image.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Anonymous

Events

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Supply chain

Resources

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

Custom Content

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Those factors will lift volumes, but true organic expansion depends on a recovery in the truckload market. </div>

Those factors will lift volumes, but true organic expansion depends on a recovery in the truckload market.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6135205_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The big picture: The defining storyline of 2026 for North American intermodal rail will be how federal regulators respond to the proposed merger of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). The deal has already pushed competing railroads to launch new intermodal lanes and accelerate transit times, ripple effects that could set the stage for measurable volume gains, even without a spike in demand. A look back: The proposed $85 billion UP-NS transaction would create the first single-line transcontinental US railroad. And before regulators even had a chance to assess the potential competitive effects of the deal, the July 29 announcement triggered similar moves from the other US Class I railroads. Just three weeks later, BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation unveiled new “coast-to-coast” long-haul lanes — including Los Angeles–Charlotte, N. C.; Los Angeles–Jacksonville, Fla.; and Phoenix–Atlanta — along with faster transit times on nine additional routes between Los Angeles and the Ohio Valley and US Northeast. The UP-NS deal also resulted in a leadership shakeup at CSX, where the board fired CEO Joe Hinrichs amid pressure from an activist investor who demanded the eastern railroad pursue its own merger with BNSF, Canadian National Railway or Canadian Pacific Kansas City. UP and NS launched their first joint intermodal service, a route that connects the US West Coast, Mexico and Texas with Louisville, in October. During contract bid season, UP captured meaningful market share from its West Coast competitor, BNSF, boosting volumes for Hub Group and Schneider National and dragging J.B. Hunt’s shipment counts lower. It was a year of posturing, positioning and railroads racing not to be left behind. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="61898d91-8751-4681-a545-1f386dd7ac78"></dynamic-object></div>A look ahead: Domestic intermodal could see further growth this year — total 53-foot volumes rose 3.5% year over year through October, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) — thanks to the new lanes and improved transit times railroads introduced in 2025, rather than a macroeconomic catalyst driving demand. Most shippers that spoke with the Journal of Commerce believe rates in early first-quarter intermodal contracts will be mostly flat compared with the previous year, with some increases on outbound lanes from the West Coast, particularly Southern California. After losing market share to its competitors, J.B. Hunt could become more aggressive in its pricing, especially during peak season. And as J.B. Hunt shifts freight onto BNSF-CSX joint services, Hub Group and Swift Intermodal will compete for new slots on NS trains. Additional BNSF-CSX single-line opportunities to the Northeast will become available when double-stacking service through Baltimore begins in the spring. If this prompts J.B. Hunt to shift more of its volumes to CSX, it will create even more opportunities for Hub Group and Swift. The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) likely won’t issue its final decision on the UP-NS transaction until 2027, but one former board member thinks regulators are “leaning more toward approval.” Citing President Donald Trump’s influence and the political alignment of the current board — with a third Republican pending Senate confirmation and just one Democrat — Daniel Elliott III, who served two nonconsecutive terms as STB chairman between 2009 and 2017, said it will be “very difficult” for members to vote against the merger if the administration continues to support it publicly. The next inflection: New lanes and faster service will lift volumes, but true organic expansion depends on a recovery in the truckload market. Some shippers only increase their use of intermodal rail when they are struggling to secure over-the-road capacity, which remains abundant. Until US manufacturing output and other major sources of surface freight like new home construction improve and truckload capacity tightens, intermodal volumes and rates will grow only modestly. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook. The big picture: The defining storyline of 2026 for North American intermodal rail will be how federal regulators respond to the proposed merger of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). The deal has already pushed competing railroads to launch new intermodal lanes and accelerate transit times, ripple effects that could set the stage for measurable volume gains, even without a spike in demand. A look back: The proposed $85 billion UP-NS transaction would create the first single-line transcontinental US railroad. And before regulators even had a chance to assess the potential competitive effects of the deal, the July 29 announcement triggered similar moves from the other US Class I railroads. Just three weeks later, BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation unveiled new “coast-to-coast” long-haul lanes — including Los Angeles–Charlotte, N. C.; Los Angeles–Jacksonville, Fla.; and Phoenix–Atlanta — along with faster transit times on nine additional routes between Los Angeles and the Ohio Valley and US Northeast. The UP-NS deal also resulted in a leadership shakeup at CSX, where the board fired CEO Joe Hinrichs amid pressure from an activist investor who demanded the eastern railroad pursue its own merger with BNSF, Canadian National Railway or Canadian Pacific Kansas City. UP and NS launched their first joint intermodal service, a route that connects the US West Coast, Mexico and Texas with Louisville, in October. During contract bid season, UP captured meaningful market share from its West Coast competitor, BNSF, boosting volumes for Hub Group and Schneider National and dragging J.B. Hunt’s shipment counts lower. It was a year of posturing, positioning and railroads racing not to be left behind. A look ahead: Domestic intermodal could see further growth this year — total 53-foot volumes rose 3.5% year over year through October, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) — thanks to the new lanes and improved transit times railroads introduced in 2025, rather than a macroeconomic catalyst driving demand. Most shippers that spoke with the Journal of Commerce believe rates in early first-quarter intermodal contracts will be mostly flat compared with the previous year, with some increases on outbound lanes from the West Coast, particularly Southern California. After losing market share to its competitors, J.B. Hunt could become more aggressive in its pricing, especially during peak season. And as J.B. Hunt shifts freight onto BNSF-CSX joint services, Hub Group and Swift Intermodal will compete for new slots on NS trains. Additional BNSF-CSX single-line opportunities to the Northeast will become available when double-stacking service through Baltimore begins in the spring. If this prompts J.B. Hunt to shift more of its volumes to CSX, it will create even more opportunities for Hub Group and Swift. The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) likely won’t issue its final decision on the UP-NS transaction until 2027, but one former board member thinks regulators are “leaning more toward approval.” Citing President Donald Trump’s influence and the political alignment of the current board — with a third Republican pending Senate confirmation and just one Democrat — Daniel Elliott III, who served two nonconsecutive terms as STB chairman between 2009 and 2017, said it will be “very difficult” for members to vote against the merger if the administration continues to support it publicly. The next inflection: New lanes and faster service will lift volumes, but true organic expansion depends on a recovery in the truckload market. Some shippers only increase their use of intermodal rail when they are struggling to secure over-the-road capacity, which remains abundant. Until US manufacturing output and other major sources of surface freight like new home construction improve and truckload capacity tightens, intermodal volumes and rates will grow only modestly. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Domestic intermodal to benefit from new lanes, faster service in 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The change, effective Jan. 2, allows importers to digitally designate customs brokers to receive bills, checks and liquidation notices on behalf of clients. </div>

The change, effective Jan. 2, allows importers to digitally designate customs brokers to receive bills, checks and liquidation notices on behalf of clients.

<div class="phx-topic">US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as of Friday will allow importers to immediately assign a customs broker or other representative as a so-called “notify party” on all CBP notices through the agency’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. The change will allow importers to address communication from CBP around key issues like bills, refunds or liquidation notices in a timelier manner, said Lori Mullins, director of operations at Houston customs broker Rogers &amp; Brown. Mullins said it’s common for CBP to send checks, notices and mail only to large importers, and not to the notify parties assigned by those importers. “And they end up getting lost on someone’s desk who doesn’t understand where they belong,” she said. “Because CBP documents, letters, and checks don’t have a contact name attached to them, they could end up on an [accounts receivable] desk or a receptionist to determine the correct [recipient]. “With tight deadlines for response or missed opportunities altogether to reply to a CBP inquiry that could result in increased duties, having a broker who can easily get them to the importer to manage the process is sometimes very helpful,” Mullins added. The process change allows importers to authorize notify parties “in real-time” as of Jan. 2, according to a Dec. 22 ACE notice. <h3>‘Huge step forward’ </h3>Mullins, who also serves as president of the Houston Customs Brokers &amp; Freight Forwarders Association, said the process to add notify parties — via a CBP 4811 form — has long been fraught. “When CBP moved into ACE, the 4811 process was broken and inconsistent,” she said. “Even if a 4811 was sent to CBP, CBP would not manage the process correctly and fail to follow Importer 4811 instructions with entries because there was no electronic means for CBP to capture the notify party.” Mullins said the ability for importers to add notify parties digitally through ACE is still in its early stage, but is a “huge step forward for the importing community.” “It gives the decisions regarding how these documents are handled truly back to the importer and holds CBP accountable for following them by putting the data in ACE connected to the importer records,” she said. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as of Friday will allow importers to immediately assign a customs broker or other representative as a so-called “notify party” on all CBP notices through the agency’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. The change will allow importers to address communication from CBP around key issues like bills, refunds or liquidation notices in a timelier manner, said Lori Mullins, director of operations at Houston customs broker Rogers & Brown. Mullins said it’s common for CBP to send checks, notices and mail only to large importers, and not to the notify parties assigned by those importers. “And they end up getting lost on someone’s desk who doesn’t understand where they belong,” she said. “Because CBP documents, letters, and checks don’t have a contact name attached to them, they could end up on an [accounts receivable] desk or a receptionist to determine the correct [recipient]. “With tight deadlines for response or missed opportunities altogether to reply to a CBP inquiry that could result in increased duties, having a broker who can easily get them to the importer to manage the process is sometimes very helpful,” Mullins added. The process change allows importers to authorize notify parties “in real-time” as of Jan. 2, according to a Dec. 22 ACE notice. ‘Huge step forward’ Mullins, who also serves as president of the Houston Customs Brokers & Freight Forwarders Association, said the process to add notify parties — via a CBP 4811 form — has long been fraught. “When CBP moved into ACE, the 4811 process was broken and inconsistent,” she said. “Even if a 4811 was sent to CBP, CBP would not manage the process correctly and fail to follow Importer 4811 instructions with entries because there was no electronic means for CBP to capture the notify party.” Mullins said the ability for importers to add notify parties digitally through ACE is still in its early stage, but is a “huge step forward for the importing community.” “It gives the decisions regarding how these documents are handled truly back to the importer and holds CBP accountable for following them by putting the data in ACE connected to the importer records,” she said. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

CBP to let importers tie ‘notify parties’ to key portal communications

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Taiwanese carrier said the box orders were split between three different suppliers, including its own manufacturing subsidiary.</div>

The Taiwanese carrier said the box orders were split between three different suppliers, including its own manufacturing subsidiary.

