<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The spot and contract savings from domestic intermodal eroded in the second quarter compared with a year ago, while the fate of the third quarter depends largely on whether volume in Southern California keeps up to support peak season surcharges.</div>

The spot and contract savings from domestic intermodal eroded in the second quarter compared with a year ago, while the fate of the third quarter depends largely on whether volume in Southern California keeps up to support peak season surcharges.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers saved an average of 17% on spot market freight and nearly 24% on contract loads in the second quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking with tepid pricing continuing through midyear, according to the latest Journal of Commerce <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI). Intermodal contract rates were flat in the second quarter compared with a year ago — up less than 1% excluding fuel, but down less than 1% including fuel, while contract truckload rates rose between 0% and 2%. North American railroads hauled 2.12 million domestic containers in the second quarter, up 2.6% compared with a year ago, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). While the Journal of Commerce forecast calls for domestic intermodal volume to decline between 1% and 4% year over year in the third quarter, Schneider National and Hub Group said there was an uptick in demand in July. “Near-term demand trends off the West Coast are strong and we are seeing indications of an early West Coast peak season,” Hub Group CEO Phil Yeager said during an Aug. 1 earnings call. “It remains unclear how long elevated import demand will persist as we are seeing variances in forecasts by customers.” The Spot ISI averaged 117.1 in the second quarter, down from 121.9 one year ago. The Contract ISI slipped to 124.2 compared with 125.7 one year ago. Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode. The higher the index number, the greater the savings. For example, a spot ISI of 117.1 translates to a 17.1% savings on intermodal versus truckload and a contract ISI of 124.2 implies a 24.2% savings. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="18f45e44-8027-488a-8afc-87771e60ca91"></dynamic-object></div>In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $659 per container on the spot market in the second quarter and $789 per container on the contract market. Both totals were lower than a year ago, when intermodal shippers saved $722 per container on the spot market and $938 per container on the contract market. Spot intermodal rates rose 2 cents between April and June to $1.58 per mile, while spot truckload rates rose 5 cents to $1.89 during the same period, according to the ISI. The results are seasonally normal as freight demand increases between Memorial Day and July 4th. Contract truckload rates rose 2 cents to $1.97 per mile between April and June, while contract intermodal rates also rose 2 cents to $1.49 per mile during the period. <h3>Q3 pricing </h3>While J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, announced a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-says-surcharges-necessary-to-maintain-peak-season-service-6044880">$1,500 per container surcharge</a> last month in Southern California, the broader industry has followed with smaller hikes. Spot intermodal rates from Southern California to Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Memphis have risen between $300 and $500 per container since June 1, according to the ISI, but those rate increases are consistent with prior peak seasons, which typically start in the third quarter. Last year, peak season surcharges began in mid-August, not July. Hub Group and Schneider National confirmed they’ve also put in peak season surcharges. Similar to last year, however, their surcharges are close to the broader spot rate increases, not J.B. Hunt’s higher figure. The surcharges cover how much Hub and Schneider pay to railroads and drivers to reposition empty boxes. “Our intent there is really to be able to manage our operations … and to make sure that one or a small number of customers don’t completely disrupt our network,” Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider, said during a July 31 earnings call. Hub Group added that while it has implemented some surcharges, it has not incorporated “significant” surcharges into its third-quarter earnings guidance. Intermodal providers must be careful about the surcharge total if there isn’t a simultaneous increase in truck rates. From Los Angeles to Dallas and Kansas City, intermodal saves about $700 to $900 per container. If surcharges are too high, shippers might tender freight back to trucking. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription. </div>

US shippers saved an average of 17% on spot market freight and nearly 24% on contract loads in the second quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking with tepid pricing continuing through midyear, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI). Intermodal contract rates were flat in the second quarter compared with a year ago — up less than 1% excluding fuel, but down less than 1% including fuel, while contract truckload rates rose between 0% and 2%. North American railroads hauled 2.12 million domestic containers in the second quarter, up 2.6% compared with a year ago, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). While the Journal of Commerce forecast calls for domestic intermodal volume to decline between 1% and 4% year over year in the third quarter, Schneider National and Hub Group said there was an uptick in demand in July. “Near-term demand trends off the West Coast are strong and we are seeing indications of an early West Coast peak season,” Hub Group CEO Phil Yeager said during an Aug. 1 earnings call. “It remains unclear how long elevated import demand will persist as we are seeing variances in forecasts by customers.” The Spot ISI averaged 117.1 in the second quarter, down from 121.9 one year ago. The Contract ISI slipped to 124.2 compared with 125.7 one year ago. Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode. The higher the index number, the greater the savings. For example, a spot ISI of 117.1 translates to a 17.1% savings on intermodal versus truckload and a contract ISI of 124.2 implies a 24.2% savings. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $659 per container on the spot market in the second quarter and $789 per container on the contract market. Both totals were lower than a year ago, when intermodal shippers saved $722 per container on the spot market and $938 per container on the contract market. Spot intermodal rates rose 2 cents between April and June to $1.58 per mile, while spot truckload rates rose 5 cents to $1.89 during the same period, according to the ISI. The results are seasonally normal as freight demand increases between Memorial Day and July 4th. Contract truckload rates rose 2 cents to $1.97 per mile between April and June, while contract intermodal rates also rose 2 cents to $1.49 per mile during the period. Q3 pricing While J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, announced a $1,500 per container surcharge last month in Southern California, the broader industry has followed with smaller hikes. Spot intermodal rates from Southern California to Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Memphis have risen between $300 and $500 per container since June 1, according to the ISI, but those rate increases are consistent with prior peak seasons, which typically start in the third quarter. Last year, peak season surcharges began in mid-August, not July. Hub Group and Schneider National confirmed they’ve also put in peak season surcharges. Similar to last year, however, their surcharges are close to the broader spot rate increases, not J.B. Hunt’s higher figure. The surcharges cover how much Hub and Schneider pay to railroads and drivers to reposition empty boxes. “Our intent there is really to be able to manage our operations … and to make sure that one or a small number of customers don’t completely disrupt our network,” Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider, said during a July 31 earnings call. Hub Group added that while it has implemented some surcharges, it has not incorporated “significant” surcharges into its third-quarter earnings guidance. Intermodal providers must be careful about the surcharge total if there isn’t a simultaneous increase in truck rates. From Los Angeles to Dallas and Kansas City, intermodal saves about $700 to $900 per container. If surcharges are too high, shippers might tender freight back to trucking. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription.

Trucking News

Rail News

Truckload

North-American rail

Surface

Intermodal savings dipped in Q2; surcharges to factor into Q3 decisions

<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">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. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

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. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Trans-Pacific

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The National Motor Freight Traffic Association will oversee development of a truckload scheduling initiative among the Scheduling Standards Consortium’s 17 existing members.</div>

The National Motor Freight Traffic Association will oversee development of a truckload scheduling initiative among the Scheduling Standards Consortium’s 17 existing members.

