<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With only low-capacity increases forecast for the MPV fleet, operators believe they will be able to handle the predicted increases in project cargo.  </div>

With only low-capacity increases forecast for the MPV fleet, operators believe they will be able to handle the predicted increases in project cargo. 

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Crashing container shipping rates and increasing vessel oversupply have pushed liner operators to increase their exposure to breakbulk opportunities – and with abundant spare capacity they will be competitive, according to sector specialists. Justin Archard, managing partner at One World Shipbrokers, told the Journal of Commerce the year-plus fall in global container rates and newbuild delivery glut comes as an increasing number of large and ultra-large multipurpose vessels (MPVs) have been committed to long distance and primary port pairs on liner/semi-liner schedules.  That combination will lead smaller MPVs and project carriers to reduce their exposure to direct volume-based competition by focusing on how they can exploit their core strengths of small port capability and flexible service schedules. “Whilst container operators are sometimes breakbulk predators, they are less willing to handle large unit numbers of loose breakbulk,” Archard said.  “This has always and will always be one of MPVs great strengths.” The Market Sentiment Index (MSI) for the MPV and breakbulk industry, developed by Archard, sank to its lowest in 15 months in the August edition. However, at 53.0, the index is still above the 50.0 barrier, denoting optimism, rather than pessimism or wariness. The MSI averages the responses from an anonymous group of 20 to 30 MPV owners and operators to a set of breakbulk shipping-related questions. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1f91d0fb-eb2a-4150-aa07-3afb03099e22"></dynamic-object></div>Those surveyed spoke of increasing, but so far manageable, pressure in the general breakbulk market. “We still maintain a cautious optimistic stance on the long term, driven by the fact that newbuilding orders do not pose yet a big threat on the supply front and demand for renewable energy combined with oil &amp; gas capex planning and infrastructure projects will remain on high levels,” one source said.  Another source commented that the MPV charter market remains “completely illiquid” with any tonnage being brought to the market directed towards long-term charters. <h3>Toepfer index reflects ‘stability’ </h3>Slight downward movement in Toepfer Transport’s Toepfer Multipurpose Index (TMI) illustrates the building pressure. The August reading of $12,818 is down 0.67% from July; consequently, the TMI “maintains its stability,” Toepfer said in its report. The broker also noted a parallel decline in transactions in the secondhand MPV market, “which could potentially impact market pricing.” The TMI is based on expected average rates for six- to 12-month time charters for 12,500-deadweight-ton (dwt) “F-Type” vessels with safe working loads (SWL) of 240 to 360 metric tons, as reported to Toepfer by owners and operators. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ea382181-08cd-4298-912f-87c79836bcf7"></dynamic-object></div>Archard said that with only low-capacity increases forecast for the MPV fleet, operators believe they will be able to handle the predicted increases in project cargo. Also, consolidation of carriers over the past decade has meant the investment decisions about new tonnage is in fewer hands than ever before.  “It is in owners’ interests to engineer and maintain a slight supply deficit wherever possible,” Archard said. “Enzo Ferrari famously once said – ‘I will always deliver one less Ferrari than the market demands,’ and this reticence to increase fleet numbers is starting to show up in the Market Sentiment Index fleet supply readings.”  He noted both short- and longer-term market indicators signal a tightening, which carriers will see as healthy for their business and a vindication of their policies.  “However, as freight rates rise in this tightening scenario, some shippers may be driven to seek alternative ocean transport options,” Archard said. “The balance is fragile and the pendulum is always swinging.” Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Crashing container shipping rates and increasing vessel oversupply have pushed liner operators to increase their exposure to breakbulk opportunities – and with abundant spare capacity they will be competitive, according to sector specialists. Justin Archard, managing partner at One World Shipbrokers, told the Journal of Commerce the year-plus fall in global container rates and newbuild delivery glut comes as an increasing number of large and ultra-large multipurpose vessels (MPVs) have been committed to long distance and primary port pairs on liner/semi-liner schedules.  That combination will lead smaller MPVs and project carriers to reduce their exposure to direct volume-based competition by focusing on how they can exploit their core strengths of small port capability and flexible service schedules. “Whilst container operators are sometimes breakbulk predators, they are less willing to handle large unit numbers of loose breakbulk,” Archard said.  “This has always and will always be one of MPVs great strengths.” The Market Sentiment Index (MSI) for the MPV and breakbulk industry, developed by Archard, sank to its lowest in 15 months in the August edition. However, at 53.0, the index is still above the 50.0 barrier, denoting optimism, rather than pessimism or wariness. The MSI averages the responses from an anonymous group of 20 to 30 MPV owners and operators to a set of breakbulk shipping-related questions. Those surveyed spoke of increasing, but so far manageable, pressure in the general breakbulk market. “We still maintain a cautious optimistic stance on the long term, driven by the fact that newbuilding orders do not pose yet a big threat on the supply front and demand for renewable energy combined with oil & gas capex planning and infrastructure projects will remain on high levels,” one source said.  Another source commented that the MPV charter market remains “completely illiquid” with any tonnage being brought to the market directed towards long-term charters. Toepfer index reflects ‘stability’ Slight downward movement in Toepfer Transport’s Toepfer Multipurpose Index (TMI) illustrates the building pressure. The August reading of $12,818 is down 0.67% from July; consequently, the TMI “maintains its stability,” Toepfer said in its report. The broker also noted a parallel decline in transactions in the secondhand MPV market, “which could potentially impact market pricing.” The TMI is based on expected average rates for six- to 12-month time charters for 12,500-deadweight-ton (dwt) “F-Type” vessels with safe working loads (SWL) of 240 to 360 metric tons, as reported to Toepfer by owners and operators. Archard said that with only low-capacity increases forecast for the MPV fleet, operators believe they will be able to handle the predicted increases in project cargo. Also, consolidation of carriers over the past decade has meant the investment decisions about new tonnage is in fewer hands than ever before.  “It is in owners’ interests to engineer and maintain a slight supply deficit wherever possible,” Archard said. “Enzo Ferrari famously once said – ‘I will always deliver one less Ferrari than the market demands,’ and this reticence to increase fleet numbers is starting to show up in the Market Sentiment Index fleet supply readings.”  He noted both short- and longer-term market indicators signal a tightening, which carriers will see as healthy for their business and a vindication of their policies.  “However, as freight rates rise in this tightening scenario, some shippers may be driven to seek alternative ocean transport options,” Archard said. “The balance is fragile and the pendulum is always swinging.” Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Breakbulk News

Project cargo

Breakbulk carriers

Tight MPV supply countered by container rate crash, ship glut

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">When the proposed agreement is adopted in October, as expected, all international shipping will be bound by the decarbonization regulation, an official at the shipping association pointed out. </div>

When the proposed agreement is adopted in October, as expected, all international shipping will be bound by the decarbonization regulation, an official at the shipping association pointed out.