<div class="phx-topic">Taiwan's Evergreen Marine is paying $174 million to buy 52,000 dry freight and reefer containers, the carrier said in a Taiwan stock exchange filing. Evergreen said the container orders were split between three different suppliers, including its own manufacturing subsidiary Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation based in Malaysia. The largest of the three orders, worth almost $65.6 million, was placed with Dong Fang International Container (Hong Kong) for 12,000 dry freight and 7,000 reefer containers. Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation (Malaysia) secured a $57.3 million contract to supply 18,000 containers, although Evergreen did not specify the size or type of boxes. The final order, valued at $51.2 million, was awarded to China’s Guangdong Fuwa Equipment Manufacturing Company for 12,000 dry cargo and 3,000 reefer containers. The purchase of the containers coincides with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/evergreen-says-will-spend-almost-3-billion-on-14-new-lng-fueled-ships-6114739">significant fleet expansion by Evergreen</a>, which is set to take delivery of 846,000 TEUs of additional shipping capacity through 2030. <h3>Weak outlook for 2026 </h3>The container orders from Evergreen come as Hong Kong-listed box maker Singamas Container Holdings and maritime consultancy Drewry have predicted a weaker outlook for the container market after output peaked at 8.3 million TEUs in 2024. The impact from the overproduction of dry freight containers in 2024 “is becoming increasingly apparent, with supply significantly outstripping demand, resulting in selling prices trending downward,” Singamas said in a market commentary. “Additionally, overcapacity in the container shipping market will exert downward pressure on freight rates and container demand, which will be exacerbated once the Red Sea crisis is resolved,” Singamas added. Drewry predicted container production will slump to 1.8 million TEUs in 2026, down from a forecast of 4.9 million TEUs this year, according to the consultancy’s third-quarter container equipment report. Production to 2029 will be primarily driven by replacement demand, the report added. The average price for a 20-foot container is set to slip to around $1,500 next year, down from $1,680 this year and about $2,100 in 2024, according to the Drewry forecast. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Taiwan's Evergreen Marine is paying $174 million to buy 52,000 dry freight and reefer containers, the carrier said in a Taiwan stock exchange filing. Evergreen said the container orders were split between three different suppliers, including its own manufacturing subsidiary Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation based in Malaysia. The largest of the three orders, worth almost $65.6 million, was placed with Dong Fang International Container (Hong Kong) for 12,000 dry freight and 7,000 reefer containers. Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation (Malaysia) secured a $57.3 million contract to supply 18,000 containers, although Evergreen did not specify the size or type of boxes. The final order, valued at $51.2 million, was awarded to China’s Guangdong Fuwa Equipment Manufacturing Company for 12,000 dry cargo and 3,000 reefer containers. The purchase of the containers coincides with a significant fleet expansion by Evergreen , which is set to take delivery of 846,000 TEUs of additional shipping capacity through 2030. Weak outlook for 2026 The container orders from Evergreen come as Hong Kong-listed box maker Singamas Container Holdings and maritime consultancy Drewry have predicted a weaker outlook for the container market after output peaked at 8.3 million TEUs in 2024. The impact from the overproduction of dry freight containers in 2024 “is becoming increasingly apparent, with supply significantly outstripping demand, resulting in selling prices trending downward,” Singamas said in a market commentary. “Additionally, overcapacity in the container shipping market will exert downward pressure on freight rates and container demand, which will be exacerbated once the Red Sea crisis is resolved,” Singamas added. Drewry predicted container production will slump to 1.8 million TEUs in 2026, down from a forecast of 4.9 million TEUs this year, according to the consultancy’s third-quarter container equipment report. Production to 2029 will be primarily driven by replacement demand, the report added. The average price for a 20-foot container is set to slip to around $1,500 next year, down from $1,680 this year and about $2,100 in 2024, according to the Drewry forecast. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Evergreen to invest $174 million on new containers 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Although the timeline is still uncertain, a resumption of the shorter Suez routing brings its own risks, with analysts warning of the potential for significant port disruption and upward rate pressure.</div>

Although the timeline is still uncertain, a resumption of the shorter Suez routing brings its own risks, with analysts warning of the potential for significant port disruption and upward rate pressure.

<div class="phx-topic">The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6135205_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The big picture: After two years of sailing around southern Africa to avoid the risk of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, Asia–Europe carriers could return to Suez Canal transits in 2026, possibly even in the first half. Although the timeline is still uncertain, a resumption of the shorter Suez routing brings its own risks, with analysts warning of the potential for significant port disruption and upward rate pressure. A look back: Like in 2024, the Asia–Europe peak season came earlier than usual in 2025, with volumes ramping up in early May rather than the typical June start. Fueled by concerns over persistent port congestion in Europe — on top of extended transit times due to diversions away from the Suez Canal — importers rushed to build inventory for summer sales. Cargo owners had already baked into their supply chains the additional two weeks ships take to sail around southern Africa, but planning for port congestion proved more difficult as bottlenecks shifted dynamically among European terminals, sometimes within the same port. The strong demand continued into the fall, with Asia–Europe container volumes rising on a year-over-year basis for seven straight months from March through September, according to data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS). “We haven’t seen growth like that on the Far East westbound trade since before the global financial crisis,” Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at forwarder Kuehne + Nagel, told the Journal of Commerce in late November. The early peak saw spot rates spike in late May and early June before gradually declining through October. As end-of-year contract talks between shippers and carriers neared, carriers imposed a series of fortnightly freight-all-kinds rate increases from Oct. 1. Although not fully accepted by the market, the rate hikes, along with aggressive blank sailings, boosted average pricing from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean by 92.3% and 150%, respectively, from early October to mid-December, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="dd9a04f6-aae8-43c6-8d19-2be08a433378"></dynamic-object></div>A look ahead: Shippers can pencil in a return to the Red Sea in 2026, but neither carriers nor cargo owners are in any great rush to do so. Those moving refrigerated or otherwise perishable commodities would be thrilled to cut their transit times, but most shippers prefer consistency and plannability, even if it takes a couple more weeks for cargo to get from port to port. Forwarders and ship owners have warned that carriers switching Asia–Europe services back to the Suez Canal route en masse will result in waves of vessels and cargo arriving at major European gateways that were already at maximum capacity for much of 2025. From a supply-demand perspective, reverting to the traditional Suez transits will release effective capacity into a trade already awash with excess tonnage. That means carriers will likely be forced to blank sailings and reduce ship speeds to manage capacity and prevent rates from bottoming out. Planning for such an event is practically impossible, particularly without a clear timeline, but Asia–Europe shippers should expect disrupted ocean schedules and continued — possibly worsening — congestion that will likely take months to clear. The next inflection: A wholesale return to the Red Sea would cause intense disruption on the Asia–Europe trade lane, with ships sailing through the Suez Canal converging with those sailing around Africa at already congested European ports. To mitigate vessel bunching and the release of pent-up capacity, carriers could keep some services on the around Africa route during the transition period. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook. The big picture: After two years of sailing around southern Africa to avoid the risk of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, Asia–Europe carriers could return to Suez Canal transits in 2026, possibly even in the first half. Although the timeline is still uncertain, a resumption of the shorter Suez routing brings its own risks, with analysts warning of the potential for significant port disruption and upward rate pressure. A look back: Like in 2024, the Asia–Europe peak season came earlier than usual in 2025, with volumes ramping up in early May rather than the typical June start. Fueled by concerns over persistent port congestion in Europe — on top of extended transit times due to diversions away from the Suez Canal — importers rushed to build inventory for summer sales. Cargo owners had already baked into their supply chains the additional two weeks ships take to sail around southern Africa, but planning for port congestion proved more difficult as bottlenecks shifted dynamically among European terminals, sometimes within the same port. The strong demand continued into the fall, with Asia–Europe container volumes rising on a year-over-year basis for seven straight months from March through September, according to data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS). “We haven’t seen growth like that on the Far East westbound trade since before the global financial crisis,” Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at forwarder Kuehne + Nagel, told the Journal of Commerce in late November. The early peak saw spot rates spike in late May and early June before gradually declining through October. As end-of-year contract talks between shippers and carriers neared, carriers imposed a series of fortnightly freight-all-kinds rate increases from Oct. 1. Although not fully accepted by the market, the rate hikes, along with aggressive blank sailings, boosted average pricing from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean by 92.3% and 150%, respectively, from early October to mid-December, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global. A look ahead: Shippers can pencil in a return to the Red Sea in 2026, but neither carriers nor cargo owners are in any great rush to do so. Those moving refrigerated or otherwise perishable commodities would be thrilled to cut their transit times, but most shippers prefer consistency and plannability, even if it takes a couple more weeks for cargo to get from port to port. Forwarders and ship owners have warned that carriers switching Asia–Europe services back to the Suez Canal route en masse will result in waves of vessels and cargo arriving at major European gateways that were already at maximum capacity for much of 2025. From a supply-demand perspective, reverting to the traditional Suez transits will release effective capacity into a trade already awash with excess tonnage. That means carriers will likely be forced to blank sailings and reduce ship speeds to manage capacity and prevent rates from bottoming out. Planning for such an event is practically impossible, particularly without a clear timeline, but Asia–Europe shippers should expect disrupted ocean schedules and continued — possibly worsening — congestion that will likely take months to clear. The next inflection: A wholesale return to the Red Sea would cause intense disruption on the Asia–Europe trade lane, with ships sailing through the Suez Canal converging with those sailing around Africa at already congested European ports. To mitigate vessel bunching and the release of pent-up capacity, carriers could keep some services on the around Africa route during the transition period. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Red Sea return poses disruption threat to Asia–Europe trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Current anti-trust protections “have enabled foreign-owned shipping lines to exert disproportionate control over pricing and service levels” in Australia’s maritime industry, the head of a leading shipper group in the country says. </div>

Current anti-trust protections “have enabled foreign-owned shipping lines to exert disproportionate control over pricing and service levels” in Australia’s maritime industry, the head of a leading shipper group in the country says.