<div class="phx-topic">The National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) has taken over management of a consortium of freight brokers and technology providers developing standards for truckload appointment scheduling. NMFTA, which is most known for developing rate classification standards for the less-than-truckload (LTL) industry, also operates a Digital Standards Development Council for the trucking industry. Within the full truckload portion of that initiative it will assume management of the Scheduling Standards Consortium (SSC), a group started in 2022 by J.B. Hunt, Uber Freight and the now-defunct freight broker Convoy to build a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/major-us-freight-brokers-unveil-appointment-scheduling-standards-5217739">common appointment scheduling protocol</a> for truckload freight. “This new development will support NMFTA’s efforts to create standards that improve communication between carriers, shippers, technology providers and third-party logistics providers [3PLs] by creating and sharing application programming interfaces [APIs] for a fully digital logistics process,” the group said in a statement Tuesday. SSC was attempting to create a uniform appointment system for carriers and receiving facilities as opposed to each broker having a different process, with the idea that no broker was able to sell its differentiation in the market. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckload-appointment-standards-group-adds-heavyweights-to-drive-adoption-5192857">Membership grew in 2023</a> when the consortium added three brokers and four transportation management system (TMS) providers. Visibility software vendor FourKites then <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fourkites-integrates-with-truckload-scheduling-standards-initiative-5219328">adopted the SSC standards in mid-2024</a>. The group now has 17 members — 11 brokers and six technology providers. “The current SSC members are enthusiastic about this strategy and champions of our effort to ensure digital standards are developed,” Debbie Sparks, NMFTA’s executive director, said in the statement. <h3>Tech options grow </h3>Outside of the issue of scheduling standards, a number of individual SSC members have undergone substantial changes. Founding member <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/convoy-says-will-shut-operations-sell-off-technology-amid-market-downturn-5215523">Convoy went out of business</a> in the fall of 2023. Broker Coyote Logistics, which joined in mid-2023, was <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rxo-purchase-of-coyote-logistics-highlights-us-brokerage-market-pressures-5192296">sold by UPS to RXO</a> in June 2024. E2open, which also joined in mid-2023, was <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-notches-biggest-acquisition-with-21-billion-deal-for-e2open-6011581">acquired in May by WiseTech Global</a>. And while the SSC has been trying to drive adoption of scheduling standards among members while recruiting new ones, the category of truckload scheduling software has expanded. Companies such as Qued and Bigger Picture have built tools specific to appointment scheduling, while others, such as Vooma, HappyRobot and Drumkit provide automation geared toward scheduling, among other workflows. “Given NMFTA’s expertise and history in standards development, it was an easy choice to seamlessly transition,” Stuart Scott, chairman of the Digital FTL Council and executive vice president and chief information officer for J.B. Hunt, said in the statement. “J.B. Hunt and several other SSC council members are joining the Digital FTL Council to further our partnership and bring more digital standards to the logistics industry.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) has taken over management of a consortium of freight brokers and technology providers developing standards for truckload appointment scheduling. NMFTA, which is most known for developing rate classification standards for the less-than-truckload (LTL) industry, also operates a Digital Standards Development Council for the trucking industry. Within the full truckload portion of that initiative it will assume management of the Scheduling Standards Consortium (SSC), a group started in 2022 by J.B. Hunt, Uber Freight and the now-defunct freight broker Convoy to build a common appointment scheduling protocol for truckload freight. “This new development will support NMFTA’s efforts to create standards that improve communication between carriers, shippers, technology providers and third-party logistics providers [3PLs] by creating and sharing application programming interfaces [APIs] for a fully digital logistics process,” the group said in a statement Tuesday. SSC was attempting to create a uniform appointment system for carriers and receiving facilities as opposed to each broker having a different process, with the idea that no broker was able to sell its differentiation in the market. Membership grew in 2023 when the consortium added three brokers and four transportation management system (TMS) providers. Visibility software vendor FourKites then adopted the SSC standards in mid-2024 . The group now has 17 members — 11 brokers and six technology providers. “The current SSC members are enthusiastic about this strategy and champions of our effort to ensure digital standards are developed,” Debbie Sparks, NMFTA’s executive director, said in the statement. Tech options grow Outside of the issue of scheduling standards, a number of individual SSC members have undergone substantial changes. Founding member Convoy went out of business in the fall of 2023. Broker Coyote Logistics, which joined in mid-2023, was sold by UPS to RXO in June 2024. E2open, which also joined in mid-2023, was acquired in May by WiseTech Global . And while the SSC has been trying to drive adoption of scheduling standards among members while recruiting new ones, the category of truckload scheduling software has expanded. Companies such as Qued and Bigger Picture have built tools specific to appointment scheduling, while others, such as Vooma, HappyRobot and Drumkit provide automation geared toward scheduling, among other workflows. “Given NMFTA’s expertise and history in standards development, it was an easy choice to seamlessly transition,” Stuart Scott, chairman of the Digital FTL Council and executive vice president and chief information officer for J.B. Hunt, said in the statement. “J.B. Hunt and several other SSC council members are joining the Digital FTL Council to further our partnership and bring more digital standards to the logistics industry.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Trucking standards group takes control of truckload scheduling consortium

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders said space for bookings, especially to the more-demanding West Mediterranean market, has become acutely tight due to multiple blank calls in recent weeks.</div>

Forwarders said space for bookings, especially to the more-demanding West Mediterranean market, has become acutely tight due to multiple blank calls in recent weeks.

<div class="phx-topic">Indian shippers moving cargo to the Mediterranean are dealing with a persistent capacity strain from vessel schedule disruptions, sparking a doubling of container freight rates over the past month, freight forwarders say. Forwarders said space for bookings, especially to the more-demanding West Mediterranean market, has become acutely tight due to multiple blank calls in recent weeks. Short-term contract rates out of the ports of Nhava Sheva and Mundra to Genoa have climbed to between $1,900 and $2,000 per FEU from the $1,000 to $1,100 range seen in the first half of June, data obtained by the Journal of Commerce showed. Crimped ocean capacity has sent spot rates on the trade lane even higher. Sources put spot booking prices for Nhava Sheva-Genoa loads on sailings through August at between $3,000 and $3,100 per TEU and $2,600 and 2,800 per FEU, varying slightly from carrier to carrier. Additionally, certain carriers have tactically opened spot window bookings for early September sailings at about $3,400 per TEU, sources said. “Most available vessels for the West Mediterranean in August are already booked full,” a sales executive at a Mumbai-based forwarding company who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “With the space crunch expected to linger for some time, rates could strengthen further.” Forwarders have already reported two blankings on the trade lane in August, including one upcoming skip from CMA CGM. Space availability is said to be relatively better off for the India-East Mediterranean trade, a market that has been a target of opportunistic regional/feeder lines offering direct Red Sea sailings. Indian containerized exports to the Mediterranean are mainly led by agricultural products and various machinery freight, with volumes in the first half of 2025 estimated at 332,500 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Indian shippers moving cargo to the Mediterranean are dealing with a persistent capacity strain from vessel schedule disruptions, sparking a doubling of container freight rates over the past month, freight forwarders say. Forwarders said space for bookings, especially to the more-demanding West Mediterranean market, has become acutely tight due to multiple blank calls in recent weeks. Short-term contract rates out of the ports of Nhava Sheva and Mundra to Genoa have climbed to between $1,900 and $2,000 per FEU from the $1,000 to $1,100 range seen in the first half of June, data obtained by the Journal of Commerce showed. Crimped ocean capacity has sent spot rates on the trade lane even higher. Sources put spot booking prices for Nhava Sheva-Genoa loads on sailings through August at between $3,000 and $3,100 per TEU and $2,600 and 2,800 per FEU, varying slightly from carrier to carrier. Additionally, certain carriers have tactically opened spot window bookings for early September sailings at about $3,400 per TEU, sources said. “Most available vessels for the West Mediterranean in August are already booked full,” a sales executive at a Mumbai-based forwarding company who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “With the space crunch expected to linger for some time, rates could strengthen further.” Forwarders have already reported two blankings on the trade lane in August, including one upcoming skip from CMA CGM. Space availability is said to be relatively better off for the India-East Mediterranean trade, a market that has been a target of opportunistic regional/feeder lines offering direct Red Sea sailings. Indian containerized exports to the Mediterranean are mainly led by agricultural products and various machinery freight, with volumes in the first half of 2025 estimated at 332,500 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

India-Med rates race higher as blank sailings continue to tighten capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Vietnam’s largest conglomerate said the complex will be developed in three phases between 2026 and 2040 and include a container terminal with at least six berths. </div>

Vietnam’s largest conglomerate said the complex will be developed in three phases between 2026 and 2040 and include a container terminal with at least six berths.

