<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cosco’s transaction is a charter deal with New York-listed, Greece-based Costamare Inc. for 16 container ships — a dozen 9,300-TEU vessels and four 3,100-TEU ships. </div>

Cosco’s transaction is a charter deal with New York-listed, Greece-based Costamare Inc. for 16 container ships — a dozen 9,300-TEU vessels and four 3,100-TEU ships.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Chinese container ship operators Cosco Shipping and China United Lines (CU Lines) are expanding their fleets with separate deals for 20 new vessels to be delivered between 2027 and 2030. Cosco’s transaction is a charter deal with New York-listed, Greece-based Costamare Inc. for 16 container ships — a dozen 9,300-TEU vessels and four 3,100-TEU ships. The deal adds to the 30 ships worth almost $5 billion <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-inks-almost-27-billion-in-deals-for-18-newbuild-container-ships-6152035">that Cosco</a> and its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/oocl-orders-its-first-lng-fueled-ships-with-2-billion-deal-for-12-vessels-6212244">Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL</a> have ordered since the beginning of this year. The 9,200-TEU ships will be delivered to Cosco between the third quarter of 2028 and the second quarter of 2030 when they will be deployed on 15-year charters. They will likely sail on Asia–US West Coast or Asia–Latin America services based on the current deployment of similarly sized vessels. Cosco has made the Latin America trade one of its key growth sectors. Construction of the ships falls under a $1.3 billion order Costamare placed with Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. (DSIC), part of state-owned shipyard giant China CSSC Holdings. The smaller ships will be chartered to Cosco for eight years upon delivery between the fourth quarter of 2027 and fourth quarter of 2028. They will likely operate on intra-Asia trades including longer-haul routes to India. No details were provided about the shipyard contracted to build the smaller ships. Neither Costamare nor Cosco said whether the ships will be dual-fuel or conventionally powered, although Cosco and OOCL have favored dual-fuel LNG vessels in their deals this year. Separately, Shanghai-headquartered carrier CU Lines said it has ordered four 6,400-TEU container ships from China’s CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding at a total cost of $300 million. Two of the conventionally fueled ships will be delivered in 2029 and two in 2030. No details of their likely deployment have been released, although given that the ships will have 1,150-TEU reefer plugs, they would be suited to the perishables trade on the carrier’s Asia–India and Middle East services. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Chinese container ship operators Cosco Shipping and China United Lines (CU Lines) are expanding their fleets with separate deals for 20 new vessels to be delivered between 2027 and 2030. Cosco’s transaction is a charter deal with New York-listed, Greece-based Costamare Inc. for 16 container ships — a dozen 9,300-TEU vessels and four 3,100-TEU ships. The deal adds to the 30 ships worth almost $5 billion that Cosco and its Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL have ordered since the beginning of this year. The 9,200-TEU ships will be delivered to Cosco between the third quarter of 2028 and the second quarter of 2030 when they will be deployed on 15-year charters. They will likely sail on Asia–US West Coast or Asia–Latin America services based on the current deployment of similarly sized vessels. Cosco has made the Latin America trade one of its key growth sectors. Construction of the ships falls under a $1.3 billion order Costamare placed with Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. (DSIC), part of state-owned shipyard giant China CSSC Holdings. The smaller ships will be chartered to Cosco for eight years upon delivery between the fourth quarter of 2027 and fourth quarter of 2028. They will likely operate on intra-Asia trades including longer-haul routes to India. No details were provided about the shipyard contracted to build the smaller ships. Neither Costamare nor Cosco said whether the ships will be dual-fuel or conventionally powered, although Cosco and OOCL have favored dual-fuel LNG vessels in their deals this year. Separately, Shanghai-headquartered carrier CU Lines said it has ordered four 6,400-TEU container ships from China’s CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipbuilding at a total cost of $300 million. Two of the conventionally fueled ships will be delivered in 2029 and two in 2030. No details of their likely deployment have been released, although given that the ships will have 1,150-TEU reefer plugs, they would be suited to the perishables trade on the carrier’s Asia–India and Middle East services. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Cosco Shipping, CU Lines expand fleets with 20 new container ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Global cargo capacity has largely recovered to pre-shock levels, while international routes have yet to be seriously affected by jet fuel shortages, according to Xeneta.</div>

Global cargo capacity has largely recovered to pre-shock levels, while international routes have yet to be seriously affected by jet fuel shortages, according to Xeneta.