<div class="phx-topic">Shipper groups in Australia will urge the abolition of ocean carrier anti-trust immunity and the implementation of legal controls on port and related fees in their submission to a government inquiry into productivity within the country’s maritime and logistics sectors. While groups are still drafting their filing, Paul Zalai, director of the Freight &amp; Trade Alliance, said the focus will be on the two most contentious issues facing shippers in Australia. “The FTA and the Australian Peak Shippers Association (ASPA) consider both the end of anti-trust immunity and the introduction of a mandatory port-related fees code central to improving productivity, resilience and competitiveness in Australia’s freight supply chains,” Zalai told the Journal of Commerce. Current anti-trust protections “have enabled foreign-owned shipping lines to exert disproportionate control over pricing and service levels, stifling competition, raising costs, and undermining supply chain resilience in our trade-dependent economy,” Zalai said. On the matter of landside fees, Zalai said terminal and container park operators should charge their direct shipping line customers, who can then decide whether to absorb the fees or recover the costs from importers, exporters and freight forwarders. “But under current arrangements, stevedores and container parks impose incontestable landside fees directly on road and rail transport operators, bypassing normal commercial negotiation and distorting market dynamics,” he said. The FTA and ASPA, which together represent more than 550 businesses and trade bodies, were invited to make submissions just before Christmas by a Senate select committee set up to investigate productivity in Australian industry. Filings are due by Feb. 20, with a report scheduled for release by Sept. 30. Explaining the rationale for the probe, the Senate said that “global and domestic freight disruptions continue to destabilize the supply chain, leading to congestion, delays and higher costs.” Among the issues the Senate committee will consider is whether harmonized freight and logistics regulations would better support Australia's economy; how disrupted freight supply chains have impacted Australia's infrastructure resilience; and how fit-for-purpose freight infrastructure can encourage productivity growth. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Shipper groups in Australia will urge the abolition of ocean carrier anti-trust immunity and the implementation of legal controls on port and related fees in their submission to a government inquiry into productivity within the country’s maritime and logistics sectors. While groups are still drafting their filing, Paul Zalai, director of the Freight & Trade Alliance, said the focus will be on the two most contentious issues facing shippers in Australia. “The FTA and the Australian Peak Shippers Association (ASPA) consider both the end of anti-trust immunity and the introduction of a mandatory port-related fees code central to improving productivity, resilience and competitiveness in Australia’s freight supply chains,” Zalai told the Journal of Commerce. Current anti-trust protections “have enabled foreign-owned shipping lines to exert disproportionate control over pricing and service levels, stifling competition, raising costs, and undermining supply chain resilience in our trade-dependent economy,” Zalai said. On the matter of landside fees, Zalai said terminal and container park operators should charge their direct shipping line customers, who can then decide whether to absorb the fees or recover the costs from importers, exporters and freight forwarders. “But under current arrangements, stevedores and container parks impose incontestable landside fees directly on road and rail transport operators, bypassing normal commercial negotiation and distorting market dynamics,” he said. The FTA and ASPA, which together represent more than 550 businesses and trade bodies, were invited to make submissions just before Christmas by a Senate select committee set up to investigate productivity in Australian industry. Filings are due by Feb. 20, with a report scheduled for release by Sept. 30. Explaining the rationale for the probe, the Senate said that “global and domestic freight disruptions continue to destabilize the supply chain, leading to congestion, delays and higher costs.” Among the issues the Senate committee will consider is whether harmonized freight and logistics regulations would better support Australia's economy; how disrupted freight supply chains have impacted Australia's infrastructure resilience; and how fit-for-purpose freight infrastructure can encourage productivity growth. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Australian shippers call for end to ocean carrier anti-trust immunity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier is now including calls at Malta, Port Said (Egypt) and Beirut on the weekly Medex itinerary, replacing Valencia and Barcelona in Spain and For-sur-Mer in France.</div>

The carrier is now including calls at Malta, Port Said (Egypt) and Beirut on the weekly Medex itinerary, replacing Valencia and Barcelona in Spain and For-sur-Mer in France.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM has reorganized the port rotation of its India–Middle East–West Mediterranean “Medex” service that it switched over <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-unveils-plans-for-suez-return-on-india-mediterranean-service-6012039">to a Red Sea schedule in June</a>. The carrier is now including calls at Malta, Port Said (Egypt) and Beirut on the weekly Medex itinerary, replacing Valencia and Barcelona in Spain and For-sur-Mer in France. “As part of this enhancement, the overall rotation duration will be reduced from 70 days to 63 days...,” CMA CGM (India) said in a customer advisory. “This optimization will enable more frequent sailings and enhanced capacity through additional departures, thereby offering greater flexibility and improved connectivity.” The carrier said it will continue to serve the three dropped ports of call via transshipment. The full updated rotation is Abu Dhabi, Jebel Ali, Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Jeddah, Port Said, Piraeus, Malta, Genoa, Beirut, Port Said, Jeddah and back to Abu Dhabi. For Indian loads, the changes are due to begin with the CMA CGM Pelleas that has an estimated time of arrival of Jan. 7 in Mundra. The revised rotation allows the carrier to run the string with nine vessels, compared with the 10 ships it needed to deploy previously. Cosco Shipping has a slot charter deal with CMA CGM on the Medex, with space allotments pegged at approximately 1,000 TEUs out of India per week. India-Mediterranean trades have been the target of a new crop of opportunistic regional carriers over the past year, especially multiple Turkish lines and some others backed by non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs). The new entrants have caused serious market share setbacks for traditional mainline heavyweights, particularly CMA CGM. <h3>Spot rates fall on capacity boost </h3>With the Medex’s enhanced capacity, signs of a downward correction in rates are emerging. Sources have reported a sharp drop in spot rates for loads from Nhava Sheva to Port Said for late-January CMA CGM sailings — down to $2,350 per TEU and $2,300 per FEU, from $3,250 and $2,800, respectively, quoted for early-January sailings. On a broader note, the Medex rotation reset comes as CMA CGM is set to resume Suez Canal transits for its India–US East Coast “Indamex” loop from next month, though it is believed that the carrier still needs to position two more vessels in India to offer a weekly rotation under the normal itinerary. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM has reorganized the port rotation of its India–Middle East–West Mediterranean “Medex” service that it switched over to a Red Sea schedule in June . The carrier is now including calls at Malta, Port Said (Egypt) and Beirut on the weekly Medex itinerary, replacing Valencia and Barcelona in Spain and For-sur-Mer in France. “As part of this enhancement, the overall rotation duration will be reduced from 70 days to 63 days...,” CMA CGM (India) said in a customer advisory. “This optimization will enable more frequent sailings and enhanced capacity through additional departures, thereby offering greater flexibility and improved connectivity.” The carrier said it will continue to serve the three dropped ports of call via transshipment. The full updated rotation is Abu Dhabi, Jebel Ali, Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Jeddah, Port Said, Piraeus, Malta, Genoa, Beirut, Port Said, Jeddah and back to Abu Dhabi. For Indian loads, the changes are due to begin with the CMA CGM Pelleas that has an estimated time of arrival of Jan. 7 in Mundra. The revised rotation allows the carrier to run the string with nine vessels, compared with the 10 ships it needed to deploy previously. Cosco Shipping has a slot charter deal with CMA CGM on the Medex, with space allotments pegged at approximately 1,000 TEUs out of India per week. India-Mediterranean trades have been the target of a new crop of opportunistic regional carriers over the past year, especially multiple Turkish lines and some others backed by non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs). The new entrants have caused serious market share setbacks for traditional mainline heavyweights, particularly CMA CGM. Spot rates fall on capacity boost With the Medex’s enhanced capacity, signs of a downward correction in rates are emerging. Sources have reported a sharp drop in spot rates for loads from Nhava Sheva to Port Said for late-January CMA CGM sailings — down to $2,350 per TEU and $2,300 per FEU, from $3,250 and $2,800, respectively, quoted for early-January sailings. On a broader note, the Medex rotation reset comes as CMA CGM is set to resume Suez Canal transits for its India–US East Coast “Indamex” loop from next month, though it is believed that the carrier still needs to position two more vessels in India to offer a weekly rotation under the normal itinerary. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

CMA CGM reworks India-Med loop rotation to streamline Red Sea operations

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If gaps in strategy are visible to informed observers, they will be obvious to the STB, competitors conducting discovery, and shippers evaluating claimed benefits.</div>

If gaps in strategy are visible to informed observers, they will be obvious to the STB, competitors conducting discovery, and shippers evaluating claimed benefits.