<div class="phx-topic">Vingroup, Vietnam’s largest conglomerate, will start work next year on a $14 billion port and logistics center in Haiphong that will form the core of a new development area in the country’s northern port gateway, the group said. The Nam Do Son harbor and commercial facility will cover approximately 11,000 acres in Haiphong’s new southern coastal economic zone, plans for which were unveiled by the city government last year. Vingroup said its port and industrial complex will be developed in three phases between 2026 and 2040. It will include a container terminal with at least six berths, according to digital renderings of the project. Vingroup, whose interests include electric vehicle manufacturing, real estate development and healthcare, said phase one of the project, to be developed between 2026 and 2030, will cost $1.1 billion. Phase two between 2031 and 2035 will cost $7.9 billion, while the final phase from 2036 to 2040 will cost $5.3 billion. Details were disclosed in a brief two-page statement Vingroup filed to the Ho Chi Minh stock exchange and the state securities commission this week. Vingroup executives did not respond to requests for further comment. Vingroup said it would finance 15% of the total cost of the project from its own resources, with the remaining 85% coming from other sources, including financial institutions and other investors. Analysts said the port is likely to be built as part of the project’s first phase, providing shipment capacity for Vingroup’s trade activities that include the manufacturing of its VinFast Auto electric vehicles in Haiphong. VinFast also operates a fleet of car carriers to ship vehicles to Southeast Asian markets. Analysts said the port would also provide additional container terminal capacity for Haiphong, which handled almost 6 million TEUs last year. Vingroup’s project comes as Haiphong’s port administration is further developing its Lach Huyen container port. In May, CMA CGM signed a $600 million deal with Saigon Newport Corporation (SNP) to develop terminals 7 and 8 at Lach Huyen, which will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028. And Hai Phong Port TIL International Terminal Company, an affiliate of Mediterranean Shipping Co., in April inaugurated terminals 3 and 4 at Lach Huyen, with a capacity of about 2 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Vingroup, Vietnam’s largest conglomerate, will start work next year on a $14 billion port and logistics center in Haiphong that will form the core of a new development area in the country’s northern port gateway, the group said. The Nam Do Son harbor and commercial facility will cover approximately 11,000 acres in Haiphong’s new southern coastal economic zone, plans for which were unveiled by the city government last year. Vingroup said its port and industrial complex will be developed in three phases between 2026 and 2040. It will include a container terminal with at least six berths, according to digital renderings of the project. Vingroup, whose interests include electric vehicle manufacturing, real estate development and healthcare, said phase one of the project, to be developed between 2026 and 2030, will cost $1.1 billion. Phase two between 2031 and 2035 will cost $7.9 billion, while the final phase from 2036 to 2040 will cost $5.3 billion. Details were disclosed in a brief two-page statement Vingroup filed to the Ho Chi Minh stock exchange and the state securities commission this week. Vingroup executives did not respond to requests for further comment. Vingroup said it would finance 15% of the total cost of the project from its own resources, with the remaining 85% coming from other sources, including financial institutions and other investors. Analysts said the port is likely to be built as part of the project’s first phase, providing shipment capacity for Vingroup’s trade activities that include the manufacturing of its VinFast Auto electric vehicles in Haiphong. VinFast also operates a fleet of car carriers to ship vehicles to Southeast Asian markets. Analysts said the port would also provide additional container terminal capacity for Haiphong, which handled almost 6 million TEUs last year. Vingroup’s project comes as Haiphong’s port administration is further developing its Lach Huyen container port. In May, CMA CGM signed a $600 million deal with Saigon Newport Corporation (SNP) to develop terminals 7 and 8 at Lach Huyen, which will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028. And Hai Phong Port TIL International Terminal Company, an affiliate of Mediterranean Shipping Co., in April inaugurated terminals 3 and 4 at Lach Huyen, with a capacity of about 2 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

International ports

Vingroup to start building $14 billion Haiphong port, logistics hub next year

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A steady increase in non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment shows there’s more life in trucking than one might expect following lackluster carrier earnings reports. </div>

A steady increase in non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment shows there’s more life in trucking than one might expect following lackluster carrier earnings reports.

<div class="phx-topic">For-hire trucking employment is growing despite weak overall US hiring, imports and industrial production, with for-hire carriers adding 7,700 jobs in July before seasonal adjustments, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Journal of Commerce For-Hire Trucking Employment Index climbed from 100.5 in June to 101 in July and is up from 98 in February. That indicates non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment is up 1% from its average in the fourth quarter of 2018. A steady increase in non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment shows there’s more life in trucking than one might expect following lackluster carrier earnings reports. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c317f6b6-3ad4-4ee8-9782-428d25a2050a"></dynamic-object></div>The number of real, unadjusted trucking jobs has risen every month since February, climbing higher by 45,500 employees over that six-month period, according to non-seasonally adjusted BLS data released Friday. On an annualized basis, for-hire trucking employment was up 0.4% at approximately 1.54 million jobs in July from the same month a year ago, before adjustment. The non-seasonally adjusted BLS numbers have been positive year over year since May. Even seasonally adjusted trucking job numbers rose in July, rising by 3,600, indicating stronger-than-expected growth in what’s usually a quieter month for trucking. <h3>Recovering from revision </h3>The latest data shows a continuing recovery in employment numbers after a revision by BLS found <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-us-payroll-numbers-underscore-truckload-market-shift-5965577">trucking employment had been over-reported</a> in the period from 2022 through 2024, with the number of trucking employees inflated by as much as 2% to 4%. That revision pulled trucking employment numbers down to their lowest point since May 2021 at about 1.49 million employees, lower than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019. The latest revision to the BLS employment data showed hiring was slower in May and June than previously reported, and gains in July were weaker than expected. But the revision did not affect the trucking employment data. The data for the first seven months of 2025 shows a normal seasonal progression and tracks very closely with data for the same period in 2024. On a sequential monthly basis, trucking employment increased 0.6% on average since February. For-hire trucking employment is still 2.5% below its peak in August 2022, when trucking companies employed more than 1.6 million workers. Large, publicly owned truckload carriers have been more focused on cutting costs and improving vehicle utilization than adding employees to their payrolls, but they did increase their truck counts slightly in the last quarter. Schneider National, one of the largest US truckload providers, saw a net increase of 200 drivers in the second quarter, according to CEO Mark B. Rourke. Driver recruiting saw “pockets of strength” in the second quarter, Rourke told Wall Street analysts last week, as drivers working for small companies sought jobs with larger, more financially stable fleets. Nearly 9,900 motor carriers left the market between December 2024 and July, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The number of newly registered carriers peaked in 2024 at 55,853 companies, according to FMCSA data. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

For-hire trucking employment is growing despite weak overall US hiring, imports and industrial production, with for-hire carriers adding 7,700 jobs in July before seasonal adjustments, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Journal of Commerce For-Hire Trucking Employment Index climbed from 100.5 in June to 101 in July and is up from 98 in February. That indicates non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment is up 1% from its average in the fourth quarter of 2018. A steady increase in non-seasonally adjusted trucking employment shows there’s more life in trucking than one might expect following lackluster carrier earnings reports. The number of real, unadjusted trucking jobs has risen every month since February, climbing higher by 45,500 employees over that six-month period, according to non-seasonally adjusted BLS data released Friday. On an annualized basis, for-hire trucking employment was up 0.4% at approximately 1.54 million jobs in July from the same month a year ago, before adjustment. The non-seasonally adjusted BLS numbers have been positive year over year since May. Even seasonally adjusted trucking job numbers rose in July, rising by 3,600, indicating stronger-than-expected growth in what’s usually a quieter month for trucking. Recovering from revision The latest data shows a continuing recovery in employment numbers after a revision by BLS found trucking employment had been over-reported in the period from 2022 through 2024, with the number of trucking employees inflated by as much as 2% to 4%. That revision pulled trucking employment numbers down to their lowest point since May 2021 at about 1.49 million employees, lower than in the pre-pandemic year of 2019. The latest revision to the BLS employment data showed hiring was slower in May and June than previously reported, and gains in July were weaker than expected. But the revision did not affect the trucking employment data. The data for the first seven months of 2025 shows a normal seasonal progression and tracks very closely with data for the same period in 2024. On a sequential monthly basis, trucking employment increased 0.6% on average since February. For-hire trucking employment is still 2.5% below its peak in August 2022, when trucking companies employed more than 1.6 million workers. Large, publicly owned truckload carriers have been more focused on cutting costs and improving vehicle utilization than adding employees to their payrolls, but they did increase their truck counts slightly in the last quarter. Schneider National, one of the largest US truckload providers, saw a net increase of 200 drivers in the second quarter, according to CEO Mark B. Rourke. Driver recruiting saw “pockets of strength” in the second quarter, Rourke told Wall Street analysts last week, as drivers working for small companies sought jobs with larger, more financially stable fleets. Nearly 9,900 motor carriers left the market between December 2024 and July, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The number of newly registered carriers peaked in 2024 at 55,853 companies, according to FMCSA data. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking labor

US trucking employment rising steadily despite soft freight market

<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 .

