<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The public and private funding will go predominantly towards cutting shipping emissions, developing alternative fuel technology and rolling out shore-side power at UK ports.</div>

The public and private funding will go predominantly towards cutting shipping emissions, developing alternative fuel technology and rolling out shore-side power at UK ports.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The British government and private industry will invest £1.1 billion ($1.5 billion) in the country’s ports, with £448 million ($600 million) allocated to reducing emissions from UK shipping, the UK government announced Monday. Unveiled on the first day of London International Shipping Week, the $600 million will be invested in the government’s UK SHORE program, which supports the research and development of new clean maritime technologies and fuels, including electric, hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and wind power. “We’re committing almost half a billion [GBP] to cut carbon emissions from shipping – steering us towards net-zero by 2050 and cementing Britain’s place as a clean energy superpower,” Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said in a statement. As part of the UK SHORE program, the government provides funding to businesses and academia, enabling them to leverage further investment from the private sector to develop technology that can reduce carbon emissions from shipping. On the private port front, Peel Ports announced a $400 million investment in its Liverpool, Hunterston and Great Yarmouth ports, while NatPower Marine unveiled a $340 million investment in shore-side power and the Port of Tyne in northeast England said it would invest $200 million in its North Side development for offshore wind and manufacturing. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The British government and private industry will invest £1.1 billion ($1.5 billion) in the country’s ports, with £448 million ($600 million) allocated to reducing emissions from UK shipping, the UK government announced Monday. Unveiled on the first day of London International Shipping Week, the $600 million will be invested in the government’s UK SHORE program, which supports the research and development of new clean maritime technologies and fuels, including electric, hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and wind power. “We’re committing almost half a billion [GBP] to cut carbon emissions from shipping – steering us towards net-zero by 2050 and cementing Britain’s place as a clean energy superpower,” Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said in a statement. As part of the UK SHORE program, the government provides funding to businesses and academia, enabling them to leverage further investment from the private sector to develop technology that can reduce carbon emissions from shipping. On the private port front, Peel Ports announced a $400 million investment in its Liverpool, Hunterston and Great Yarmouth ports, while NatPower Marine unveiled a $340 million investment in shore-side power and the Port of Tyne in northeast England said it would invest $200 million in its North Side development for offshore wind and manufacturing. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Port News

International ports

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Maritime

British government, ports launch $1.5 billion logistics investment

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.</div>

The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.

<div class="phx-topic">Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congestion-choking-mundra-port-threatens-north-india-cargo-flow-6074653">severe rail congestion</a>. Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from severe rail congestion . Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Drayage

Drayage strike shuts inland flow from Mundra, Kandla ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.</div>

The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees.In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports</a>. The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates.“This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">it doesn’t plan to charge customers</a> shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan.Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global.While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service.MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees. In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports . The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates. “This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that it doesn’t plan to charge customers shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan. Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service. MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

North American ports

Container lines

MSC ready for US port fees after network changes: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Little to no scrapping and scant new orders should keep the MPV fleet stable for now, but things could change quickly if demand surges. </div>

Little to no scrapping and scant new orders should keep the MPV fleet stable for now, but things could change quickly if demand surges.