<div class="phx-topic">Air cargo markets are adjusting to the disruption caused by the war in the Middle East as capacity returns and supply-demand fundamentals are driven by seasonality and early May holidays rather than conflict-related factors, analysts say. Flower exports from countries such as Colombia and Ecuador shipped to the US and Canada ahead of Mother’s Day on May 10 saw tonnage from Central and South America rising 19% in the last week of April compared to the previous week, according to the latest weekly figures from air freight analyst WorldACD Market Data. Asia-Pacific tonnage in the last week of April rose 3% sequentially, boosted by shipments ahead of May 1 Labor Day holidays in China that extend across several days. “The worst may be behind us,” Niall van de Wouw, chief air freight officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said of the war-related disruption as rate increases showed signs of easing, even on corridors most impacted by the Middle East conflict. “This is all logical because the spike in air freight rates was driven by a supply issue from the start,” van de Wouw said in an April market update this week. “Now capacity is coming back, (and) rates will come down, but not as quickly as they went up. “The big question is what will be left in terms of demand after all the inflationary pressure, all the uncertainty, and all the tremendous increases in fuel and production costs ease?,” he added. “What will it mean for Q3 and Q4 because everything that has happened in the last few weeks was against a backdrop of a not-too-rosy outlook for 2026?” For now, the Middle East war continues to drive pricing. Global air cargo spot rates surged 30% year over year in April to $3.34 per kilogram, the highest level since October 2022, according to Xeneta. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1f8878b6-9e77-46fc-bdf5-c1982da8007e"></dynamic-object></div>Data from the last week of April by WorldACD showed significant year over year rate increases on several trade lanes. Routes out of the Middle East and South Asia saw average rates up 65% compared to the same week last year at $4.65 per kilogram. Rates out of North America rose 60% to $2.65/kg, and jumped 41% out of Asia-Pacific at $5.11/kg. Meanwhile, rates were up 40% out of Africa at $2.86/kg and up 32% out of Europe at $2.87/kg. Freightos pegged China to Europe rates at $5.30/kg as of May 3, up 4.5% on the week and 52% higher year over year. While WorldACD also noted that rates were rising at a slower pace than in the initial weeks after the Feb. 28 start of the war in the Middle East, “the closure again of the Strait of Hormuz, further increases in fuel prices, and no end in sight to the confrontation mean we may expect continuing high air cargo spot rates and further increases in the coming weeks linked to the costs and availability of jet fuel.” <h3>Carriers can’t absorb fuel cost burden </h3>Jet fuel prices surged through March and April, hitting their highest point in 23 years, with reduced petroleum shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and refinery constraints tightening global aviation fuel availability, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “All eyes are on fuel supply and price, which are expected to test the industry’s resilience in the coming months,” Willie Walsh, IATA’s director-general, said in the association’s April market update. Van de Wouw said the margins between crude oil and refined jet fuel have now exceeded the peaks recorded during the pandemic, adding a cost burden that carriers cannot easily absorb or ignore. Still, the stabilizing of air freight markets as capacity returns will be welcomed by shippers that have been postponing Q3 and Q4 tenders with freight forwarders while waiting for the market to normalize, van de Wouw said. “Global cargo capacity has largely recovered to pre-shock levels, and the jet fuel shortage, though reportedly spreading, has yet to grip long-haul intercontinental routes at scale,” he said. “If those conditions hold, spot rates should ease in the weeks ahead and deliver some reprieve for shippers who have grown accustomed to unwelcome surprises.” Also cautiously optimistic was IATA’s Walsh. “The underlying demand trends, at this point, appear strong, and the recent World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund revisions to trade and GDP projections continue to see growth in 2026,” he said. “Importantly, air cargo networks are providing the flexibility needed to support global supply chains as they adjust to geopolitical, tariff and operational strains,” Walsh added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air cargo markets are adjusting to the disruption caused by the war in the