Ro/ro cargo

North American ports

Marine terminals

Port infrastructure

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Creating a transcontinental railroad is a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. </div>

Creating a transcontinental railroad is a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains.

<div class="phx-topic">Over three decades in rail and logistics — from opening Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) China offices to overseeing over $1 billion a year in rail and truck procurement at Maersk — I’ve seen our industry at its best and most frustrating. These experiences taught me that success in freight isn’t about owning more track, it’s about making what you have work together, predictably and seamlessly. Coordination and integration — not just scale — unlock value in modern freight. That’s why I believe creating a transcontinental railroad isn’t just corporate consolidation. It’s a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. We’re in a global race. The real question is whether we’re ready to evolve from a fragmented, legacy-bound system into a digitally enabled, customer-centric network. Modal conversion is hard. At CN, we worked to divert truck volume onto rail. But at Coyote and Maersk, I saw the reverse — when unreliable interchange, visibility gaps and inconsistent service pushed freight back to the highway. Modal shift doesn’t stick unless the product performs across every touchpoint: drayage, chassis, dwell, and data. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-up-ns-tie-up-would-cause-major-shift-in-us-intermodal-market-6046025">A transcontinental merger</a> would give coast-to-coast reach on their own rails. That’s not just a coverage map — it’s a reimagining of how service is delivered. It could finally make rail more competitive against truck movements, but only if the combined company behaves more like a platform and less like a legacy carrier. That means unifying schedules, data, and service metrics. But let’s be clear — railroads don’t have a great track record here. Past mergers often promised integration but delivered disruption: slower transit, misaligned systems and customer confusion. If the potential tie-up between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern becomes another top-down rebrand without operational and digital harmony, we’ll squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Today’s shippers expect predictive insights, not just tracking pings. Modern tools are raising the bar by providing predictive truck-rail diversion intelligence and transforming frontline operations into structured, searchable data. These aren’t bolt-ons; they’re rewiring how decisions get made and how freight gets moved. Railroads must embed this kind of intelligence into their operating DNA. Visibility is no longer a feature — it’s the product. <h3>‘Align incentives’ </h3>I worked with the Chinese Ministry of Railways to consider a Chengdu to Narvik, Norway, route — ultimately connecting to Halifax. Three-gauge changes, uncertain infrastructure and limited partners made it unachievable. But today, weekly trains run from Asia to Europe. The difference? Capital, coordination and a unified commercial mindset. That’s the blueprint we need. North America has the backbone of rail — what it lacks is connective tissue. A transcontinental railroad would give one network end-to-end visibility and control. Think the kind of integrated vision Cornelius Vanderbilt dreamed of. In the Gilded Age, railroads shaped economies and connected cities. Today’s equivalent is data integration and seamless execution. We don’t need more steel — we need more reliability. For shippers, that means fewer surprises and a more resilient supply chain. Handled correctly, this potential merger could rebuild a product that earns modal conversion — but only if we align incentives across the ecosystem. Every player must show up. Shortlines need to get in the game by pushing for digital handshakes, carload connectivity, and shared metrics. Intermodal marketing companies can bring data and customers to the table and help shape lane strategies and expectations. Steamship lines port-to-door are your future. Make inland rail performance a C-suite issue. Bulk/merchandise shippers should demand parity: carload deserves the same precision as intermodal. Finally, logistics tech and third-party logistics providers must embed intelligence into the freight fabric, not around it. Handled poorly, this could become another merger that burdens operations and alienates customers. In a world of AI-driven dispatch and predictive ETAs, the window to rewire American freight is closing fast. Connecting teams, systems and expectations matters more than just connecting rail lines. Modernize now or risk handing the next decade of North American freight to faster, more agile competitors. Freight isn’t just a cost center — it’s a competitive edge. We either lead or step aside. That’s why I support a transcontinental rail system. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Over three decades in rail and logistics — from opening Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) China offices to overseeing over $1 billion a year in rail and truck procurement at Maersk — I’ve seen our industry at its best and most frustrating. These experiences taught me that success in freight isn’t about owning more track, it’s about making what you have work together, predictably and seamlessly. Coordination and integration — not just scale — unlock value in modern freight. That’s why I believe creating a transcontinental railroad isn’t just corporate consolidation. It’s a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. We’re in a global race. The real question is whether we’re ready to evolve from a fragmented, legacy-bound system into a digitally enabled, customer-centric network. Modal conversion is hard. At CN, we worked to divert truck volume onto rail. But at Coyote and Maersk, I saw the reverse — when unreliable interchange, visibility gaps and inconsistent service pushed freight back to the highway. Modal shift doesn’t stick unless the product performs across every touchpoint: drayage, chassis, dwell, and data. A transcontinental merger would give coast-to-coast reach on their own rails. That’s not just a coverage map — it’s a reimagining of how service is delivered. It could finally make rail more competitive against truck movements, but only if the combined company behaves more like a platform and less like a legacy carrier. That means unifying schedules, data, and service metrics. But let’s be clear — railroads don’t have a great track record here. Past mergers often promised integration but delivered disruption: slower transit, misaligned systems and customer confusion. If the potential tie-up between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern becomes another top-down rebrand without operational and digital harmony, we’ll squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Today’s shippers expect predictive insights, not just tracking pings. Modern tools are raising the bar by providing predictive truck-rail diversion intelligence and transforming frontline operations into structured, searchable data. These aren’t bolt-ons; they’re rewiring how decisions get made and how freight gets moved. Railroads must embed this kind of intelligence into their operating DNA. Visibility is no longer a feature — it’s the product. ‘Align incentives’ I worked with the Chinese Ministry of Railways to consider a Chengdu to Narvik, Norway, route — ultimately connecting to Halifax. Three-gauge changes, uncertain infrastructure and limited partners made it unachievable. But today, weekly trains run from Asia to Europe. The difference? Capital, coordination and a unified commercial mindset. That’s the blueprint we need. North America has the backbone of rail — what it lacks is connective tissue. A transcontinental railroad would give one network end-to-end visibility and control. Think the kind of integrated vision Cornelius Vanderbilt dreamed of. In the Gilded Age, railroads shaped economies and connected cities. Today’s equivalent is data integration and seamless execution. We don’t need more steel — we need more reliability. For shippers, that means fewer surprises and a more resilient supply chain. Handled correctly, this potential merger could rebuild a product that earns modal conversion — but only if we align incentives across the ecosystem. Every player must show up. Shortlines need to get in the game by pushing for digital handshakes, carload connectivity, and shared metrics. Intermodal marketing companies can bring data and customers to the table and help shape lane strategies and expectations. Steamship lines port-to-door are your future. Make inland rail performance a C-suite issue. Bulk/merchandise shippers should demand parity: carload deserves the same precision as intermodal. Finally, logistics tech and third-party logistics providers must embed intelligence into the freight fabric, not around it. Handled poorly, this could become another merger that burdens operations and alienates customers. In a world of AI-driven dispatch and predictive ETAs, the window to rewire American freight is closing fast. Connecting teams, systems and expectations matters more than just connecting rail lines. Modernize now or risk handing the next decade of North American freight to faster, more agile competitors. Freight isn’t just a cost center — it’s a competitive edge. We either lead or step aside. That’s why I support a transcontinental rail system. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He can be reached at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Possible transcontinental rail a chance to ‘rewire’ US freight movements

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">TGS Logistics said state grants for electric trucks failed to stem higher costs for new equipment amid a soft rate environment. </div>

TGS Logistics said state grants for electric trucks failed to stem higher costs for new equipment amid a soft rate environment.