<div class="phx-topic">The Union Pacific (UP)-Norfolk Southern (NS) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-in-merger-filing-vows-to-convert-millions-of-loads-to-intermodal-annually-6138380">merger filing</a> delivered a compelling strategic vision for North America’s first transcontinental railroad. Can that vision withstand the US Surface Transportation Board’s (STB’s) operational scrutiny? I support the strategic direction. Network fluidity matters more than geography. Single-line service beats interchange friction. But high-level assertions — 2 million trucks diverted, $1 billion in synergies — must give way to operational specificity during STB’s review. If gaps are visible to informed observers, they will be obvious to the STB, competitors conducting discovery, and shippers evaluating claimed benefits. <h3>Truck diversion requires pricing discipline </h3>Truck diversion sits at the center of the public interest case. The constraint isn’t visibility — it’s pricing authority. Rail organizations centralize pricing to protect margins. That works poorly for winning truck traffic, where conversion often requires pricing at truck parity initially. Lane-level freight analytics now provide intelligence on truck-dense corridors. The question is whether UP-NS will push pricing authority closer to customers or maintain centralized control that rejects opportunities even when incremental economics are positive. <h3>TTX ownership raises competitive questions </h3>Post-merger, a single entity will control approximately 40% of TTX Company, which operates North America’s largest pooled equipment fleet. TTX preserves competitive neutrality — each railroad accesses the same equipment at the same rates. When one party gains disproportionate ownership, incentives change. UP committed to reducing its stake to not greater than 50%, addressing ownership concentration but leaving governance and allocation questions unresolved. BNSF and CSX depend on TTX access. Preferential allocation will generate STB-imposed conditions. <h3>Port gateway competition will intensify </h3>Single-line transcontinental service will change port gateway economics. Routing becomes discretionary rather than fixed by interchange patterns. Ports compete on performance — dwell time, chassis availability, terminal velocity — not geographic proximity. This benefits high-performing ports on transcontinental lanes while exposing underperforming gateways. A container at Los Angeles-Long Beach bound for Ohio no longer requires a UP-to-NS interchange in Chicago. But only if the LA terminal delivers consistent turn times and equipment access. Gulf ports gain optionality. Southern California faces pressure to improve. For secondary East Coast ports, the shift toward performance-based routing represents an opportunity rather than a threat — provided they leverage their relative flexibility to deliver superior asset fluidity and tighter rail coordination. <h3>Container repositioning economics change </h3>Transcontinental service transforms empty container repositioning. Today’s import-export imbalances require costly empty moves across railroads with different commercial incentives. A unified network can optimize repositioning system-wide. Containers arriving in LA can reposition to southern export markets through single-line moves. This improves equipment utilization and reduces empty miles — but only if commercial incentives align with operational optimization. The question is whether UP-NS will price repositioning to maximize container turns or protect lane-specific margins. <h3>Regulatory framework demands enhanced competition </h3>This is the first Class I merger under the STB’s 2001 standards, which require mergers to affirmatively enhance competition — not merely avoid reducing it. UP-NS must demonstrate that the combined network creates competitive options that didn’t previously exist. The STB must also consider whether approving UP-NS makes BNSF-CSX consolidation inevitable. UP-NS requested an accelerated 345-day review. CSX objected and pushed for the full 485-day period. The timing decision signals how seriously the STB takes enhanced competition requirements. <h3>What the STB must ask </h3>If I were sitting on the STB, I would require specific answers: Identify the top 50 truck-to-rail conversion lanes with corridor-level economics, origin-destination pairs, truck versus rail rates, transit times and conversion timelines. Not aggregated projections — specific commitments. Describe the pricing authority structure. Who can price truck-competitive moves at truck parity? If pricing remains centralized for margin protection, explain how that enables rather than inhibits conversion. Provide TTX governance proposals that preserve competitive neutrality. How will equipment allocation transparency prevent self-preferencing when one entity controls 40% ownership? Identify which ports gain and lose volume under optimized transcontinental routing. What performance criteria determine gateway selection? Explain how container repositioning economics change. Will empty moves be priced to optimize system utilization or protect lane-specific margins? <h3>Execution determines outcomes </h3>UP’s filing establishes strategic direction. The STB process will force operational specificity. Discovery, testimony and cross-examination will test whether truck diversion claims rest on corridor-level economics, whether TTX governance preserves competitive neutrality and whether claimed synergies create value or redistribute it. My support for this merger depends on seeing genuine specificity emerge — not strategic ambiguity preserved through vague assurances. The direction is sound. The proof must follow. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

The Union Pacific (UP)-Norfolk Southern (NS) merger filing delivered a compelling strategic vision for North America’s first transcontinental railroad. Can that vision withstand the US Surface Transportation Board’s (STB’s) operational scrutiny? I support the strategic direction. Network fluidity matters more than geography. Single-line service beats interchange friction. But high-level assertions — 2 million trucks diverted, $1 billion in synergies — must give way to operational specificity during STB’s review. If gaps are visible to informed observers, they will be obvious to the STB, competitors conducting discovery, and shippers evaluating claimed benefits. Truck diversion requires pricing discipline Truck diversion sits at the center of the public interest case. The constraint isn’t visibility — it’s pricing authority. Rail organizations centralize pricing to protect margins. That works poorly for winning truck traffic, where conversion often requires pricing at truck parity initially. Lane-level freight analytics now provide intelligence on truck-dense corridors. The question is whether UP-NS will push pricing authority closer to customers or maintain centralized control that rejects opportunities even when incremental economics are positive. TTX ownership raises competitive questions Post-merger, a single entity will control approximately 40% of TTX Company, which operates North America’s largest pooled equipment fleet. TTX preserves competitive neutrality — each railroad accesses the same equipment at the same rates. When one party gains disproportionate ownership, incentives change. UP committed to reducing its stake to not greater than 50%, addressing ownership concentration but leaving governance and allocation questions unresolved. BNSF and CSX depend on TTX access. Preferential allocation will generate STB-imposed conditions. Port gateway competition will intensify Single-line transcontinental service will change port gateway economics. Routing becomes discretionary rather than fixed by interchange patterns. Ports compete on performance — dwell time, chassis availability, terminal velocity — not geographic proximity. This benefits high-performing ports on transcontinental lanes while exposing underperforming gateways. A container at Los Angeles-Long Beach bound for Ohio no longer requires a UP-to-NS interchange in Chicago. But only if the LA terminal delivers consistent turn times and equipment access. Gulf ports gain optionality. Southern California faces pressure to improve. For secondary East Coast ports, the shift toward performance-based routing represents an opportunity rather than a threat — provided they leverage their relative flexibility to deliver superior asset fluidity and tighter rail coordination. Container repositioning economics change Transcontinental service transforms empty container repositioning. Today’s import-export imbalances require costly empty moves across railroads with different commercial incentives. A unified network can optimize repositioning system-wide. Containers arriving in LA can reposition to southern export markets through single-line moves. This improves equipment utilization and reduces empty miles — but only if commercial incentives align with operational optimization. The question is whether UP-NS will price repositioning to maximize container turns or protect lane-specific margins. Regulatory framework demands enhanced competition This is the first Class I merger under the STB’s 2001 standards, which require mergers to affirmatively enhance competition — not merely avoid reducing it. UP-NS must demonstrate that the combined network creates competitive options that didn’t previously exist. The STB must also consider whether approving UP-NS makes BNSF-CSX consolidation inevitable. UP-NS requested an accelerated 345-day review. CSX objected and pushed for the full 485-day period. The timing decision signals how seriously the STB takes enhanced competition requirements. What the STB must ask If I were sitting on the STB, I would require specific answers: Identify the top 50 truck-to-rail conversion lanes with corridor-level economics, origin-destination pairs, truck versus rail rates, transit times and conversion timelines. Not aggregated projections — specific commitments. Describe the pricing authority structure. Who can price truck-competitive moves at truck parity? If pricing remains centralized for margin protection, explain how that enables rather than inhibits conversion. Provide TTX governance proposals that preserve competitive neutrality. How will equipment allocation transparency prevent self-preferencing when one entity controls 40% ownership? Identify which ports gain and lose volume under optimized transcontinental routing. What performance criteria determine gateway selection? Explain how container repositioning economics change. Will empty moves be priced to optimize system utilization or protect lane-specific margins? Execution determines outcomes UP’s filing establishes strategic direction. The STB process will force operational specificity. Discovery, testimony and cross-examination will test whether truck diversion claims rest on corridor-level economics, whether TTX governance preserves competitive neutrality and whether claimed synergies create value or redistribute it. My support for this merger depends on seeing genuine specificity emerge — not strategic ambiguity preserved through vague assurances. The direction is sound. The proof must follow. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Strategic vision of UP-NS merger must meet operational reality

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Department of Justice seems to be suggesting that if the Supreme Court pulls the plug on the IEEPA tariffs, it won’t stand in the way of refunds — at least not for parties who get themselves properly in front of the Court.</div>

