operate in parallel silos. Transport leaders seeking project execution, not promises In a country where major infrastructure projects are often slowed by fragmented planning, uncertain sequencing, and prolonged approvals, such alignment is not incidental. It is strategic, and it is not just about containers or one terminal. It is about whether Canada is prepared to treat trade diversification as a systemic challenge. Ports matter. Rail capacity matters. Inland terminals matter. First-mile and last-mile connections matter. Regulatory timelines matter. So does the ability of governments, infrastructure owners, carriers, terminals, and shippers to work from a shared understanding of priorities. When those elements are misaligned, congestion, delay and lost competitiveness follow. When they are aligned, the entire network performs better. Recent findings from the Western Transportation Advisory Council’s Compass Survey of transportation executives reinforce this point. Transportation leaders are not seeking abstract policy promises, but execution. The survey found strong alignment around three key recommendations: invest in trade-enabling infrastructure, ensure corridor reliability, and remove chokepoints. Among these, infrastructure investment was identified as the single-most-impactful government lever for reducing trade risk. The message is straightforward: Canada knows much of what needs to be done. The real test is whether it can deliver. This focus on execution is also why the VFPA-GCT MOU matters nationally. If it shifts RBT2 from prolonged debate to integrated delivery, it will do more than expand container capacity. It will demonstrate that Canada can still bring together the institutions, skills and capital required to execute projects vital to the national economy. It will show that collaboration can unlock efficiencies, reduce duplication and boost the nation’s competitiveness. Canada’s challenge is now delivery, not diagnosis. That is what makes the VFPA-GCT partnership so important. It is not the full solution, but it models the institutional alignment Canada needs: focusing on execution, not just intent. Trade diversification is not a slogan; it is a system. For that system to work, collaboration cannot be an afterthought. It must be the strategy. Lindsay Kislock is president and CEO of the Western Transportation Advisory Council. Contact her at lkislock@westac.com .

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

Indian Subcontinent to US East Coast

{date.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Y-o-Y change: {previous_year_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,##')} 
W-o-W change: {previous_week_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,## %')}

S&P Global Platts editors engaging with market participants to assess the current value of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on major container trades produce container spot rates. The rates include bunker adjustment factors, general rate increases and emergency rare restoration. They also include low-sulfur fuel, equipment imbalance and repositioning surcharges. The rates exclude terminal handling, port security, overweight container, delivery, and detention and demurrage charges. [Platts](https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights)

Indian subcontinent to US East Coast container spot rates (Platts)

Platts Indian Subcontinent Asia to US East Coast Weekly Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&amp;P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.</div>

The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.

<div class="phx-topic">Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&amp;P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. <h3>Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity </h3>While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. <h3>‘Project Freedom’ paused </h3>The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/cma-cgm-container-ship-hit-strait-hormuz-injuring-crew-2026-05-06/">was hit by an “Iranian projectile”</a> while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-msc-to-use-feeders-to-restore-upper-persian-gulf-cargo-links-6214083">use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports</a>.” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. ‘Project Freedom’ paused The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel was hit by an “Iranian projectile” while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports .” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

International ports

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.</div>

But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9f0dff14-0731-4ad3-859c-d093757d1ed4"></dynamic-object></div>Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” <h3>Rates on the way up </h3>The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   <h3>Service will be put to the test </h3>The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription. </div>

US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index  (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” Rates on the way up The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   Service will be put to the test The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription.

Shippers banked record discounts via intermodal in Q1: ISI

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The long-term prospect for diesel costs and fuel surcharges is pushing US truck shippers to rethink how they move freight, and even to redesign networks. </div>

The long-term prospect for diesel costs and fuel surcharges is pushing US truck shippers to rethink how they move freight, and even to redesign networks.

