<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While intermodal savings remain above 20%, according to the latest Intermodal Savings Index, there is not enough pressure yet in the trucking market to drive up rates across the US on intermodal rail.</div>

While intermodal savings remain above 20%, according to the latest Intermodal Savings Index, there is not enough pressure yet in the trucking market to drive up rates across the US on intermodal rail.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers saved an average of 21% on spot market freight and nearly 25% on contract loads in the third quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking as truckload spot rates began to recover, according to the latest Journal of Commerce <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI). Intermodal contract rates were flat in the third quarter compared with a year ago — up 0.4% excluding fuel, but down 0.2% including fuel. Momentum picked up in September, however, as spot truckload rates on indexed lanes rose 2% year over year; preliminary data for October shows spot truckload rates continued to rise. Truckload spot rates tend to be a leading indicator, which results in truckload contract rates rising, with intermodal rates eventually following as capacity tightens. North American railroads hauled 2.22 million domestic containers in the third quarter, up 2.5% compared with a year ago, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The results were better than the Journal of Commerce forecast of a 1% decline for the third quarter, due to an unusually strong September. IANA reported domestic container volume grew 5.8% year over year in September. “[It was] a delayed West Coast peak season from what we originally anticipated,” Phil Yeager, CEO of intermodal service provider Hub Group, said on an Oct. 30 earnings call. “We did not see that inventory materially impact domestic shipping until following the Labor Day holiday. Strong West Coast shipping demand in September continued through October, and customers are indicating that will be maintained into November.” The Spot ISI averaged 121.1 in the third quarter, up from 120.0 a year earlier. The Contract ISI slipped to 124.5 from 126 a year earlier. 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 121.1 translates to a 21.1% savings on intermodal versus truckload, and a contract ISI of 124.5 implies a 24.5% savings. All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 minutes from the terminal will save less than the index values. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ec19c445-5809-4a2a-9f63-2d09d02aca85"></dynamic-object></div>In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $563 per container on the spot market in the third quarter and $734 per container on the contract market. In the third quarter of 2024, the average spot intermodal load saved $633 per container, with the contract load saving $704 per container. Spot intermodal rates rose 3 cents between July and September to $1.56 per mile, while spot truckload rates rose 6 cents to $1.95 during the same period, according to the ISI. Contract truckload rates fell 2 cents to $1.94 per mile in the third quarter, while contract intermodal rates rose 1 cent to $1.50 per mile, primarily due to peak season surcharges. <h3>Watching 2026 </h3>It’s unclear whether the momentum in the late third quarter will translate into rate increases in truckload or intermodal next year. A prolonged West Coast peak season in 2024 yielded only minimal rate increases in contracts negotiated earlier this year on lanes exiting Southern California, while annual pricing on other lanes was flat or down. J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group were reserved in their outlook for 2026 intermodal bids. “What is washed in the results is there is some good pricing movement in the head-hauls. There is some negative pricing in backhauls,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 15 earnings call. “And when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load.” Field also described transcontinental volume on head-haul lanes out of Southern California as “disappointing” in the third quarter. Yeager was also non-committal about how Hub Group will approach bid season. “[We are] executing with the mindset that we aren’t going to get cyclical help [from the economy],” he said on the earnings call. “We want to see that capacity tighten. We certainly want to get our foundational network established at the front end of bid season ... we do see great opportunities in the head-haul right now.” <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/volume-not-pricing-driving-us-intermodal-results-in-q3-6099159">Intermodal executives</a> at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference Sept. 29-Oct. 1 predicted that contract rates will rise on outbound lanes in California in early 2026 but remain flat or down elsewhere. 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 an average of 21% on spot market freight and nearly 25% on contract loads in the third quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking as truckload spot rates began to recover, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI). Intermodal contract rates were flat in the third quarter compared with a year ago — up 0.4% excluding fuel, but down 0.2% including fuel. Momentum picked up in September, however, as spot truckload rates on indexed lanes rose 2% year over year; preliminary data for October shows spot truckload rates continued to rise. Truckload spot rates tend to be a leading indicator, which results in truckload contract rates rising, with intermodal rates eventually following as capacity tightens. North American railroads hauled 2.22 million domestic containers in the third quarter, up 2.5% compared with a year ago, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The results were better than the Journal of Commerce forecast of a 1% decline for the third quarter, due to an unusually strong September. IANA reported domestic container volume grew 5.8% year over year in September. “[It was] a delayed West Coast peak season from what we originally anticipated,” Phil Yeager, CEO of intermodal service provider Hub Group, said on an Oct. 30 earnings call. “We did not see that inventory materially impact domestic shipping until following the Labor Day holiday. Strong West Coast shipping demand in September continued through October, and customers are indicating that will be maintained into November.” The Spot ISI averaged 121.1 in the third quarter, up from 120.0 a year earlier. The Contract ISI slipped to 124.5 from 126 a year earlier. 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 121.1 translates to a 21.1% savings on intermodal versus truckload, and a contract ISI of 124.5 implies a 24.5% savings. All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 minutes from the terminal will save less than the index values. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $563 per container on the spot market in the third quarter and $734 per container on the contract market. In the third quarter of 2024, the average spot intermodal load saved $633 per container, with the contract load saving $704 per container. Spot intermodal rates rose 3 cents between July and September to $1.56 per mile, while spot truckload rates rose 6 cents to $1.95 during the same period, according to the ISI. Contract truckload rates fell 2 cents to $1.94 per mile in the third quarter, while contract intermodal rates rose 1 cent to $1.50 per mile, primarily due to peak season surcharges. Watching 2026 It’s unclear whether the momentum in the late third quarter will translate into rate increases in truckload or intermodal next year. A prolonged West Coast peak season in 2024 yielded only minimal rate increases in contracts negotiated earlier this year on lanes exiting Southern California, while annual pricing on other lanes was flat or down. J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group were reserved in their outlook for 2026 intermodal bids. “What is washed in the results is there is some good pricing movement in the head-hauls. There is some negative pricing in backhauls,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 15 earnings call. “And when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load.” Field also described transcontinental volume on head-haul lanes out of Southern California as “disappointing” in the third quarter. Yeager was also non-committal about how Hub Group will approach bid season. “[We are] executing with the mindset that we aren’t going to get cyclical help [from the economy],” he said on the earnings call. “We want to see that capacity tighten. We certainly want to get our foundational network established at the front end of bid season ... we do see great opportunities in the head-haul right now.” Intermodal executives at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference Sept. 29-Oct. 1 predicted that contract rates will rise on outbound lanes in California in early 2026 but remain flat or down elsewhere. 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.

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Intermodal savings rose in Q3, but might not yield high rates in ‘26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The migration of European carriers away from their traditional foreign “flags of convenience” to India’s emerging market is seen as a major maritime boost for New Delhi as it vigorously seeks private investment to drive economic growth.</div>