<div class="phx-topic">The multipurpose and heavy-lift (MPV/HL) shipping sector is walking a fine line between stability and potential capacity shortfalls, according to experts. A modest order book and an aging MPV/HL fleet means the delicate balance of supply and demand in the breakbulk and project cargo industry is vulnerable to sudden changes in global economics, geopolitics and shipper strategies, experts said during a Journal of Commerce webcast Sept. 11. Despite a “relatively positive” outlook for cargo demand, “carriers have consistently stressed that they will not order additional ships without outside investment and/or long-term commitments from shippers,” said Susan Oatway, senior research analyst at the Journal of Commerce. There were 143 MPV/HLs on order at the end of July, equivalent to 9% of the current operating fleet, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. The order book is dominated by heavy-lift capable vessels, with 63% of new buildings on order capable of lifting over 250 tons on a combinable lift. However, of the 80 heavy-lift vessels on order, only five are specialized deck carriers, and 13 have lift capability of more than 750 tons. At the same time, MPV demolitions have slowed “considerably” in 2025, Oatway said, with just four ships sent to the scrapyard through July, compared with 20 vessels in all of 2024. This dearth of scrapping is a primary reason for the upward revision in the Journal of Commerce’s fleet growth forecast, to 1.8% per year through 2029, although Oatway noted that growth is still only enough to replace tonnage exiting the market. Yorck Niclas Prehm, head of research at shipbroker Toepfer Transport, said demolitions have slowed because MPV ownership has become “an asset play.” There is no incentive for owners to scrap MPVs purchased during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, until charter rates fall below operating costs for a given ship. <h3>‘Clear downward pressure’ </h3>Prehm said that given the current geopolitical climate, the “moderate” order book creates stability for both shippers and carriers. “The MPV segment is not overbuilt,” he said. Oatway said falling container freight rates and massive amounts of capacity hitting the water this year could prompt container lines to “chase even more breakbulk cargo,” while roll-on/roll-off ships could provide additional capacity for high and heavy project cargo. On the demand side, global GDP forecasts have “changed dramatically” in the last nine months, with “clear downward pressure on growth globally,” according to Peter Molloy, senior associate for breakbulk and heavy-lift at Drewry. “Although the demand spread has smoothed out, I don’t think it is something that everyone can sit back on,” Molloy told the webcast. Downward movement in MPV/HL charter rates illustrates the building pressure. The Toepfer Multipurpose Index (TMI), based on expected average rates for six- to 12-month time charters for 12,500 deadweight-ton (dwt) “F-Type” vessels, slipped 0.5%, to $12,753 per day in September, the third consecutive monthly decline. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ea382181-08cd-4298-912f-87c79836bcf7"></dynamic-object></div>In its latest TMI report, Toepfer said optimism in the MPV/HL sector “seems to be diminishing” amid heightened volatility in trades that, until recently, had been important demand drivers. “The most significant decline was in the Far East to America trades, as the various grace periods for the implementation of US import tariffs came to an end, and with them the race to move cargoes quickly and in advance,” Toepfer said. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The multipurpose and heavy-lift (MPV/HL) shipping sector is walking a fine line between stability and potential capacity shortfalls, according to experts. A modest order book and an aging MPV/HL fleet means the delicate balance of supply and demand in the breakbulk and project cargo industry is vulnerable to sudden changes in global economics, geopolitics and shipper strategies, experts said during a Journal of Commerce webcast Sept. 11. Despite a “relatively positive” outlook for cargo demand, “carriers have consistently stressed that they will not order additional ships without outside investment and/or long-term commitments from shippers,” said Susan Oatway, senior research analyst at the Journal of Commerce. There were 143 MPV/HLs on order at the end of July, equivalent to 9% of the current operating fleet, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis. The order book is dominated by heavy-lift capable vessels, with 63% of new buildings on order capable of lifting over 250 tons on a combinable lift. However, of the 80 heavy-lift vessels on order, only five are specialized deck carriers, and 13 have lift capability of more than 750 tons. At the same time, MPV demolitions have slowed “considerably” in 2025, Oatway said, with just four ships sent to the scrapyard through July, compared with 20 vessels in all of 2024. This dearth of scrapping is a primary reason for the upward revision in the Journal of Commerce’s fleet growth forecast, to 1.8% per year through 2029, although Oatway noted that growth is still only enough to replace tonnage exiting the market. Yorck Niclas Prehm, head of research at shipbroker Toepfer Transport, said demolitions have slowed because MPV ownership has become “an asset play.” There is no incentive for owners to scrap MPVs purchased during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, until charter rates fall below operating costs for a given ship. ‘Clear downward pressure’ Prehm said that given the current geopolitical climate, the “moderate” order book creates stability for both shippers and carriers. “The MPV segment is not overbuilt,” he said. Oatway said falling container freight rates and massive amounts of capacity hitting the water this year could prompt container lines to “chase even more breakbulk cargo,” while roll-on/roll-off ships could provide additional capacity for high and heavy project cargo. On the demand side, global GDP forecasts have “changed dramatically” in the last nine months, with “clear downward pressure on growth globally,” according to Peter Molloy, senior associate for breakbulk and heavy-lift at Drewry. “Although the demand spread has smoothed out, I don’t think it is something that everyone can sit back on,” Molloy told the webcast. Downward movement in MPV/HL charter rates illustrates the building pressure. The Toepfer Multipurpose Index (TMI), based on expected average rates for six- to 12-month time charters for 12,500 deadweight-ton (dwt) “F-Type” vessels, slipped 0.5%, to $12,753 per day in September, the third consecutive monthly decline. In its latest TMI report, Toepfer said optimism in the MPV/HL sector “seems to be diminishing” amid heightened volatility in trades that, until recently, had been important demand drivers. “The most significant decline was in the Far East to America trades, as the various grace periods for the implementation of US import tariffs came to an end, and with them the race to move cargoes quickly and in advance,” Toepfer said. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk carriers

Multipurpose vessel supply-demand balance on knife edge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.</div>

Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.

<div class="phx-topic">US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/25/2025-16191/notice-of-request-for-public-comments-on-section-232-national-security-investigation-of-imports-of">public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation</a>, US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation , US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Project cargo

Energy projects

US wind sector warns against further increase in import tariffs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.</div>

COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.