<div class="phx-topic">Diesel prices stuck above $5 per gallon are adding significantly to US trucking costs, squeezing shippers between rising rates and fuel surcharges and tightening capacity, with continued geopolitical uncertainty making a return to lower fuel prices unlikely for the foreseeable future. Companies such as packaged meats manufacturer Smithfield Foods are considering multiple options to control costs. “We’ve done lane consolidation, [we’re] <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soaring-truck-rates-power-major-rebound-in-domestic-intermodal-volume-6208736">adding intermodal</a>,” Smithfield’s CEO Charles Shane Smith said on an earnings call last week in response to a question about the impact of rising fuel prices. The Virginia-based company eliminated one million road miles in 2025 by optimizing its transportation network and expects to take another million miles off the road in 2026. “We’re still looking at hedging opportunities for diesel where we can, driving fewer miles,” Smith said. But higher oil and fuel prices ripple throughout Smithfield’s freight, packaging and agricultural costs. Soaring oil prices also affect the cost of resin-based packaging, for example, and the cost of agricultural feed supporting hog production, Smith said. Andrew Silvernail, CEO of International Paper, noted that rising freight costs are not passed through directly, but recovered “through pricing over time.” “Diesel prices are putting pressure on costs across the supply chain,” Silvernail said during an earnings call last week. “Combined with an exceptionally tight freight market, this remains a strong headwind.” Fuel’s headwinds are both global and domestic, with the impact of higher fuel costs on ocean and air cargo rippling deep into trucking and rail networks, putting pressure on transportation rates shippers pay and, eventually, the costs of goods to their customers. The average price of diesel fuel in the US has been above $5 per gallon since March 16, according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was $3.81 per gallon when the war began. In 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US average diesel price stayed above $5 per gallon for 21 weeks, averaging $5.43 per gallon from March into early August. It spiked north of $5 per gallon again for 11 weeks from late August through November of that year. <h3>Dislocated freight drives costs </h3>War-linked <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cost-hit-ocean-carriers-roll-out-series-of-rate-increases-fuel-surcharges-6202474">bunker fuel surcharges</a> are raising costs for US importers and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/middle-east-fuel-shock-exacerbates-rising-us-ag-export-costs-6213888">exporters</a>, and ocean shipping lines are trying to constrain costs through increased direct sailings and slow steaming. Soaring jet fuel costs are grounding <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-jet-fuel-costs-challenging-freighter-viability-as-war-enters-second-month-6199130">air cargo capacity</a>. That’s already leading to some mismatch between freight and capacity once shipments arrive in the US, and that dislocation means more truck miles and higher fuel costs. “People who had lead times built into supply chains, those lead times have been compressed,” Ryan Carter, executive vice president of the Americas at AIT Worldwide Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Global disruption — whether caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or a pandemic — expedites demand, he said. “Time is your most valuable commodity,” Carter said. “We’ve seen an increase in tie-ins [between international and domestic transportation] that claws back time for those sourcing goods internationally that’s been lost since the conflict began.” Shippers need to be aware of the total cost impact from higher oil prices, said Jenny Vander Zanden, COO of Breakthrough, a transportation technology firm specializing in fuel cost management. “Part of that is understanding the difference between diesel and gasoline price dynamics,” Vander Zanden told the Journal of Commerce. Gas prices tend to fluctuate in sync with oil prices, but not diesel prices. One reason is that gasoline prices tend to be “elastic,” while diesel prices are not. When gasoline prices surge, consumers can, to an extent, cut back on fuel use. It’s much harder for diesel-using truckers and farmers to make fewer trips or plow fewer acres. “When I go to Walmart, I need my stuff — I don’t care if diesel prices are going higher,” said Keith Prather, managing director at Armada Corporate Intelligence. Walmart has to cover the higher diesel price to ensure goods are on its shelves for consumers. “I don’t think diesel prices are going to snap back” if oil prices drop, Prather told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s a question of how long diesel prices stay up.” <h3>Intermodal moment </h3>Intermodal rail is likely to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tailwinds-for-us-intermodal-volume-growth-strengthening-analyst-6206045">gain more business</a> the longer fuel prices remain elevated. “A revisit with intermodal is needed to think about strategic road maps to transportation,” Vander Zanden said. “There are some real savings opportunities with intermodal.” The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI) shows why that’s the case. In March, the ISI intermodal contract rate, including fuel, was up 8 cents year over year at $1.65 per mile. At $2.34 per mile, the truckload contract rate was up 50 cents from a year ago. That all-inclusive truckload contract rate leapt 14.8% year over year, with higher fuel costs accounting for more than 1,000 basis points of the increase, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. Sans fuel, the ISI truckload rate was up only 4.4% year over year. That’s a clear indication of how much shippers are really paying in higher fuel costs. Shifting freight to intermodal is part of an answer, but shippers need to find ways to rein in miles driven by their carriers as well, especially deadhead or empty miles. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a1244989-1fd3-41a3-9782-0bf65208b331"></dynamic-object></div>If fuel costs remain elevated for months, rather than weeks, shippers will face even more pressure to rethink transportation networks. Uber Freight says the number of shippers approaching the logistics provider for network optimization is rising fast. That’s especially true for companies that shrank their inventory in late 2025 and now face high replenishment costs. “There was a big push among many companies to reduce inventory in late 2025, with the expectation they could replenish in the first quarter,” Bob Daymon, head of client freight for Uber Freight, told the Journal of Commerce. “They’re finding costs are considerably higher than they expected,” Daymon said. Shippers have “drawn mental lines” based on how long the war in the Middle East and high fuel prices last, he said, adding: “I see the queue filling up with requests for network optimization.