<div class="phx-topic">The US’ formal rejection of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero framework agreement will have little impact on the emissions regulation that, once adopted, will still require compliance from all ships trading internationally, according to shipping association Bimco. The net-zero proposal will be promulgated at the next meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in October, where it is expected to pass with the required two-thirds majority. “Even when, or if, the US places reservations that the rule will not apply to them, it will, because all ships of non-US-flag trading internationally are bound by their flag [and] US-flag ships will also be required to comply if they trade internationally,” Lars Robert Pedersen, deputy secretary-general and director of regulatory affairs at Bimco, told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. Only about 80 merchant ships currently trade internationally under the US flag, according to maritime insurers UK P&amp;I Club. Vowing “to protect the American people and their economic interests,” the White House on Tuesday called on IMO members to reject the agreement and threatened to retaliate against those supporting the proposal. “Our fellow IMO members should be on notice that we will look for their support against this action and not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens should this endeavor fail,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a joint statement. <h3>‘A global carbon tax on Americans’ </h3>“Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization,” the US statement said, adding that the US would not accept any environmental regulation that “unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.” Despite the formal rejection by the White House and its ongoing criticism of the UN and its many agencies, the statement drew a diplomatic response from the IMO. “The IMO net-zero framework was approved in April 2025 and represents a collective commitment by member states to deliver on shared goals outlined in the Revised IMO Strategy on the Reduction of GHG emissions that was adopted in 2023,” an IMO spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The upcoming MEPC session in October provides the appropriate platform to address any concerns from member states ahead of the adoption process,” the IMO added. Considering <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">the US decision to walk out of the MEPC’s 83rd meeting</a> in April in protest over the decarbonization talks, and with the now-formal rejection of the net-zero framework, it appears unlikely the US will attend the MEPC October meeting to “address any concerns.” The World Shipping Council (WSC), a trade body representing the container shipping and roll-on/roll-off industry, declined to comment, saying the matter has become a political one rather than being about policy. <h3>Shipping faces progressively increasing charges </h3>No universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, but if the framework is adopted in October, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. A <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-deal-on-fuel-intensity-pricing-hailed-as-major-step-forward-5986720">key standard in the new regulation</a> will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2027, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared with the baseline set in 2008. But Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING, believes the lack of US participation in the net-zero framework could hamper the adoption of the IMO regulation. “The system, when enforced in 2027, will apply globally and also applies to journeys to and from the US ... if the US doesn’t accept the effectuation, this will complicate the whole system,” Luman said in a statement, adding that the US threat to retaliate could make other IMO members hesitate in their support of the proposal. Luman said there may be a “more climate-friendly” US administration in place in the years after the first reporting of the IMO measure is required in 2028, but any delay will hamper reaching the IMO’s already ambitious shipping decarbonization targets in 2040 and 2050. “There’s not much time left as implementation usually takes years of preparation — also to enable companies to prepare themselves — and CO2 emissions have failed to get on a downward track over the last few years,” Luman said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US’ formal rejection of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero framework agreement will have little impact on the emissions regulation that, once adopted, will still require compliance from all ships trading internationally, according to shipping association Bimco. The net-zero proposal will be promulgated at the next meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in October, where it is expected to pass with the required two-thirds majority. “Even when, or if, the US places reservations that the rule will not apply to them, it will, because all ships of non-US-flag trading internationally are bound by their flag [and] US-flag ships will also be required to comply if they trade internationally,” Lars Robert Pedersen, deputy secretary-general and director of regulatory affairs at Bimco, told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. Only about 80 merchant ships currently trade internationally under the US flag, according to maritime insurers UK P&I Club. Vowing “to protect the American people and their economic interests,” the White House on Tuesday called on IMO members to reject the agreement and threatened to retaliate against those supporting the proposal. “Our fellow IMO members should be on notice that we will look for their support against this action and not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens should this endeavor fail,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a joint statement. ‘A global carbon tax on Americans’ “Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization,” the US statement said, adding that the US would not accept any environmental regulation that “unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.” Despite the formal rejection by the White House and its ongoing criticism of the UN and its many agencies, the statement drew a diplomatic response from the IMO. “The IMO net-zero framework was approved in April 2025 and represents a collective commitment by member states to deliver on shared goals outlined in the Revised IMO Strategy on the Reduction of GHG emissions that was adopted in 2023,” an IMO spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The upcoming MEPC session in October provides the appropriate platform to address any concerns from member states ahead of the adoption process,” the IMO added. Considering the US decision to walk out of the MEPC’s 83rd meeting in April in protest over the decarbonization talks, and with the now-formal rejection of the net-zero framework, it appears unlikely the US will attend the MEPC October meeting to “address any concerns.” The World Shipping Council (WSC), a trade body representing the container shipping and roll-on/roll-off industry, declined to comment, saying the matter has become a political one rather than being about policy. Shipping faces progressively increasing charges No universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, but if the framework is adopted in October, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. A key standard in the new regulation will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2027, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared with the baseline set in 2008. But Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING, believes the lack of US participation in the net-zero framework could hamper the adoption of the IMO regulation. “The system, when enforced in 2027, will apply globally and also applies to journeys to and from the US ... if the US doesn’t accept the effectuation, this will complicate the whole system,” Luman said in a statement, adding that the US threat to retaliate could make other IMO members hesitate in their support of the proposal. Luman said there may be a “more climate-friendly” US administration in place in the years after the first reporting of the IMO measure is required in 2028, but any delay will hamper reaching the IMO’s already ambitious shipping decarbonization targets in 2040 and 2050. “There’s not much time left as implementation usually takes years of preparation — also to enable companies to prepare themselves — and CO2 emissions have failed to get on a downward track over the last few years,” Luman said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

US rejection of IMO ‘net-zero’ framework won’t change outcome: Bimco

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The funds will mostly be spent on further development of its platform for shippers, including investment in AI.</div>

The funds will mostly be spent on further development of its platform for shippers, including investment in AI.

<div class="phx-topic">A persistent low-rate truckload environment hasn’t hampered the growth of shipper-focused procurement and orchestration software provider GoodShip, which has landed a $25 million funding round on the back of significantly growing revenue in 2024. The funding round will mostly be spent on further development of its platform for shippers, including investment in AI, GoodShip said in a statement Tuesday. The company has raised $40 million to date. GoodShip was founded in 2022 to help shippers benchmark their truckload contract rates and has evolved to help users build bids and do scenario planning to apportion volume to various carriers and brokers. Its revenue growth comes as the truckload market is contending with a prolonged period of overcapacity and dampened demand, partly due to economic uncertainty in 2025. But GoodShip CEO Ryan Soskin told the Journal of Commerce the platform is meant to be used in all supply-demand environments. “Even in a soft market, we’re finding that there are very meaningful savings and service opportunities,” Soskin said. “It’s just that they have been historically hard to find, buried in the aggregate of massive amounts of data for large shippers.” As an example, he said nearly every GoodShip customer identifies situations where they have over-tendered freight to high-cost carriers. “If the lane overall is moving close to market average, the shipper usually doesn’t know to dig in to individual lane-carrier combinations within the lane that may be uncompetitive,” Soskin said. “We pinpoint these opportunities for them, and typically making a few minor tweaks results in massive savings.” GoodShip’s customers include Kellanova, Tropicana, Central Garden &amp; Pet, KeHe Distributors, and KBX Logistics. Soskin said the company is seeing traction in food and beverage, consumer packaged goods, paper/packaging, and industrials. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A persistent low-rate truckload environment hasn’t hampered the growth of shipper-focused procurement and orchestration software provider GoodShip, which has landed a $25 million funding round on the back of significantly growing revenue in 2024. The funding round will mostly be spent on further development of its platform for shippers, including investment in AI, GoodShip said in a statement Tuesday. The company has raised $40 million to date. GoodShip was founded in 2022 to help shippers benchmark their truckload contract rates and has evolved to help users build bids and do scenario planning to apportion volume to various carriers and brokers. Its revenue growth comes as the truckload market is contending with a prolonged period of overcapacity and dampened demand, partly due to economic uncertainty in 2025. But GoodShip CEO Ryan Soskin told the Journal of Commerce the platform is meant to be used in all supply-demand environments. “Even in a soft market, we’re finding that there are very meaningful savings and service opportunities,” Soskin said. “It’s just that they have been historically hard to find, buried in the aggregate of massive amounts of data for large shippers.” As an example, he said nearly every GoodShip customer identifies situations where they have over-tendered freight to high-cost carriers. “If the lane overall is moving close to market average, the shipper usually doesn’t know to dig in to individual lane-carrier combinations within the lane that may be uncompetitive,” Soskin said. “We pinpoint these opportunities for them, and typically making a few minor tweaks results in massive savings.” GoodShip’s customers include Kellanova, Tropicana, Central Garden & Pet, KeHe Distributors, and KBX Logistics. Soskin said the company is seeing traction in food and beverage, consumer packaged goods, paper/packaging, and industrials. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Surface