Middle East as capacity returns and supply-demand fundamentals are driven by seasonality and early May holidays rather than conflict-related factors, analysts say. Flower exports from countries such as Colombia and Ecuador shipped to the US and Canada ahead of Mother’s Day on May 10 saw tonnage from Central and South America rising 19% in the last week of April compared to the previous week, according to the latest weekly figures from air freight analyst WorldACD Market Data. Asia-Pacific tonnage in the last week of April rose 3% sequentially, boosted by shipments ahead of May 1 Labor Day holidays in China that extend across several days. “The worst may be behind us,” Niall van de Wouw, chief air freight officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said of the war-related disruption as rate increases showed signs of easing, even on corridors most impacted by the Middle East conflict. “This is all logical because the spike in air freight rates was driven by a supply issue from the start,” van de Wouw said in an April market update this week. “Now capacity is coming back, (and) rates will come down, but not as quickly as they went up. “The big question is what will be left in terms of demand after all the inflationary pressure, all the uncertainty, and all the tremendous increases in fuel and production costs ease?,” he added. “What will it mean for Q3 and Q4 because everything that has happened in the last few weeks was against a backdrop of a not-too-rosy outlook for 2026?” For now, the Middle East war continues to drive pricing. Global air cargo spot rates surged 30% year over year in April to $3.34 per kilogram, the highest level since October 2022, according to Xeneta. Data from the last week of April by WorldACD showed significant year over year rate increases on several trade lanes. Routes out of the Middle East and South Asia saw average rates up 65% compared to the same week last year at $4.65 per kilogram. Rates out of North America rose 60% to $2.65/kg, and jumped 41% out of Asia-Pacific at $5.11/kg. Meanwhile, rates were up 40% out of Africa at $2.86/kg and up 32% out of Europe at $2.87/kg. Freightos pegged China to Europe rates at $5.30/kg as of May 3, up 4.5% on the week and 52% higher year over year. While WorldACD also noted that rates were rising at a slower pace than in the initial weeks after the Feb. 28 start of the war in the Middle East, “the closure again of the Strait of Hormuz, further increases in fuel prices, and no end in sight to the confrontation mean we may expect continuing high air cargo spot rates and further increases in the coming weeks linked to the costs and availability of jet fuel.” Carriers can’t absorb fuel cost burden Jet fuel prices surged through March and April, hitting their highest point in 23 years, with reduced petroleum shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and refinery constraints tightening global aviation fuel availability, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “All eyes are on fuel supply and price, which are expected to test the industry’s resilience in the coming months,” Willie Walsh, IATA’s director-general, said in the association’s April market update. Van de Wouw said the margins between crude oil and refined jet fuel have now exceeded the peaks recorded during the pandemic, adding a cost burden that carriers cannot easily absorb or ignore. Still, the stabilizing of air freight markets as capacity returns will be welcomed by shippers that have been postponing Q3 and Q4 tenders with freight forwarders while waiting for the market to normalize, van de Wouw said. “Global cargo capacity has largely recovered to pre-shock levels, and the jet fuel shortage, though reportedly spreading, has yet to grip long-haul intercontinental routes at scale,” he said. “If those conditions hold, spot rates should ease in the weeks ahead and deliver some reprieve for shippers who have grown accustomed to unwelcome surprises.” Also cautiously optimistic was IATA’s Walsh. “The underlying demand trends, at this point, appear strong, and the recent World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund revisions to trade and GDP projections continue to see growth in 2026,” he said. “Importantly, air cargo networks are providing the flexibility needed to support global supply chains as they adjust to geopolitical, tariff and operational strains,” Walsh added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Air freight supply-demand factors adjust to war-disrupted market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Georgia Ports Authority will fund and initiate its own study for dredging and widening its ship channel and harbor as the US Army Corps of Engineers may lack the funds in 2027. </div>