The Department of Justice seems to be suggesting that if the Supreme Court pulls the plug on the IEEPA tariffs, it won’t stand in the way of refunds — at least not for parties who get themselves properly in front of the Court.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly dropped a filing in the Court of International Trade (CIT) last week that, depending on your tolerance for customs law drama, is either deeply boring or absolutely fascinating. Buried in the filing was a declaration from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with some eye-opening numbers: as of Dec. 10, 2025, the US government has collected approximately $129 billion in International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. That money came from about 301,000 importers spread across approximately 34 million entries. If you’ve ever wondered how big this issue really is, that’s your answer. It’s not a rounding error. Against that backdrop, DOJ told the CIT something very specific — and very carefully worded. If the US Supreme Court ultimately rules that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, the Trump administration would not oppose the Court’s authority to order reliquidation of the plaintiffs’ entries. In plain English, DOJ is acknowledging that the CIT could order those entries to be unwound and the duties refunded through reliquidation. No foot-stomping. No jurisdictional theatrics. Just a quiet concession that the Court has the power to fix this. Put even more simply, DOJ is signaling that if SCOTUS pulls the plug on the IEEPA tariffs, it won’t stand in the way of refunds — at least not for parties who get themselves properly in front of the Court. This lines up neatly with what DOJ has already told the Supreme Court in the pending cases: If the challengers win, they’re entitled to their money back. The only real question has always been how that happens, not whether refunds are theoretically available. <h3>Don’t expect ‘nice, clean’ refund program </h3>And that’s where the subtext starts doing some heavy lifting. What DOJ is very much not saying is that the administration plans to roll out a nice, clean, importer-friendly administrative refund program. There’s no promise of automatic reliquidations, mass refunds or CBP proactively cutting checks. Instead, the filing implicitly points importers toward the Court. If you want your money back, you may need to go to the CIT and ask for an order directing reliquidation. DOJ is saying it won’t object to the Court’s authority to do that — not that it intends to do everyone any favors administratively. This fits squarely with the broader reality importers should be preparing for post-decision. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, refunds are unlikely to be frictionless. Liquidated entries will still need to be protested to CBP. Unliquidated entries will need to be protected. Some companies may pursue litigation; others may try to navigate administrative channels. Many will end up doing both. The idea that $129 billion is just going to flow back to importers on autopilot is, at best, optimistic. The takeaway is straightforward, even if the process won’t be. The government is already laying the groundwork for a refund framework that runs through the courts, not around them. Importers who assume this will all sort itself out may find themselves watching the reliquidation train leave the station without them. The smart money is on preparation, strategy, and knowing exactly which procedural doors need to be opened — before the Supreme Court tells everyone it’s time to start knocking. Contact Pete Mento at <a href="mailto:pete.mento@bakertilly.com">pete.mento@bakertilly.com</a>.</div>

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly dropped a filing in the Court of International Trade (CIT) last week that, depending on your tolerance for customs law drama, is either deeply boring or absolutely fascinating. Buried in the filing was a declaration from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) with some eye-opening numbers: as of Dec. 10, 2025, the US government has collected approximately $129 billion in International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. That money came from about 301,000 importers spread across approximately 34 million entries. If you’ve ever wondered how big this issue really is, that’s your answer. It’s not a rounding error. Against that backdrop, DOJ told the CIT something very specific — and very carefully worded. If the US Supreme Court ultimately rules that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, the Trump administration would not oppose the Court’s authority to order reliquidation of the plaintiffs’ entries. In plain English, DOJ is acknowledging that the CIT could order those entries to be unwound and the duties refunded through reliquidation. No foot-stomping. No jurisdictional theatrics. Just a quiet concession that the Court has the power to fix this. Put even more simply, DOJ is signaling that if SCOTUS pulls the plug on the IEEPA tariffs, it won’t stand in the way of refunds — at least not for parties who get themselves properly in front of the Court. This lines up neatly with what DOJ has already told the Supreme Court in the pending cases: If the challengers win, they’re entitled to their money back. The only real question has always been how that happens, not whether refunds are theoretically available. Don’t expect ‘nice, clean’ refund program And that’s where the subtext starts doing some heavy lifting. What DOJ is very much not saying is that the administration plans to roll out a nice, clean, importer-friendly administrative refund program. There’s no promise of automatic reliquidations, mass refunds or CBP proactively cutting checks. Instead, the filing implicitly points importers toward the Court. If you want your money back, you may need to go to the CIT and ask for an order directing reliquidation. DOJ is saying it won’t object to the Court’s authority to do that — not that it intends to do everyone any favors administratively. This fits squarely with the broader reality importers should be preparing for post-decision. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, refunds are unlikely to be frictionless. Liquidated entries will still need to be protested to CBP. Unliquidated entries will need to be protected. Some companies may pursue litigation; others may try to navigate administrative channels. Many will end up doing both. The idea that $129 billion is just going to flow back to importers on autopilot is, at best, optimistic. The takeaway is straightforward, even if the process won’t be. The government is already laying the groundwork for a refund framework that runs through the courts, not around them. Importers who assume this will all sort itself out may find themselves watching the reliquidation train leave the station without them. The smart money is on preparation, strategy, and knowing exactly which procedural doors need to be opened — before the Supreme Court tells everyone it’s time to start knocking. Contact Pete Mento at pete.mento@bakertilly.com .

US signaling importers will need to do ‘heavy lifting’ to secure possible tariff refunds

 Actual capacity

{name} 
{valueY.formatNumber('###,###.')}

Planned capacity

Blanked capacity

eeSea collects and centralizes liner network data from dozens of public sources including carriers’ vessel tracking portals, long-term schedules, customer advisories, port and terminal operator schedules, and pilot schedules. These disparate datasets are continually inspected, cleaned, and carefully structured. eeSea synthesizes this refined public data with AIS positions from a third-party provider and its datasets spanning schedule reliability, transit times, trade capacity evolution, and 60-day vessel forecasts. Capacity is measured based on the last load port in Europe. [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

North Europe to US East and Gulf coasts container capacity (eeSea)

Northern Europe to US East and Gulf Coasts Container Capacity and Deployment (eeSea) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Union Pacific sent a 6,000-plus page application to US regulators Friday seeking formal approval for its closely watched merger proposal with Norfolk Southern that would create the country’s first transcontinental railroad.</div>