Truckload

Logistics Technology News

Truckload procurement tool GoodShip lands $25 million funding round

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ports in Europe and Asia, especially Rotterdam, Antwerp, Singapore and Shanghai, have been grappling with congestion-related issues such as berthing and cargo delays for several months.</div>

Ports in Europe and Asia, especially Rotterdam, Antwerp, Singapore and Shanghai, have been grappling with congestion-related issues such as berthing and cargo delays for several months.

<div class="phx-topic">Container shipping is heading for increased volatility due to ongoing tariff uncertainty, South Korean carrier HMM said Wednesday. “The expiry of tariff grace periods and ongoing renegotiations are expected to increase market volatility, with regional demand shifts likely to sustain supply chain congestion,” the carrier said in a first-half earnings commentary. HMM noted the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) averaged 1,701 points in the first half of 2025, down 27% from a year earlier, reflecting, it said, “weaker freight rates amid continued US protectionist tariff measures and trade tensions.” “HMM will address these conditions through flexible fleet deployment ... and cost reductions via vessel efficiency improvements,” the carrier said. Those measures involve the deployment of more fuel-efficient vessels, including seven 9,000-TEU methanol-powered container ships due for delivery through the first half of next year. HMM has already taken delivery of the first two ships in the series. HMM said the seven car carriers it ordered in 2023 will be delivered beginning next month, while four multipurpose vessels will also be deployed as part of continuing efforts to diversify its fleet portfolio. HMM gave no further details about demand shifts or congestion, but ports in Europe and Asia, especially Rotterdam, Antwerp, Singapore and Shanghai, have been grappling with congestion-related issues such as berthing and cargo delays for several months. These have been partly caused by shippers reacting to the nature of the Trump administration’s erratic implementation of tariff policies. HMM’s interim first-half results mirrored those of its peers, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/yang-ming-wan-hai-profits-drop-on-weaker-volumes-6061944">including Taiwan’s Yang Ming Marine Transport</a>, with falling cargo volumes and freight rates weighing on profitability and revenue in the second quarter. HMM’s net profit fell 12% to $342 million in the second quarter compared with the first quarter and was down 29% year over year. Second-quarter revenue also fell quarter over quarter and year over year. But HMM’s strong first quarter buoyed its first-half net profit, which increased 5.7% to $879 million year over year. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Container shipping is heading for increased volatility due to ongoing tariff uncertainty, South Korean carrier HMM said Wednesday. “The expiry of tariff grace periods and ongoing renegotiations are expected to increase market volatility, with regional demand shifts likely to sustain supply chain congestion,” the carrier said in a first-half earnings commentary. HMM noted the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) averaged 1,701 points in the first half of 2025, down 27% from a year earlier, reflecting, it said, “weaker freight rates amid continued US protectionist tariff measures and trade tensions.” “HMM will address these conditions through flexible fleet deployment ... and cost reductions via vessel efficiency improvements,” the carrier said. Those measures involve the deployment of more fuel-efficient vessels, including seven 9,000-TEU methanol-powered container ships due for delivery through the first half of next year. HMM has already taken delivery of the first two ships in the series. HMM said the seven car carriers it ordered in 2023 will be delivered beginning next month, while four multipurpose vessels will also be deployed as part of continuing efforts to diversify its fleet portfolio. HMM gave no further details about demand shifts or congestion, but ports in Europe and Asia, especially Rotterdam, Antwerp, Singapore and Shanghai, have been grappling with congestion-related issues such as berthing and cargo delays for several months. These have been partly caused by shippers reacting to the nature of the Trump administration’s erratic implementation of tariff policies. HMM’s interim first-half results mirrored those of its peers, including Taiwan’s Yang Ming Marine Transport , with falling cargo volumes and freight rates weighing on profitability and revenue in the second quarter. HMM’s net profit fell 12% to $342 million in the second quarter compared with the first quarter and was down 29% year over year. Second-quarter revenue also fell quarter over quarter and year over year. But HMM’s strong first quarter buoyed its first-half net profit, which increased 5.7% to $879 million year over year. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Tariff turmoil to increase market volatility, supply chain disruption: HMM

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The nearly two-year project to complete Bayport’s Wharf 7 will allow the terminal to handle more ships as work on widening the Houston Ship Channel continues. </div>

The nearly two-year project to complete Bayport’s Wharf 7 will allow the terminal to handle more ships as work on widening the Houston Ship Channel continues.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Houston will open a new berth in December at one of its two container terminals, bringing it a step further to be able to handle up to five post-Panamax vessels simultaneously. Port Houston Authority said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce Tuesday that it expects to complete <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gulf-coast-ports-eyeing-expansion-amid-modest-growth-forecast-5222528">Wharf 7 at the Bayport Terminal this December</a>, nearly two years after construction began. Cranes for the new wharf are expected to arrive in March 2026, with the port planning to use Bayport’s existing crane fleet in the interim. The 1,000-foot wharf will allow Bayport to service five post-Panamax ships at once, up from four currently. Port Houston said the new wharf will “decrease the anchor wait time for vessels, allowing for quicker turnaround time for our customers.” As that project wraps up, Port Houston will also begin work on another Bayport berth, Wharf 1. The agency will put design and construction of Wharf 1 out to bid this September and plans to award a primary contractor by January. The eventual completion of Wharf 1 will mark the culmination of Port Houston’s near-term plans for Bayport, which has seen $750 million of investments since 2023. Bayport has two additional berthing areas, Wharves 8 and 9, which could be developed in the next decade, depending on the port’s growth forecasts. Last October, Bayport handled the largest container ship to ever call the Port of Houston, the 11,356-TEU CMA CGM Cassiopeia. Between 2019 and 2024, the port’s container volume has grown an average of 4.3% per year. The work at Bayport coincides with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-houston-secures-131-million-in-federal-funds-for-ship-channel-work-6013360">ongoing work to expand the Houston Ship Channel</a> to allow two-way traffic for post-Panamax vessels. Port Houston expects to complete widening of a five-mile portion of the Houston Ship Channel between the Bayport and Barbours Cut container terminals by the third quarter of 2025, with the full project done by 2029. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Houston will open a new berth in December at one of its two container terminals, bringing it a step further to be able to handle up to five post-Panamax vessels simultaneously. Port Houston Authority said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce Tuesday that it expects to complete Wharf 7 at the Bayport Terminal this December , nearly two years after construction began. Cranes for the new wharf are expected to arrive in March 2026, with the port planning to use Bayport’s existing crane fleet in the interim. The 1,000-foot wharf will allow Bayport to service five post-Panamax ships at once, up from four currently. Port Houston said the new wharf will “decrease the anchor wait time for vessels, allowing for quicker turnaround time for our customers.” As that project wraps up, Port Houston will also begin work on another Bayport berth, Wharf 1. The agency will put design and construction of Wharf 1 out to bid this September and plans to award a primary contractor by January. The eventual completion of Wharf 1 will mark the culmination of Port Houston’s near-term plans for Bayport, which has seen $750 million of investments since 2023. Bayport has two additional berthing areas, Wharves 8 and 9, which could be developed in the next decade, depending on the port’s growth forecasts. Last October, Bayport handled the largest container ship to ever call the Port of Houston, the 11,356-TEU CMA CGM Cassiopeia. Between 2019 and 2024, the port’s container volume has grown an average of 4.3% per year. The work at Bayport coincides with ongoing work to expand the Houston Ship Channel to allow two-way traffic for post-Panamax vessels. Port Houston expects to complete widening of a five-mile portion of the Houston Ship Channel between the Bayport and Barbours Cut container terminals by the third quarter of 2025, with the full project done by 2029. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