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Diesel prices stuck above $5 per gallon are adding significantly to US trucking costs, squeezing shippers between rising rates and fuel surcharges and tightening capacity, with continued geopolitical uncertainty making a return to lower fuel prices unlikely for the foreseeable future. Companies such as packaged meats manufacturer Smithfield Foods are considering multiple options to control costs. “We’ve done lane consolidation, [we’re] adding intermodal ,” Smithfield’s CEO Charles Shane Smith said on an earnings call last week in response to a question about the impact of rising fuel prices. The Virginia-based company eliminated one million road miles in 2025 by optimizing its transportation network and expects to take another million miles off the road in 2026. “We’re still looking at hedging opportunities for diesel where we can, driving fewer miles,” Smith said. But higher oil and fuel prices ripple throughout Smithfield’s freight, packaging and agricultural costs. Soaring oil prices also affect the cost of resin-based packaging, for example, and the cost of agricultural feed supporting hog production, Smith said. Andrew Silvernail, CEO of International Paper, noted that rising freight costs are not passed through directly, but recovered “through pricing over time.” “Diesel prices are putting pressure on costs across the supply chain,” Silvernail said during an earnings call last week. “Combined with an exceptionally tight freight market, this remains a strong headwind.” Fuel’s headwinds are both global and domestic, with the impact of higher fuel costs on ocean and air cargo rippling deep into trucking and rail networks, putting pressure on transportation rates shippers pay and, eventually, the costs of goods to their customers. The average price of diesel fuel in the US has been above $5 per gallon since March 16, according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was $3.81 per gallon when the war began. In 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US average diesel price stayed above $5 per gallon for 21 weeks, averaging $5.43 per gallon from March into early August. It spiked north of $5 per gallon again for 11 weeks from late August through November of that year. Dislocated freight drives costs War-linked bunker fuel surcharges are raising costs for US importers and exporters , and ocean shipping lines are trying to constrain costs through increased direct sailings and slow steaming. Soaring jet fuel costs are grounding air cargo capacity . That’s already leading to some mismatch between freight and capacity once shipments arrive in the US, and that dislocation means more truck miles and higher fuel costs. “People who had lead times built into supply chains, those lead times have been compressed,” Ryan Carter, executive vice president of the Americas at AIT Worldwide Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Global disruption — whether caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or a pandemic — expedites demand, he said. “Time is your most valuable commodity,” Carter said. “We’ve seen an increase in tie-ins [between international and domestic transportation] that claws back time for those sourcing goods internationally that’s been lost since the conflict began.” Shippers need to be aware of the total cost impact from higher oil prices, said Jenny Vander Zanden, COO of Breakthrough, a transportation technology firm specializing in fuel cost management. “Part of that is understanding the difference between diesel and gasoline price dynamics,” Vander Zanden told the Journal of Commerce. Gas prices tend to fluctuate in sync with oil prices, but not diesel prices. One reason is that gasoline prices tend to be “elastic,” while diesel prices are not. When gasoline prices surge, consumers can, to an extent, cut back on fuel use. It’s much harder for diesel-using truckers and farmers to make fewer trips or plow fewer acres. “When I go to Walmart, I need my stuff — I don’t care if diesel prices are going higher,” said Keith Prather, managing director at Armada Corporate Intelligence. Walmart has to cover the higher diesel price to ensure goods are on its shelves for consumers. “I don’t think diesel prices are going to snap back” if oil prices drop, Prather told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s a question of how long diesel prices stay up.” Intermodal moment Intermodal rail is likely to gain more business the longer fuel prices remain elevated. “A revisit with intermodal is needed to think about strategic road maps to transportation,” Vander Zanden said. “There are some real savings opportunities with intermodal.” The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI) shows why that’s the case. In March, the ISI intermodal contract rate, including fuel, was up 8 cents year over year at $1.65 per mile. At $2.34 per mile, the truckload contract rate was up 50 cents from a year ago. That all-inclusive truckload contract rate leapt 14.8% year over year, with higher fuel costs accounting for more than 1,000 basis points of the increase, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. Sans fuel, the ISI truckload rate was up only 4.4% year over year. That’s a clear indication of how much shippers are really paying in higher fuel costs. Shifting freight to intermodal is part of an answer, but shippers need to find ways to rein in miles driven by their carriers as well, especially deadhead or empty miles. If fuel costs remain elevated for months, rather than weeks, shippers will face even more pressure to rethink transportation networks. Uber Freight says the number of shippers approaching the logistics provider for network optimization is rising fast. That’s especially true for companies that shrank their inventory in late 2025 and now face high replenishment costs. “There was a big push among many companies to reduce inventory in late 2025, with the expectation they could replenish in the first quarter,” Bob Daymon, head of client freight for Uber Freight, told the Journal of Commerce. “They’re finding costs are considerably higher than they expected,” Daymon said. Shippers have “drawn mental lines” based on how long the war in the Middle East and high fuel prices last, he said, adding: “I see the queue filling up with requests for network optimization.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. </div>

TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. 

<div class="phx-topic">TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond.“An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. <h3>Formed to ease logistical headaches </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-long-beach-chassis-lessors-form-neutral-chassis-pool-5247434">The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015</a>, when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed. A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  <h3>Trucker concerns for new environment </h3>While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip.“Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond. “An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. Formed to ease logistical headaches  The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015 , when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed.  A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  Trucker concerns for new environment  While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip. “Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.”  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  

Demise of ‘Pool of Pools’ marks new chassis era in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center. </div>

Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-unit-teaming-up-to-develop-new-baltimore-container-terminal-5242503">just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment</a> in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010.“This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.”Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-us-tariffs-put-economic-viability-of-sts-cranes-in-doubt-6055678">ship-to-shore cranes</a>. Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor &amp; Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” <h3>Boost rail use </h3>The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">Howard Street Tunnel project</a> will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-njs-port-newark-terminal-takes-first-steps-in-next-big-expansion-6211543">Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan</a> to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-america-msc-to-invest-800-million-in-proposed-new-orleans-terminal-5234722">the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal</a>, along with the state. Along with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-ship-to-shore-cranes-with-us-parts-coming-to-long-beach-6085180">new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility</a> in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010. “This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.” Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and ship-to-shore cranes . Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor & Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” Boost rail use The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The Howard Street Tunnel project will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal , along with the state. Along with new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

MSC, Tradepoint begin work on first private US terminal in decades

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.</div>

US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.