The migration of European carriers away from their traditional foreign “flags of convenience” to India’s emerging market is seen as a major maritime boost for New Delhi as it vigorously seeks private investment to drive economic growth.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. has become the latest major ocean carrier to invest beyond port-to-port shipping and inland logistics operations in India. The world’s largest liner operator has confirmed a program to reflag 12 of its container ships to the Indian registry, <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Fmaersk-joins-cma-cgm-in-reflagging-container-ships-in-india-amid-antitrust-pressure-6104614&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Ce25119e77e48409f9fd008de1afbe98d%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638977866451687870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ATLTeE4VZiT%2FdEk4u7KDaKfZ6tz6lsNZ648tVwEVkE4%3D&amp;reserved=0">adding to the wave of recent similar flag changes already carried out by CMA CGM and Maersk</a>. In a LinkedIn post Monday, MSC CEO Soren Toft said the planned Indian-flagged fleet operation “strengthens the company’s long-term partnership and support for India’s maritime ambitions.” “India is a key country for MSC, with continued strong development across shipping, ports and logistics,” Toft noted. Details of the vessels to be registered in India were not immediately disclosed. Efforts to seek comment from officials at MSC (India) were unsuccessful. <h3>Boost for New Delhi</h3>MSC’s reflagging move was another key industry investment commitment unfolded at <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Fdp-world-lines-up-5-billion-investment-program-for-india-expansion-6106499&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Ce25119e77e48409f9fd008de1afbe98d%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638977866451709845%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=CI4%2FOl11z7UXiroHYAMAqcQMiEMmlWAuZOMn%2FPwT%2F%2FQ%3D&amp;reserved=0">the recent maritime summit in Mumbai.</a> The migration of European carriers away from their traditional cost-saving foreign “flags of convenience” to India’s emerging market is seen as a major maritime boost for New Delhi as it vigorously seeks private investment to drive economic growth through a buildup of manufacturing and export verticals. Additionally, carrier collaborations <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Fcma-cgm-signs-350-million-indian-shipbuilding-order-for-six-box-ships-6097779&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Ce25119e77e48409f9fd008de1afbe98d%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638977866451727877%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=%2FDyTYJQw5D4RIVSbQMl9WMVuKyoBpeTzvxQI%2FT3TmeE%3D&amp;reserved=0">with Indian shipbuilding yards are gathering pace</a>, with the lead taken by Maersk and CMA CGM. MSC was reportedly weighing similar interest following Toft’s meeting with Indian government leaders earlier this year. MSC is the largest ocean carrier out of India, with growing landside investment interests that include container terminal partnerships with Adani at Mundra and Ennore (Chennai). The carrier handles large-scale regional transshipment volumes at Mundra as well as Vizhinjam Port, India’s newest container hub that is also managed by Adani. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. has become the latest major ocean carrier to invest beyond port-to-port shipping and inland logistics operations in India. The world’s largest liner operator has confirmed a program to reflag 12 of its container ships to the Indian registry, adding to the wave of recent similar flag changes already carried out by CMA CGM and Maersk . In a LinkedIn post Monday, MSC CEO Soren Toft said the planned Indian-flagged fleet operation “strengthens the company’s long-term partnership and support for India’s maritime ambitions.” “India is a key country for MSC, with continued strong development across shipping, ports and logistics,” Toft noted. Details of the vessels to be registered in India were not immediately disclosed. Efforts to seek comment from officials at MSC (India) were unsuccessful. Boost for New Delhi MSC’s reflagging move was another key industry investment commitment unfolded at the recent maritime summit in Mumbai. The migration of European carriers away from their traditional cost-saving foreign “flags of convenience” to India’s emerging market is seen as a major maritime boost for New Delhi as it vigorously seeks private investment to drive economic growth through a buildup of manufacturing and export verticals. Additionally, carrier collaborations with Indian shipbuilding yards are gathering pace , with the lead taken by Maersk and CMA CGM. MSC was reportedly weighing similar interest following Toft’s meeting with Indian government leaders earlier this year. MSC is the largest ocean carrier out of India, with growing landside investment interests that include container terminal partnerships with Adani at Mundra and Ennore (Chennai). The carrier handles large-scale regional transshipment volumes at Mundra as well as Vizhinjam Port, India’s newest container hub that is also managed by Adani. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

North American ports

Marine terminals

Container Shipping News

Maritime

MSC agrees to reflag 12 container ships in India in diversification push

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade software vendor Altana released a tool this month designed to help US Customs and Border Protection match its ability to screen import goods at a level on par with new US regulations. </div>

Trade software vendor Altana released a tool this month designed to help US Customs and Border Protection match its ability to screen import goods at a level on par with new US regulations.

<div class="phx-topic">Increasing trade regulations in various countries are putting a burden on customs agencies that most are unable to cope with because those agencies lack the ability to effectively scrutinize product components and suppliers involved in complex supply chains. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is at the forefront of this challenge, given the scrutiny that import supply chains are receiving under the Trump administration. But the US is far from the only key trade country that has increased such scrutiny on importers and exporters. “The key thing to call out is these trade policies are compelling the border agencies to scrutinize the supply chain network beyond their own borders into extra-territorial regulations,” Evan Smith, CEO of trade software vendor Altana, told the Journal of Commerce. Essentially, a government’s ability to dictate whether a product faces higher duties based on the place where a subcomponent or material of that product was placed is a new and growing challenge, Smith said. “Any government has the ability to say what happens within its borders, but what’s new is deciding that what happens in other countries can be enforced at your borders,” he said. Regulations such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism or China’s export controls on rare earth minerals should be thought of as in the same realm as US component-based tariffs and forced labor restrictions, according to Smith. The major constraint on CBP and other customs authorities is that the data provided in a customs entry filing can’t support what CBP needs given its task of understanding the origin of product materials. <h3>More data needed </h3>“The customs process has been built around transactions,” Smith said. “A shipment arrives, duties are paid and it’s released or not. But the customs process is literally breaking in this environment.” Smith said, for instance, that the Automated Broker Interface, which customs brokers use to file entries with CBP, can’t receive information about the entire supply chain network responsible for a shipment. “It’s a goods description with a HS code [used to classify goods for international shipping],” and other characteristics of the shipment,” he said. “That level is insufficient for CBP to make a determination about the value chain network of the goods, where was it made, what are its component parts.” Altana has been working with CBP on a public-private partnership that would enable CBP to digest that data before goods even hit a port or airport — sometimes even before a product has been manufactured — by allowing importers to proactively convey information related to the manufacturing and transportation of the product. That partnership became what Altana calls Product Passports, which Smith likens to Global Entry for goods. Maersk, LL Bean, BASF, and a range of apparel manufacturers, chemical companies, retailers and automotive suppliers are already using the product, which Altana released publicly earlier this month. <h3>Increased supply chain scrutiny </h3>Trade compliance experts have for months told the Journal of Commerce that importers need to recognize that CBP scrutiny of import supply chains — not just import shipments — would ramp up. For example, one compliance source who did not want to be identified said the Altana tool helps CBP proactively identify the content and value of steel and aluminum in a given product so that Section 232 duties on those components are claimed and paid correctly, something the source called “a huge challenge right now.” And the agency’s technology expansion encompasses more than just Altana. Another software vendor, Exiger, announced last week it has signed a multi-million-dollar deal with CBP to detect fraudulent country-of-origin determination by importers. Altana’s strategy has been to work with custom authorities and large global third-party logistics providers and then approach importers and exporters to persuade them to use a common platform. The Product Passport tools are a manifestation of that aim. “Think of it as a payload of information from the importer to CBP,” Smith said. “AI screens it on both sides, and any potential risk is flagged, and now CBP and the importer’s suppliers have a collaboration layer.” As an example, Smith said a CBP officer can say, “this thing in your tier 2 supplier looks off to us,” and the importer can then upload documents that attest to the “hygiene” of the supplier. That enables communication between CBP and the importer that is not possible outside of a trade compliance dialogue or determination process that typically involves a shipment detention or legal proceeding. With <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/importers-see-major-uptick-in-cbp-requests-for-shipment-information-6097919">importers receiving a historic level</a> of Customs Forms 28 (CF-28) requests for information issued by CBP about specific shipments, Smith said the passports are essentially a way to avoid having to respond to the deluge of such requests. Altana is in the process of rolling out the capability with CBP to create passports for e-commerce and small packages so the customs agency can better handle the flood of entries associated with shipments that previously qualified as duty-free under the de minimis rule. This extension would create a data pipeline from an e-commerce checkout platform or a courier booking to allow CBP to do the same pre-screening with AI, with the customs entry linked through an Altana-assigned ID to the specific shipment. “It’s an architecture designed for this new trade paradigm, separate of, and in advance of, the customs entry,” Smith said. “And in the dream state, the entry dissolves away because it’s not needed.” The compliance expert agreed. “This will eventually become the entry process itself for larger importers,” the source said. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Increasing trade regulations in various countries are putting a burden on customs agencies that most are unable to cope with because those agencies lack the ability to effectively scrutinize product components and suppliers involved in complex supply chains. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is at the forefront of this challenge, given the scrutiny that import supply chains are receiving under the Trump administration. But the US is far from the only key trade country that has increased such scrutiny on importers and exporters. “The key thing to call out is these trade policies are compelling the border agencies to scrutinize the supply chain network beyond their own borders into extra-territorial regulations,” Evan Smith, CEO of trade software vendor Altana, told the Journal of Commerce. Essentially, a government’s ability to dictate whether a product faces higher duties based on the place where a subcomponent or material of that product was placed is a new and growing challenge, Smith said. “Any government has the ability to say what happens within its borders, but what’s new is deciding that what happens in other countries can be enforced at your borders,” he said. Regulations such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism or China’s export controls on rare earth minerals should be thought of as in the same realm as US component-based tariffs and forced labor restrictions, according to Smith. The major constraint on CBP and other customs authorities is that the data provided in a customs entry filing can’t support what CBP needs given its task of understanding the origin of product materials. More data needed “The customs process has been built around transactions,” Smith said. “A shipment arrives, duties are paid and it’s released or not. But the customs process is literally breaking in this environment.” Smith said, for instance, that the Automated Broker Interface, which customs brokers use to file entries with CBP, can’t receive information about the entire supply chain network responsible for a shipment. “It’s a goods description with a HS code [used to classify goods for international shipping],” and other characteristics of the shipment,” he said. “That level is insufficient for CBP to make a determination about the value chain network of the goods, where was it made, what are its component parts.” Altana has been working with CBP on a public-private partnership that would enable CBP to digest that data before goods even hit a port or airport — sometimes even before a product has been manufactured — by allowing importers to proactively convey information related to the manufacturing and transportation of the product. That partnership became what Altana calls Product Passports, which Smith likens to Global Entry for goods. Maersk, LL Bean, BASF, and a range of apparel manufacturers, chemical companies, retailers and automotive suppliers are already using the product, which Altana released publicly earlier this month. Increased supply chain scrutiny Trade compliance experts have for months told the Journal of Commerce that importers need to recognize that CBP scrutiny of import supply chains — not just import shipments — would ramp up. For example, one compliance source who did not want to be identified said the Altana tool helps CBP proactively identify the content and value of steel and aluminum in a given product so that Section 232 duties on those components are claimed and paid correctly, something the source called “a huge challenge right now.” And the agency’s technology expansion encompasses more than just Altana. Another software vendor, Exiger, announced last week it has signed a multi-million-dollar deal with CBP to detect fraudulent country-of-origin determination by importers. Altana’s strategy has been to work with custom authorities and large global third-party logistics providers and then approach importers and exporters to persuade them to use a common platform. The Product Passport tools are a manifestation of that aim. “Think of it as a payload of information from the importer to CBP,” Smith said. “AI screens it on both sides, and any potential risk is flagged, and now CBP and the importer’s suppliers have a collaboration layer.” As an example, Smith said a CBP officer can say, “this thing in your tier 2 supplier looks off to us,” and the importer can then upload documents that attest to the “hygiene” of the supplier. That enables communication between CBP and the importer that is not possible outside of a trade compliance dialogue or determination process that typically involves a shipment detention or legal proceeding. With importers receiving a historic level of Customs Forms 28 (CF-28) requests for information issued by CBP about specific shipments, Smith said the passports are essentially a way to avoid having to respond to the deluge of such requests. Altana is in the process of rolling out the capability with CBP to create passports for e-commerce and small packages so the customs agency can better handle the flood of entries associated with shipments that previously qualified as duty-free under the de minimis rule. This extension would create a data pipeline from an e-commerce checkout platform or a courier booking to allow CBP to do the same pre-screening with AI, with the customs entry linked through an Altana-assigned ID to the specific shipment. “It’s an architecture designed for this new trade paradigm, separate of, and in advance of, the customs entry,” Smith said. “And in the dream state, the entry dissolves away because it’s not needed.” The compliance expert agreed. “This will eventually become the entry process itself for larger importers,” the source said. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