North American ports

New Houston berth to enhance post-Panamax handling

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Union Pacific Railroad is instituting surcharges for the second consecutive year out of Los Angeles, although it’s unclear how long the current uptick in volume will last. </div>

Union Pacific Railroad is instituting surcharges for the second consecutive year out of Los Angeles, although it’s unclear how long the current uptick in volume will last.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad will impose a surcharge of $500 per container on low-volume shippers and $300 on high-volume domestic intermodal shippers exceeding their weekly allotments in Southern California, the railroad said Monday. The fees coincide with a double-digit increase in domestic intermodal volumes last week compared with the beginning of June during the lull in port activity, according to data provider RailState. The uptick began shortly after July 4, according to quarterly earnings calls for Hub Group and Schneider National, who exclusively use Union Pacific in the western US. The surcharge on low-volume customers, who ship less than 500 loads per year, takes effect Aug. 17. Surcharges on higher-volume customers begin Aug. 24. It follows peak-season surcharges (PSSs) announced <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-says-surcharges-necessary-to-maintain-peak-season-service-6044880">last month by J.B. Hunt Transport Services</a> and more targeted, customer-by-customer surcharges in recent weeks by Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics, according to shippers and recent earnings calls. “Union Pacific is experiencing an increase in demand for [rail-owned] domestic container capacity out of Southern California,” UP said in the announcement. “Action is being taken to reposition containers and increase train capacity to meet the demands of shippers.” One non-asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC) said that UP experienced a significant increase in volume since J.B. Hunt’s announcement, requiring the railroad to reposition thousands of rail-owned containers from elsewhere to cover demand. Surcharges typically apply only after a contractual shipper exceeds a set threshold, often about 20% above its weekly average. For example, a shipper moving 100 containers per week on average might be allotted 120 loads per week in the peak season. The surcharge would only apply on shipments above 120. Shippers often divert freight to another intermodal provider, shift to the spot market or use a truckload carrier to avoid the surcharges, depending on which option is most economical. <h3>Not a surprising decision </h3>Union Pacific’s domestic and international intermodal volume has grown progressively since July 4, which partner Hub Group cited on its quarterly earnings call two weeks ago. “Near-term trends off the West Coast are strong and we are seeing indications of an early West Coast peak season,” said Phil Yeager, CEO of Hub Group, on an Aug. 1 earnings call. “How long does the West Coast peak really continue? It remains a little bit unclear, but we’re at least seeing some really robust demand right now.” BNSF Railway saw a similar surge in international intermodal, although that strength did not trickle down to domestic intermodal in the same way, according to RailState. Hub Group and Schneider said on their quarterly earnings calls two weeks ago that they had instituted PSSs for some customers amid stronger July demand in Southern California. The $500 and $300 per container figures <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-joins-peers-in-assessing-peak-season-surcharges-for-southern-california-5709819">are identical to the starting points last year</a>, which were put into effect on Sept. 1, 2024. Unlike last year, however, it is not clear whether enough import volume is headed to the West Coast to sustain the surcharges into November, or whether demand will taper earlier. It is also uncertain whether conditions will warrant surcharges in Oakland and the Lathrop-Stockton area in Northern California, as occurred last year. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific Railroad will impose a surcharge of $500 per container on low-volume shippers and $300 on high-volume domestic intermodal shippers exceeding their weekly allotments in Southern California, the railroad said Monday. The fees coincide with a double-digit increase in domestic intermodal volumes last week compared with the beginning of June during the lull in port activity, according to data provider RailState. The uptick began shortly after July 4, according to quarterly earnings calls for Hub Group and Schneider National, who exclusively use Union Pacific in the western US. The surcharge on low-volume customers, who ship less than 500 loads per year, takes effect Aug. 17. Surcharges on higher-volume customers begin Aug. 24. It follows peak-season surcharges (PSSs) announced last month by J.B. Hunt Transport Services and more targeted, customer-by-customer surcharges in recent weeks by Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics, according to shippers and recent earnings calls. “Union Pacific is experiencing an increase in demand for [rail-owned] domestic container capacity out of Southern California,” UP said in the announcement. “Action is being taken to reposition containers and increase train capacity to meet the demands of shippers.” One non-asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC) said that UP experienced a significant increase in volume since J.B. Hunt’s announcement, requiring the railroad to reposition thousands of rail-owned containers from elsewhere to cover demand. Surcharges typically apply only after a contractual shipper exceeds a set threshold, often about 20% above its weekly average. For example, a shipper moving 100 containers per week on average might be allotted 120 loads per week in the peak season. The surcharge would only apply on shipments above 120. Shippers often divert freight to another intermodal provider, shift to the spot market or use a truckload carrier to avoid the surcharges, depending on which option is most economical. Not a surprising decision Union Pacific’s domestic and international intermodal volume has grown progressively since July 4, which partner Hub Group cited on its quarterly earnings call two weeks ago. “Near-term trends off the West Coast are strong and we are seeing indications of an early West Coast peak season,” said Phil Yeager, CEO of Hub Group, on an Aug. 1 earnings call. “How long does the West Coast peak really continue? It remains a little bit unclear, but we’re at least seeing some really robust demand right now.” BNSF Railway saw a similar surge in international intermodal, although that strength did not trickle down to domestic intermodal in the same way, according to RailState. Hub Group and Schneider said on their quarterly earnings calls two weeks ago that they had instituted PSSs for some customers amid stronger July demand in Southern California. The $500 and $300 per container figures are identical to the starting points last year , which were put into effect on Sept. 1, 2024. Unlike last year, however, it is not clear whether enough import volume is headed to the West Coast to sustain the surcharges into November, or whether demand will taper earlier. It is also uncertain whether conditions will warrant surcharges in Oakland and the Lathrop-Stockton area in Northern California, as occurred last year. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Intermodal providers

UP seeks surcharges amid intermodal volumes surge

<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 .

Supply chain

Ro/ro cargo

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

North Europe to US East Coast

Mediterranean to US East Coast

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. Ships are deemed late if they are one calendar day or late than scheduled. [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

North Europe and Mediterranean to US East Coast ocean reliability (eeSea)

On-Time Performance Northern Europe and Mediterranean to US East Coast (eeSea) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations. </div>

US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations.