The Georgia Ports Authority will fund and initiate its own study for dredging and widening its ship channel and harbor as the US Army Corps of Engineers may lack the funds in 2027.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Savannah wants to prepare for handling ultra-large container ships by funding its own study on deepening and widening its harbor, sidestepping regular federal funding in hopes of speedier approval for the project. The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) said in a statement it submitted a letter of intent to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to formally begin a study on deepening and widening Savannah Harbor, which is currently at a federally authorized depth of 49 feet along its ship channel while its inner harbor is at a 47-foot depth. The inner harbor and channel span widths between 500 feet and 600 feet. The GPA is doing the study under a section of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act that allows non-federal agencies to fully fund their own studies without the USACE, which typically pays half of the funding of any study. The Savannah study still has to be reviewed by the USACE before the project receives approval. There was no timeline given for when the study would be completed; the USACE has 180 days for review once the study has been received. The GPA said it was undertaking the study “as a way to accelerate dredging timelines and save taxpayer funds.” The study will determine the appropriate depth for the Savannah Harbor and the entrance to its river “to better serve the largest ships currently serving Savannah, and to prepare for even larger, more efficient vessels expected to serve the US East Coast in the future,” the GPA said, adding that it’s also considering passing lanes for two-way ship traffic. <h3>Problems will be ‘exacerbated’ without harbor deepening </h3>The Savannah Harbor study is authorized under USACE’s 2026 investigations, with a total estimated cost of $3 million. The 2026 USACE budget has set aside $500,000 for its share of the project this year. But due to the Trump administration’s cuts to the agency’s budget, the USACE only expects to receive $80,000 for the study in 2027. The USACE said in its 2026 investigations workplan that the deepening was needed because the last deepening completed in March 2022 was designed for 8,200-TEU vessels calling Savannah, “whereas vessels of 14,000 to 16,000 TEU regularly call on the port, and even larger vessels, 20,000 TEU or more, exist in the global fleet and could call in the future.” “Light loading and tidal delays are expected to increase as throughput increases,” the USACE said. “Existing vessels experience problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor, which will be exacerbated as vessel size continues to increase.” While 2026 and 2027 could be flat-to-down years for Savannah’s volumes, the GPA released a forecast at the Georgia International Trade Conference last week indicating it expects cargo volumes to reach 8.8 million TEUs in 2036, marking roughly 4% average annual growth from 2025. Savannah is preparing for the growth with new terminal infrastructure, including expanding container handling at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gpa-names-next-ceo-as-savannah-readies-for-new-growth-phase-6167449">its under-utilized Ocean Terminal</a> as well as building an entirely new facility, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/more-carrier-controlled-terminal-operations-could-be-coming-to-the-east-coast-6207482">the Savannah Container Terminal</a>. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Port of Savannah wants to prepare for handling ultra-large container ships by funding its own study on deepening and widening its harbor, sidestepping regular federal funding in hopes of speedier approval for the project. The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) said in a statement it submitted a letter of intent to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to formally begin a study on deepening and widening Savannah Harbor, which is currently at a federally authorized depth of 49 feet along its ship channel while its inner harbor is at a 47-foot depth. The inner harbor and channel span widths between 500 feet and 600 feet. The GPA is doing the study under a section of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act that allows non-federal agencies to fully fund their own studies without the USACE, which typically pays half of the funding of any study. The Savannah study still has to be reviewed by the USACE before the project receives approval. There was no timeline given for when the study would be completed; the USACE has 180 days for review once the study has been received. The GPA said it was undertaking the study “as a way to accelerate dredging timelines and save taxpayer funds.” The study will determine the appropriate depth for the Savannah Harbor and the entrance to its river “to better serve the largest ships currently serving Savannah, and to prepare for even larger, more efficient vessels expected to serve the US East Coast in the future,” the GPA said, adding that it’s also considering passing lanes for two-way ship traffic. Problems will be ‘exacerbated’ without harbor deepening The Savannah Harbor study is authorized under USACE’s 2026 investigations, with a total estimated cost of $3 million. The 2026 USACE budget has set aside $500,000 for its share of the project this year. But due to the Trump administration’s cuts to the agency’s budget, the USACE only expects to receive $80,000 for the study in 2027. The USACE said in its 2026 investigations workplan that the deepening was needed because the last deepening completed in March 2022 was designed for 8,200-TEU vessels calling Savannah, “whereas vessels of 14,000 to 16,000 TEU regularly call on the port, and even larger vessels, 20,000 TEU or more, exist in the global fleet and could call in the future.” “Light loading and tidal delays are expected to increase as throughput increases,” the USACE said. “Existing vessels experience problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor, which will be exacerbated as vessel size continues to increase.” While 2026 and 2027 could be flat-to-down years for Savannah’s volumes, the GPA released a forecast at the Georgia International Trade Conference last week indicating it expects cargo volumes to reach 8.8 million TEUs in 2036, marking roughly 4% average annual growth from 2025. Savannah is preparing for the growth with new terminal infrastructure, including expanding container handling at its under-utilized Ocean Terminal as well as building an entirely new facility, the Savannah Container Terminal . Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Savannah to fund its own study on readying port for big ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US shippers of oversized cargo are being buoyed by positivity and strong demand in the Americas, but are struggling with capacity challenges and the uncertain geopolitical backdrop. </div>