Increased supply chain scrutiny at odds with customs enforcement capability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Beijing is expected to soon announce the start date of its own 12-month pause on reciprocal port fees on US ships, a deal that was agreed to last week as part of a broad trade framework hammered out by the two superpowers.</div>

Beijing is expected to soon announce the start date of its own 12-month pause on reciprocal port fees on US ships, a deal that was agreed to last week as part of a broad trade framework hammered out by the two superpowers.

<div class="phx-topic">The year-long pause on US port fees for Chinese-operated or -built ships, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-china-suspend-reciprocal-port-fees-as-part-of-wider-trade-deal-6105849">agreed to last week between US and Chinese officials</a>, will start on Nov. 10, the White House announced Saturday. The move will pave the way for China to lift its retaliatory port fees on US-owned and -controlled vessels, although there was no immediate response from Beijing whether its suspension of port charges will occur on the same day as the US action. But one Hong Kong-based analyst expected China to end its charges on Nov. 10 or shortly after, repeating what happened when China followed the US in imposing reciprocal port call charges on Oct. 14. During the 12-month pause in port fees, “the US will negotiate with China” over Beijing’s alleged dominance in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, the White House statement said, without giving further details. Those talks would take place while the US continued “its historic cooperation with the Republic of Korea and Japan on revitalizing American shipbuilding,” the statement added. The Nov. 10 date was announced in a statement that also gave further details of the trade concessions agreed to by both sides during talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26 and confirmed by presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at their meeting in South Korea last Thursday. The broad agreement will see China purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the last two months of this year and buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027 and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of US sorghum and hardwood logs. China will also suspend all the retaliatory tariffs announced since March 4, including levies “on a vast swath of US agricultural products including chicken, wheat, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables and dairy products,” the White House statement said. China will suspend or remove all retaliatory non-tariff countermeasures taken against the US since March, the statement added. “China will further extend the expiration of its market-based tariff exclusion process for imports from the United States and exclusions will remain valid until Dec. 31, 2026,” the White House said. “China will terminate its various investigations targeting US companies in the semiconductor supply chain, including its antitrust, anti-monopoly, and anti-dumping investigations." The White House did not give any timeframe for China’s implementation of the trade concessions. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a08410a8-0b00-4c48-9ef6-78b6354f0678"></dynamic-object></div>For its part, the US will end the 10% so-called “fentanyl tariffs” on Nov. 10 and maintain its suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs on Chinese imports until Nov. 10, 2026. The current 10% reciprocal tariff will remain in effect during the suspension period, the statement said. US imports from China have fallen sharply since mid-year amid the trade dispute. Imports hit 984,280 TEUs in July, the second-highest mark in 2025, then fell in August and September, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <h3>Questions remain </h3>Despite the US-China deal on port fees, Brian Maloney, a partner at New York-based law firm Seward &amp; Kissel’s maritime and transportation group, said there are still many questions to be answered. “Will this apply to foreign-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels or will the pause apply only to the fees for Chinese-owned, -operated or -built vessels?,” Maloney said. “When will the Chinese response pause kick in, which could matter for vessels actively trading? And will either country extend retroactive relief to Oct. 14?” Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the lower tariffs open a window of opportunity for US shippers. “The question is whether it will prompt a boost in shipments — effectively pulling the seasonal boost from Chinese New Year forward by more than a month,” Jensen said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7391046713332875264/">in a LinkedIn post Monday</a>. “The coming weeks will show whether this is going to happen, or whether US importers see the upside of lower tariffs more than counteracted by a risk of consumer spending slowdown in the US.” Jensen pointed out that shippers will have to go through the details of how the deal impacts them specifically. “But it is important to note here that almost all US actions are temporary in the sense that actions are merely paused until Nov. 10, 2026,” he wrote. “This means that more trade talks will have to happen prior to that date, and with this comes the risk of more changes [positive or negative]." Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