<div class="phx-topic">A second major California-based drayage operator has closed its doors in less than a month, raising renewed concerns that the cost of the state’s green push for low and zero-emission trucks might be hastening the demise of the companies. TGS Logistics last week shut down its operations in Northern and Southern California, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/drayage-stakeholders-say-industry-under-threat-from-falling-rates-increased-costs-6045985">following GSC Enterprises’ announcement</a> in mid-July that it ceased operations in the Oakland area. Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS, said that drayage operators in California rely upon “layered grants” from the state and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. A harbor-wide clean truck program reimburses drayage providers partly for electric truck purchases, but much of the revenues collected through the $10-per-TEU fee on laden containers goes toward building electric charging infrastructure. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/drayage-stakeholders-say-industry-under-threat-from-falling-rates-increased-costs-6045985">Drayage operators are struggling</a> in an environment marked by stagnating pricing while drayage operators’ costs have increased significantly. These market developments haven’t spared drayage operators in California who also face the additional cost of approximately $500,000 per zero-emission truck, said Matt Schrap, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. Drayage operators in California have been upgrading their fleets <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/proposed-california-container-fee-would-hit-bcos-5198183">with clean-diesel trucks</a> and, more recently, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-fee-to-support-zero-emission-drayage-fleet-at-la-lb-5228423">with the purchase of zero-emission trucks</a>. Those purchases have “exacerbated” current market conditions, he said. The ports since 2022 together have collected about $250 million in revenue from the Clean Truck Fund (CTF) rate. The grants to individual drayage companies are made when the zero-emission vehicles are delivered. The ports continue to modify the CTF rate so that it will have a greater impact on the financial capability of drayage operators to purchase zero-emission vehicles, said Noel Hacegaba, chief operating officer of the Port of Long Beach. Bryan Brandes maritime director at the Port of Oakland, said drayage operators in California — who are already struggling with waning pricing power and increased operating costs and at the same time are purchasing clean-diesel and zero-emission vehicles — run the risk of following TGS’ fate. “TGS was trying to be a leader in the clean-truck movement,” Brandes said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A second major California-based drayage operator has closed its doors in less than a month, raising renewed concerns that the cost of the state’s green push for low and zero-emission trucks might be hastening the demise of the companies. TGS Logistics last week shut down its operations in Northern and Southern California, following GSC Enterprises’ announcement in mid-July that it ceased operations in the Oakland area. Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS, said that drayage operators in California rely upon “layered grants” from the state and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. A harbor-wide clean truck program reimburses drayage providers partly for electric truck purchases, but much of the revenues collected through the $10-per-TEU fee on laden containers goes toward building electric charging infrastructure. Drayage operators are struggling in an environment marked by stagnating pricing while drayage operators’ costs have increased significantly. These market developments haven’t spared drayage operators in California who also face the additional cost of approximately $500,000 per zero-emission truck, said Matt Schrap, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. Drayage operators in California have been upgrading their fleets with clean-diesel trucks and, more recently, with the purchase of zero-emission trucks . Those purchases have “exacerbated” current market conditions, he said. The ports since 2022 together have collected about $250 million in revenue from the Clean Truck Fund (CTF) rate. The grants to individual drayage companies are made when the zero-emission vehicles are delivered. The ports continue to modify the CTF rate so that it will have a greater impact on the financial capability of drayage operators to purchase zero-emission vehicles, said Noel Hacegaba, chief operating officer of the Port of Long Beach. Bryan Brandes maritime director at the Port of Oakland, said drayage operators in California — who are already struggling with waning pricing power and increased operating costs and at the same time are purchasing clean-diesel and zero-emission vehicles — run the risk of following TGS’ fate. “TGS was trying to be a leader in the clean-truck movement,” Brandes said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Drayage

Second California drayage operator shuts business, cites electric truck costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The number of unique services on routes navigating through Houthi-controlled waters has doubled since the third quarter of last year, according to data from eeSea, as carriers who do not call Israel feel growing comfort sailing the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.</div>

The number of unique services on routes navigating through Houthi-controlled waters has doubled since the third quarter of last year, according to data from eeSea, as carriers who do not call Israel feel growing comfort sailing the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.