US shippers of oversized cargo are being buoyed by positivity and strong demand in the Americas, but are struggling with capacity challenges and the uncertain geopolitical backdrop.

<div class="phx-topic">Caught between the volatile Middle East and the domestic promise of the Americas, sentiment among breakbulk and project cargo shippers has shifted from "how do we survive?" to "how do we scale?" In conversations at the Journal of Commerce’s recent Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026 in New Orleans, a cautious, localized, and almost defiant optimism prevailed among shippers of out-of-gauge cargoes. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6214892_0.1.jpg"></img></div>With the shifting geopolitical landscape, the Americas — specifically Venezuela and Guyana — are poised to play a dominant role in pivoting from Middle Eastern energy dependence. "Countries within the Americas probably will play a more important role in the upcoming years, and oil and gas is one of the key aspects," one shipper speaking to the Journal of Commerce noted. That regional focus is driving a "bullish" outlook for many shippers, despite a backdrop of global instability. Between chip plant expansions in Phoenix and a growing rail network with Mexico, the shipper said the sheer volume of activity is staggering. However, a pinch in transportation capacity could scupper the project refocus before it finds its feet, another shipper said. The source expressed “deep concerns over rail capacity and the availability of specialized equipment,” with the energy sector already struggling. Companies are now being forced into long-term barge and rail car leases — a move once considered unnecessary — while the heavy-haul market is facing a similar squeeze, forcing companies to award contracts two years in advance rather than the traditional six months. <h3>Shift in workforce demographics </h3>Another pervasive theme on shippers’ minds at the Breakbulk26 was the scarcity of "institutional knowledge." One shipper said the industry is facing a "silver tsunami" of retirements, and that the gap between veteran experience and the incoming Gen Z workforce is widening. Shippers criticized the "cubicle culture" where employees understand their specific niche but lack the holistic "chief cook and bottle washer" mentality of previous generations. "There's a real disconnect between that guy sitting in a cubicle and what a dock looks like," another shipper said, emphasizing that hands-on experience is becoming the industry's most valuable currency. While technology and AI were noted as tools for efficiency, including digital twins and autonomous trucks, shippers speaking to the Journal of Commerce agreed that logistics remains a relationship business. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a brutal but effective marketing campaign for the sector. As one industry veteran said: "Every single person now knows what supply chain is... [COVID] created for all of us a huge opportunity to be able to say what we do is important." Another source urged the industry to showcase that project cargo isn’t just a job, but an international career of choice. “The cargo is coming, the projects are funded, and the Americas are ready, but can we train the next generation fast enough to catch the wave?,” the source wondered. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Caught between the volatile Middle East and the domestic promise of the Americas, sentiment among breakbulk and project cargo shippers has shifted from "how do we survive?" to "how do we scale?" In conversations at the Journal of Commerce’s recent Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026 in New Orleans, a cautious, localized, and almost defiant optimism prevailed among shippers of out-of-gauge cargoes. With the shifting geopolitical landscape, the Americas — specifically Venezuela and Guyana — are poised to play a dominant role in pivoting from Middle Eastern energy dependence. "Countries within the Americas probably will play a more important role in the upcoming years, and oil and gas is one of the key aspects," one shipper speaking to the Journal of Commerce noted. That regional focus is driving a "bullish" outlook for many shippers, despite a backdrop of global instability. Between chip plant expansions in Phoenix and a growing rail network with Mexico, the shipper said the sheer volume of activity is staggering. However, a pinch in transportation capacity could scupper the project refocus before it finds its feet, another shipper said. The source expressed “deep concerns over rail capacity and the availability of specialized equipment,” with the energy sector already struggling. Companies are now being forced into long-term barge and rail car leases — a move once considered unnecessary — while the heavy-haul market is facing a similar squeeze, forcing companies to award contracts two years in advance rather than the traditional six months. Shift in workforce demographics Another pervasive theme on shippers’ minds at the Breakbulk26 was the scarcity of "institutional knowledge." One shipper said the industry is facing a "silver tsunami" of retirements, and that the gap between veteran experience and the incoming Gen Z workforce is widening. Shippers criticized the "cubicle culture" where employees understand their specific niche but lack the holistic "chief cook and bottle washer" mentality of previous generations. "There's a real disconnect between that guy sitting in a cubicle and what a dock looks like," another shipper said, emphasizing that hands-on experience is becoming the industry's most valuable currency. While technology and AI were noted as tools for efficiency, including digital twins and autonomous trucks, shippers speaking to the Journal of Commerce agreed that logistics remains a relationship business. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a brutal but effective marketing campaign for the sector. As one industry veteran said: "Every single person now knows what supply chain is... [COVID] created for all of us a huge opportunity to be able to say what we do is important." Another source urged the industry to showcase that project cargo isn’t just a job, but an international career of choice. “The cargo is coming, the projects are funded, and the Americas are ready, but can we train the next generation fast enough to catch the wave?,” the source wondered. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Project cargo