<div class="phx-topic">A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors such as Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers’ favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026–27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets itself up for future retaliation when the market turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market, the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. <h3>History, repeated </h3>Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be upfront with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. <h3>Lessons learned? </h3>But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to beneficial cargo owners. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s second-quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors such as Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers’ favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026–27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets itself up for future retaliation when the market turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market, the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. History, repeated Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be upfront with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. Lessons learned? But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to beneficial cargo owners. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s second-quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Shipper cost pressures risk further fraying carrier relationships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">OOCL’s newest express shuttle service from China to Mexico joins other carrier services linking the two and underscores the ongoing growth in trade between the two countries. </div>

OOCL’s newest express shuttle service from China to Mexico joins other carrier services linking the two and underscores the ongoing growth in trade between the two countries.

<div class="phx-topic">Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) later this month will begin offering a trans-Pacific express service to Mexico’s West Coast, adding to the list of new ocean services that have sprung up as China reorients its trade networks. OOCL said Monday that its Trans-Pacific Latin Pacific 8 (TLP8) service will start with an Aug. 20 departure from Shanghai. The TLP8’s Asia rotation covers Shanghai and Qingdao, and the eastbound voyage includes Mexico’s Ensenada and Manzanillo, along with a westbound call at Yokohama. The TLP8 is offering 17-day transit between Qingdao and Ensenada. The Port of Ensenada has one berth capable of handling post-Panamax ships up to 6,000 TEUs in capacity. The TLP8 joins three other OOCL trans-Pacific services that connect Mexico, along with the West Coast of South America, to Asia. OOCL added its last Asia-Mexico-South America service, TLP5, back in May 2024. Last year also saw <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-adds-to-growing-asia-mexico-service-launches-5192264">Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM add new trans-Pacific services between Asia, Mexico and South America</a>. Mexico saw a surge of foreign direct investment last year from China, reaching $710 million, according to Mexico’s economic secretary. Mexico imported $129 billion worth of goods from China in 2024, according to data from the country’s economy secretary, the highest in two decades. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) later this month will begin offering a trans-Pacific express service to Mexico’s West Coast, adding to the list of new ocean services that have sprung up as China reorients its trade networks. OOCL said Monday that its Trans-Pacific Latin Pacific 8 (TLP8) service will start with an Aug. 20 departure from Shanghai. The TLP8’s Asia rotation covers Shanghai and Qingdao, and the eastbound voyage includes Mexico’s Ensenada and Manzanillo, along with a westbound call at Yokohama. The TLP8 is offering 17-day transit between Qingdao and Ensenada. The Port of Ensenada has one berth capable of handling post-Panamax ships up to 6,000 TEUs in capacity. The TLP8 joins three other OOCL trans-Pacific services that connect Mexico, along with the West Coast of South America, to Asia. OOCL added its last Asia-Mexico-South America service, TLP5, back in May 2024. Last year also saw Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM add new trans-Pacific services between Asia, Mexico and South America . Mexico saw a surge of foreign direct investment last year from China, reaching $710 million, according to Mexico’s economic secretary. Mexico imported $129 billion worth of goods from China in 2024, according to data from the country’s economy secretary, the highest in two decades. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

OOCL adds service to tap China-to-Mexico trade boom

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Import volumes for September through December are expected to come in each month about 20% under the comparable 2024 levels, according to the latest Global Port Tracker, with tariff-linked frontloading one of the primary reasons.</div>

Import volumes for September through December are expected to come in each month about 20% under the comparable 2024 levels, according to the latest Global Port Tracker, with tariff-linked frontloading one of the primary reasons.

<div class="phx-topic">US imports for the last four months of 2025 will show sharp year-over-year declines due to a combination of the frontloading that took place at the end of 2024 amid longshore labor concerns and this year’s early peak season driven by tariff deadlines, US retailers said Friday. The latest Global Port Tracker (GPT) from the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates made just minimal upgrades to import forecasts for September, October and November from projections made in July. Still, the NRF expects significant year-over-year reductions overall, with import volumes for September through December forecast to come in each month about 20% under the comparable 2024 levels <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-usmx-reach-tentative-deal-that-avoids-another-port-strike-5919519">when shippers were working to move cargo ahead of a strike threat at East and Gulf coast ports.</a><div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3f082f38-731c-4471-b484-2aa37e8ab119"></dynamic-object></div>The GPT’s updated forecast for September calls for 1.83 million TEUs in US imports, down 19.4% compared with 2.27 million TEUs in 2024. October is slated for 1.82 million TEUs, down 18.7% from the year-ago period, while November (1.71 million TEUs) and December (1.72 million TEUs) are projected to be down 20.8% and 19.2%, respectively, from 2024 levels. November’s forecast calls for the lowest month for US imports since April 2023. <h3>Tariff pressure </h3>Tariff-linked frontloading is also a significant factor in the severe year-over-year declines in imports. “Friends, allies and foes are all being hit by distortions in trade flows as importers try to second-guess tariff levels by pulling forward imports before the tariffs take effect,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said. “This, in turn, will certainly lead to a downturn in trade volumes by late September because inventories for the holiday season will already be in hand.” The latest GPT increased August import expectations to 2.2 million TEUs, up 5.8% from the 2.08 million TEUs forecast in July. Meanwhile, June’s actual volume of 1.96 million TEUs was almost 5% less than projected in the prior GPT. Imports for the first half of the year were up 3.6% compared with 2024 at 12.53 million TEUs — likely driven by tariff frontloading. The NRF forecasts US imports for all of 2025 will slide to 24.1 million TEUs, down 5.6% from 25.5 million TEUs last year. “While this forecast is preliminary, it shows the impact the tariffs and the [Trump] administration’s trade policy are having on the supply chain,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for supply chain and customs policy. “Tariffs are beginning to drive up consumer prices, and fewer imports will eventually mean fewer goods on store shelves.” The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

US imports for the last four months of 2025 will show sharp year-over-year declines due to a combination of the frontloading that took place at the end of 2024 amid longshore labor concerns and this year’s early peak season driven by tariff deadlines, US retailers said Friday. The latest Global Port Tracker (GPT) from the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates made just minimal upgrades to import forecasts for September, October and November from projections made in July. Still, the NRF expects significant year-over-year reductions overall, with import volumes for September through December forecast to come in each month about 20% under the comparable 2024 levels when shippers were working to move cargo ahead of a strike threat at East and Gulf coast ports. The GPT’s updated forecast for September calls for 1.83 million TEUs in US imports, down 19.4% compared with 2.27 million TEUs in 2024. October is slated for 1.82 million TEUs, down 18.7% from the year-ago period, while November (1.71 million TEUs) and December (1.72 million TEUs) are projected to be down 20.8% and 19.2%, respectively, from 2024 levels. November’s forecast calls for the lowest month for US imports since April 2023. Tariff pressure Tariff-linked frontloading is also a significant factor in the severe year-over-year declines in imports. “Friends, allies and foes are all being hit by distortions in trade flows as importers try to second-guess tariff levels by pulling forward imports before the tariffs take effect,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said. “This, in turn, will certainly lead to a downturn in trade volumes by late September because inventories for the holiday season will already be in hand.” The latest GPT increased August import expectations to 2.2 million TEUs, up 5.8% from the 2.08 million TEUs forecast in July. Meanwhile, June’s actual volume of 1.96 million TEUs was almost 5% less than projected in the prior GPT. Imports for the first half of the year were up 3.6% compared with 2024 at 12.53 million TEUs — likely driven by tariff frontloading. The NRF forecasts US imports for all of 2025 will slide to 24.1 million TEUs, down 5.6% from 25.5 million TEUs last year. “While this forecast is preliminary, it shows the impact the tariffs and the [Trump] administration’s trade policy are having on the supply chain,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for supply chain and customs policy. “Tariffs are beginning to drive up consumer prices, and fewer imports will eventually mean fewer goods on store shelves.” The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Trans-Atlantic

US retailers project big year-over-year import declines to close out 2025

Use code TPM26GW995 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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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!