<div class="phx-topic">COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/service-levels-to-determine-success-in-reshaped-mexico-us-intermodal-market-5192946">Falcon and Eagle Premium services</a>, but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the Falcon and Eagle Premium services , but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Rail News

BNSF intermodal partner returning to Mexico

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters. </div>

There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. <h3>Pushing pause </h3>The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. <h3>Beyond parking </h3>Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. Pushing pause The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. Beyond parking Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.</div>

The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.

<div class="phx-topic">For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. <h3>‘Manageable’ constraints </h3>Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at <a href="mailto:plamarre@portofmonroe.com">plamarre@portofmonroe.com</a>. </div>

For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. ‘Manageable’ constraints Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at plamarre@portofmonroe.com .

Marine terminals

Ro/ro cargo

Port infrastructure

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

 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 Asia [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity (eeSea)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity(eeSea)

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Knight-Swift already partners with both UP and NS, so a combined transcontinental railroad would fit nicely into its existing service for shippers.</div>

Knight-Swift already partners with both UP and NS, so a combined transcontinental railroad would fit nicely into its existing service for shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation said Tuesday it believes US regulators should approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), becoming the fourth major intermodal provider to publicly back the $85 billion deal. Swift Intermodal, Knight-Swift’s intermodal division, already partners with both UP and NS, making the acquisition a natural fit for its existing intermodal network. A combined transcontinental railroad would require little to no adjustment for Swift, and it could reap the rewards of eliminating time-consuming interchanges in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans. “By knitting together a coast-to-coast rail network, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are creating new efficiencies that will benefit everyone — from logistics providers like us to our customers, to the end-consumers,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said in a statement. “As a company that operates thousands of trucks and thousands of intermodal containers, we know the power of combining modes. This unified rail system will let us seamlessly integrate our trucking with rail on cross-country shipments like never before.” Knight-Swift’s intermodal division owns about 12,000 containers, hauling nearly 150,000 loads across all North American railroads annually. It is the fifth-largest asset-owning intermodal provider in the US behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics. Knight-Swift joins <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ns-deal-would-trigger-unnecessary-wave-of-rail-mergers-cpkc-6069870">C.R. England, Hub Group, and Mode Transportation</a> as supporters of the UP-NS deal, which would create the US’ first transcontinental railroad and requires approval from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), which could come sometime in 2027. <h3>Political football </h3>While UP and NS have until January to file their formal application to the STB, the railroads received a boost last week when the Trump administration moved to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-move-to-oust-stbs-primus-boosts-likelihood-of-up-ns-approval-6070952">fire board member</a> Robert Primus, who has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry. The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union and its transportation division (SMART-TD), has come out against the UP-NS transaction and criticized the attempted removal of Primus. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), another large rail union, has not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) opposes the deal and last week ruled out a potential merger with the other eastern US railroad, CSX Transportation. Canadian National Railway has not commented publicly on the UP-NS deal. Schneider National and STG Logistics, two other large asset-based partners of UP, have not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Both partner with CSX in the eastern US, making a UP-NS transcontinental railroad more complicated for their intermodal networks. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Knight-Swift Transportation said Tuesday it believes US regulators should approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), becoming the fourth major intermodal provider to publicly back the $85 billion deal. Swift Intermodal, Knight-Swift’s intermodal division, already partners with both UP and NS, making the acquisition a natural fit for its existing intermodal network. A combined transcontinental railroad would require little to no adjustment for Swift, and it could reap the rewards of eliminating time-consuming interchanges in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans. “By knitting together a coast-to-coast rail network, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are creating new efficiencies that will benefit everyone — from logistics providers like us to our customers, to the end-consumers,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said in a statement. “As a company that operates thousands of trucks and thousands of intermodal containers, we know the power of combining modes. This unified rail system will let us seamlessly integrate our trucking with rail on cross-country shipments like never before.” Knight-Swift’s intermodal division owns about 12,000 containers, hauling nearly 150,000 loads across all North American railroads annually. It is the fifth-largest asset-owning intermodal provider in the US behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics. Knight-Swift joins C.R. England, Hub Group, and Mode Transportation as supporters of the UP-NS deal, which would create the US’ first transcontinental railroad and requires approval from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), which could come sometime in 2027. Political football While UP and NS have until January to file their formal application to the STB, the railroads received a boost last week when the Trump administration moved to fire board member Robert Primus, who has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry. The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union and its transportation division (SMART-TD), has come out against the UP-NS transaction and criticized the attempted removal of Primus. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), another large rail union, has not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) opposes the deal and last week ruled out a potential merger with the other eastern US railroad, CSX Transportation. Canadian National Railway has not commented publicly on the UP-NS deal. Schneider National and STG Logistics, two other large asset-based partners of UP, have not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Both partner with CSX in the eastern US, making a UP-NS transcontinental railroad more complicated for their intermodal networks. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

Knight-Swift says it backs Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ocean carriers are seeking to curb the sharp decline in spot rates in the run-up to next month’s Golden Week holiday. </div>

Ocean carriers are seeking to curb the sharp decline in spot rates in the run-up to next month’s Golden Week holiday.