Resilience, relationships still trump technology in project cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A long-term decline in US forest product production is being accelerated by the increasing use of composite materials that require less wood and trade policy complications abroad. </div>

A long-term decline in US forest product production is being accelerated by the increasing use of composite materials that require less wood and trade policy complications abroad.

<div class="phx-topic">(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine published on May 4, 2026.) Stagnant home sales, increased demand for composite materials, and trade policy uncertainty are extending a multiyear decline in US paper and forest product exports, according to manufacturers and forwarders in the sector. Industrial production of wood products decreased 2.9% year over year in February 2026, while capacity utilization dropped 4.2% over the same period, according to the US Federal Reserve. Capacity utilization has plunged 30% since the base year of 2017 as the sector struggles to survive. With housing supply exceeding demand in certain US regions and alternative materials taking share from traditional wood used in flooring, furniture and home construction, several producers of paper and forest products reduced production, shuttered sawmills or sold their businesses last year. As a result, outbound containerized shipments of those products plummeted 12% year over year in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Export volumes have dropped at a compound annual rate of 7.3% in the last five years, with total shipments down nearly one-third from 2020 levels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="bfd65c6e-9bdb-43b6-8c61-23fd06e7f420"></dynamic-object></div>Canfor, a large paper and forest product manufacturer, has closed nine sawmills in the last three years, including two last year. “[We] continue to be impacted by weak global pulp and paper markets with ongoing trade disputes and broader economic uncertainty contributing to elevated inventory levels and weak pricing through much of 2025 and continuing into 2026,” CEO Stephen MacKie said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call March 6. Lumber producer Interfor shut down two sawmills in the US last year amid what it described as “historically weak” lumber prices. “Repair and remodel, largely influenced by home purchases, is expected to remain relatively flat,” Bart Bender, Interfor’s senior vice president of sales, said during a Feb. 13 earnings call. “Turning to supply, we’re seeing the impact of production curtailments across the industry. Some are formally announced, many are not.” Like its competitors, West Fraser closed two sawmills last year and reported operating losses in the fourth quarter for North American paper, pulp and forest products. “Since 2022, we have removed over 1.1 billion board feet of capacity through mill closures and permanent shift reductions, representing a 16% decrease in the company's lumber operating capacity,” CEO Sean McLaren told analysts during West Fraser’s Feb. 13 earnings call. “We’ve also reduced the number of shifts or hours of operations at various lumber mills as a means to manage cost.” <h3>Popular alternatives </h3>Although demand for flooring and furniture has not disappeared, a shift toward composite materials that require less wood is accelerating the decline in forest product production and, in turn, exports. “Composites have been eating the lumber industry’s lunch for the last half-decade,” Stephen Zambo, CEO of the AGL Group, a freight forwarder specializing in paper and forest products, told the Journal of Commerce. “The products are no longer fully made out of lumber; it’s maybe 20% of the item now instead of 100%.” Engineered materials, plastics, and other substitutes are replacing traditional hardwood components in the US and abroad. Zambo said the shift is evident at major industry trade shows, where exhibit booths displaying hardwood have been displaced by engineered and synthetic products. “Hardwood is turning into a luxury product,” he said. “A lot of companies are either getting bought or just shutting down because the margins aren’t worth the capital.” Increasing regulatory requirements in major markets abroad are adding further pressure on exports, according to the American Forest &amp; Paper Association (AF&amp;PA). For example, the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), enforcement of which is scheduled to begin at the end of 2026, “continues to represent a technical barrier to trade for US forest products into the EU, with many compliance uncertainties unaddressed,” AF&amp;PA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “These evolving trade policy initiatives, alongside freight and vessel availability, and port and inland logistics constraints, shape export flows and planning decisions,” the group added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="28c8a7e4-fba3-43c3-855f-8d3e2953746e"></dynamic-object></div>Zambo said the imposition of 125% reciprocal tariffs on US lumber by China, formerly the largest export destination by a wide margin, didn’t put too big of a dent in overall volumes, but it has shifted a large portion of those shipments to Vietnam. Indeed, Vietnam became the largest consumer of US paper and forest last year, accounting for 15.8% of exports, up from 6.2% in 2024, while mainland China’s share tumbled to 15.6% from 29%, according to PIERS. “What we’re seeing now is logs going over to Vietnam, being sawn into lumber, and then sent into other markets like China,” Zambo said. “China is consuming the same amount. It’s just not coming directly from the US anymore.