Use code TPMGW595 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

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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: https://www.ssamarine.mx/

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM26GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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 TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new rule, a second attempt at requiring the so-called ABC test for workers in the state, has drawn opposition from multiple groups, with port trucking among the affected industries.</div>

The new rule, a second attempt at requiring the so-called ABC test for workers in the state, has drawn opposition from multiple groups, with port trucking among the affected industries.

<div class="phx-topic">A second attempt at requiring New Jersey employers to test whether their workers are employees or independent contractors is again raising concerns about the impact on port truckers. This time, though, legislators are readily joining with drayage carriers to question potential economic harm under the proposal. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development finished a 90-day comment period on Wednesday over a proposed rule that would require use of the so-called “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is a full-time employee or an independent contractor.The ABC test, which looks at factors such as the kind of work, how it’s done and who supervises it, undergirds <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trucker-classification-effort-ripe-for-national-expansion-5197032">California’s AB5 law</a> passed in 2019. AB5 imposed a higher hurdle on the state’s trucking industry for using independent owner-operators as drivers. That same year, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/njs-classification-bill-dead-for-now-but-will-return-senator-5196905">New Jersey’s legislature failed to pass a similar law</a> codifying use of the ABC test. However, the state Labor Department proposed in May adding a rule that would require using the ABC test, saying the rule was necessary due to recent court cases of misclassification. The Labor Department did not say how many comments it received about the rule. But one group — Save Independent Work — said it received 18,000 comments for submission opposing the rule. New Jersey has about 1.7 million independent contractors. As with the earlier attempted legislation, the Labor Department’s proposed rule drew opposition from the state’s drayage carriers, which rely on about 8,300 independent contractor drivers at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, said during public testimony in Trenton in June the rule would “paralyze the regional supply chain.” “Previous attempts to enshrine the Labor Department’s narrow application of the ABC test have been soundly rejected by the state legislature,” Yakomin said during her testimony. “This new rulemaking ignores that opposition and bypasses the authority of our state’s elected legislative representatives.” Other port stakeholders joined to oppose the new rule, including the Shipping Association of New York and New Jersey and the Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey (MAPONYNJ), which said disrupting the business model for port truckers would hurt supply chains.“Rather than protecting independent contractors, the proposal would effectively eliminate their ability to operate,” MAPONYNJ said in its comments. The proposed rule did draw support from the groups aligned with labor unions, such as the Economic Policy Institute and Human Rights Watch, which highlighted how delivery and rideshare drivers in Texas only earn about $5 per hour due to being classified as independent contractors. <h3>No timeline for decision</h3>The decision to adopt the rule rests largely with Robert Asaro-Angelo, the state’s labor commissioner and an appointee of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat.There is no timeline for when Asaro-Angelo must decide on whether to implement the rule. Bi-State’s Yakomin told the Journal of Commerce a decision on the rule is an overhang for port truckers as the outgoing Murphy administration may try to push it through during a lame duck session“If Asaro-Angelo wants to move forward, there’s nothing we can do,” Yakomin said. “It would take some legislation to roll back some of the test.”However, Yakomin said that this second attempt at implementing the ABC test has drawn more opposition from other New Jersey legislators, especially Democratic legislators who have typically been friendlier to unions and other labor groups. State Sen. Angela McKnight, a Democrat representing the area around the marine terminal in Bayonne, said in a letter to the Labor Department this month the proposed rule “could have serious unintended economic consequences” at the NY-NJ port and could “push drivers to relocate to less restrictive states.” Democratic State Sen. John Burzichelli, who took over the seat vacated by the senator who sponsored the original ABC legislation in 2019, also said in comments about the rule that he’s heard from constituents that the rule would be “detrimental.”“It’s great to see how many legislators have expressed concerns about the rule,” Yakomin said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A second attempt at requiring New Jersey employers to test whether their workers are employees or independent contractors is again raising concerns about the impact on port truckers. This time, though, legislators are readily joining with drayage carriers to question potential economic harm under the proposal. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development finished a 90-day comment period on Wednesday over a proposed rule that would require use of the so-called “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is a full-time employee or an independent contractor. The ABC test, which looks at factors such as the kind of work, how it’s done and who supervises it, undergirds California’s AB5 law passed in 2019. AB5 imposed a higher hurdle on the state’s trucking industry for using independent owner-operators as drivers. That same year, New Jersey’s legislature failed to pass a similar law codifying use of the ABC test. However, the state Labor Department proposed in May adding a rule that would require using the ABC test, saying the rule was necessary due to recent court cases of misclassification. The Labor Department did not say how many comments it received about the rule. But one group — Save Independent Work — said it received 18,000 comments for submission opposing the rule. New Jersey has about 1.7 million independent contractors. As with the earlier attempted legislation, the Labor Department’s proposed rule drew opposition from the state’s drayage carriers, which rely on about 8,300 independent contractor drivers at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, said during public testimony in Trenton in June the rule would “paralyze the regional supply chain.” “Previous attempts to enshrine the Labor Department’s narrow application of the ABC test have been soundly rejected by the state legislature,” Yakomin said during her testimony. “This new rulemaking ignores that opposition and bypasses the authority of our state’s elected legislative representatives.” Other port stakeholders joined to oppose the new rule, including the Shipping Association of New York and New Jersey and the Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey (MAPONYNJ), which said disrupting the business model for port truckers would hurt supply chains. “Rather than protecting independent contractors, the proposal would effectively eliminate their ability to operate,” MAPONYNJ said in its comments. The proposed rule did draw support from the groups aligned with labor unions, such as the Economic Policy Institute and Human Rights Watch, which highlighted how delivery and rideshare drivers in Texas only earn about $5 per hour due to being classified as independent contractors. No timeline for decision The decision to adopt the rule rests largely with Robert Asaro-Angelo, the state’s labor commissioner and an appointee of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat. There is no timeline for when Asaro-Angelo must decide on whether to implement the rule. Bi-State’s Yakomin told the Journal of Commerce a decision on the rule is an overhang for port truckers as the outgoing Murphy administration may try to push it through during a lame duck session “If Asaro-Angelo wants to move forward, there’s nothing we can do,” Yakomin said. “It would take some legislation to roll back some of the test.” However, Yakomin said that this second attempt at implementing the ABC test has drawn more opposition from other New Jersey legislators, especially Democratic legislators who have typically been friendlier to unions and other labor groups. State Sen. Angela McKnight, a Democrat representing the area around the marine terminal in Bayonne, said in a letter to the Labor Department this month the proposed rule “could have serious unintended economic consequences” at the NY-NJ port and could “push drivers to relocate to less restrictive states.” Democratic State Sen. John Burzichelli, who took over the seat vacated by the senator who sponsored the original ABC legislation in 2019, also said in comments about the rule that he’s heard from constituents that the rule would be “detrimental.” “It’s great to see how many legislators have expressed concerns about the rule,” Yakomin said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Drayage

Trucking labor

New Jersey’s proposed worker classification rule hangs over port truckers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The reasons for the increase are largely tariff-related, sources say, as market participants adjust to the possibility of permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump administration.</div>

The reasons for the increase are largely tariff-related, sources say, as market participants adjust to the possibility of permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump administration.