<div class="phx-topic">The Red Sea is seeing “a quiet revival” in shipping services as regional carriers steadily add capacity to vessel strings passing through the Houthi-controlled Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. Some are Asia-Europe services passing through the Suez Canal, while others are regional services calling at Red Sea ports such as Jeddah, Destine Ozuygur, chief analyst at eeSea, said in a market update. “The number of unique service versions on this trade has doubled since Q3 2024, when there was an average of eight services on any given month,” Ozuygur said. “This gradual comeback now boasts 16 services and a 54% year-to-date planned capacity increase that is set to peak at 104,000 TEUs of proforma capacity in August.” Many of the services are operated by carriers from China or those based in the Middle East or India that serve the Asia-Middle East trade lane with small- to medium-sized vessels. The Red Sea has effectively been out of bounds since December 2023, when Yemen’s Houthi militants began attacking commercial shipping passing through the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the southern entrance to the Red Sea as a show of solidarity for Gaza amid the Israel-Hamas war. Major carriers on the Asia-Europe and Asia-US East Coast trade lanes were then forced to reroute ships around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, which has absorbed an estimated 10% of global capacity and extended transit times by two weeks. Most of the carriers on the Asia-Middle East trade and those passing through the Red Sea en route to Europe do not make calls to Israel on any of their strings, regardless of trade lane, “so that probably lends them confidence” to sail through Houthi-controlled waters, Ozuygur said. After no attacks on shipping were reported since this past December, pressure was beginning to build on the major container shipping companies to return to Red Sea transits. However, in July, two bulk carriers were attacked and sunk, killing three crew and leaving 11 missing, effectively <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-houthi-attacks-likely-kill-hopes-of-shipping-returning-to-red-sea-this-year-6040923">ending any chance of a Red Sea return this year</a>. CMA CGM has some services operating in the Red Sea, but group CFO Ramon Fernandez told the Journal of Commerce last week that security in the region was strictly monitored. “We have a constant position here, which is that vessels will pass the Bab-al-Mandab Strait when security conditions are met,” he said. “That means security for the crew, security for the vessel and for the cargo. “We have some vessels going through when these conditions are met, and for the rest of the fleet must go around the Cape of Good Hope,” Fernandez added. “This is a constant policy the group has followed since the early days of last year.” <h3>Navigating dangerous waters </h3>Of the Asia-Europe services that continue to operate through the strait and the Suez Canal, 39% call ports outside the East Mediterranean and 33% make direct calls to Russian ports, according to eeSea. “A score of new or improved services announced as recently as Q2 2025 are not restricted to regional carriers alone,” Ozuygur noted. She outlined some of the services that are currently sailing through the Houthi-controlled waterway. A China United Lines extra loader is scheduled to begin operations in the last week of August that will complement the carrier’s Red Sea Service (REX) that began in December 2023. Cosco increased the frequency of the RES2 service operated alongside PIL since March 2024 from a 12-day to a weekly service with the addition of three more sailings at the end of April. Cosco also introduced an additional RES1 service in early May, partnering with OOCL and currently operating with three general cargo vessels. Hong Kong-based Kawa Shipping operates the China-Europe Express (CEX) service between Ningbo and Wilhelmshaven in Germany through the Red Sea that was launched in 2023. In June, its Eastern Mediterranean Express (EMX) service covering the Red Sea, Egypt and Turkey was expanded with the addition of four more vessels. Taiwanese carrier Wan Hai Lines will double the number of vessels on its AR2 service to eight later this month, while increasing the sailing frequency from every 14 days to seven days. India-based Sea Legend Shipping introduced their Asia-Red Sea service in mid-June with three of nine available vessels currently providing voyages. Dubai’s CStar Lines began their China-Red Sea services FRS1, FRS1-X, and FRS2 in May and June, and Singapore headquartered SeaLead Shipping recently reinstated its China-Red Sea (CRS) service, which has not been operational since December 2022. Carriers in the Ocean Alliance — CMA CGM, Cosco, OOCL and Evergreen — operate the MED5 service via the Suez Canal to connect Asia to its Mediterranean network. “While the Asia-Europe trade has largely suffered from longer transit times and increased CO2 emissions tied to military conflict in the zone, the secondary Asia-Middle East trade serving the Red Sea is finally witnessing a quiet revival,” Ozuygur said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Red Sea is seeing “a quiet revival” in shipping services as regional carriers steadily add capacity to vessel strings passing through the Houthi-controlled Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. Some are Asia-Europe services passing through the Suez Canal, while others are regional services calling at Red Sea ports such as Jeddah, Destine Ozuygur, chief analyst at eeSea, said in a market update. “The number of unique service versions on this trade has doubled since Q3 2024, when there was an average of eight services on any given month,” Ozuygur said. “This gradual comeback now boasts 16 services and a 54% year-to-date planned capacity increase that is set to peak at 104,000 TEUs of proforma capacity in August.” Many of the services are operated by carriers from China or those based in the Middle East or India that serve the Asia-Middle East trade lane with small- to medium-sized vessels. The Red Sea has effectively been out of bounds since December 2023, when Yemen’s Houthi militants began attacking commercial shipping passing through the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the southern entrance to the Red Sea as a show of solidarity for Gaza amid the Israel-Hamas war. Major carriers on the Asia-Europe and Asia-US East Coast trade lanes were then forced to reroute ships around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, which has absorbed an estimated 10% of global capacity and extended transit times by two weeks. Most of the carriers on the Asia-Middle East trade and those passing through the Red Sea en route to Europe do not make calls to Israel on any of their strings, regardless of trade lane, “so that probably lends them confidence” to sail through Houthi-controlled waters, Ozuygur said. After no attacks on shipping were reported since this past December, pressure was beginning to build on the major container shipping companies to return to Red Sea transits. However, in July, two bulk carriers were attacked and sunk, killing three crew and leaving 11 missing, effectively ending any chance of a Red Sea return this year . CMA CGM has some services operating in the Red Sea, but group CFO Ramon Fernandez told the Journal of Commerce last week that security in the region was strictly monitored. “We have a constant position here, which is that vessels will pass the Bab-al-Mandab Strait when security conditions are met,” he said. “That means security for the crew, security for the vessel and for the cargo. “We have some vessels going through when these conditions are met, and for the rest of the fleet must go around the Cape of Good Hope,” Fernandez added. “This is a constant policy the group has followed since the early days of last year.” Navigating dangerous waters Of the Asia-Europe services that continue to operate through the strait and the Suez Canal, 39% call ports outside the East Mediterranean and 33% make direct calls to Russian ports, according to eeSea. “A score of new or improved services announced as recently as Q2 2025 are not restricted to regional carriers alone,” Ozuygur noted. She outlined some of the services that are currently sailing through the Houthi-controlled waterway. A China United Lines extra loader is scheduled to begin operations in the last week of August that will complement the carrier’s Red Sea Service (REX) that began in December 2023. Cosco increased the frequency of the RES2 service operated alongside PIL since March 2024 from a 12-day to a weekly service with the addition of three more sailings at the end of April. Cosco also introduced an additional RES1 service in early May, partnering with OOCL and currently operating with three general cargo vessels. Hong Kong-based Kawa Shipping operates the China-Europe Express (CEX) service between Ningbo and Wilhelmshaven in Germany through the Red Sea that was launched in 2023. In June, its Eastern Mediterranean Express (EMX) service covering the Red Sea, Egypt and Turkey was expanded with the addition of four more vessels. Taiwanese carrier Wan Hai Lines will double the number of vessels on its AR2 service to eight later this month, while increasing the sailing frequency from every 14 days to seven days. India-based Sea Legend Shipping introduced their Asia-Red Sea service in mid-June with three of nine available vessels currently providing voyages. Dubai’s CStar Lines began their China-Red Sea services FRS1, FRS1-X, and FRS2 in May and June, and Singapore headquartered SeaLead Shipping recently reinstated its China-Red Sea (CRS) service, which has not been operational since December 2022. Carriers in the Ocean Alliance — CMA CGM, Cosco, OOCL and Evergreen — operate the MED5 service via the Suez Canal to connect Asia to its Mediterranean network. “While the Asia-Europe trade has largely suffered from longer transit times and increased CO2 emissions tied to military conflict in the zone, the secondary Asia-Middle East trade serving the Red Sea is finally witnessing a quiet revival,” Ozuygur said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Red Sea ‘revival’ taking place as regional carriers lead the way

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade uncertainties are limiting visibility for the latter half of the carrier’s fiscal year, prompting it to significantly reduce its profit expectations.</div>