The year-long pause on US port fees for Chinese-operated or -built ships, agreed to last week between US and Chinese officials , will start on Nov. 10, the White House announced Saturday. The move will pave the way for China to lift its retaliatory port fees on US-owned and -controlled vessels, although there was no immediate response from Beijing whether its suspension of port charges will occur on the same day as the US action. But one Hong Kong-based analyst expected China to end its charges on Nov. 10 or shortly after, repeating what happened when China followed the US in imposing reciprocal port call charges on Oct. 14. During the 12-month pause in port fees, “the US will negotiate with China” over Beijing’s alleged dominance in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, the White House statement said, without giving further details. Those talks would take place while the US continued “its historic cooperation with the Republic of Korea and Japan on revitalizing American shipbuilding,” the statement added. The Nov. 10 date was announced in a statement that also gave further details of the trade concessions agreed to by both sides during talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26 and confirmed by presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at their meeting in South Korea last Thursday. The broad agreement will see China purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the last two months of this year and buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027 and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of US sorghum and hardwood logs. China will also suspend all the retaliatory tariffs announced since March 4, including levies “on a vast swath of US agricultural products including chicken, wheat, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables and dairy products,” the White House statement said. China will suspend or remove all retaliatory non-tariff countermeasures taken against the US since March, the statement added. “China will further extend the expiration of its market-based tariff exclusion process for imports from the United States and exclusions will remain valid until Dec. 31, 2026,” the White House said. “China will terminate its various investigations targeting US companies in the semiconductor supply chain, including its antitrust, anti-monopoly, and anti-dumping investigations." The White House did not give any timeframe for China’s implementation of the trade concessions. For its part, the US will end the 10% so-called “fentanyl tariffs” on Nov. 10 and maintain its suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs on Chinese imports until Nov. 10, 2026. The current 10% reciprocal tariff will remain in effect during the suspension period, the statement said. US imports from China have fallen sharply since mid-year amid the trade dispute. Imports hit 984,280 TEUs in July, the second-highest mark in 2025, then fell in August and September, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Questions remain Despite the US-China deal on port fees, Brian Maloney, a partner at New York-based law firm Seward & Kissel’s maritime and transportation group, said there are still many questions to be answered. “Will this apply to foreign-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels or will the pause apply only to the fees for Chinese-owned, -operated or -built vessels?,” Maloney said. “When will the Chinese response pause kick in, which could matter for vessels actively trading? And will either country extend retroactive relief to Oct. 14?” Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the lower tariffs open a window of opportunity for US shippers. “The question is whether it will prompt a boost in shipments — effectively pulling the seasonal boost from Chinese New Year forward by more than a month,” Jensen said in a LinkedIn post Monday . “The coming weeks will show whether this is going to happen, or whether US importers see the upside of lower tariffs more than counteracted by a risk of consumer spending slowdown in the US.” Jensen pointed out that shippers will have to go through the details of how the deal impacts them specifically. “But it is important to note here that almost all US actions are temporary in the sense that actions are merely paused until Nov. 10, 2026,” he wrote. “This means that more trade talks will have to happen prior to that date, and with this comes the risk of more changes [positive or negative]." Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Trans-Pacific

Year-long pause on US port fees targeting China vessels to start Nov. 10

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">An immediate bump in cargo is likely in the wake of this week’s deal between Washington and Beijing, but it’s too early for US retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for 2026 spring and summer imports. </div>

An immediate bump in cargo is likely in the wake of this week’s deal between Washington and Beijing, but it’s too early for US retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for 2026 spring and summer imports.

<div class="phx-topic">The US-China trade deal announced this week will prompt some US retailers to move quickly on imports they need in the short term, but the seemingly tenuous nature of the agreement — notably its one-year term — will likely prevent a broad shift back to traditional ordering patterns, market participants say. “If it’s needed now, it will be ordered. Longer term, retailers need more time. There will be hesitancy,” an industry consultant who managed the logistics departments of two national retailers told the Journal of Commerce. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear, immediately shifted imports that it had scheduled to ship by air beginning Nov. 1 back to ocean mode after the US-China deal. “We’ll save a good deal of money,” said John Pace, the company’s senior manager of logistics. In the longer term, even with the deal’s elimination of the 10% so-called “fentanyl tax” on imports from China, the total tariff on most imports from China is about 47%, which is higher than tariffs on most countries in Asia. As such, Revelyst will continue to explore sourcing options from countries such as Vietnam, Pace said. The broad agreement <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-china-suspend-reciprocal-port-fees-as-part-of-wider-trade-deal-6105849">announced Thursday</a> also included a one-year pause in the reciprocal port fees the US and China had implemented on Oct. 14. The National Retail Federation (NRF), which represents a broad range of retailers, said a bump in imports in the short term is likely in the wake of the deal, but that it is too early for retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for spring and summer imports in 2026. “The challenge for retailers is there’s still so much uncertainty about what’s going to come out and when it’s going to come out,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy. Many details relating to tariffs on important commodities such as steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber, when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin to collect duties, and what the status is of duties that have already been collected are still uncertain, Gold said. Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics, said there’s been hesitancy over the past two months among retailers and direct importers to ship seasonal merchandise and replenishment product for fear the US-China talks would break down and the huge tariffs would remain in place. But those fears have been allayed, at least for now. “So make up for the hesitation and bring in as much inventory as possible in case things blow up again,” Cook said. <h3>Some importers keep supply chain strategy unchanged </h3>Still, some importers say their ordering patterns have not really been affected by the trade agreement. A national furniture retailer said the company earlier this year set its logistics plan and sourcing patterns for 2025, has stuck with those plans, and has no regrets for doing so. “The fact that major decisions are being made in such a knee-jerk fashion has us scared,” said the furniture retailer’s logistics manager. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>An importer in the automotive sector said he has no intention of increasing imports from China. “A 10% [tariff] change is not material enough to make a switch,” the source said. “The overall rates are still very high.” <h3>Prior GRIs boosted rates in October </h3>Imports from all of Asia have remained relatively strong this fall even though carriers have been successful in propping up freight rates through a series of general rate increases (GRIs). Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged Asia-West Coast rates at $2,075 per FEU as of Oct. 30, up from $1,300 earlier in the month as an Oct. 1 GRI was taking hold. Rates to the East Coast have risen to $3,075 per FEU from $2,260 over the same period. Trans-Pacific carriers pre-filed GRIs to take effect on Nov. 1, and so far the alliance carriers have been holding on to the intended rate hike, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an advisor to forwarders. Most, but not all, carriers are posting rates of $3,800 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,800 per FEU to the West Coast this weekend, Monroe said. “It looks like carriers are holding it together publicly but privately they’re cutting deals,” he said. Importers and forwarders who utilize so-called bullet rates and on-line rates from individual carriers can save about $300 to $400 per FEU, according to Monroe. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6a6ec157-c71e-4ab2-ae59-6658aada11d8"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers have succeeded in propping up rates by reducing capacity in the trans-Pacific through blank sailings, but reduced blanks scheduled so far for November could result in additional capacity being available. The blanking rate to the West Coast so far for November is 8.2% of capacity, down from 20.8% in October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Similarly, blanked capacity from Asia to the East Coast is pegged thus far at 10.9% for November, down from 22.8% in October. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US-China trade deal announced this week will prompt some US retailers to move quickly on imports they need in the short term, but the seemingly tenuous nature of the agreement — notably its one-year term — will likely prevent a broad shift back to traditional ordering patterns, market participants say. “If it’s needed now, it will be ordered. Longer term, retailers need more time. There will be hesitancy,” an industry consultant who managed the logistics departments of two national retailers told the Journal of Commerce. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear, immediately shifted imports that it had scheduled to ship by air beginning Nov. 1 back to ocean mode after the US-China deal. “We’ll save a good deal of money,” said John Pace, the company’s senior manager of logistics. In the longer term, even with the deal’s elimination of the 10% so-called “fentanyl tax” on imports from China, the total tariff on most imports from China is about 47%, which is higher than tariffs on most countries in Asia. As such, Revelyst will continue to explore sourcing options from countries such as Vietnam, Pace said. The broad agreement announced Thursday also included a one-year pause in the reciprocal port fees the US and China had implemented on Oct. 14. The National Retail Federation (NRF), which represents a broad range of retailers, said a bump in imports in the short term is likely in the wake of the deal, but that it is too early for retailers who are tied to China to make supply chain decisions for spring and summer imports in 2026. “The challenge for retailers is there’s still so much uncertainty about what’s going to come out and when it’s going to come out,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy. Many details relating to tariffs on important commodities such as steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber, when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin to collect duties, and what the status is of duties that have already been collected are still uncertain, Gold said. Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics, said there’s been hesitancy over the past two months among retailers and direct importers to ship seasonal merchandise and replenishment product for fear the US-China talks would break down and the huge tariffs would remain in place. But those fears have been allayed, at least for now. “So make up for the hesitation and bring in as much inventory as possible in case things blow up again,” Cook said. Some importers keep supply chain strategy unchanged Still, some importers say their ordering patterns have not really been affected by the trade agreement. A national furniture retailer said the company earlier this year set its logistics plan and sourcing patterns for 2025, has stuck with those plans, and has no regrets for doing so. “The fact that major decisions are being made in such a knee-jerk fashion has us scared,” said the furniture retailer’s logistics manager. An importer in the automotive sector said he has no intention of increasing imports from China. “A 10% [tariff] change is not material enough to make a switch,” the source said. “The overall rates are still very high.” Prior GRIs boosted rates in October Imports from all of Asia have remained relatively strong this fall even though carriers have been successful in propping up freight rates through a series of general rate increases (GRIs). Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged Asia-West Coast rates at $2,075 per FEU as of Oct. 30, up from $1,300 earlier in the month as an Oct. 1 GRI was taking hold. Rates to the East Coast have risen to $3,075 per FEU from $2,260 over the same period. Trans-Pacific carriers pre-filed GRIs to take effect on Nov. 1, and so far the alliance carriers have been holding on to the intended rate hike, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an advisor to forwarders. Most, but not all, carriers are posting rates of $3,800 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,800 per FEU to the West Coast this weekend, Monroe said. “It looks like carriers are holding it together publicly but privately they’re cutting deals,” he said. Importers and forwarders who utilize so-called bullet rates and on-line rates from individual carriers can save about $300 to $400 per FEU, according to Monroe. Carriers have succeeded in propping up rates by reducing capacity in the trans-Pacific through blank sailings, but reduced blanks scheduled so far for November could result in additional capacity being available. The blanking rate to the West Coast so far for November is 8.2% of capacity, down from 20.8% in October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Similarly, blanked capacity from Asia to the East Coast is pegged thus far at 10.9% for November, down from 22.8% in October. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Trade deal could boost short-term China imports, but uncertainty lingers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings, is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore. </div>