Union Pacific sent a 6,000-plus page application to US regulators Friday seeking formal approval for its closely watched merger proposal with Norfolk Southern that would create the country’s first transcontinental railroad.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) on Friday filed its formal application with US regulators seeking approval for its proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), saying the deal would divert nearly 2 million truck movements from highways annually, including an estimated 1.17 million truckloads that would shift to intermodal rail. The application sent to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the closely watched merger proposal that would create the country’s first transcontinental railroad exceeded 6,000 pages. UP CEO Jim Vena, speaking on an investor call Friday morning after the application was filed, said the intermodal figure, which represents an 11% increase over the combined UP-NS intermodal volume in 2023, would be converted from the truckload market. Vena also expects to win some freight from competitor BNSF Railway. “Customers will benefit from faster, more reliable service, improved asset utilization and a streamlined customer experience. Status quo isn’t an option,” Vena said. “Adjustments to train routing and blocking patterns will reduce an estimated 2,400 daily railcar and container handlings per day ... This eliminates the unnecessary touches that can lead to incidents [accidents] and delays.” The STB has 30 days to determine whether the filing is complete and satisfactory; a full review is expected to extend into 2027. The application comes days after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/two-large-rail-unions-say-they-oppose-planned-up-ns-merger-6137046">two labor unions announced opposition</a> to the deal, although the rail industry’s largest union by membership has <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/major-rail-union-backs-up-ns-merger-after-job-protection-deal-6084510">publicly supported it</a>. If approved, the merger would enable new single-line intermodal routings with shorter transit times. The application highlights four intermodal corridors where an enlarged UP can achieve considerable growth: Northern California-New Jersey; Southern California-Pennsylvania/New Jersey; Southern California-Georgia/North Carolina; and Texas-East Coast. Intermodal trains from Southern California to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Croxton (Newark), New Jersey, routed via Kansas City, would save 17 to 19 hours, according to UP’s application. Trains moving between Southern California and the Southeast via the Meridian Speedway would save three to four days compared with current routings that often move north to Memphis before turning south toward Atlanta. A major upgrade is an expedited Lathrop, California-Croxton service with a sub-four-day transit time, a truck-like schedule that would be difficult for BNSF to match because its route is longer by mileage. The train would travel through Chicago but have a seamless crew handoff rather than draying containers across the city between terminals. <h3>Other changes coming </h3>UP also said it would operate a daily Southern California-Northeast train routed through Kansas City. The approach follows UP’s opening of a new Kansas City terminal this summer and the launch of UP-NS <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ns-joint-intermodal-service-to-link-west-coast-with-louisville-in-midwest-6080692">trains to Louisville</a> routed via Kansas City this fall, a service that would become single line if the merger were approved. UP said it would invest more than $2.1 billion in capital spending, including $136.6 million to upgrade NS’ tracks and siding between Kansas City and Butler, Indiana, which industry observers have long cited as a chokepoint for high-speed, double-stack intermodal service into the Northeast. Another $172.3 million would be spent to upgrade NS’ line from New Orleans to Atlanta. The proposed merger would also consolidate intermodal operations between Chicago and Memphis. UP would close Norfolk Southern’s 63rd Street terminal in Chicago and shift traffic to UP’s Global 2 facility near O’Hare International Airport. In Memphis, Norfolk Southern’s Rossville terminal would be idled and traffic rerouted to UP’s Marion terminal across the Mississippi River in Arkansas. Those are the types of consolidations that have heightened union concerns and fueled negotiations over job protections. But UP, in winning support for the deal from five unions, has offered job protections in return, with the railroad vowing that anyone who has a job after the deal is approved is protected against losing their job for any reason linked to the merger. UP’s application also said the company would invest $63.7 million at Port Laredo in Laredo, Texas, for additional parking and track capacity and $102.5 million in Houston to expand annual lift capacity there. It also acknowledged the possibility of reopening intermodal operations in Birmingham, Alabama, and Greencastle, Pennsylvania, if necessary, to accommodate growth. NS operates in both markets but ceased handling intermodal business in both locations. The combined UP-NS railroad would launch a single-line service from Laredo to the East Coast. Trains originating in Laredo would move through Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg before terminating in northern New Jersey. Today, an intermodal shipment from Texas to New Jersey moves via UP to Chicago and is then drayed across the city to Norfolk Southern. The proposed new route would bypass Chicago entirely. UP’s application also proposed an additional Laredo-Atlanta train that would be broken down and re-blocked into trains serving Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. <h3>Questions remain on Meridian Speedway </h3>The merger would push more intermodal traffic over the Meridian Speedway, a nearly 300-mile corridor linking Shreveport, Louisiana, and Meridian, Mississippi, which UP and NS say would cut as much as three days from a transit versus routings via Memphis to Atlanta. That would benefit shippers with cargo traveling between Southern California and Atlanta or Charlotte. But the application does not address <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-slams-up-ns-on-meridian-congestion-merger-plans-6105932">the dispute</a> between Norfolk Southern and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) tied to the Meridian corridor, including disagreements over train length. CPKC, which owns 75% of the Meridian joint venture with NS holding the balance, has limited UP and NS to 8,500-foot trains on the route, down from the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains that were often permitted before Kansas City Southern was combined into CPKC. While the railroads reached a truce after Norfolk Southern complained to the STB in October, the underlying tension remains — and would become a complication for UP if the deal is approved. CPKC’s majority ownership of the Meridian Speedway joint venture gives it significant control over dispatching and operating practices along the corridor. CPKC has said it will not “subsidize” UP or NS operations by accepting longer trains that result in delays to its own trains. The issue raises questions about how UP would achieve its projected volume gains on Meridian, particularly given Norfolk Southern’s claim in its October STB filing that it has lost approximatey 100,000 intermodal loads to trucking and other competitors since 2022. <h3>Competitors respond </h3>UP’s filing is likely to trigger a rush of commentary over the coming weeks. CPKC CEO Keith Creel has <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ceo-says-ns-merger-filing-with-us-regulators-to-be-delayed-two-weeks-6127156">repeatedly attacked</a> the proposed transaction, arguing that the merger would make the US supply chain more fragile by concentrating more freight onto a single railroad, increasing the impact of a service disruption. “The proposed UP-NS merger, unprecedented in scale and scope, would radically and permanently change the US rail network,” CPKC said in a statement Friday morning after the UP filing was made. “If approved, the merger would pose extraordinary and far-reaching risks to customers, rail employees and broader supply chains.” BNSF CEO Katie Farmer also issued a statement in the aftermath of the filing, saying she doubts UP has met the necessary requirements to gain approval for the deal. “Applicants must now prove their deal will not only preserve but enhance competition, that it serves the public interest, and its purported benefits can’t be delivered through partnerships,” Farmer said. “BNSF is confident that UP has not met these requirements. UP has a long history of making promises in past mergers that they back away from once they’ve secured approval.” Schneider National is another company that will be closely watched. It partners with UP and CSX, rather than NS, and has not taken a public position on the deal. It is the third-largest US intermodal carrier after J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group. Vena said at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in October that Schneider would endorse the deal after thoroughly reviewing the application. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) on Friday filed its formal application with US regulators seeking approval for its proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), saying the deal would divert nearly 2 million truck movements from highways annually, including an estimated 1.17 million truckloads that would shift to intermodal rail. The application sent to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the closely watched merger proposal that would create the country’s first transcontinental railroad exceeded 6,000 pages. UP CEO Jim Vena, speaking on an investor call Friday morning after the application was filed, said the intermodal figure, which represents an 11% increase over the combined UP-NS intermodal volume in 2023, would be converted from the truckload market. Vena also expects to win some freight from competitor BNSF Railway. “Customers will benefit from faster, more reliable service, improved asset utilization and a streamlined customer experience. Status quo isn’t an option,” Vena said. “Adjustments to train routing and blocking patterns will reduce an estimated 2,400 daily railcar and container handlings per day ... This eliminates the unnecessary touches that can lead to incidents [accidents] and delays.” The STB has 30 days to determine whether the filing is complete and satisfactory; a full review is expected to extend into 2027. The application comes days after two labor unions announced opposition to the deal, although the rail industry’s largest union by membership has publicly supported it . If approved, the merger would enable new single-line intermodal routings with shorter transit times. The application highlights four intermodal corridors where an enlarged UP can achieve considerable growth: Northern California-New Jersey; Southern California-Pennsylvania/New Jersey; Southern California-Georgia/North Carolina; and Texas-East Coast. Intermodal trains from Southern California to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Croxton (Newark), New Jersey, routed via Kansas City, would save 17 to 19 hours, according to UP’s application. Trains moving between Southern California and the Southeast via the Meridian Speedway would save three to four days compared with current routings that often move north to Memphis before turning south toward Atlanta. A major upgrade is an expedited Lathrop, California-Croxton service with a sub-four-day transit time, a truck-like schedule that would be difficult for BNSF to match because its route is longer by mileage. The train would travel through Chicago but have a seamless crew handoff rather than draying containers across the city between terminals. Other changes coming UP also said it would operate a daily Southern California-Northeast train routed through Kansas City. The approach follows UP’s opening of a new Kansas City terminal this summer and the launch of UP-NS trains to Louisville routed via Kansas City this fall, a service that would become single line if the merger were approved. UP said it would invest more than $2.1 billion in capital spending, including $136.6 million to upgrade NS’ tracks and siding between Kansas City and Butler, Indiana, which industry observers have long cited as a chokepoint for high-speed, double-stack intermodal service into the Northeast. Another $172.3 million would be spent to upgrade NS’ line from New Orleans to Atlanta. The proposed merger would also consolidate intermodal operations between Chicago and Memphis. UP would close Norfolk Southern’s 63rd Street terminal in Chicago and shift traffic to UP’s Global 2 facility near O’Hare International Airport. In Memphis, Norfolk Southern’s Rossville terminal would be idled and traffic rerouted to UP’s Marion terminal across the Mississippi River in Arkansas. Those are the types of consolidations that have heightened union concerns and fueled negotiations over job protections. But UP, in winning support for the deal from five unions, has offered job protections in return, with the railroad vowing that anyone who has a job after the deal is approved is protected against losing their job for any reason linked to the merger. UP’s application also said the company would invest $63.7 million at Port Laredo in Laredo, Texas, for additional parking and track capacity and $102.5 million in Houston to expand annual lift capacity there. It also acknowledged the possibility of reopening intermodal operations in Birmingham, Alabama, and Greencastle, Pennsylvania, if necessary, to accommodate growth. NS operates in both markets but ceased handling intermodal business in both locations. The combined UP-NS railroad would launch a single-line service from Laredo to the East Coast. Trains originating in Laredo would move through Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg before terminating in northern New Jersey. Today, an intermodal shipment from Texas to New Jersey moves via UP to Chicago and is then drayed across the city to Norfolk Southern. The proposed new route would bypass Chicago entirely. UP’s application also proposed an additional Laredo-Atlanta train that would be broken down and re-blocked into trains serving Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. Questions remain on Meridian Speedway The merger would push more intermodal traffic over the Meridian Speedway, a nearly 300-mile corridor linking Shreveport, Louisiana, and Meridian, Mississippi, which UP and NS say would cut as much as three days from a transit versus routings via Memphis to Atlanta. That would benefit shippers with cargo traveling between Southern California and Atlanta or Charlotte. But the application does not address the dispute between Norfolk Southern and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) tied to the Meridian corridor, including disagreements over train length. CPKC, which owns 75% of the Meridian joint venture with NS holding the balance, has limited UP and NS to 8,500-foot trains on the route, down from the 10,000- to 12,000-foot trains that were often permitted before Kansas City Southern was combined into CPKC. While the railroads reached a truce after Norfolk Southern complained to the STB in October, the underlying tension remains — and would become a complication for UP if the deal is approved. CPKC’s majority ownership of the Meridian Speedway joint venture gives it significant control over dispatching and operating practices along the corridor. CPKC has said it will not “subsidize” UP or NS operations by accepting longer trains that result in delays to its own trains. The issue raises questions about how UP would achieve its projected volume gains on Meridian, particularly given Norfolk Southern’s claim in its October STB filing that it has lost approximatey 100,000 intermodal loads to trucking and other competitors since 2022. Competitors respond UP’s filing is likely to trigger a rush of commentary over the coming weeks. CPKC CEO Keith Creel has repeatedly attacked the proposed transaction, arguing that the merger would make the US supply chain more fragile by concentrating more freight onto a single railroad, increasing the impact of a service disruption. “The proposed UP-NS merger, unprecedented in scale and scope, would radically and permanently change the US rail network,” CPKC said in a statement Friday morning after the UP filing was made. “If approved, the merger would pose extraordinary and far-reaching risks to customers, rail employees and broader supply chains.” BNSF CEO Katie Farmer also issued a statement in the aftermath of the filing, saying she doubts UP has met the necessary requirements to gain approval for the deal. “Applicants must now prove their deal will not only preserve but enhance competition, that it serves the public interest, and its purported benefits can’t be delivered through partnerships,” Farmer said. “BNSF is confident that UP has not met these requirements. UP has a long history of making promises in past mergers that they back away from once they’ve secured approval.” Schneider National is another company that will be closely watched. It partners with UP and CSX, rather than NS, and has not taken a public position on the deal. It is the third-largest US intermodal carrier after J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group. Vena said at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in October that Schneider would endorse the deal after thoroughly reviewing the application. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

UP, in merger filing, vows to convert millions of loads to intermodal annually

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier, as it sends a US-bound vessel through the region, said if security thresholds hold it will take a “stepwise approach” toward gradually resuming navigation on east-west services via the Suez Canal and Red Sea. </div>