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine published on May 4, 2026.) Stagnant home sales, increased demand for composite materials, and trade policy uncertainty are extending a multiyear decline in US paper and forest product exports, according to manufacturers and forwarders in the sector. Industrial production of wood products decreased 2.9% year over year in February 2026, while capacity utilization dropped 4.2% over the same period, according to the US Federal Reserve. Capacity utilization has plunged 30% since the base year of 2017 as the sector struggles to survive. With housing supply exceeding demand in certain US regions and alternative materials taking share from traditional wood used in flooring, furniture and home construction, several producers of paper and forest products reduced production, shuttered sawmills or sold their businesses last year. As a result, outbound containerized shipments of those products plummeted 12% year over year in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Export volumes have dropped at a compound annual rate of 7.3% in the last five years, with total shipments down nearly one-third from 2020 levels. Canfor, a large paper and forest product manufacturer, has closed nine sawmills in the last three years, including two last year. “[We] continue to be impacted by weak global pulp and paper markets with ongoing trade disputes and broader economic uncertainty contributing to elevated inventory levels and weak pricing through much of 2025 and continuing into 2026,” CEO Stephen MacKie said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call March 6. Lumber producer Interfor shut down two sawmills in the US last year amid what it described as “historically weak” lumber prices. “Repair and remodel, largely influenced by home purchases, is expected to remain relatively flat,” Bart Bender, Interfor’s senior vice president of sales, said during a Feb. 13 earnings call. “Turning to supply, we’re seeing the impact of production curtailments across the industry. Some are formally announced, many are not.” Like its competitors, West Fraser closed two sawmills last year and reported operating losses in the fourth quarter for North American paper, pulp and forest products. “Since 2022, we have removed over 1.1 billion board feet of capacity through mill closures and permanent shift reductions, representing a 16% decrease in the company's lumber operating capacity,” CEO Sean McLaren told analysts during West Fraser’s Feb. 13 earnings call. “We’ve also reduced the number of shifts or hours of operations at various lumber mills as a means to manage cost.” Popular alternatives Although demand for flooring and furniture has not disappeared, a shift toward composite materials that require less wood is accelerating the decline in forest product production and, in turn, exports. “Composites have been eating the lumber industry’s lunch for the last half-decade,” Stephen Zambo, CEO of the AGL Group, a freight forwarder specializing in paper and forest products, told the Journal of Commerce. “The products are no longer fully made out of lumber; it’s maybe 20% of the item now instead of 100%.” Engineered materials, plastics, and other substitutes are replacing traditional hardwood components in the US and abroad. Zambo said the shift is evident at major industry trade shows, where exhibit booths displaying hardwood have been displaced by engineered and synthetic products. “Hardwood is turning into a luxury product,” he said. “A lot of companies are either getting bought or just shutting down because the margins aren’t worth the capital.” Increasing regulatory requirements in major markets abroad are adding further pressure on exports, according to the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). For example, the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), enforcement of which is scheduled to begin at the end of 2026, “continues to represent a technical barrier to trade for US forest products into the EU, with many compliance uncertainties unaddressed,” AF&PA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “These evolving trade policy initiatives, alongside freight and vessel availability, and port and inland logistics constraints, shape export flows and planning decisions,” the group added. Zambo said the imposition of 125% reciprocal tariffs on US lumber by China, formerly the largest export destination by a wide margin, didn’t put too big of a dent in overall volumes, but it has shifted a large portion of those shipments to Vietnam. Indeed, Vietnam became the largest consumer of US paper and forest last year, accounting for 15.8% of exports, up from 6.2% in 2024, while mainland China’s share tumbled to 15.6% from 29%, according to PIERS. “What we’re seeing now is logs going over to Vietnam, being sawn into lumber, and then sent into other markets like China,” Zambo said. “China is consuming the same amount. It’s just not coming directly from the US anymore.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Trans-Pacific