The carrier, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings, is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore.

<div class="phx-topic">Charleston, South Carolina — The president of Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s US business believes there aren’t enough new US port projects in the works that will create the capacity needed to handle the anticipated growth in cargo volumes in the coming years. Fabio Santucci says that better use of existing terminal footprints and more greenfield development were needed to support a market where consumer spending accounts for 70% of gross domestic product (GDP). And he said he’s confident in longer-term import growth and hopes the finalization of US trade deals will give cargo owners more certainty on changing tariff levels. “I think it’s essential that ports like Charleston and many others, continue to invest heavily in densifying the facilities, in focusing on their operating model because, let’s face it, there are not many new ports coming to the rescue,” Santucci said Wednesday at the South Carolina International Trade Conference. MSC, as it seeks with BlackRock to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-deal-shows-thirst-of-big-carriers-to-control-global-terminal-assets-5960717">acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings</a>, is developing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-gulf-coast-ports-expanding-to-handle-continued-volume-growth-5911512">a mega-terminal in New Orleans</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-msc-backed-baltimore-container-terminal-on-track-for-2028-debut-5220430">another terminal in Baltimore</a>. The carrier, already the largest container operator by tonnage, would become the biggest marine terminal operator via its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) arm if the $23 billion Hutchison deal is completed. Santucci acknowledged that US ports were able to handle import-driven surges earlier this year, but said overall performance has room to improve. “Nobody wants to keep a vessel at anchor waiting. It’s costing somebody a lot of money and there must be an impediment on the landside,” he said. <h3>Southeast ‘poised’ for growth </h3>MSC has grown its volume through Charleston by 15% this year, well above the port’s total growth. US laden volume through Charleston ticked up 0.5% year over year between January and August, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. “The southeast [ports], specifically, the growth that we see on the industrial side, the population growth, specifically Charleston, are poised for a lot of growth in the coming years,” said Santucci. “The import market is not growing 15% so it means that our joint customers are seeing Charleston as a very good and useful gateway.” MSC earlier this year opened an expanded Charleston campus. In his first State of the Port address, Micah Mallace, the new head of the SC Port Authority, said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-charleston-ceo-seeks-to-regain-container-growth-momentum-6104583">the port had ample terminal capacity</a> and would prioritize projects in the short term to feed expanded terminal capacity. When it opened in 2021, Charleston’s Leatherman terminal was the first new US terminal to come online since 2009. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Charleston, South Carolina — The president of Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s US business believes there aren’t enough new US port projects in the works that will create the capacity needed to handle the anticipated growth in cargo volumes in the coming years. Fabio Santucci says that better use of existing terminal footprints and more greenfield development were needed to support a market where consumer spending accounts for 70% of gross domestic product (GDP). And he said he’s confident in longer-term import growth and hopes the finalization of US trade deals will give cargo owners more certainty on changing tariff levels. “I think it’s essential that ports like Charleston and many others, continue to invest heavily in densifying the facilities, in focusing on their operating model because, let’s face it, there are not many new ports coming to the rescue,” Santucci said Wednesday at the South Carolina International Trade Conference. MSC, as it seeks with BlackRock to acquire the majority of Hutchison Port Holdings , is developing a mega-terminal in New Orleans and another terminal in Baltimore . The carrier, already the largest container operator by tonnage, would become the biggest marine terminal operator via its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) arm if the $23 billion Hutchison deal is completed. Santucci acknowledged that US ports were able to handle import-driven surges earlier this year, but said overall performance has room to improve. “Nobody wants to keep a vessel at anchor waiting. It’s costing somebody a lot of money and there must be an impediment on the landside,” he said. Southeast ‘poised’ for growth MSC has grown its volume through Charleston by 15% this year, well above the port’s total growth. US laden volume through Charleston ticked up 0.5% year over year between January and August, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. “The southeast [ports], specifically, the growth that we see on the industrial side, the population growth, specifically Charleston, are poised for a lot of growth in the coming years,” said Santucci. “The import market is not growing 15% so it means that our joint customers are seeing Charleston as a very good and useful gateway.” MSC earlier this year opened an expanded Charleston campus. In his first State of the Port address, Micah Mallace, the new head of the SC Port Authority, said the port had ample terminal capacity and would prioritize projects in the short term to feed expanded terminal capacity. When it opened in 2021, Charleston’s Leatherman terminal was the first new US terminal to come online since 2009. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

US port capacity lagging ahead of potential volume growth: MSC

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.</div>

If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.

<div class="phx-topic">When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? <h3>The system you didn’t know existed </h3>TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. <h3>Why the merger changes everything </h3>The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. <h3>What gravity looks like </h3>Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. <h3>What the STB should do </h3>The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. <h3>What shippers should ask now </h3>Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. <h3>The bottom line </h3>TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at  <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? The system you didn’t know existed TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. Why the merger changes everything The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. What gravity looks like Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. What the STB should do The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. What shippers should ask now Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. The bottom line TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at   paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility. </div>

The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility.

<div class="phx-topic">The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. <h3>Technology can ease challenges </h3>The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at <a href="mailto:northw@shiplify.com">northw@shiplify.com</a>. Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at <a href="mailto:bart@bartdemuynck.com">bart@bartdemuynck.com</a>. </div>

The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. Technology can ease challenges The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at northw@shiplify.com . Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at bart@bartdemuynck.com .

Trucking News

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Dry Van

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {van_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Flatbed

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {flatbed_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Refrigerated

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Weekly % change: {reefer_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

DAT Freight & Analytics is an independent source of truckload pricing and business intelligence. Using an automated daily process, DAT collects invoices from nearly 1,200 transportation companies totaling more than $137 billion in freight spend annually. It verifies and updates data daily; each market rate reported in RateView Analytics requires a minimum number of submissions, so prices cannot be manipulated; and the algorithms account for outliers. [DAT](https://dat.com)

US dry-van, flatbed and refrigerated truckload spot rates (DAT)

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process. </div>

The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process.

<div class="phx-topic">If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6105166_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-csx-unveil-new-joint-intermodal-lanes-in-aftermath-of-up-ns-merger-6067789">Charlotte and Jacksonville</a>. Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ceo-pushing-to-file-formal-ns-merger-application-by-dec-1-6102362">could vanish</a> if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-intermodal-volume-retracts-amid-cost-cutting-measures-6098480">6% year over year</a> in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. <h3>Norfolk Southern remains crucial </h3>The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. <h3>The CSX pull will only grow </h3>The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">next spring</a> could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to Charlotte and Jacksonville . Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes could vanish if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by 6% year over year in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. Norfolk Southern remains crucial The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. The CSX pull will only grow The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore next spring could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

J.B. Hunt’s East Coast strategy is shifting as rail alliances realign

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.</div>

But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-wants-california-to-raise-bridge-to-accommodate-big-ships-6087396">said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity</a>. Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. <h3>Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions </h3>The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-stakeholders-warming-to-plan-to-mitigate-impact-of-bridge-project-6013847">Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028</a>, a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity . Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028 , a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050. </div>

With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050.