The largest US shippers moved slightly less freight last year despite a slight increase in overall market demand, according to the 2026 Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers and Exporters rankings. Containerized imports to the US rose to a new record high for the second straight year in 2025 amid widespread frontloading linked to uncertainty surrounding tariffs and other US trade policies, such as a proposed fee on Chinese-built and -operated vessels. Against this backdrop, however, the Top 100 Importers saw their combined volumes slip an estimated 1.1% year over year. Total container imports inched up 0.7% to 28.16 million TEUs in 2025 after skyrocketing 16.6% to a then-record 27.98 million TEUs in 2024, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. On the export side, the disparity in growth rates was even greater, as outbound container volumes continued to recover from the post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023. Volumes among the Top 100 Exporters fell an estimated 4.5% for the full year, while total US exports grew 3.1% in 2025 following a 0.9% uptick in 2024. The annual container volumes of major importers and exporters are not publicly available, so the Top 100 rankings are the best approximation using analysis of PIERS data, confirmation of volumes with cargo owners, and limited modeling. Modeling factors include historical volumes, industry vertical growth and company revenue growth. The following rankings appear in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers in 2025 Annual containerized US imports, in laden TEUs Rank Importer TEUs Sector 1 Walmart 975,000 Retail 2 Home Depot 450,000 Retail 3 Target 400,000 Retail 4 Amazon 350,000 Retail 5 Dole Food 247,500 Foodstuffs 6 Lowe's 222,309 Retail 7 Chiquita Brands International 201,709 Foodstuffs 8 Ashley Furniture 200,710 Furniture 9 LG Group 168,404 Conglomerate 10 Dollar Tree 160,000 Retail 11 IKEA 125,368 Retail 12 Fresh Del Monte Produce 124,827 Foodstuffs 13 Hyundai Motor Company 119,805 Automotive goods 14 Ross Stores 101,500 Retail 15 Samsung America 100,000 Conglomerate 16 Sumitomo Corporation 99,708 Conglomerate 17 First Solar 85,651 Solar 18 GE Appliances, a Haier Company 83,000 Retail and household goods 19 Toyota Tsusho America 82,068 Automotive goods 20 General Motors 80,000 Automotive goods 21 Bob’s Discount Furniture 73,000 Household goods 22 Rooms to Go 62,800 Furniture 23 Electrolux 62,397 Electronics and household goods 24 Dollar General 59,006 Retail 25 Heineken USA 52,333 Alcoholic and beverages 26 SharkNinja Operating LLC 51,259 Household goods 27 Tractor Supply Company 49,000 Retail 28 John Deere 48,000 Heavy machinery 29 Sailun Tire Americas 47,432 Automotive goods 30 Newell Brands 45,000 Electronics 31 Costco Wholesale 44,548 Retail 32 Mercedes Benz USA 44,188 Automotive goods 33 Canadian Solar 44,017 Renewable energy 34 Yokohama Tire 43,302 Automotive goods 35 Hankook Tire America 41,517 Automotive goods 36 VF Corp. 41,000 Apparel and footwear 37 Kubota Tractor Company 40,688 Heavy machinery 38 Adidas Group 39,348 Apparel and footwear 39 Midea Group 38,963 Household goods 40 Goodyear Rubber & Tire 38,390 Automotive goods 41 ALDI 37,524 Retail 42 Continental Tire 36,484 Automotive goods 43 Q Cells 34,948 Solar 44 Toyo Tires 34,429 Automotive goods 45 TMALL 34,397 Retail 46 Dole Packaged Foods 33,000 Foodstuffs 47 Element Electronics 32,397 