<div class="phx-topic">The next few weeks on the trans-Pacific trade will be telling as time is running out for container lines to adjust capacity to falling demand or risk losing contracted cargo to the spot market. A slight bump last week in container spot rates, as measured by the Platts and Shanghai Shipping Exchange indexes, could be a sign of blank sailings ending the sharp dive in rates that began in late May, or merely a blip. The run-up to Golden Week that starts Oct. 1, a period of slowing China production due to the holiday observance, gives carriers the last major window this year to stem the rate bleed or see shippers neglect contracted allocations in favor of cheaper spot rates. Ocean carriers are seeking rate increases of $800 to $900 per FEU, sources say, with one carrier representative noting the efforts are focused on curbing the rate erosion of the last two months. Container spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast are about $2,000 per FEU, according to various indexes, with the Shanghai Shipping Exchange registering a 65% drop since June. Bullet rates quoted for single voyages tend to be $200 to $300 less than index rates, and some forwarder quotes for US West Coast routings have been as low as $1,300-$1,400 per FEU.Container lines thus far have been modest in blanking capacity despite falling rates and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323">weak forecasts for year-end volumes</a>. But analysts and forwarders warn that a sharp increase in blanks is nearly inevitable. Carriers’ averseness to losing import <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/toll-of-us-tariffs-begins-to-emerge-on-unsettled-trans-pacific-6065761">volumes already weakened by US tariff frontloading</a>, the potential for a late-year surge, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/niche-carriers-plan-to-ride-out-declining-spot-rates-on-the-trans-pacific-6071722">niche carriers sticking to the trade</a> have kept blanking levels consistent with past years. <h3>More capacity coming in October </h3>Container lines plan to inject more capacity in October, nonetheless, adding nearly 100,000 TEUs more than what’s deployed in September, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The share of tonnage deployed on Asia to the US West Coast that is made unusable through blank sailings hovered near 8.4% in August, and carriers so far plan to blank a similar proportion of tonnage in September and October, although that can rise as weeks progress. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d0dc514b-60a6-4b10-862a-081c37b36db2"></dynamic-object></div>If carriers can’t adjust demand to supply, they face the risk of more shippers turning to the spot market rather than fulfilling contracted cargo allocations. Spot rates, as measured by various indexes, are at levels that many small and medium-sized shippers signed contracts at in the spring. Short-term ocean rates, as measured by benchmarking provider Xeneta, began falling in early August below contract rates covering 88 days or more. The short-term cost to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast was $1,319 for the week ending Aug. 28, compared with $1,597 for the long-term rate in the same period. “We've got customers who are eager to save $100 anywhere, and they want a piece of that,” said a forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We are not trying to sell it, but when they ask us, ‘What are your FAK rates?’ We can’t tell them, ‘No, we’re not going to offer you our FAK rates,’ especially if it means we’re going to get some incremental business out of it.”<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="98a0037a-3658-44f2-86a3-be3148b993eb"></dynamic-object></div>Small and medium-sized importers signed service contract rates at a larger-than-usual premium than the largest retailers in mid-April just as the market was showing strength, said another forwarder. The largest big-box retailers signed contracts that generally began May 1 in the range of $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, while midsize and smaller importers secured contract rates in the range of $2,000 to $2,200 per FEU. The danger importers face chasing cheaper spot rates when the rates are falling is that carriers will be loath to help out cargo owners when the market inevitably tightens — even if it’s short-lived. Container lines are more agile in moving vessels to and from ocean trades by omitting calls to ports or voiding sailings, according to an Aug. 28 notice sent by forwarder American Shipping Co. to its customers that was seen by the Journal of Commerce. While such tools to manage capacity haven’t had much impact in recent months, “if timed right, it can have a direct impact on the freight rates,” the notice read. Most shippers are not concerned about carriers charging them for dead freight if they do not fill the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in their contracts because, historically, carriers have never done that. Carriers normally roll over the unused MQCs into the next year’s contracts. So far, the shift from contracted cargo to spot cargo has been minimal, according to forwarders and carriers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. But the inflection point is getting closer. “It could happen” that more BCOs turn to the spot market if rates reverse course in the coming weeks and begin dropping again toward $1,600 to the West Coast and $2,600 to the East Coast, said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV Global Logistics. “If the West Coast spot rate sinks to $1,400, some BCOs will seek to reopen their contracts, or they could book more under spot,” Kauffman said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report. </div>