<div class="phx-topic">(Adds comment from Maersk’s Aug. 7 earnings call). Growing volumes of trans-Pacific eastbound spot cargo are being controlled at origin countries such as China as the impact of US tariffs bores deeply into shipping practices, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The reasons for a noticeable increase in origin-controlled container trade are largely tariff-related, sources said, as parties to trade transactions adjust to possibly permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump Administration. Origin-controlled cargo means the purchasing of ocean transportation is done by parties in exporting countries such as China, for example, rather than in the US. “At Toll Group, we are observing a slight upward trend in origin-controlled cargo,” said Marc Meier, Toll’s global head of ocean freight. “This trend appears to be influenced by factors such as the current supply and demand situation, where supply is notably higher than demand, as well as ongoing tariff discussions.” Meier said Toll’s origin-controlled cargo is now about 35% of its total cargo compared with 20% a few years ago. “We believe going forward, it might be 40-45%,” he said. Others see the trend also. “I have noticed a significant shift in the traditional mix of our smaller volume shippers where there is more Asia controlled/nominated shipments as a percent of our overall weekly bookings … this has been going on for the last five to six months,” said Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. McElroy said the shift could be due to “smaller importers choosing to buy DDP [delivery duty paid] and leaving the duty uncertainty to the shipper.” “Volatile freight rates could also be a contributing factor in small importers’ decisions to have terms of sale [DDP or cost-insurance-freight], instead of typical [free-on-board] terms of sale,” he said. Under DDP terms, the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, having cleared customs as the named place of destination. Another possible reason for growth in origin-controlled spot cargo is the growing ease of booking using online tools from carriers such as Maersk, Hapag Lloyd and CMA-CGM, who sources say are allocating greater amounts of their vessel space to online channels. McElroy said the volatile market could also be prompting large US retailers to seek DDP terms from their suppliers versus receiving such goods at origin and shipping them under their own contracts. “Big box retailers like Walmart, when ocean rates are not as volatile, will want to purchase FOB from their smaller suppliers and move under their own contract,” McElroy said. “Yet, when rates get volatile … on the upswing, and space tightens, along with duty uncertainty, Walmart will choose to have small suppliers ship to Walmart distribution centers CIF and not allow price increases. They have such leverage with smaller suppliers to accept these kind of terms.” <h3>Contract market shifting from US control? </h3> Few are seeing the contract market shift from US control, but some see it coming. “In the trans-Pacific trade, there has been a view that importers of goods into the USA were the major buyers of freight as they purchased goods from manufacturers in Asia FOB and controlled the import supply chain into the USA,” said Lian Hoon Lim, Singapore-based partner and managing director of Alix Partners, which has a long history in ocean freight. “So carriers naturally gave priority to marketing and selling freight to the ‘FOB buyer’ over the exporter in Asia who was labelled the ‘CIF buyer,’” he added. “Ten to 15 years ago that was very true for pretty much everything that came out of China, and that you could price up somewhat for FOB cargo vs. CIF.” But as Chinese companies emerge as sellers of goods under their own brand names, the ocean freight landscape will begin to change. “If you look at South Korea and Japan, as their exporting companies became big enough and more adventurous and spread their wings overseas, they established sales units in the US and Europe,” Lim said. “So instead of exporting their goods to third-party distributors, they sold to their own sales companies in the US and Europe. At that point the FOB vs. CIF issue becomes moot, because the control of the freight passes over to those companies and if their [headquarters] are in Japan or Korea or China, they are more likely to buy freight there versus at destination. “I can easily imagine that at some point in time, companies like Huawei saying we have a sales company in the US or Europe and that we should take control of long-distance shipments ourselves, and when that happens you can easily see the freight buying shifting from destination to origin,” Lim added. This is starting to happen.“Now we’re seeing a different phase…China gaining market share on the world stage, not by producing stuff for Western companies, but by having its own companies going global,” AP Moller-Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-brand-expansion-changing-fabric-of-global-trade-clerc-6059345">on an earnings call on Aug. 7</a>, pointing to electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, chemicals, mobile phones and electronics, with ocean freight controlled in China in most or all of those cases.Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

(Adds comment from Maersk’s Aug. 7 earnings call). Growing volumes of trans-Pacific eastbound spot cargo are being controlled at origin countries such as China as the impact of US tariffs bores deeply into shipping practices, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The reasons for a noticeable increase in origin-controlled container trade are largely tariff-related, sources said, as parties to trade transactions adjust to possibly permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump Administration. Origin-controlled cargo means the purchasing of ocean transportation is done by parties in exporting countries such as China, for example, rather than in the US. “At Toll Group, we are observing a slight upward trend in origin-controlled cargo,” said Marc Meier, Toll’s global head of ocean freight. “This trend appears to be influenced by factors such as the current supply and demand situation, where supply is notably higher than demand, as well as ongoing tariff discussions.” Meier said Toll’s origin-controlled cargo is now about 35% of its total cargo compared with 20% a few years ago. “We believe going forward, it might be 40-45%,” he said. Others see the trend also. “I have noticed a significant shift in the traditional mix of our smaller volume shippers where there is more Asia controlled/nominated shipments as a percent of our overall weekly bookings … this has been going on for the last five to six months,” said Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. McElroy said the shift could be due to “smaller importers choosing to buy DDP [delivery duty paid] and leaving the duty uncertainty to the shipper.” “Volatile freight rates could also be a contributing factor in small importers’ decisions to have terms of sale [DDP or cost-insurance-freight], instead of typical [free-on-board] terms of sale,” he said. Under DDP terms, the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, having cleared customs as the named place of destination. Another possible reason for growth in origin-controlled spot cargo is the growing ease of booking using online tools from carriers such as Maersk, Hapag Lloyd and CMA-CGM, who sources say are allocating greater amounts of their vessel space to online channels. McElroy said the volatile market could also be prompting large US retailers to seek DDP terms from their suppliers versus receiving such goods at origin and shipping them under their own contracts. “Big box retailers like Walmart, when ocean rates are not as volatile, will want to purchase FOB from their smaller suppliers and move under their own contract,” McElroy said. “Yet, when rates get volatile … on the upswing, and space tightens, along with duty uncertainty, Walmart will choose to have small suppliers ship to Walmart distribution centers CIF and not allow price increases. They have such leverage with smaller suppliers to accept these kind of terms.” Contract market shifting from US control? Few are seeing the contract market shift from US control, but some see it coming. “In the trans-Pacific trade, there has been a view that importers of goods into the USA were the major buyers of freight as they purchased goods from manufacturers in Asia FOB and controlled the import supply chain into the USA,” said Lian Hoon Lim, Singapore-based partner and managing director of Alix Partners, which has a long history in ocean freight. “So carriers naturally gave priority to marketing and selling freight to the ‘FOB buyer’ over the exporter in Asia who was labelled the ‘CIF buyer,’” he added. “Ten to 15 years ago that was very true for pretty much everything that came out of China, and that you could price up somewhat for FOB cargo vs. CIF.” But as Chinese companies emerge as sellers of goods under their own brand names, the ocean freight landscape will begin to change. “If you look at South Korea and Japan, as their exporting companies became big enough and more adventurous and spread their wings overseas, they established sales units in the US and Europe,” Lim said. “So instead of exporting their goods to third-party distributors, they sold to their own sales companies in the US and Europe. At that point the FOB vs. CIF issue becomes moot, because the control of the freight passes over to those companies and if their [headquarters] are in Japan or Korea or China, they are more likely to buy freight there versus at destination. “I can easily imagine that at some point in time, companies like Huawei saying we have a sales company in the US or Europe and that we should take control of long-distance shipments ourselves, and when that happens you can easily see the freight buying shifting from destination to origin,” Lim added. This is starting to happen. “Now we’re seeing a different phase…China gaining market share on the world stage, not by producing stuff for Western companies, but by having its own companies going global,” AP Moller-Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said on an earnings call on Aug. 7 , pointing to electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, chemicals, mobile phones and electronics, with ocean freight controlled in China in most or all of those cases. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Tariff realities prompt growth in ‘origin-controlled’ cargo on trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers stand to benefit on lanes where both western US railroads are vying for market share. </div>

Shippers stand to benefit on lanes where both western US railroads are vying for market share.