Electronics 48 Michelin North America 30,000 Automotive goods 49 Tesla 29,978 Automotive goods 50 Euromarket Designs 29,885 Retail 51 Hewlett-Packard 28,000 Electronics 52 Olam International 27,498 Cotton, spices and vegetables 53 Best Buy 27,000 Electronics 54 Dollarama L.P. 26,910 Retail 55 Mitsubishi Motors 26,552 Automotive goods 56 Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits 26,490 Foodstuffs 57 Ford Motor Company 25,140 Automotive goods 58 ABC Carpet and Home 25,012 Furniture 59 Dorel Industries 25,000 Conglomerate 60 Goya Foods 24,835 Foodstuffs 61 Bissell Homecare 24,500 Household goods 62 Bridgestone Tire 24,290 Automotive goods 63 Tatung Company of America 23,213 Electronics 64 Subaru of America 22800 Automotive goods 65 LKQ 22,482 Automotive goods 66 Fiji Water 22,332 Retail 67 EGA America Inc 22,226 Metals and recyclables 68 Kumho Tire 22,072 Automotive goods 69 Raymour & Flanigan 22,000 Retail 70 Curtis International 21,487 Electronics 71 CMPC Maderas 21,428 Paper product 72 Keter North America Inc 21,152 Storage 73 TTE Technology 20,856 Electronics 74 New Balance Athletics 20,202 Apparel and footwear 75 LollicupStore 20,164 Retail 76 Sentury Tire 19,910 Automotive goods 77 The Vita Coco Company 19,734 Foodstuffs 78 Sazerac 19,518 Alcoholic and beverages 79 Bechtel 19,390 Engineering and construction 80 American Furniture Warehouse 19,353 Furniture 81 Old Navy 19,005 Retail clothing 82 SanMar 18,964 Apparel and footwear 83 Yamaha Motor Corporation 18,581 Automotive goods 84 API Tires  18,521 Automotive goods 85 Conair LLC 18,291 Electronics 86 Sol Foods 18,116 Foodstuffs 87 Procter & Gamble 17,894 Conglomerate 88 Direct Pack 17,868 Packaging 89 Living Spaces Furniture 17,708 Furniture 90 Tireco 17,698 Automotive goods 91 ESWINDOWS 17,364 Glass manufacturer  92 Kawasaki 17,197 Powersports manufacturing 93 Loblaws 16,810 Retail 94 Runergy 16,483 Solar 95 Medical Depot 16,388 Medical devices 96 QVC 16,098 Retail 97 Danone Waters 16,022 Foodstuffs 98 Cozy Office 15,928 Furniture 99 FUYAO AUTOMOTIVE 15,776 Automotive goods 100 Schneider Electric 15,499 Electrical equipment Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Exporters in 2025 Annual containerized US exports, in laden TEUs Rank Exporter TEUs Sector 1 Koch Industries 215,280 Conglomerate 2 Dow Chemical 199,900 Chemicals 3 International Paper 156,000 Paper and packaging 4 DeLong 131,492 Animal Feed and Grain 5 ExxonMobil Chemical 130,159 Chemicals 6 America Chung Nam 110,913 Paper and plastics recyclables 7 Tricon Energy 110,000 Chemicals 8 Shintech 108,812 Chemicals 9 Ravago 107,855 Chemicals 10 WM Recycle America 106,952 Diversified recyclables 11 POET Nutrition 99,266 Animal Feed and Grain 12 Archer Daniels Midland  90,140 Foodstuffs 13 Newport CH International 86,363 Paper, metals and plastics recyclables 14 Scoular 83,456 Animal Feed and Grain 15 International Forest Products 82,300 Paper and recyclables 16 Sims Metal Management 78,501 Metal and electronics recyclables 17 JBS USA 76,286 Refrigerated meats and poultry 18 Viterra US 72,606 Agribusiness 19 Frey Commodities 72,182 Commodity trading 20 Cargill 68,000 Conglomerate 21 Winfibre 67,441 Paper and recyclables 22 The Anderson's Inc. 67,314 Agricultural goods 23 CellMark Group 66,984 Diversified 24 Louis Dreyfus Company 57,734 Cotton 25 CHS 55,554 Agriculture, energy and foodstuffs 26 Smurfit Westrock 53,633 Paper and packaging 27 Domtar 51,887 