The next few weeks on the trans-Pacific trade will be telling as time is running out for container lines to adjust capacity to falling demand or risk losing contracted cargo to the spot market. A slight bump last week in container spot rates, as measured by the Platts and Shanghai Shipping Exchange indexes, could be a sign of blank sailings ending the sharp dive in rates that began in late May, or merely a blip. The run-up to Golden Week that starts Oct. 1, a period of slowing China production due to the holiday observance, gives carriers the last major window this year to stem the rate bleed or see shippers neglect contracted allocations in favor of cheaper spot rates. Ocean carriers are seeking rate increases of $800 to $900 per FEU, sources say, with one carrier representative noting the efforts are focused on curbing the rate erosion of the last two months. Container spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast are about $2,000 per FEU, according to various indexes, with the Shanghai Shipping Exchange registering a 65% drop since June. Bullet rates quoted for single voyages tend to be $200 to $300 less than index rates, and some forwarder quotes for US West Coast routings have been as low as $1,300-$1,400 per FEU. Container lines thus far have been modest in blanking capacity despite falling rates and weak forecasts for year-end volumes . But analysts and forwarders warn that a sharp increase in blanks is nearly inevitable. Carriers’ averseness to losing import volumes already weakened by US tariff frontloading , the potential for a late-year surge, and niche carriers sticking to the trade have kept blanking levels consistent with past years. More capacity coming in October Container lines plan to inject more capacity in October, nonetheless, adding nearly 100,000 TEUs more than what’s deployed in September, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The share of tonnage deployed on Asia to the US West Coast that is made unusable through blank sailings hovered near 8.4% in August, and carriers so far plan to blank a similar proportion of tonnage in September and October, although that can rise as weeks progress. If carriers can’t adjust demand to supply, they face the risk of more shippers turning to the spot market rather than fulfilling contracted cargo allocations. Spot rates, as measured by various indexes, are at levels that many small and medium-sized shippers signed contracts at in the spring. Short-term ocean rates, as measured by benchmarking provider Xeneta, began falling in early August below contract rates covering 88 days or more. The short-term cost to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast was $1,319 for the week ending Aug. 28, compared with $1,597 for the long-term rate in the same period. “We've got customers who are eager to save $100 anywhere, and they want a piece of that,” said a forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We are not trying to sell it, but when they ask us, ‘What are your FAK rates?’ We can’t tell them, ‘No, we’re not going to offer you our FAK rates,’ especially if it means we’re going to get some incremental business out of it.” Small and medium-sized importers signed service contract rates at a larger-than-usual premium than the largest retailers in mid-April just as the market was showing strength, said another forwarder. The largest big-box retailers signed contracts that generally began May 1 in the range of $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, while midsize and smaller importers secured contract rates in the range of $2,000 to $2,200 per FEU. The danger importers face chasing cheaper spot rates when the rates are falling is that carriers will be loath to help out cargo owners when the market inevitably tightens — even if it’s short-lived. Container lines are more agile in moving vessels to and from ocean trades by omitting calls to ports or voiding sailings, according to an Aug. 28 notice sent by forwarder American Shipping Co. to its customers that was seen by the Journal of Commerce. While such tools to manage capacity haven’t had much impact in recent months, “if timed right, it can have a direct impact on the freight rates,” the notice read. Most shippers are not concerned about carriers charging them for dead freight if they do not fill the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in their contracts because, historically, carriers have never done that. Carriers normally roll over the unused MQCs into the next year’s contracts. So far, the shift from contracted cargo to spot cargo has been minimal, according to forwarders and carriers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. But the inflection point is getting closer. “It could happen” that more BCOs turn to the spot market if rates reverse course in the coming weeks and begin dropping again toward $1,600 to the West Coast and $2,600 to the East Coast, said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV Global Logistics. “If the West Coast spot rate sinks to $1,400, some BCOs will seek to reopen their contracts, or they could book more under spot,” Kauffman said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report.

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Ocean market in trans-Pacific arrives at spot pricing tipping point

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal. </div>

The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal.