Trade uncertainties are limiting visibility for the latter half of the carrier’s fiscal year, prompting it to significantly reduce its profit expectations.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express (ONE) slashed its fiscal year 2025 profitability forecast by more than 36% Friday on expectations that the bearish fundamentals of falling demand and declining rates on the major trades out of Asia will be amplified by new vessel deliveries on the way. The Singapore-based carrier now expects its full fiscal-year 2025 net profit to be $700 million compared with the $1.1 billion forecast made earlier this year, it said in an earnings statement. ONE’s 2025 fiscal year began April 1 and ends March 31, 2026. “Recent trade uncertainties complicate visibility for the latter half of the fiscal year ... the current global environment remains highly uncertain,” the carrier said, adding that security risks in the Red Sea would keep pressure on the global supply chain. In its first quarter ending June 30, ONE reported revenue of $4 billion, down 4% year over year. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $616 million, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) dropped 94% to $38 million and net profit of $86 million was almost 90% lower compared with the same quarter last year. ONE reported flat volume on Asia-North America eastbound routes of 672,000 TEUs, with vessel utilization dropping from 100% to 94%. Asia-Europe volume was up 5% year over year at 456,000 TEUs, although utilization fell from 100% to 90%. While all of the earnings metrics were down year over year, comparisons with the fourth quarter of ONE’s 2024 fiscal year (January–March) show the impact of tariff uncertainty on the trans-Pacific. ONE reported volume slowing in April following the initial implementation of US tariffs, then surging in May after a 90-day pause on the levies was announced. Container handling on the Asia-North America eastbound trade in the fiscal first quarter increased 6% compared with the January–March period, ONE said in the statement. “This was due to a combination of several factors including fluctuating demand amid tariff uncertainties and an increase in capacity on the Asia-North America trade to cater to the strong demand from a 90-day tariff pause,” the carrier noted. Asia-Europe westbound volume increased 5% compared with the first three months of the year when demand was impacted by Chinese New Year. <h3>Capacity to outstrip demand </h3>ONE has 54 ships on order, contributing to the global container shipping order book that, at 9.1 million TEUs, is about 28% of the total in-service fleet, most of which will be delivered in the next two years, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just 9,000 TEUs in capacity will be scrapped this year. The growing supply-demand imbalance is being felt in the spot market. Rates on the Asia-US West Coast trade as of July 31 were at $1,713 per FEU, down 73% year over year; Asia-US East Coast rates were down 71% at $2,800/FEU, according to Platts, also part of S&amp;P Global. “The US is striking multiple trade deals, but this is unlikely to spark a cargo rush in the remainder of 2025 and prevent further softening of rates,” Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a market update Thursday. “Carriers are trying to manage capacity, but they may be fighting a losing battle and have no choice but to accept lower freight rates,” she added. With trans-Pacific demand slowing, ocean carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-august-tariff-deadline-prompts-carriers-to-pull-trans-pacific-capacity-6045526">plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the US</a> in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. And ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity this month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5a0d1715-465b-4c14-aac5-b50642195578"></dynamic-object></div>China-North Europe rates on July 31 were down 60% year over year at $3,326/FEU, converging on China-Mediterranean rates that were down 55% to $3,293/FEU, according to Xeneta. As capacity outstrips demand, HSBC is expecting <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-face-three-year-decline-in-profitability-hsbc-6032235">a 45% year-over-year decline in profits</a> for the container shipping industry this year, raising the potential for a price war between carriers that the bank forecasts will lead to a 61% decline in profits in 2026 and a further 10% slide in 2027. Transportation analysts at HSBC indicated in a recent report that although carriers will remain profitable through the period, it will be nowhere near the three record years of 2021, 2022 and 2024. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean Network Express (ONE) slashed its fiscal year 2025 profitability forecast by more than 36% Friday on expectations that the bearish fundamentals of falling demand and declining rates on the major trades out of Asia will be amplified by new vessel deliveries on the way. The Singapore-based carrier now expects its full fiscal-year 2025 net profit to be $700 million compared with the $1.1 billion forecast made earlier this year, it said in an earnings statement. ONE’s 2025 fiscal year began April 1 and ends March 31, 2026. “Recent trade uncertainties complicate visibility for the latter half of the fiscal year ... the current global environment remains highly uncertain,” the carrier said, adding that security risks in the Red Sea would keep pressure on the global supply chain. In its first quarter ending June 30, ONE reported revenue of $4 billion, down 4% year over year. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $616 million, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) dropped 94% to $38 million and net profit of $86 million was almost 90% lower compared with the same quarter last year. ONE reported flat volume on Asia-North America eastbound routes of 672,000 TEUs, with vessel utilization dropping from 100% to 94%. Asia-Europe volume was up 5% year over year at 456,000 TEUs, although utilization fell from 100% to 90%. While all of the earnings metrics were down year over year, comparisons with the fourth quarter of ONE’s 2024 fiscal year (January–March) show the impact of tariff uncertainty on the trans-Pacific. ONE reported volume slowing in April following the initial implementation of US tariffs, then surging in May after a 90-day pause on the levies was announced. Container handling on the Asia-North America eastbound trade in the fiscal first quarter increased 6% compared with the January–March period, ONE said in the statement. “This was due to a combination of several factors including fluctuating demand amid tariff uncertainties and an increase in capacity on the Asia-North America trade to cater to the strong demand from a 90-day tariff pause,” the carrier noted. Asia-Europe westbound volume increased 5% compared with the first three months of the year when demand was impacted by Chinese New Year. Capacity to outstrip demand ONE has 54 ships on order, contributing to the global container shipping order book that, at 9.1 million TEUs, is about 28% of the total in-service fleet, most of which will be delivered in the next two years, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just 9,000 TEUs in capacity will be scrapped this year. The growing supply-demand imbalance is being felt in the spot market. Rates on the Asia-US West Coast trade as of July 31 were at $1,713 per FEU, down 73% year over year; Asia-US East Coast rates were down 71% at $2,800/FEU, according to Platts, also part of S&P Global. “The US is striking multiple trade deals, but this is unlikely to spark a cargo rush in the remainder of 2025 and prevent further softening of rates,” Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a market update Thursday. “Carriers are trying to manage capacity, but they may be fighting a losing battle and have no choice but to accept lower freight rates,” she added. With trans-Pacific demand slowing, ocean carriers plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the US in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. And ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity this month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. China-North Europe rates on July 31 were down 60% year over year at $3,326/FEU, converging on China-Mediterranean rates that were down 55% to $3,293/FEU, according to Xeneta. As capacity outstrips demand, HSBC is expecting a 45% year-over-year decline in profits for the container shipping industry this year, raising the potential for a price war between carriers that the bank forecasts will lead to a 61% decline in profits in 2026 and a further 10% slide in 2027. Transportation analysts at HSBC indicated in a recent report that although carriers will remain profitable through the period, it will be nowhere near the three record years of 2021, 2022 and 2024. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

ONE cuts profit forecast as falling rates, excess capacity weigh on carriers

Use code TPM25GW995 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 TPM25GW995 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">But the increase in truck counts at large truckload providers is more about anticipated growth than any change in current demand. </div>

But the increase in truck counts at large truckload providers is more about anticipated growth than any change in current demand.