Paper and forest products 28 BMW of North America 50,256 Automotive goods 29 Tyson Foods 49,861 Refrigerated meats and poultry 30 Olam International 46,177 Cotton, spices and vegetables 31 Walmart 43,559 Retail 32 Montachem International 43,027 Plastics 33 Vipa Group 40,130 Paper and recyclables 34 Canusa Hershman Recycling 38,000 Diversified recyclables 35 PriceSmart 37,712 Membership warehouse club 36 Eastman Chemical 36,786 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 37 Staple Cotton 36,000 Cotton 38 Rayonier Advanced Materials 36,000 Chemicals and forest products 39 Cycle Link 35,803 Recycling  40 AJC International 35,740 Foodstuffs 41 Prairie Creek Grain 35,669 Plastics, rubber and chemicals 42 Celanese 33,500 Chemicals 43 Vinmar International LTD 31,955 Chemicals and plastics 44 Genesis Resource Enterprises 31,324 Paper and recyclables 45 KaMin 31,258 Minerals and clay 46 Almarai 31,032 Animal feed 47 Valero 30,598 Petrochemical products 48 International Feed 29,952 Agricultural goods 49 Smithfield Foods 29,340 Foodstuffs 50 U.S. Borax Inc. 29,000 Chemicals 51 Al Dahra ACX Inc. 26,702 Animal Feed and Grain 52 Mitsui & Co. 25,084 Conglomerate 53 Stone Arch Commodities 24,050 Animal Feed and Grain 54 Fornazor International 22,703 Animal feed 55 America Metal Export 21,892 Metals and recyclables 56 Chevron Phillips Chemical 21,633 Chemicals 57 Costco Wholesale 21,300 Retail 58 Gildan Activewear 21,046 Apparel and footwear 59 Seaboard Foods 20,811 Foodstuffs 60 Hawkeye Gold 20,341 Minerals 61 Global Cellulose Fibers 20,057 Paper and forest products 62 Michelin North America 20,000 Automotive goods 63 Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds 20,000 Food and beverage 64 Sappi North America 19,036 Paper and recyclables 65 Procter & Gamble 18,176 Consumer goods 66 DuPont 17,960 Diversified 67 Haykingdom 17,718 Agricultural goods 68 Potential Industries 17,635 Paper and recyclables 69 Fibre Trade 17,336 Paper and recyclables 70 Bayer CropScience 17,313 Agricultural goods 71 Ascend Performance Materials 17,166 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 72 Mercedes Benz USA 16,838 Automotive 73 Anheuser Busch InBev 15,679 Foodstuffs 74 Alco Iron and Metal 15,205 Metals and recyclables 75 Perdue 14,549 Foodstuffs 76 Central National Gottesman 14,508 Paper and forest products 77 Darling Ingredients 14,387 Consumer staples 78 Ekman Group 14,379 Paper and recyclables 79 ECOM USA 13,939 Commodity trading 80 GE Healthcare 13,689 Retail and household goods 81 Chemours 13,050 Chemicals 82 Healthy Green Life 12,584 Consumer goods 83 Nova Chemicals 12,508 Chemicals 84 Conveyco Technologies 12,293 Manufacture 85 Toyota Tsusho America 11,781 Automotive goods 86 Sysco 11,775 Foodstuffs 87 National Beef 11,773 Foodstuffs 88 Home Depot 11,614 Retail 89 Prosper International Trading 11,264 Paper and forest products 90 Caterpillar 11,250 Heavy machinery 91 John Deere 11,040 Industrial machinery 92 SA Recycling 10,860 Scrap metal recycling 93 Active Minerals International 9,674 Minerals 94 Sun International Produce 9,615 Food and beverage 95 Wheaton Grain 9,527 Agribusiness 96 Anderson Hay & Grain 9,285 Animal feed 97 Zen Trading 9,159 Animal Feed and Grain 98 Ford Motor Company 9,059 Automotive goods 99 Linden Trading Company 9,000 Recycling and commodities Trading 100 Border Valley Trading 8,889 Animal feed Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global.

Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers and Exporters in 2025

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted Thursday in favor of the $4.2 billion deal that was announced in mid-February.</div>

Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted Thursday in favor of the $4.2 billion deal that was announced in mid-February.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is on course to complete <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">its $4.2 billion takeover</a> of Zim Integrated Shipping Services by the end of this year after shareholders of the Israel-headquartered carrier voted overwhelmingly to approve the deal Thursday. Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted in favor of the deal that was announced in mid-February, according to a filing the carrier made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. “We are very pleased that ZIM’s general meeting has voted in favor of a merger with Hapag-Lloyd,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “Following this important milestone, we will now continue to focus on completing the transaction toward the end of the year.” Zim did not immediately comment on the results of the shareholder vote, which comes about three weeks before it will release its 2025 results on May 20. The Hapag-Zim deal still needs approval from regulatory authorities in several jurisdictions before it can be completed. <h3>Deal with Zim unions needed </h3>Hapag-Lloyd, Zim and private equity house FIMI Opportunity Funds also need to reach agreement with the Israeli carrier’s labor unions to prevent industrial unrest from derailing the takeover. About 900 Zim staff, protesting possible job cuts and collective bargaining issues, were involved in a series of strikes in April that briefly halted operations at ports in Israel and the company’s Haifa headquarters. The unrest ended after unions reached a temporary agreement with Zim management. Under the takeover offer, Hapag will acquire full 100% ownership of Zim and will subsequently split Zim’s international and domestic operations. Hapag-Lloyd will keep the international business, including Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered intra-Asia liner and car carrier operator Gold Star Line and 99 chartered container ships. But Hapag will sign a transfer agreement with FIMI through which the private equity house will take over Zim’s domestic operation, including 16 container ships, under a rebranded Zim Israel. The Zim acquisition will bolster Hapag-Lloyd’s fleet to more than 400 ships with a capacity of over 3 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is on course to complete its $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services by the end of this year after shareholders of the Israel-headquartered carrier voted overwhelmingly to approve the deal Thursday. Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted in favor of the deal that was announced in mid-February, according to a filing the carrier made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. “We are very pleased that ZIM’s general meeting has voted in favor of a merger with Hapag-Lloyd,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “Following this important milestone, we will now continue to focus on completing the transaction toward the end of the year.” Zim did not immediately comment on the results of the shareholder vote, which comes about three weeks before it will release its 2025 results on May 20. The Hapag-Zim deal still needs approval from regulatory authorities in several jurisdictions before it can be completed. Deal with Zim unions needed Hapag-Lloyd, Zim and private equity house FIMI Opportunity Funds also need to reach agreement with the Israeli carrier’s labor unions to prevent industrial unrest from derailing the takeover. About 900 Zim staff, protesting possible job cuts and collective bargaining issues, were involved in a series of strikes in April that briefly halted operations at ports in Israel and the company’s Haifa headquarters. The unrest ended after unions reached a temporary agreement with Zim management. Under the takeover offer, Hapag will acquire full 100% ownership of Zim and will subsequently split Zim’s international and domestic operations. Hapag-Lloyd will keep the international business, including Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered intra-Asia liner and car carrier operator Gold Star Line and 99 chartered container ships. But Hapag will sign a transfer agreement with FIMI through which the private equity house will take over Zim’s domestic operation, including 16 container ships, under a rebranded Zim Israel. The Zim acquisition will bolster Hapag-Lloyd’s fleet to more than 400 ships with a capacity of over 3 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Werner acquisition boosts Truckload Capacity Index despite low demand

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

Shippers banked record discounts via intermodal in Q1: ISI

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

Recent Commentary

Importers can avoid supply chain disruptions by ‘controlling’ their freight

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

Top 5 Most Read Stories