<div class="phx-topic">Western US railroads BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) are adding new intermodal services and expanding capacity in key domestic corridors as part of a broader effort to capture freight that might otherwise move on trucks. UP on Thursday announced an expedited intermodal service between Southern California’s Inland Empire and its Global 2 terminal in Chicago, set to begin Sept. 3. The train will operate five days per week and is designed to be 20% faster than existing lanes in a bid to attract time-sensitive freight now moving over the road, UP said. The announcement followed the formal opening of Union Pacific’s new intermodal terminal in Kansas City, which held a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Wednesday. The facility began operating in mid-July and now handles both international and domestic trains from Southern California. UP has introduced several other services in recent months, including a second train between Seattle and Chicago that began operating July 26 and a train linking Memphis and Dallas that launched in the spring. “We’re committed to capturing the over-the-road traffic and see it as a long-term growth engine for us,” Kenny Rocker, UP’s vice president of marketing and sales, told the Journal of Commerce. “You’ve seen the commitment to our intermodal business at a broad level with these investments.” BNSF, meanwhile, has also expanded its service offerings, introducing a new international intermodal lane linking Salt Lake City with ports in Northern and Southern California. Its 43-acre terminal in Salt Lake City opened July 31 after six months of development and is intended to serve importers and exporters seeking alternatives to long-haul drayage. “Our Salt Lake City service boosts competition, it speaks to our growth mindset and strengthens Utah’s role in the global supply chain,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s part of our shared vision of a more connected, sustainable, cost-efficient future for moving freight.” BNSF also launched an expedited train on July 10 between Los Angeles and Houston and is exploring further expansion. While Union Pacific seeks <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">regulatory approval</a> to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), rival BNSF is working to strengthen its partnership with CSX Transportation. BNSF and CSX already operate expedited services from Southern California to Georgia, New Jersey and Ohio. While there are crew changes, there’s no work involved loading or unloading boxes, meaning the services operate largely like a single-line railroad. <h3>Competition gives shippers more options </h3>Shippers, meanwhile, stand to benefit on lanes where both railroads are vying for market share. BNSF has long held a transit-time advantage from Los Angeles to Chicago, Los Angeles to Kansas City and Seattle to Chicago; UP aims to close those gaps with its new service offerings. Conversely, BNSF is targeting corridors such as Los Angeles to Houston, where UP currently has faster service. Each must convince shippers who are already committed to intermodal why their railroad is the best option. UP has targeted cost-sensitive shippers in Kansas City by shifting origin points away from Long Beach. The new Los Angeles-to-Kansas City train departs from City of Industry, avoiding the Alameda Corridor surcharges — $62 per TEU and $81 per domestic container — that made UP’s pricing less competitive in prior years. The new Los Angeles-to-Chicago service will originate in the Inland Empire, located within Southern California’s densest concentration of warehouses. While BNSF already serves the Inland Empire via its San Bernardino terminal, UP’s expansion gives shippers in the region another option for direct service to the Midwest. The Memphis-to-Dallas train is designed in part to support eastern railroads looking to move freight from the Northeast to Dallas via Memphis, and to reposition empty containers in Memphis heading to Mexico. UP said most laden cargo will not originate in Memphis, and most empty containers will travel beyond Dallas. Meanwhile, BNSF wants not only to close the transit time gap to Houston, but also to the US Southeast, where an existing UP-NS joint service over the Meridian Speedway is the fastest option to cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Western US railroads BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) are adding new intermodal services and expanding capacity in key domestic corridors as part of a broader effort to capture freight that might otherwise move on trucks. UP on Thursday announced an expedited intermodal service between Southern California’s Inland Empire and its Global 2 terminal in Chicago, set to begin Sept. 3. The train will operate five days per week and is designed to be 20% faster than existing lanes in a bid to attract time-sensitive freight now moving over the road, UP said. The announcement followed the formal opening of Union Pacific’s new intermodal terminal in Kansas City, which held a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Wednesday. The facility began operating in mid-July and now handles both international and domestic trains from Southern California. UP has introduced several other services in recent months, including a second train between Seattle and Chicago that began operating July 26 and a train linking Memphis and Dallas that launched in the spring. “We’re committed to capturing the over-the-road traffic and see it as a long-term growth engine for us,” Kenny Rocker, UP’s vice president of marketing and sales, told the Journal of Commerce. “You’ve seen the commitment to our intermodal business at a broad level with these investments.” BNSF, meanwhile, has also expanded its service offerings, introducing a new international intermodal lane linking Salt Lake City with ports in Northern and Southern California. Its 43-acre terminal in Salt Lake City opened July 31 after six months of development and is intended to serve importers and exporters seeking alternatives to long-haul drayage. “Our Salt Lake City service boosts competition, it speaks to our growth mindset and strengthens Utah’s role in the global supply chain,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s part of our shared vision of a more connected, sustainable, cost-efficient future for moving freight.” BNSF also launched an expedited train on July 10 between Los Angeles and Houston and is exploring further expansion. While Union Pacific seeks regulatory approval to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), rival BNSF is working to strengthen its partnership with CSX Transportation. BNSF and CSX already operate expedited services from Southern California to Georgia, New Jersey and Ohio. While there are crew changes, there’s no work involved loading or unloading boxes, meaning the services operate largely like a single-line railroad. Competition gives shippers more options Shippers, meanwhile, stand to benefit on lanes where both railroads are vying for market share. BNSF has long held a transit-time advantage from Los Angeles to Chicago, Los Angeles to Kansas City and Seattle to Chicago; UP aims to close those gaps with its new service offerings. Conversely, BNSF is targeting corridors such as Los Angeles to Houston, where UP currently has faster service. Each must convince shippers who are already committed to intermodal why their railroad is the best option. UP has targeted cost-sensitive shippers in Kansas City by shifting origin points away from Long Beach. The new Los Angeles-to-Kansas City train departs from City of Industry, avoiding the Alameda Corridor surcharges — $62 per TEU and $81 per domestic container — that made UP’s pricing less competitive in prior years. The new Los Angeles-to-Chicago service will originate in the Inland Empire, located within Southern California’s densest concentration of warehouses. While BNSF already serves the Inland Empire via its San Bernardino terminal, UP’s expansion gives shippers in the region another option for direct service to the Midwest. The Memphis-to-Dallas train is designed in part to support eastern railroads looking to move freight from the Northeast to Dallas via Memphis, and to reposition empty containers in Memphis heading to Mexico. UP said most laden cargo will not originate in Memphis, and most empty containers will travel beyond Dallas. Meanwhile, BNSF wants not only to close the transit time gap to Houston, but also to the US Southeast, where an existing UP-NS joint service over the Meridian Speedway is the fastest option to cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Tight MPV supply countered by container rate crash, ship glut

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Shipper cost pressures risk further fraying carrier relationships

OOCL adds service to tap China-to-Mexico trade boom

US retailers project big year-over-year import declines to close out 2025

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