<div class="phx-topic">With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6104141_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/delay-in-imo-decarbonization-plans-robs-green-fuel-investors-of-certainty-6101250">punted on its net-zero framework</a>, LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="82b6ff12-d7ca-420a-abbe-7b9998b29e56"></dynamic-object></div>And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/faqs-the-imo-net-zero-framework.aspx">Net-Zero Framework</a> that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO punted on its net-zero framework , LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO Net-Zero Framework that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

Use code GTW595 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 FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

In 1995, we began operations with a clear vision: to grow alongside Mexico and connect the world through our terminals. Our priority has always been to deliver excellence in service, foster economic development, and strengthen our communities. We firmly believe that progress is not only measured in tons of cargo moved, but in the opportunities we create. _______________________________________________________________ This year marks a significant milestone: SSA Marine Mexico celebrates 30 years of presence in the country, having established itself from day one as the leading port operator nationwide. Over the past three decades, we have built a legacy of reliability, innovation, and commitment to Mexico’s growth. Our journey has been defined by continuous evolution and a steadfast dedication to our mission. SSA Marine México currently operates in six of the country’s most important ports: Cozumel, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Progreso, Tuxpan, and Veracruz. Additionally, we have signed a concession to operate a new multipurpose terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, expanding our footprint to the north of the country. We serve a wide range of segments including containers, general cargo, automobiles, cruise ships, hydrocarbons, and asphalt. As part of this ongoing commitment, SSA Marine Mexico continues to strengthen its infrastructure and capabilities. International trade remains a key driver of global economic growth, and we are proud to support this momentum. Through our continuous improvement strategy, we invest in cutting-edge technology and equipment to deliver more efficient and competitive services, contributing to the success of Mexican businesses. •	Manzanillo, Colima- Specialized Container Terminal I: On October 13, we celebrated the arrival of two new STS (Ship To Shore) Super Post Panamax dockside cranes. This $21.2 million USD investment significantly boosts our operational capacity, streamlining cargo reception and delivery processes. In line with our modernization efforts, we will also retire four of our oldest cranes, paving the way for a more sustainable and technologically advanced fleet that meets the evolving demands of international trade. With these upgrades, SSA Marine México now operates a total of 16 cranes along our 1,350-meter dock, reaffirming our position as a national benchmark in port <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982635607_Manzanillo.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> •	As for the Multipurpose Terminal and Specialized Facility, also in Manzanillo, Colima, improvement and conditioning works are planned, along with the acquisition of four E-RTG (Electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry) cranes to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. •	At our Automobile and General Cargo Terminal in the port of Veracruz, we continue to lead with specialized value-added services that support our clients’ growth. Recent investments include a new washing cabin and a general cargo warehouse, increasing indoor storage capacity by 67%. •	Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan – Specialized Automobile Terminal: we are working on the development of an additional 4-hectare storage space within our bonded area and a 10-hectare Vehicle Distribution Center (VDC). These enhancements, along with ongoing personnel and system improvements, will reinforce our leadership in automotive handling across the Mexican Pacific coast.<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982742240_Lazaro.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> Through these strategic investments, SSA Marine Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the sustained growth of Mexico’s foreign trade. By expanding capacity, modernizing infrastructure, and diversifying services, we continue to strengthen the country’s competitiveness in global logistics. Today, we celebrate three decades of dedication, innovation, and leadership, with deep gratitude to our employees, clients, and partners for being part of this incredible journey. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1760982787360_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Manzanillo.jpg

SSA Marine Mexico: 30 years growing together.

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW30 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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

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

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement. </div>

Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement.

<div class="phx-topic">An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/industry-group-calls-for-tougher-licensing-better-training-amid-trucker-crackdown-6101323">crackdowns on immigration and licensing</a> may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up approximately 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d47d3a93-a025-4227-b19e-443d2719ea1e"></dynamic-object></div>Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said.Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ending October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nevada-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. <h3>Northbound and down </h3>One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Florida, the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, California, shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual crackdowns on immigration and licensing may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up approximately 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said. Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ending October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nevada-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. Northbound and down One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Florida, the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, California, shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Shrinking capacity pushing up US reefer truck rates

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ODFL, XPO and Saia reported annualized declines in third-quarter shipments but are positioning themselves for a stronger freight market in 2026. </div>

ODFL, XPO and Saia reported annualized declines in third-quarter shipments but are positioning themselves for a stronger freight market in 2026.