Supply chain

Structural demand shifts pulverizing US forest exports

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

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

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

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

Trucking News

Rail News

Intermodal providers

Surface

Rising fuel costs forcing US truck shippers to shift freight

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

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

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

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

Marine terminals

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.</div>

The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. <h3>Trade and tariffs </h3>The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. <h3>Law of the sea </h3>With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). <h3>IMO net-zero </h3>The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponement of adoption</a>. Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. Trade and tariffs The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. Law of the sea With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). IMO net-zero The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the postponement of adoption . Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

Index

The index for each vessel type is produced from two variables: the number of those vessels chartered compared to the previous month, and the lead time to charter those vessels compared to the previous month. If fewer vessels are chartered than in the previous month, this implies more capacity may be available. If the lead time needed to charter vessels is shorter than the previous month, this implies capacity is more quickly available. Both these scenarios imply a more positive market position from the shipper’s perspective. A rising index line indicates a more positive market position due to the availability of capacity. The start point of 100 denotes the point that accurate results began. The trend is taken from this position (February 2025) and shows movement in capacity compared to this point. The individual indices of the five major vessel types are weighted and consolidated to produce. The data is collected by the Journal of Commerce Breakbulk Shipper Group

Breakbulk ship capacity indicator (JOC) 

JOC Breakbulk and Project Cargo Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.</div>

Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.

<div class="phx-topic">Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-imposes-emergency-fuel-surcharges-on-third-party-feeder-cargo-6207629">due to the war in the Middle East</a> and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-handling-of-fuel-surcharges-agitates-small-midsize-trans-pac-shippers-6208047">emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause</a> that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” <h3>Contract extensions not a big issue </h3>In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7f641553-97ec-4014-8e54-fef6408538d9"></dynamic-object></div>But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. <h3>Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs </h3>As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.</div>

Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel due to the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” Contract extensions not a big issue In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.

Forwarding

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing. </div>

The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing</a>. “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. <h3>Growing pressure to tighten standards </h3>Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/court-to-consider-whether-freight-brokers-can-be-held-liable-for-negligent-hiring/">legal liability</a> brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">Recent media coverage</a> about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing . “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. Growing pressure to tighten standards Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of legal liability brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. Recent media coverage about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truckload

Truck brokers

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs. </div>

New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. <h3>Scrutinizing transshipment </h3>The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. Scrutinizing transshipment The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.</div>

The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.

<div class="phx-topic">Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/upgrade-boosts-nynjs-pnct-terminal-capacity-5224445">$600 million investment</a> that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">adding two ultra-large ship cranes</a>. By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/newark-port-project-to-give-mscs-terminal-more-room-to-grow-5703152">the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation</a> of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. <h3>Will add on-dock rail yard </h3>Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a $600 million investment that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and adding two ultra-large ship cranes . By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. Will add on-dock rail yard Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

NY-NJ’s Port Newark terminal takes first steps in next big expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cosco Shipping, CU Lines expand fleets with 20 new container ships

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

Recent Commentary

Canada must get serious about trade diversification

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

Top 5 Most Read Stories