The carrier, as it sends a US-bound vessel through the region, said if security thresholds hold it will take a “stepwise approach” toward gradually resuming navigation on east-west services via the Suez Canal and Red Sea.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk has become the latest carrier to test Red Sea waters, routing a westbound 6,500-TEU vessel through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait at the southern, Houthi-controlled entrance to the waterway. But an advisory from the carrier Friday was quick to point out that this was not the start of a widescale return of its shipping services to the Red Sea, which has been largely off-limits to commercial shipping since attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen began two years ago. “While this is a significant step forward, it does not mean that we are at a point where we are considering a wider east-west network change back to the trans-Suez corridor,” Maersk said. The Singapore-flagged Maersk Sebarok on Maersk’s MECL service from India to the US East Coast departed Salalah in Oman earlier this week and sailed through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait Thursday en route to the Port of New York and New Jersey. Maersk’s advisory said if security thresholds continue to be met, the carrier would continue its “stepwise approach” toward gradually resuming navigation on east-west services via the Suez Canal and Red Sea. “The first step is this initial sailing, followed by a limited number of additional trans-Suez sailings,” it said. “However, there are no planned sailings currently.” Maersk’s advisory on Friday comes after the carrier was forced to correct a Suez Canal Authority statement last month that said the carrier would be returning regular services to the waterway in December. In its own statement at the time, Maersk said transits through the Red Sea would only normalize “as soon as conditions allow, with safety of our crew as the top priority.” The new Maersk sailing follows the launch of a Red Sea-China Service by Thailand’s Regional Container Lines (RCL) last month. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/one-returns-to-red-sea-under-slot-charter-deal-with-thailands-rcl-partners-6136866">Ocean Network Express (ONE)</a> and Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine are making tentative returns to the Red Sea cargo market under a slot charter agreement with regional carriers, including RCL. CMA CGM <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stretched-logistics-capacity-in-europe-threatened-by-red-sea-return-6129492">is set to resume a Suez-based rotation for its India-USEC “Indamex” service</a> from January, with the first westbound sailing under the “normal” itinerary known to be the 6,039-TEU CMA CGM Verdi, due to depart India’s Nhava Sheva Port Jan. 18 and transit the Suez Canal Feb. 8, available data indicates. The French carrier plans to switch over to a full Suez rotation for the Indamex in the second quarter of 2026 as it continues to realign capacity deployments. The resumption of shipping activity in the Red Sea is driven by a perceived improvement in the security situation given there have been no attacks on vessels since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire was signed in early October, with a corresponding decline in additional war risk maritime insurance premiums. <h3>Risk levels ‘tolerable’ </h3>With attacks paused, the de-escalation suggests operational risks for shipping companies have become more “tolerable” in the waterway, according to security advisory firm Ambrey. This has seen war risk premiums for ships sailing through the Red Sea falling to about 0.2% of hull value from 0.5% before the ceasefire, according to a UK-based insurer, the lowest level since the Houthi attacks on shipping began in late 2023. Still, while carriers may be willing to shoulder the lower premiums, getting support from cargo owners could be difficult, as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-nixes-suez-return-for-india-usec-loop-amid-customer-pushback-6137557">Hapag-Lloyd found out this week</a> when it asked customers for feedback on plans to route an India-US East Coast service through the Suez. “Expeditors [one of the carrier’s largest forwarders on the route] was unable to persuade many of its core shipper clients to sign on to a letter of intent framework that would have required them to absorb terrorism and war-risk liabilities for vessels transiting the Red Sea,” an India-based shipping executive with knowledge of the matter told the Journal of Commerce. Helge Neuman-Lezius, global head of full container loads at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, said insurance excluded coverage for cargo in the southern Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait. “For that reason, we decided to not offer such routings until this passage is declared as safe,” he said. The supply chain director for a Hong Kong-based Asia-Europe shipper told the Journal of Commerce that a directive from their head office prohibited the use of services via the Red Sea and Suez because of difficulties in obtaining cargo insurance cover. DHL Global Forwarding said decisions on whether to return to the waterway would be jointly determined by carriers, forwarders and cargo owners. “We can see a scenario where certain carriers might be willing to pilot services through the Red Sea, and if this were to prove successful, others could follow suit in order to remain competitive, which along with the reduced transit times could mitigate the possibility of elevated insurance costs,” a DHL spokesperson said. Peter Sand, chief analyst with rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said shippers were simply not interested in paying the current high war risk premiums. “Nevertheless, carriers need to take the first steps and illustrate that voyages can be performed safely,” Sand told the Journal of Commerce. “Later, they can return the services as well when insurance companies lower the premiums paid for cargo, ships and crew sailing through the area.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. Special correspondent Bency Mathew contributed to this report. </div>

Maersk has become the latest carrier to test Red Sea waters, routing a westbound 6,500-TEU vessel through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait at the southern, Houthi-controlled entrance to the waterway. But an advisory from the carrier Friday was quick to point out that this was not the start of a widescale return of its shipping services to the Red Sea, which has been largely off-limits to commercial shipping since attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen began two years ago. “While this is a significant step forward, it does not mean that we are at a point where we are considering a wider east-west network change back to the trans-Suez corridor,” Maersk said. The Singapore-flagged Maersk Sebarok on Maersk’s MECL service from India to the US East Coast departed Salalah in Oman earlier this week and sailed through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait Thursday en route to the Port of New York and New Jersey. Maersk’s advisory said if security thresholds continue to be met, the carrier would continue its “stepwise approach” toward gradually resuming navigation on east-west services via the Suez Canal and Red Sea. “The first step is this initial sailing, followed by a limited number of additional trans-Suez sailings,” it said. “However, there are no planned sailings currently.” Maersk’s advisory on Friday comes after the carrier was forced to correct a Suez Canal Authority statement last month that said the carrier would be returning regular services to the waterway in December. In its own statement at the time, Maersk said transits through the Red Sea would only normalize “as soon as conditions allow, with safety of our crew as the top priority.” The new Maersk sailing follows the launch of a Red Sea-China Service by Thailand’s Regional Container Lines (RCL) last month. Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine are making tentative returns to the Red Sea cargo market under a slot charter agreement with regional carriers, including RCL. CMA CGM is set to resume a Suez-based rotation for its India-USEC “Indamex” service from January, with the first westbound sailing under the “normal” itinerary known to be the 6,039-TEU CMA CGM Verdi, due to depart India’s Nhava Sheva Port Jan. 18 and transit the Suez Canal Feb. 8, available data indicates. The French carrier plans to switch over to a full Suez rotation for the Indamex in the second quarter of 2026 as it continues to realign capacity deployments. The resumption of shipping activity in the Red Sea is driven by a perceived improvement in the security situation given there have been no attacks on vessels since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire was signed in early October, with a corresponding decline in additional war risk maritime insurance premiums. Risk levels ‘tolerable’ With attacks paused, the de-escalation suggests operational risks for shipping companies have become more “tolerable” in the waterway, according to security advisory firm Ambrey. This has seen war risk premiums for ships sailing through the Red Sea falling to about 0.2% of hull value from 0.5% before the ceasefire, according to a UK-based insurer, the lowest level since the Houthi attacks on shipping began in late 2023. Still, while carriers may be willing to shoulder the lower premiums, getting support from cargo owners could be difficult, as Hapag-Lloyd found out this week when it asked customers for feedback on plans to route an India-US East Coast service through the Suez. “Expeditors [one of the carrier’s largest forwarders on the route] was unable to persuade many of its core shipper clients to sign on to a letter of intent framework that would have required them to absorb terrorism and war-risk liabilities for vessels transiting the Red Sea,” an India-based shipping executive with knowledge of the matter told the Journal of Commerce. Helge Neuman-Lezius, global head of full container loads at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, said insurance excluded coverage for cargo in the southern Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait. “For that reason, we decided to not offer such routings until this passage is declared as safe,” he said. The supply chain director for a Hong Kong-based Asia-Europe shipper told the Journal of Commerce that a directive from their head office prohibited the use of services via the Red Sea and Suez because of difficulties in obtaining cargo insurance cover. DHL Global Forwarding said decisions on whether to return to the waterway would be jointly determined by carriers, forwarders and cargo owners. “We can see a scenario where certain carriers might be willing to pilot services through the Red Sea, and if this were to prove successful, others could follow suit in order to remain competitive, which along with the reduced transit times could mitigate the possibility of elevated insurance costs,” a DHL spokesperson said. Peter Sand, chief analyst with rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said shippers were simply not interested in paying the current high war risk premiums. “Nevertheless, carriers need to take the first steps and illustrate that voyages can be performed safely,” Sand told the Journal of Commerce. “Later, they can return the services as well when insurance companies lower the premiums paid for cargo, ships and crew sailing through the area.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com . Special correspondent Bency Mathew contributed to this report.

Maersk takes ‘significant step’ toward return to Red Sea transits

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The private equity fund that operates New York-New Jersey’s largest marine terminal agreed to the Port Authority’s new requirement to carry the cost of maintaining berths and wharves. </div>

The private equity fund that operates New York-New Jersey’s largest marine terminal agreed to the Port Authority’s new requirement to carry the cost of maintaining berths and wharves.

<div class="phx-topic">Infrastructure fund Macquarie has renewed its lease of the largest container terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey through 2063, agreeing to the port’s new terms for tenant terminals that include taking over the upkeep of its wharves and berths and pledging to increase capacity at the busiest East Coast seaport. The board of commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on Thursday voted to approve the amendment to Macquarie’s existing lease for Maher Terminals that was set to expire in 2030. The Port Authority entered negotiations for a new lease last year due to the expected liquidation date for the specific fund that owns Maher and the potential for a sale of the terminal to another operator. Investors in the fund, however, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-looks-to-keep-hold-on-ny-nj-terminal-amid-lease-talks-6043502">opted not to liquidate</a>. While <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ssa-marine-looks-to-expand-into-new-us-ports-with-deal-for-ceres-5221078">the fund shed its stake in Ceres Terminals in 2023</a>, Macquarie still owns the Long Beach Container Terminal and ITS Terminal in Long Beach and has stakes in Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles and TraPac terminals, which operates in Los Angeles and Oakland. The Maher lease is the latest to be revamped by the Port Authority. Following <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">CMA CGM’s 2022 purchase of Global Container Terminals’ US assets</a>, the agency has changed the lease terms to move away from a flat annual rent with cost escalators to a rent that is based on actual container throughput, subject to an annual minimum. Terminals will also have to share with the Port Authority any excess demurrage revenue and commit to the agency’s environmental and sustainability goals. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/apm-to-spend-500-million-to-enhance-cargo-handling-at-elizabeth-terminal-5969027">APM Terminals signed a similar lease agreement in March</a>, extending its tenancy of the Elizabeth Marine Terminal to 2062. <h3>Maher could face $2 billion in wharf maintenance costs</h3>Along with the new terms, the biggest financial burden for terminal operators under the new leases will be responsibility for maintaining their berths and wharves, which was previously handled by the Port Authority. Some of the berths and wharves at New York/New Jersey are 60 years old, with many of the wood pilings also being damaged by marine borer worms. Port Executive Director Beth Rooney said Thursday the combined bill for maintaining the berths and wharves at GCT, APM and Maher could reach $6 billion. With 10,000 linear feet of berth space, Maher could face as much as $2 billion in costs for berth and wharf maintenance. The new leases also include commitments to increase capacity as part of the Port Authority’s expectations that container volumes will double by 2050. Rooney said Maher committed to “demand induced” capacity improvements over the course of the new lease.Maher, which handled 1.8 million container lifts in 2024, is the largest terminal at the port with 450 acres of space. However, similar to other terminals in New Jersey, it is land constrained with little available acreage near the port. Despite the land constraints, Rooney said Maher could eventually double its capacity by switching over from using straddle carriers to rubber tire gantry cranes, which would allow higher density stacks. “By having a 33-year lease, it gives Maher the lanes they need to invest in additional infrastructure and equipment and amortize that cost,” Rooney said. “Our estimates are that within Maher’s footprint they could almost double the capacity of the terminal through densification.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Infrastructure fund Macquarie has renewed its lease of the largest container terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey through 2063, agreeing to the port’s new terms for tenant terminals that include taking over the upkeep of its wharves and berths and pledging to increase capacity at the busiest East Coast seaport. The board of commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on Thursday voted to approve the amendment to Macquarie’s existing lease for Maher Terminals that was set to expire in 2030. The Port Authority entered negotiations for a new lease last year due to the expected liquidation date for the specific fund that owns Maher and the potential for a sale of the terminal to another operator. Investors in the fund, however, opted not to liquidate . While the fund shed its stake in Ceres Terminals in 2023 , Macquarie still owns the Long Beach Container Terminal and ITS Terminal in Long Beach and has stakes in Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles and TraPac terminals, which operates in Los Angeles and Oakland. The Maher lease is the latest to be revamped by the Port Authority. Following CMA CGM’s 2022 purchase of Global Container Terminals’ US assets , the agency has changed the lease terms to move away from a flat annual rent with cost escalators to a rent that is based on actual container throughput, subject to an annual minimum. Terminals will also have to share with the Port Authority any excess demurrage revenue and commit to the agency’s environmental and sustainability goals. APM Terminals signed a similar lease agreement in March , extending its tenancy of the Elizabeth Marine Terminal to 2062. Maher could face $2 billion in wharf maintenance costs Along with the new terms, the biggest financial burden for terminal operators under the new leases will be responsibility for maintaining their berths and wharves, which was previously handled by the Port Authority. Some of the berths and wharves at New York/New Jersey are 60 years old, with many of the wood pilings also being damaged by marine borer worms. Port Executive Director Beth Rooney said Thursday the combined bill for maintaining the berths and wharves at GCT, APM and Maher could reach $6 billion. With 10,000 linear feet of berth space, Maher could face as much as $2 billion in costs for berth and wharf maintenance. The new leases also include commitments to increase capacity as part of the Port Authority’s expectations that container volumes will double by 2050. Rooney said Maher committed to “demand induced” capacity improvements over the course of the new lease. Maher, which handled 1.8 million container lifts in 2024, is the largest terminal at the port with 450 acres of space. However, similar to other terminals in New Jersey, it is land constrained with little available acreage near the port. Despite the land constraints, Rooney said Maher could eventually double its capacity by switching over from using straddle carriers to rubber tire gantry cranes, which would allow higher density stacks. “By having a 33-year lease, it gives Maher the lanes they need to invest in additional infrastructure and equipment and amortize that cost,” Rooney said. “Our estimates are that within Maher’s footprint they could almost double the capacity of the terminal through densification.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Macquarie seals deal for new Maher lease at NY/NJ through 2063

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SEASON"S SAVINGS

Use code SSW495 and upgrade to Gold for just $495! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS

Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual 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 SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) has long been the backbone of global commerce, quietly facilitating trillions in transactions. Yet, despite its critical role, traditional EDI has remained notoriously complex, labor-intensive, viewed as antique, and costly. Companies have historically grappled with cumbersome mapping processes, intricate partner-specific logic, and extended onboarding timelines. Now, as industries increasingly adopt agile digital frameworks, the limitations of conventional EDI solutions have become glaringly apparent. Enter Mosaic, an innovative solution unveiled by Orderful, which promises to radically streamline and modernize EDI integration through artificial intelligence. Orderful, already recognized for simplifying supply chain data exchanges, has now introduced Mosaic as the first AI-enriched EDI integration product that completely removes traditional mapping processes. At its core, Mosaic represents a fundamental shift from legacy EDI protocols, replacing archaic, code-heavy formats such as X12 and EDIFACT with modern, easy to use JSON inputs oriented around system-of-record concepts. This alone significantly lowers the barrier to integration, allowing teams accustomed to modern SaaS API development to seamlessly adopt EDI workflows. Mosaic's AI-powered engine ingests and interprets trading partner requirements as well as millions of actual transactions to build reliable, reuseable, self-healing integration which translating data into partner-specific formats without manual intervention. Such automated adaptability is unprecedented in the EDI landscape and promises a marked reduction in implementation timelines, from what once took months or even years, down to mere weeks. Erik Kiser, founder and CEO of Orderful, understands firsthand the pain points of traditional EDI. Having built integrations himself early in his career, Kiser founded Orderful specifically to address the persistent challenges that frustrate businesses across the supply chain. "Nobody has been more frustrated by EDI than I have," Kiser notes candidly. "Those experiences are precisely why Orderful and now Mosaic exist." Mosaic further distinguishes itself by embedding real-time validation and debugging, streamlining error resolution from lengthy processes into rapid, straightforward fixes. Developers, traditionally burdened by the complexities of partner-specific requirements and intricate coding standards, now gain an intuitive, self-service environment. This reduction in complexity not only accelerates implementation but also reduces operational overhead, offering critical advantages in today’s fast-paced business environment. Brian Roberts, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz and Orderful board member, underscores Mosaic's industry impact: "Mosaic has taken one of the most entrenched bottlenecks in enterprise technology, EDI mapping, and replaced it with an AI-native product that adapts automatically. It’s exactly the type of innovation the industry has been missing." While Mosaic initially supports the complete Order-to-Cash lifecycle, covering purchase orders, acknowledgments, shipping notices, and invoices, the platform is designed for continuous growth and expansion. Orderful sees Mosaic not merely as a product but as a foundational architecture poised to support a broader range of data flows and integrations, aligning perfectly with the scalable requirements of global businesses. “The underlying unified data model not only lets us act as the universal connector, but also enables us to build product once that applies to all partners. This includes EDI functionality like order splitting and consolidation, but also unlocks powerful analytics and insights for our customers to help them grow their business,” said Will Benish, principal product manager at Orderful. Security and reliability are integral to Mosaic’s infrastructure, evidenced by SOC 2 Type II compliance and OAuth 2.0 integration. Additionally, the platform guarantees robust performance, boasting sub-second transaction speeds and immediate access to an extensive network of over 10,000 trading partners. For businesses already utilizing Orderful, Mosaic offers a seamless upgrade pathway, allowing organizations to embrace the future of EDI without disrupting their current trading partner relationships. New clients will find Mosaic’s approach refreshingly modern, providing immediate gains in speed, ease of integration, and scalability. Mosaic represents more than just an incremental improvement; it's a visionary leap forward in how enterprises manage and leverage supply chain data. As businesses grapple with increasingly complex global supply networks, Orderful’s Mosaic emerges as a timely and essential tool, providing clarity, agility, and unprecedented simplicity. Mosaic elevates EDI, providing businesses with a streamlined and efficient pathway to rapidly integrate, adapt, and scale in today's dynamic market. “Mosaic wouldn’t have been possible to build even three years ago. The work our team has put in has been extraordinary, combining cutting edge AI techniques with our deep experience with EDI and our rich library of trading partner guidelines and requirements,” said Benish. To learn more about how Mosaic can transform your EDI capabilities and streamline your integration processes or request a demonstration at <a href="https://www.orderful.com/product/mosaic" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">www.orderful.com/product/mosaic</a>.

Orderful Corredted.png

From 1940s Roots to AI-Driven Future: Reinventing EDI for Today's Supply Chains

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW30 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

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW495 and upgrade to Gold for just $495! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on 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

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

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Domestic intermodal to benefit from new lanes, faster service in 2026

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

UP, in merger filing, vows to convert millions of loads to intermodal annually

Maersk takes ‘significant step’ toward return to Red Sea transits

Macquarie seals deal for new Maher lease at NY/NJ through 2063

Recent Commentary

Strategic vision of UP-NS merger must meet operational reality

US signaling importers will need to do ‘heavy lifting’ to secure possible tariff refunds

Top 5 Most Read Stories