<div class="phx-topic">US less-than-truckload (LTL) providers are pursuing highly individualized paths in an anemic freight market, with shipment volumes rising but still lower than a year ago. Three of the largest LTL carriers this week reported gains in average revenue per hundredweight for the third quarter, a sign that their pricing is not falling despite a weak market. LTL revenue per hundredweight, with or without fuel surcharges, was up 4.7% year over year at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in the third quarter. At XPO, it rose 5.8% with surcharges and 5.9% without them. Saia reported a 0.5% increase in LTL revenue per hundredweight including surcharges and a 0.1% drop without them. Even with a flatter yield, Saia reported an average contract pricing renewal rate of 5.1% for the quarter. The company recently announced a 5.9% general rate increase (GRI) for non-contract tariff rates, which was effective Oct. 1. ODFL is pursuing a 4.9% non-contract GRI, effective Nov. 3, while LTL sector leader FedEx Freight will seek a 5.9% GRI on Jan. 5. The motor carriers reject claims that LTL carrier pricing discipline is weakening under the pressure of low freight demand. The US long-distance LTL producer price index, a measure of total LTL costs paid by shippers, was up 10.5% year over year in August, the last month for which data is available thanks to the US government shutdown. In discussions with shippers, “the tone is starting to shift,” Mario Harik, CEO of XPO, the fourth-largest US LTL provider, said in an interview. “A lot of customers are concerned about capacity. They can go to a discount carrier, but when the market starts to turn, will they have capacity? More and more customers expect a recovery in 2026.” <h3>Limited expectations </h3>Harik spoke with the Journal of Commerce before XPO’s earnings call with Wall Street analysts Thursday. ODFL, the second-largest US LTL carrier, released earnings Wednesday, and Saia, ranked sixth among LTL carriers by revenue, announced results Thursday. Their results differed, but their expectations were similar. “Demand feels consistent to me, but obviously we haven’t seen the inflection that we’ve all been waiting for,” ODFL CEO Adam Satterfield said Wednesday. “When will the market change? I mean, that’s obviously the big question. I’ve asked ChatGPT that, and it suggests next year. So who knows? We’ll see if AI is right or another economic forecast [is].” Saia’s shipper customers are “incrementally more positive” about prospects for 2026, CEO Frederick Holzgrefe told analysts Thursday. “We’ve got a view of the tariff landscape,” he said. “We’ve got a view of tax policy. We’ve got a view around interest rates. All that is incrementally positive, right? I’m waiting to see it in the numbers.” So far, the numbers are mostly negative in terms of volume. ODFL’s average daily shipment (ADS) count dropped 7.9% year over year in the third quarter. At XPO, the ADS fell 3.5%, while Saia’s shipments dropped 1.9% from a year ago. “We are not yet seeing a demand recovery,” XPO’s Harik said, and he doesn’t expect one in the fourth quarter. “Customers expect the market to be steady” through the end of 2025, he said. “Things aren’t getting better, but they’re not getting worse.” Customers do expect improvement in 2026, Harik said. For one, a drop in the federal funds rate could stimulate industrial demand and more corporate investment. “We have all these tailwinds,” he said. <h3>Established strategies </h3>ODFL, XPO and Saia are taking long-established approaches to the market as they wait for those tailwinds to blow. ODFL’s third-quarter decline in daily shipments was accompanied by a 4.3% annualized drop in revenue to $1.4 billion. The company remains highly profitable despite a 12.2% drop in net profit to $271 million, with a 74.3% operating ratio. ODFL has consistently been willing to protect its bottom line at the expense of top-line revenue, maintaining a premium price to protect profit margin rather than trying to use price to gain market share — a model many LTL carriers are trying to emulate. “We want to win market share; we don’t want to go out and try to take it,” said Satterfield. Saia’s revenue fell 0.3% year over year in the quarter to $839.6 million, while its net profit dropped 6.9% to $86.3 million. Its operating ratio rose slightly to 85.9%. Saia hopes to grow “share of wallet” by gaining new business from existing customers as it realigns its network, which has expanded nationwide with 39 new terminals since 2022, many of them purchased from Yellow. “It’s really not about how quickly we can grow shipment count for the sake of shipment count,” CFO Matthew Batteh said. XPO is adding new customers, onboarding 2,500 small business shippers in the third quarter and 7,500 year to date, Harik said. Those “local” customers now account for 25% of XPO’s LTL revenue, he said. The carrier is also gaining revenue from new premium services launched over the past year that carry a higher price, generating more revenue. XPO’s North American LTL revenue rose 0.3% to $1.3 billion. Operating income for the North American LTL business rose 9.6% to $217 million, although overall net income dropped 13.7% to $82 million. “We’re still in the early innings” of a freight recovery, Harik told analysts. “When the cycle starts turning, we’ll improve even more.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US less-than-truckload (LTL) providers are pursuing highly individualized paths in an anemic freight market, with shipment volumes rising but still lower than a year ago. Three of the largest LTL carriers this week reported gains in average revenue per hundredweight for the third quarter, a sign that their pricing is not falling despite a weak market. LTL revenue per hundredweight, with or without fuel surcharges, was up 4.7% year over year at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in the third quarter. At XPO, it rose 5.8% with surcharges and 5.9% without them. Saia reported a 0.5% increase in LTL revenue per hundredweight including surcharges and a 0.1% drop without them. Even with a flatter yield, Saia reported an average contract pricing renewal rate of 5.1% for the quarter. The company recently announced a 5.9% general rate increase (GRI) for non-contract tariff rates, which was effective Oct. 1. ODFL is pursuing a 4.9% non-contract GRI, effective Nov. 3, while LTL sector leader FedEx Freight will seek a 5.9% GRI on Jan. 5. The motor carriers reject claims that LTL carrier pricing discipline is weakening under the pressure of low freight demand. The US long-distance LTL producer price index, a measure of total LTL costs paid by shippers, was up 10.5% year over year in August, the last month for which data is available thanks to the US government shutdown. In discussions with shippers, “the tone is starting to shift,” Mario Harik, CEO of XPO, the fourth-largest US LTL provider, said in an interview. “A lot of customers are concerned about capacity. They can go to a discount carrier, but when the market starts to turn, will they have capacity? More and more customers expect a recovery in 2026.” Limited expectations Harik spoke with the Journal of Commerce before XPO’s earnings call with Wall Street analysts Thursday. ODFL, the second-largest US LTL carrier, released earnings Wednesday, and Saia, ranked sixth among LTL carriers by revenue, announced results Thursday. Their results differed, but their expectations were similar. “Demand feels consistent to me, but obviously we haven’t seen the inflection that we’ve all been waiting for,” ODFL CEO Adam Satterfield said Wednesday. “When will the market change? I mean, that’s obviously the big question. I’ve asked ChatGPT that, and it suggests next year. So who knows? We’ll see if AI is right or another economic forecast [is].” Saia’s shipper customers are “incrementally more positive” about prospects for 2026, CEO Frederick Holzgrefe told analysts Thursday. “We’ve got a view of the tariff landscape,” he said. “We’ve got a view of tax policy. We’ve got a view around interest rates. All that is incrementally positive, right? I’m waiting to see it in the numbers.” So far, the numbers are mostly negative in terms of volume. ODFL’s average daily shipment (ADS) count dropped 7.9% year over year in the third quarter. At XPO, the ADS fell 3.5%, while Saia’s shipments dropped 1.9% from a year ago. “We are not yet seeing a demand recovery,” XPO’s Harik said, and he doesn’t expect one in the fourth quarter. “Customers expect the market to be steady” through the end of 2025, he said. “Things aren’t getting better, but they’re not getting worse.” Customers do expect improvement in 2026, Harik said. For one, a drop in the federal funds rate could stimulate industrial demand and more corporate investment. “We have all these tailwinds,” he said. Established strategies ODFL, XPO and Saia are taking long-established approaches to the market as they wait for those tailwinds to blow. ODFL’s third-quarter decline in daily shipments was accompanied by a 4.3% annualized drop in revenue to $1.4 billion. The company remains highly profitable despite a 12.2% drop in net profit to $271 million, with a 74.3% operating ratio. ODFL has consistently been willing to protect its bottom line at the expense of top-line revenue, maintaining a premium price to protect profit margin rather than trying to use price to gain market share — a model many LTL carriers are trying to emulate. “We want to win market share; we don’t want to go out and try to take it,” said Satterfield. Saia’s revenue fell 0.3% year over year in the quarter to $839.6 million, while its net profit dropped 6.9% to $86.3 million. Its operating ratio rose slightly to 85.9%. Saia hopes to grow “share of wallet” by gaining new business from existing customers as it realigns its network, which has expanded nationwide with 39 new terminals since 2022, many of them purchased from Yellow. “It’s really not about how quickly we can grow shipment count for the sake of shipment count,” CFO Matthew Batteh said. XPO is adding new customers, onboarding 2,500 small business shippers in the third quarter and 7,500 year to date, Harik said. Those “local” customers now account for 25% of XPO’s LTL revenue, he said. The carrier is also gaining revenue from new premium services launched over the past year that carry a higher price, generating more revenue. XPO’s North American LTL revenue rose 0.3% to $1.3 billion. Operating income for the North American LTL business rose 9.6% to $217 million, although overall net income dropped 13.7% to $82 million. “We’re still in the early innings” of a freight recovery, Harik told analysts. “When the cycle starts turning, we’ll improve even more.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Top LTL carriers maintain profit while planning paths to freight recovery

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. </div>

The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carrier heavyweights are increasingly betting on India as an alternative maritime hub as they face ongoing supply chain challenges linked to geopolitical tensions. Maersk has now diversified its business interests in India by reflagging two of its short-haul container ships to the local registry — the 1,810-TEU Maersk Vilnius and the 1,740-TEU Maersk Vigo, both built in 2010. They were previously registered in Singapore. “India is a critical growth market for Maersk, driven by robust economic fundamentals, expanding container trade and significant policy reforms in the maritime sector,” a company spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of our continued commitment to strengthening our presence in India, we have registered two of our vessels under the Indian flag.” The Maersk spokesperson also said the carrier will continue to use the flags of Denmark, Singapore and Hong Kong for its fleets. The two reflagged vessels are said to be part of Maersk’s regional networks covering Asian trades. That reflagging move builds on a shipbuilding/repair partnership program Maersk set up with India’s Cochin Shipyard in early 2025. French liner CMA CGM has already reflagged four box ships to the Indian registry and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-signs-350-million-indian-shipbuilding-order-for-six-box-ships-6097779">signed a firm shipbuilding contract with Cochin Shipyard</a> for six feeder vessels to be delivered between 2029 and 2031. <h3>Government woos carriers </h3>The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. “India’s renewed focus on shipbuilding/recycling, which is encouraging to note, is prompting the container lines to consider building and/or registering ships in India,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s emergence as an alternative marketplace is indeed a welcome step for the industry.” That diversification, while being portrayed as a new strategic approach, signals other regulatory pressures, industry sources believe. <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Findia-regulators-seek-vsa-trade-off-for-local-carriers-and-alliances-5742524&amp;data=05%7C02%7Civan.klos%40spglobal.com%7C5df43bbc6f5c44a193b008de162d46ca%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638972580902059458%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=mIynqQGNqtwhesUdqzkayedKpyrUCclY6QLpr7jL8ZY%3D&amp;reserved=0">India’s competition authority recently noted</a> that any further immunity from antitrust laws for vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) would be subject to carrier groupings allocating 5% of the total declared space to both Indian-flagged vessels and local non-vessel-operating common carrier. “It’s apparent that the inducements alone, though significant, would not have brought foreign fleet owners flocking to register their ships in India,” said a Mumbai-based industry observer who did not want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carrier heavyweights are increasingly betting on India as an alternative maritime hub as they face ongoing supply chain challenges linked to geopolitical tensions. Maersk has now diversified its business interests in India by reflagging two of its short-haul container ships to the local registry — the 1,810-TEU Maersk Vilnius and the 1,740-TEU Maersk Vigo, both built in 2010. They were previously registered in Singapore. “India is a critical growth market for Maersk, driven by robust economic fundamentals, expanding container trade and significant policy reforms in the maritime sector,” a company spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of our continued commitment to strengthening our presence in India, we have registered two of our vessels under the Indian flag.” The Maersk spokesperson also said the carrier will continue to use the flags of Denmark, Singapore and Hong Kong for its fleets. The two reflagged vessels are said to be part of Maersk’s regional networks covering Asian trades. That reflagging move builds on a shipbuilding/repair partnership program Maersk set up with India’s Cochin Shipyard in early 2025. French liner CMA CGM has already reflagged four box ships to the Indian registry and signed a firm shipbuilding contract with Cochin Shipyard for six feeder vessels to be delivered between 2029 and 2031. Government woos carriers The Indian government has been wooing global shipping and logistics conglomerates to invest beyond port-to-port shipping operations in the country through liberalized policy and tax frameworks. “India’s renewed focus on shipbuilding/recycling, which is encouraging to note, is prompting the container lines to consider building and/or registering ships in India,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s emergence as an alternative marketplace is indeed a welcome step for the industry.” That diversification, while being portrayed as a new strategic approach, signals other regulatory pressures, industry sources believe. India’s competition authority recently noted that any further immunity from antitrust laws for vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) would be subject to carrier groupings allocating 5% of the total declared space to both Indian-flagged vessels and local non-vessel-operating common carrier. “It’s apparent that the inducements alone, though significant, would not have brought foreign fleet owners flocking to register their ships in India,” said a Mumbai-based industry observer who did not want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Maersk joins CMA CGM in reflagging container ships in India amid antitrust pressure