<div class="phx-topic">DP World is seeking to operate a long-planned, nearly C$1.6 billion container terminal in Montreal that the new Canadian government is backing amid its shift away from US trade dependence.The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal, which, with an annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs, would increase Canada’s second-largest container port by capacity 150%. DP World, which operates at Vancouver and Prince Rupert the first- and third-largest ports in Canada, respectively, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-29/dp-world-vies-for-deal-to-run-montreal-port-championed-by-carney">confirmed to Bloomberg</a> that it was involved in project negotiations. DP said in a statement it was always exploring ways to expand its network in Canada and increase investment in the country. “While we see strong potential for developing logistics infrastructure in Montreal that drives economic growth and long-term value, we have no announcements to share at this time,” said a DP World spokesperson. Since the port failed to attract a bidder in 2021, the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/quebec-provides-new-funding-for-proposed-montreal-terminal-citing-us-trade-tensions-5947783">Contrecoeur project has received</a> C$130 million from the Quebec provincial government and C$130 million from Canada’s infrastructure bank for construction. Prime Minister Mark Carney last week said that he was seeking to fast-track the Contrecoeur project and highlighted <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carney-has-fresh-opportunity-to-galvanize-canadian-shipping-industry-6047928">newly passed legislation streamlining regulatory</a> approval for major infrastructure projects. The C$1.57 billion project, which is located 43 miles downriver from legacy Montreal terminals along the St. Lawrence River, requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the waterway. MPA seeks to begin construction as early as October and open the facility in 2029. The authority in 2022 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-relaunches-search-process-for-contrecoeur-terminal-operator-5204826">sent bid invitations</a> to Axium Infrastructure Canada and Pomerleau Capital, Ports America Holdings, and Terminal Investment Limited, in which Mediterranean Shipping Co. owns a majority stake. The port originally planned to have the first phase of the project finished by 2024 and had identified three finalist but scrapped plans. DP World operates the Centerm facility in Vancouver and solely operates at Prince Rupert and Port Saint John. Montreal’s four existing container terminals are operated by two companies, Montreal Gateway Terminals Partnership and Termont Montreal.Container volumes through Montreal last year slipped 1%, to approximately 750,500 TEUs compared with 2023, according to MPA. Sporadic labor issues and the Port of New York and New Jersey’s ability to attract more exports from the Midwest have contributed to volume declines in recent years, with traffic down 8.9% in 2024 compared with 2020. Container volume, however, is up nearly 6.5% in the first seven months of this year on a year-over-year basis. While the port began the project in the late 1980s, work has gathered speed in the last decade, Julie Gascon, CEO and president of MPA, said on a Journal of Commerce webinar on May 22. The need to diversify away from US trade due to high tariffs has only added more momentum to the project. “If there is a 6% shift of Canadian exports from us to other international markets, Montreal would get at capacity very, very quickly, so it’s not just a project for the future, it’s a project that is urgent,” Gascon said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DP World is seeking to operate a long-planned, nearly C$1.6 billion container terminal in Montreal that the new Canadian government is backing amid its shift away from US trade dependence. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal, which, with an annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs, would increase Canada’s second-largest container port by capacity 150%. DP World, which operates at Vancouver and Prince Rupert the first- and third-largest ports in Canada, respectively, confirmed to Bloomberg that it was involved in project negotiations. DP said in a statement it was always exploring ways to expand its network in Canada and increase investment in the country. “While we see strong potential for developing logistics infrastructure in Montreal that drives economic growth and long-term value, we have no announcements to share at this time,” said a DP World spokesperson. Since the port failed to attract a bidder in 2021, the Contrecoeur project has received C$130 million from the Quebec provincial government and C$130 million from Canada’s infrastructure bank for construction. Prime Minister Mark Carney last week said that he was seeking to fast-track the Contrecoeur project and highlighted newly passed legislation streamlining regulatory approval for major infrastructure projects. The C$1.57 billion project, which is located 43 miles downriver from legacy Montreal terminals along the St. Lawrence River, requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the waterway. MPA seeks to begin construction as early as October and open the facility in 2029. The authority in 2022 sent bid invitations to Axium Infrastructure Canada and Pomerleau Capital, Ports America Holdings, and Terminal Investment Limited, in which Mediterranean Shipping Co. owns a majority stake. The port originally planned to have the first phase of the project finished by 2024 and had identified three finalist but scrapped plans. DP World operates the Centerm facility in Vancouver and solely operates at Prince Rupert and Port Saint John. Montreal’s four existing container terminals are operated by two companies, Montreal Gateway Terminals Partnership and Termont Montreal. Container volumes through Montreal last year slipped 1%, to approximately 750,500 TEUs compared with 2023, according to MPA. Sporadic labor issues and the Port of New York and New Jersey’s ability to attract more exports from the Midwest have contributed to volume declines in recent years, with traffic down 8.9% in 2024 compared with 2020. Container volume, however, is up nearly 6.5% in the first seven months of this year on a year-over-year basis. While the port began the project in the late 1980s, work has gathered speed in the last decade, Julie Gascon, CEO and president of MPA, said on a Journal of Commerce webinar on May 22. The need to diversify away from US trade due to high tariffs has only added more momentum to the project. “If there is a 6% shift of Canadian exports from us to other international markets, Montreal would get at capacity very, very quickly, so it’s not just a project for the future, it’s a project that is urgent,” Gascon said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

DP World aims to run Carney-backed Montreal terminal

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 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 ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