<div class="phx-topic">Large US truckload carriers are beginning to add capacity to their fleets after three years of deep cuts, pushing the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 1.1 percentage points sequentially in the second quarter to a reading of 76%. The capacity gain was only a trickle of tractors, but it caused the first increase in the TCI in 11 quarters, signaling growing — if not cautious — confidence among trucking executives that the freight downturn that began in 2022, while not yet finished, is finally approaching its end. The TCI was down 0.9 of a percentage point year over year, but the gain from the first quarter indicates the index could soon turn positive on an annualized basis, perhaps by year-end. The increase isn’t a reaction to higher demand in today’s US domestic freight market. Instead, the gain in capacity shows truckload carriers are slowly and judiciously preparing for higher volumes that may arrive in the fourth quarter of 2025 and early 2026. Contract rates negotiated with shippers are either flat or up by low single-digit percentages, carriers report. Capacity is still widely available, and while small and midsized carriers continue to leave the market, shippers retain pricing power. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="bbf4a072-889b-4bbf-94bd-cd682d4252d0"></dynamic-object></div>“The impact of accumulated inflation remains a drag on the amount of truckload freight generated in relation to consumer spending,” Frank Lonegro, president and CEO of Landstar System, told Wall Street analysts during a July 29 earnings call. “Truck capacity continued to be readily available with small pockets of supply-demand equilibrium and market conditions continue to favor the shipper,” Lonegro said. Several truckload shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that they’ve given some carriers small rate increases this year simply to retain access to their capacity, not because of any significant tightness in the marketplace. <h3>Looking ahead </h3>The second-quarter increase in the TCI — which measures changes in actual truck counts at a select group of large, publicly-owned truckload carriers — indicates the US domestic freight market is doing more than just bouncing along the bottom it hit in mid-2022. Shippers are evaluating their capacity needs for the second half of the year and for 2026 amid volatile changes in US trade and tariff policy. Those who expect freight demand and the US economy to improve are looking to secure capacity ahead of any crunch. “We’re having some discussions around doing some peak projects,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told Wall Street analysts July 23. “There’s some discussion about what capacity may look like at scale,” Miller said during an earnings call. “[When capacity gets tight], that’s when a carrier of our size at our different brands has the ability to come in and solve large problems for our customers.” Knight-Swift cut its average truckload tractor count by 6.6% year over year in the second quarter and by 6.3% in the first half of 2025. CFO Andrew Hess told analysts Knight-Swift’s truck count should be stable through the rest of 2025. A <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckload-carriers-balance-networks-as-tariff-uncertainty-shifts-demand-6052453">reshuffling of capacity</a> across lanes, driven in part by higher US tariffs, is also affecting demand. In the second quarter, Werner Enterprises increased its truck count 1.4% sequentially from the first quarter and 1.1% from a year ago to 7,545 trucks. That’s still a 12.3% reduction compared with a peak of 8,600 trucks in the fourth quarter of 2022, according to company data. “Our one-way fleet size increased sequentially, driven in part from engineered pop-up solutions in response to customer requests,” Derek Leathers, Werner chairman and CEO, told Wall Street analysts July 29. “We have assets in place to support growth through the rest of this year,” Leathers said. <h3>Adding capacity as needed </h3>Other large trucking companies say shippers are seeking to ensure carriers can ramp up capacity as demand grows. “Their conversations with us focus on how to dynamically optimize their supply chain and capacity plans to meet their service needs,” Bradley Hicks, president of dedicated contract services for J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during a July 15 earnings call. J.B. Hunt wants to be ready with people and equipment “whenever that demand does occur over the next few months,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing, said during the call. J.B. Hunt Truckload, the company’s smallest division, increased its one-way truckload capacity by 10.2% sequentially and 7.6% from a year ago in the second quarter. “We’re not banking on big demand improvement, but we do think the supply story will continue to play out,” with more carriers exiting the market, Werner’s Leathers said. Executives at large truckload carriers have been predicting — incorrectly — an imminent shortfall in capacity as smaller providers have left the market over the past three years. Today, they’re more cautious about predictions. “Anecdotally, we hear about failures in our industry, [and] some are sizeable fleets, but it’s always hard to have a good feel about what’s happening with capacity,” Knight-Swift’s Miller said. “We think it’s going to be a slow process for capacity to exit the market.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Large US truckload carriers are beginning to add capacity to their fleets after three years of deep cuts, pushing the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 1.1 percentage points sequentially in the second quarter to a reading of 76%. The capacity gain was only a trickle of tractors, but it caused the first increase in the TCI in 11 quarters, signaling growing — if not cautious — confidence among trucking executives that the freight downturn that began in 2022, while not yet finished, is finally approaching its end. The TCI was down 0.9 of a percentage point year over year, but the gain from the first quarter indicates the index could soon turn positive on an annualized basis, perhaps by year-end. The increase isn’t a reaction to higher demand in today’s US domestic freight market. Instead, the gain in capacity shows truckload carriers are slowly and judiciously preparing for higher volumes that may arrive in the fourth quarter of 2025 and early 2026. Contract rates negotiated with shippers are either flat or up by low single-digit percentages, carriers report. Capacity is still widely available, and while small and midsized carriers continue to leave the market, shippers retain pricing power. “The impact of accumulated inflation remains a drag on the amount of truckload freight generated in relation to consumer spending,” Frank Lonegro, president and CEO of Landstar System, told Wall Street analysts during a July 29 earnings call. “Truck capacity continued to be readily available with small pockets of supply-demand equilibrium and market conditions continue to favor the shipper,” Lonegro said. Several truckload shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that they’ve given some carriers small rate increases this year simply to retain access to their capacity, not because of any significant tightness in the marketplace. Looking ahead The second-quarter increase in the TCI — which measures changes in actual truck counts at a select group of large, publicly-owned truckload carriers — indicates the US domestic freight market is doing more than just bouncing along the bottom it hit in mid-2022. Shippers are evaluating their capacity needs for the second half of the year and for 2026 amid volatile changes in US trade and tariff policy. Those who expect freight demand and the US economy to improve are looking to secure capacity ahead of any crunch. “We’re having some discussions around doing some peak projects,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told Wall Street analysts July 23. “There’s some discussion about what capacity may look like at scale,” Miller said during an earnings call. “[When capacity gets tight], that’s when a carrier of our size at our different brands has the ability to come in and solve large problems for our customers.” Knight-Swift cut its average truckload tractor count by 6.6% year over year in the second quarter and by 6.3% in the first half of 2025. CFO Andrew Hess told analysts Knight-Swift’s truck count should be stable through the rest of 2025. A reshuffling of capacity across lanes, driven in part by higher US tariffs, is also affecting demand. In the second quarter, Werner Enterprises increased its truck count 1.4% sequentially from the first quarter and 1.1% from a year ago to 7,545 trucks. That’s still a 12.3% reduction compared with a peak of 8,600 trucks in the fourth quarter of 2022, according to company data. “Our one-way fleet size increased sequentially, driven in part from engineered pop-up solutions in response to customer requests,” Derek Leathers, Werner chairman and CEO, told Wall Street analysts July 29. “We have assets in place to support growth through the rest of this year,” Leathers said. Adding capacity as needed Other large trucking companies say shippers are seeking to ensure carriers can ramp up capacity as demand grows. “Their conversations with us focus on how to dynamically optimize their supply chain and capacity plans to meet their service needs,” Bradley Hicks, president of dedicated contract services for J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during a July 15 earnings call. J.B. Hunt wants to be ready with people and equipment “whenever that demand does occur over the next few months,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing, said during the call. J.B. Hunt Truckload, the company’s smallest division, increased its one-way truckload capacity by 10.2% sequentially and 7.6% from a year ago in the second quarter. “We’re not banking on big demand improvement, but we do think the supply story will continue to play out,” with more carriers exiting the market, Werner’s Leathers said. Executives at large truckload carriers have been predicting — incorrectly — an imminent shortfall in capacity as smaller providers have left the market over the past three years. Today, they’re more cautious about predictions. “Anecdotally, we hear about failures in our industry, [and] some are sizeable fleets, but it’s always hard to have a good feel about what’s happening with capacity,” Knight-Swift’s Miller said. “We think it’s going to be a slow process for capacity to exit the market.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truckload capacity index turns upward as carriers cautiously add trucks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.</div>

Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.

<div class="phx-topic">US ports and terminal operators <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-look-to-delay-proposed-us-tariffs-on-chinese-made-cranes-6007628">facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes</a> they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6055442_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=HTCTBWHHBW">according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins</a>. But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” <h3>Port productivity at risk </h3>The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=73RDQKH6G2">told the USTR</a> it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” <h3>Reshoring push from White House </h3>New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-eyes-a-tax-credit-for-reshoring-port-crane-manufacturing-6053124">building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment</a>, which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Terminal operators are finding that ramping up orders through alternative manufacturers is proving a challenge. One terminal operator told the Journal of Commerce that it recently completed a tender for procurement of additional cranes. It said that in both cases the lowest price quoted was 65% to 75% higher than what it was paying for the same cranes ordered for use outside of the US. It attributed the price gap to increased demand for non-Chinese built cranes versus the production capacity of alternative manufacturers. In other words, apart from the short-term need for tariff exemptions on Chinese cranes already on order, longer term there is an even bigger need for mitigating measures to facilitate new crane orders in a market where insufficient alternative supply is available. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US ports and terminal operators facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins . But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” Port productivity at risk The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia told the USTR it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” Reshoring push from White House New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment , which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Terminal operators are finding that ramping up orders through alternative manufacturers is proving a challenge. One terminal operator told the Journal of Commerce that it recently completed a tender for procurement of additional cranes. It said that in both cases the lowest price quoted was 65% to 75% higher than what it was paying for the same cranes ordered for use outside of the US. It attributed the price gap to increased demand for non-Chinese built cranes versus the production capacity of alternative manufacturers. In other words, apart from the short-term need for tariff exemptions on Chinese cranes already on order, longer term there is an even bigger need for mitigating measures to facilitate new crane orders in a market where insufficient alternative supply is available. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Looming US tariffs put economic viability of STS cranes in doubt

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally. </div>

Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally.

<div class="phx-topic">US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors.In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020).That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said.The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference.With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. How the HMTF us disbursed has been a long-standing issue among donor ports. West Coast ports, which were the first to benefit from containerization, were concerned about East Coast ports receiving an outsize share of the HMTF relative to their size. In 1982, then-American Association of Port Authorities President J. Ron Brinson built an expensive headquarters building in Alexandria, Va., <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dredging-for-dollars-5232988">in a pre-emptive move to keep the group from being torn apart by the new HMTF</a>. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors. In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020). That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said. The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference. With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. How the HMTF us disbursed has been a long-standing issue among donor ports. West Coast ports, which were the first to benefit from containerization, were concerned about East Coast ports receiving an outsize share of the HMTF relative to their size. In 1982, then-American Association of Port Authorities President J. Ron Brinson built an expensive headquarters building in Alexandria, Va., in a pre-emptive move to keep the group from being torn apart by the new HMTF . Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Intermodal savings dipped in Q2; surcharges to factor into Q3 decisions

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Second California drayage operator shuts business, cites electric truck costs

Red Sea ‘revival’ taking place as regional carriers lead the way

ONE cuts profit forecast as falling rates, excess capacity weigh on carriers

Recent Commentary

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Possible transcontinental rail a chance to ‘rewire’ US freight movements

Top 5 Most Read Stories