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Recent tensions involved CPKC’s opposition to the UP-NS merger, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway. </div>

Recent tensions involved CPKC’s opposition to the UP-NS merger, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway.

<div class="phx-topic">Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is escalating its dispute with rivals Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), taking aim at the two over intermodal service in the US Southeast while reiterating criticism of their proposed merger. CPKC was one of the first railroads to come out against the $85 billion deal between UP and NS, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-pushes-back-on-ns-complaint-over-meridian-track-access-6090887">Meridian Speedway</a>. The Meridian Speedway represents the fastest way to route cargo from California to the US Southeast, but intermodal service has deteriorated significantly in 2025. CPKC owns 70% of the joint venture operating the Speedway, shuttling cargo between UP and NS in addition to its own freight in the corridor. NS, which filed a complaint to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) on Sept. 30, alleges that more than two-thirds of the trains on Meridian in August took longer than the contractually guaranteed 13-hour transit, resulting in a 10% decline in volume as shippers such as FedEx and UPS trucked shipments to avoid the delays. CPKC on Wednesday called the NS complaint a “self-serving narrative” without merit. “There was infrastructure built for 8,500-foot trains, but our predecessors at [Kansas City Southern] allowed NS to run long trains,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “That’s what we stopped, and that’s what NS and UP do not like.” UP CEO Jim Vena told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference on Oct. 1 that he was unhappy with the restrictions implemented by CPKC. “We started running two trains because we’re not leaving the customer traffic behind,” Vena said at the conference. “[CPKC was] delaying both trains. The amount of delay on the first train was excessive and then our second train sat around for 12, 16, 24 hours at times.” But Creel argued that Meridian’s rail siding — akin to a shoulder on a highway — was not built to handle the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains routinely delivered by UP and NS. When two trains need to use the same track, the CPKC train is the one parked on the siding because it’s the only one that fits. “Our trains are taking over an 11-hour delay per day to accommodate a longer train. It doesn’t make any sense,” Creel said on the CPKC call. “I’m not going to subsidize NS’ operation, nor am I going to subsidize UP’s operation for their operational synergies at the cost of my service to my customers. I have a responsibility to protect my customers as well. [Meridian is] built to run 8,500-foot trains. That’s what we’re going to do.” CPKC and NS have reached a temporary truce allowing one long eastbound train per day through mid-November, when a new CPKC crew will be added and restrictions return to 8,500 feet. NS agreed to compensate CPKC for delays to its trains. The STB is closed during the government shutdown, preventing any action on the dispute. <h3>CPKC again attacks UP-NS transaction </h3>Creel on Wednesday also elaborated on why CPKC opposes the UP-NS merger, urging the STB not to rush the regulatory process. “I know there’s an echo chamber. I read it, I hear it, I sense it,” Creel said. “I know there’s a lot of invested investors that perhaps want this to be a layup. This is not a layup.” He cautioned that UP must clear a high hurdle to get approval, calling it “a hurdle not even remotely close to being the same” as the lower one applied when Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern in 2023. Creel said the STB also remembers how UP suffered significant service failures four years ago, and if the deal was approved, UP-NS would control more than 40% of US rail traffic. Creel rejected the idea that the concerns of CPKC, a Canada-based company, will fall on deaf ears in Washington. “One-third of our employees live, work and are taxpaying [citizens] in the United States ... we are undeniably wrapped in the American flag,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is escalating its dispute with rivals Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), taking aim at the two over intermodal service in the US Southeast while reiterating criticism of their proposed merger. CPKC was one of the first railroads to come out against the $85 billion deal between UP and NS, but the battle has morphed into a larger disagreement about poor service on a 300-mile stretch of track in Louisiana and Mississippi known as the Meridian Speedway . The Meridian Speedway represents the fastest way to route cargo from California to the US Southeast, but intermodal service has deteriorated significantly in 2025. CPKC owns 70% of the joint venture operating the Speedway, shuttling cargo between UP and NS in addition to its own freight in the corridor. NS, which filed a complaint to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) on Sept. 30, alleges that more than two-thirds of the trains on Meridian in August took longer than the contractually guaranteed 13-hour transit, resulting in a 10% decline in volume as shippers such as FedEx and UPS trucked shipments to avoid the delays. CPKC on Wednesday called the NS complaint a “self-serving narrative” without merit. “There was infrastructure built for 8,500-foot trains, but our predecessors at [Kansas City Southern] allowed NS to run long trains,” CPKC CEO Keith Creel said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “That’s what we stopped, and that’s what NS and UP do not like.” UP CEO Jim Vena told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference on Oct. 1 that he was unhappy with the restrictions implemented by CPKC. “We started running two trains because we’re not leaving the customer traffic behind,” Vena said at the conference. “[CPKC was] delaying both trains. The amount of delay on the first train was excessive and then our second train sat around for 12, 16, 24 hours at times.” But Creel argued that Meridian’s rail siding — akin to a shoulder on a highway — was not built to handle the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains routinely delivered by UP and NS. When two trains need to use the same track, the CPKC train is the one parked on the siding because it’s the only one that fits. “Our trains are taking over an 11-hour delay per day to accommodate a longer train. It doesn’t make any sense,” Creel said on the CPKC call. “I’m not going to subsidize NS’ operation, nor am I going to subsidize UP’s operation for their operational synergies at the cost of my service to my customers. I have a responsibility to protect my customers as well. [Meridian is] built to run 8,500-foot trains. That’s what we’re going to do.” CPKC and NS have reached a temporary truce allowing one long eastbound train per day through mid-November, when a new CPKC crew will be added and restrictions return to 8,500 feet. NS agreed to compensate CPKC for delays to its trains. The STB is closed during the government shutdown, preventing any action on the dispute. CPKC again attacks UP-NS transaction Creel on Wednesday also elaborated on why CPKC opposes the UP-NS merger, urging the STB not to rush the regulatory process. “I know there’s an echo chamber. I read it, I hear it, I sense it,” Creel said. “I know there’s a lot of invested investors that perhaps want this to be a layup. This is not a layup.” He cautioned that UP must clear a high hurdle to get approval, calling it “a hurdle not even remotely close to being the same” as the lower one applied when Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern in 2023. Creel said the STB also remembers how UP suffered significant service failures four years ago, and if the deal was approved, UP-NS would control more than 40% of US rail traffic. Creel rejected the idea that the concerns of CPKC, a Canada-based company, will fall on deaf ears in Washington. “One-third of our employees live, work and are taxpaying [citizens] in the United States ... we are undeniably wrapped in the American flag,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal savings rose in Q3, but might not yield high rates in ‘26

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

J.B. Hunt’s East Coast strategy is shifting as rail alliances realign

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

Recent Commentary

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Top 5 Most Read Stories