In today’s competitive logistical landscape, efficiency is an absolute necessity for smooth operations. Yet, in the barge sector, many operators still rely on fragmented systems, delayed updates, and manual tracking methods that slow decision-making and increase operational risk. OpenTug’s new eBook, How Enhanced Visibility Transforms Barge Operations, reveals how unified, real-time data can become your competitive advantage leading to improved voyage management and more actionable insights. Drawing on industry best practices and real-world examples, it explores how operational transparency empowers teams to: ●	Reduce delays with accurate ETAs and proactive scheduling decisions ●	Improve asset utilization by identifying underused equipment and optimizing cargos ●	Strengthen safety and compliance through consistent, accessible documentation and reporting ●	Boost customer satisfaction with transparent status updates and faster response time You’ll learn how visibility can connect every part of your operation into a single, actionable view. The ability to see and act on real-time information transforms the way you plan, execute, and deliver. From managing a small regional fleet to running a large, national operation, this eBook will help you understand the measurable benefits of enhanced visibility and how technology like BargeOS is transforming the way barge logistics is managed. Get your copy today and see how clear insights lead to stronger performance, smarter decisions, and more profitable operations. <a href="https://9315820.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/9315820/eBook/Nav-theFuture-AJW-08.19.25.pdf" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">Click here</a><span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1756152344211_Opentug%20logo.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Opentug11.png

Transform Barge Operations with Total Visibility

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: <a href="https://www.ssamarine.mx/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">https://www.ssamarine.mx/</a>

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous 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

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.</div>

The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports</a>. As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call</a> and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump</a>. “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. <h3>New orders skew toward China </h3>CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgms-q2-earnings-slide-as-geopolitics-tariffs-hit-shipping-business-6052414">a July interview with the Journal of Commerce</a>, adding that the carrier wants to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry</a>. “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article. </div>

CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports . As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump . “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. New orders skew toward China CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during a July interview with the Journal of Commerce, adding that the carrier wants to support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry . “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article.

CMA CGM reroutes China-built ships to avoid US port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cracks may be appearing in the LTL pricing wall, as shipment levels drop, but LTL costs remain elevated compared with pandemic-era rates.</div>

Cracks may be appearing in the LTL pricing wall, as shipment levels drop, but LTL costs remain elevated compared with pandemic-era rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Daily shipment volumes fell at some of the largest US less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers in August, as soft demand reportedly brought new pressure to bear on rates and challenged the LTL industry’s pricing discipline. Continued market softness could open more opportunities for cost savings as LTL shippers renew contracts with their carriers or at least hold price increases to a minimum. Even so, LTL carriers continue to expand as they seek new customers and additional volume and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-carriers-expanding-us-networks-despite-low-freight-demand-6053685">build greater density</a> into their freight networks. And LTL costs <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-rates-still-rising-after-muted-response-to-shipment-reclassification-6063877">remain elevated</a>, even compared with pandemic-era highs. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="914cdb2d-10c9-442d-8d38-5fc6e7a45eeb"></dynamic-object></div>Financial updates released last week by Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), XPO and Saia gave no indication that freight demand rose in August, a month when S&amp;P Global reported a surge in manufacturing output. The S&amp;P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index for US manufacturing rose from 49.8 in July to 53 in August, signaling expansion and inventory growth. However, daily shipment counts at Saia, the sixth-largest US LTL carrier ranked by revenue, dropped 2.2% year over year in August. Shipments at XPO, the fourth-largest carrier, fell 3.4%. Daily volumes at second-largest-ranked ODFL fell 8.2% in August, reflecting “ongoing softness in the domestic economy,” ODFL said. ABF Freight System, a subsidiary of ArcBest, bucked the trend, increasing its shipment count 5% year over year in August and 1% from July, the company said Monday. <h3>Working the core </h3>Despite continued softness in manufacturing and housing, ABF said it succeeded in adding new core LTL business in August. “The company remains focused on onboarding new business while maintaining consistent reliability,” ArcBest said in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Total revenue per hundredweight — a measure of pricing, surcharges and costs often called yield — was flat at ABF in August. ODFL said its revenue per day fell 4.8% from a year earlier in August. However, revenue per hundredweight, excluding fuel surcharges, rose 4.5%. That’s a sign that pricing, excluding surcharges, continued to rise at ODFL. Since the Great Recession ended in 2009, LTL carriers have become known for their pricing “discipline,” and for placing more emphasis on profitability than market share. Some sources say that discipline is showing cracks as lower volume raises the cost of operating LTL networks and hammers trucking companies’ bottom lines. Some LTL carriers are becoming “super aggressive,” said Mike Regan, chief of relationship development at TranzAct Technologies, a freight audit, payment and procurement firm. “I had the CEO of an LTL company tell me, ‘We’re going to price to get our trucks full, then we’ll go back to the (rates) we want,’” Regan said. Other sources, including a major logistics provider, said they are seeing more targeted price cuts in lanes and markets where LTL carriers want freight. Costing models and analytics — technology many LTL providers didn’t have 10 years ago — are helping carriers determine where they can cut without endangering profits and margins. <h3>Adding space, chasing freight </h3>At the same time, LTL companies continue to expand their networks. Ohio-based Midwestern regional LTL provider Dayton Freight Lines on Monday said it is opening a terminal in Bedford, Pa., to provide more direct LTL coverage linking the Midwest with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Dayton partners with A. Duie Pyle in the region, and Pyle has also been expanding in Ohio. The US producer price index (PPI) for long-distance LTL trucking has shown no signs of slowing through July, the last month for which data was available. The PPI, which represents all-inclusive LTL “selling prices” paid by shippers, rose 7.3% year over year in July to 265.4, a reading 2.6% higher than its previous peak in 2022. LTL carriers are still winning increases of 2% to 3% in contract renewals or extensions, according to Satish Jindel, president of research firm SJ Consulting Group. “They’re all looking for more business,” Jindel said. Discounting “would just put pressure on their margins. It would begin to look like 2009 again,” — a time when heavy discounts during a recession led to losses for several LTL carriers. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Daily shipment volumes fell at some of the largest US less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers in August, as soft demand reportedly brought new pressure to bear on rates and challenged the LTL industry’s pricing discipline. Continued market softness could open more opportunities for cost savings as LTL shippers renew contracts with their carriers or at least hold price increases to a minimum. Even so, LTL carriers continue to expand as they seek new customers and additional volume and build greater density into their freight networks. And LTL costs remain elevated , even compared with pandemic-era highs. Financial updates released last week by Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), XPO and Saia gave no indication that freight demand rose in August, a month when S&P Global reported a surge in manufacturing output. The S&P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index for US manufacturing rose from 49.8 in July to 53 in August, signaling expansion and inventory growth. However, daily shipment counts at Saia, the sixth-largest US LTL carrier ranked by revenue, dropped 2.2% year over year in August. Shipments at XPO, the fourth-largest carrier, fell 3.4%. Daily volumes at second-largest-ranked ODFL fell 8.2% in August, reflecting “ongoing softness in the domestic economy,” ODFL said. ABF Freight System, a subsidiary of ArcBest, bucked the trend, increasing its shipment count 5% year over year in August and 1% from July, the company said Monday. Working the core Despite continued softness in manufacturing and housing, ABF said it succeeded in adding new core LTL business in August. “The company remains focused on onboarding new business while maintaining consistent reliability,” ArcBest said in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Total revenue per hundredweight — a measure of pricing, surcharges and costs often called yield — was flat at ABF in August. ODFL said its revenue per day fell 4.8% from a year earlier in August. However, revenue per hundredweight, excluding fuel surcharges, rose 4.5%. That’s a sign that pricing, excluding surcharges, continued to rise at ODFL. Since the Great Recession ended in 2009, LTL carriers have become known for their pricing “discipline,” and for placing more emphasis on profitability than market share. Some sources say that discipline is showing cracks as lower volume raises the cost of operating LTL networks and hammers trucking companies’ bottom lines. Some LTL carriers are becoming “super aggressive,” said Mike Regan, chief of relationship development at TranzAct Technologies, a freight audit, payment and procurement firm. “I had the CEO of an LTL company tell me, ‘We’re going to price to get our trucks full, then we’ll go back to the (rates) we want,’” Regan said. Other sources, including a major logistics provider, said they are seeing more targeted price cuts in lanes and markets where LTL carriers want freight. Costing models and analytics — technology many LTL providers didn’t have 10 years ago — are helping carriers determine where they can cut without endangering profits and margins. Adding space, chasing freight At the same time, LTL companies continue to expand their networks. Ohio-based Midwestern regional LTL provider Dayton Freight Lines on Monday said it is opening a terminal in Bedford, Pa., to provide more direct LTL coverage linking the Midwest with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Dayton partners with A. Duie Pyle in the region, and Pyle has also been expanding in Ohio. The US producer price index (PPI) for long-distance LTL trucking has shown no signs of slowing through July, the last month for which data was available. The PPI, which represents all-inclusive LTL “selling prices” paid by shippers, rose 7.3% year over year in July to 265.4, a reading 2.6% higher than its previous peak in 2022. LTL carriers are still winning increases of 2% to 3% in contract renewals or extensions, according to Satish Jindel, president of research firm SJ Consulting Group. “They’re all looking for more business,” Jindel said. Discounting “would just put pressure on their margins. It would begin to look like 2009 again,” — a time when heavy discounts during a recession led to losses for several LTL carriers. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

British government, ports launch $1.5 billion logistics investment

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Knight-Swift says it backs Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal

Ocean market in trans-Pacific arrives at spot pricing tipping point

DP World aims to run Carney-backed Montreal terminal

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories