<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With several marine terminals in the U.S., Stevedoring Services of America suffers every time one of</div>

With several marine terminals in the U.S., Stevedoring Services of America suffers every time one of

<div>With several marine terminals in the U.S., Stevedoring Services of America suffers every time one of its ocean carrier clients agrees to give shippers free storage time for their containers on the terminal premises. "There are stacks of boxes congesting the terminals. It makes the terminals less efficient," said Ed DeNike, SSA's chief operating officer.As executive director of the Waterfront Coalition, Robin Lanier's mission is to foster productivity at marine terminals so that her members, which include giant retailers and other importers, will see their cargo move more smoothly through the nation's increasingly clogged seaports. Lanier knows that storing containers...

With several marine terminals in the U.S., Stevedoring Services of America suffers every time one of its ocean carrier clients agrees to give shippers free storage time for their containers on the terminal premises. "There are stacks of boxes congesting the terminals. It makes the terminals less efficient," said Ed DeNike, SSA's chief operating officer. As executive director of the Waterfront Coalition, Robin Lanier's mission is to foster productivity at marine terminals so that her members, which include giant retailers and other importers, will see their cargo move more smoothly through the nation's increasingly clogged seaports. Lanier knows that storing containers on the docks compounds congestion, but she said shippers aren't to blame. The reason: They don't generally press shipping lines to give them extended free time. Instead, carrier sales personnel offer free storage time as a competitive element in service contracts. "The carriers should talk to their operations people. There's a lack of conversation about what goes on at the ports," she told the third annual Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference organized by The Journal of Commerce. But in an indication of the complexity of port congestion issues, that is not the message DeNike and other terminal operators are getting. Their carrier clients tell them that shippers of all sizes continue to press shipping lines for extended storage time. "The VIP cargo is getting 15 days free storage time. It seems like 99 percent of the cargo is VIP today," DeNike said. With an increasing amount of attention focused on marine terminals in the aftermath of last fall's labor troubles on the West Coast, dwell time - the amount of time that a container remains on the docks - has become a central issue. Marine terminal engineers say dwell time is one of the greatest contributors to terminal congestion. The reason is simple: To store the containers, terminals have to stack them. When truckers arrive to pick up the containers, dockworkers must sift through the stacks to retrieve the loads, adding time and contributing to long truck lines outside terminals. The lengthy truck lines have made marine terminals a political target for environmentalists, nearby communities and trucker groups. Containers are also sometimes stored on chassis, either on the docks or at off-dock facilities. This practice led to a severe shortage of chassis last fall following the West Coast lockout. Port authorities, recognizing the damage that results from excessive container dwell time, have attempted to combat the problem by including a demurrage, or storage, charge in their tariffs. In Los Angeles-Los Beach, which handled 42 percent of the loaded import and 23 percent of loaded export containers in the U.S. last year, importers are allowed five days of free time to leave their shipments on the docks. After that, demurrage is charged at a rate of $40 per day for the first five days, and $79 for each day thereafter. Exporters are allowed seven free days. Demurrage for exports is $26 per day for the first five days and $53 thereafter. But that strategy has proved largely ineffective. Most contracts between port authorities and terminal operators put the terminals in charge of collecting demurrage, and the terminals are allowed to keep the revenue. At West Coast ports, most of the terminals are owned by shipping lines, which use extended free time as a competitive tool, so terminals end up forgoing millions of dollars a year in demurrage charges they should be collecting. Even an independent terminal operator such as SSA ends up giving in on the free time issue. DeNike noted that carriers that call at SSA facilities press the terminal operator not to collect the demurrage charges, a request with which SSA has little choice but to comply. Shipping lines are beginning to recognize, however, that offering shippers extended free time is harmful. Shipping lines own many of the containers and most of the chassis the containers are resting on. Like ships, those assets earn the carrier nothing when they're sitting idle. "They're just sitting there, and they're not do-ing anything for us," said James Galligan, vice president of pricing and conference affairs at MOL (America) Inc. After several years of financial losses, carriers have begun calculating the money they lose due to their failure to achieve sufficient utilization of their containers and chassis, and the numbers are huge, Galligan said. He said carriers are now "going back to tariff" and are charging the fees they have always been entitled to charge. In order to do this, however, shipping lines must rein in their sales force and insist that they do not use extended free time as a bargaining tool to lure customers. "We, in error, have let these charges be negotiated," Galligan said. Shippers, at least publicly, say the loss of extended free time will not be an issue for them. Sean Quinn, president of QSL Corp., an importer of gift and home d?cor items, said that as a small shipper, he tries to retrieve his containers from West Coast ports as quickly as possible so he can ship them cross-country to his warehouse near Boston. Thomas DeMarino, international transportation manager at IKEA Wholesale Inc., said that when his shipments have cleared customs and are ready to leave the docks, he retrieves them even if he still has free-time available on some of the containers. Many importers, however, still do not think like that. While most do not have a grand plan to milk terminals for as much free time as they can get, leaving containers on the docks for an extra few days is often convenient and saves them money. For example, harbor trucking companies that have storage space will charge importers about $75 to haul their containers to the storage yard and up to $14 a day for storage. The importer can save money by leaving the container on the docks and paying $40 a day in demurrage. If the importer can convince the shipping lines to waive demurrage, all the better. Larger importers will negotiate extended free time of up to 15 days to cover situations like that. It gets even worse on exports. Commodity exporters sometimes send their containers to the ports before they have a buyer. Export containers can sit on the docks for several weeks before they are loaded on to a ship. Ocean carriers are beginning to realize that with some commodity freight rates at $400 a container in the westbound Pacific, and in some cases as low as $200, waiving demurrage for export shipments is ludicrous. Shippers who have routinely asked for, and received, extended free time may find that in today's cost-cutting environment, they will have to pay for storage as a value-added service. "Carriers are working very hard to reduce costs," Galligan said. "Reducing free time and improving equipment turns have to be two of those components."

Forwarding

Free time folly

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading, and no capacity shortages are being reported on China-US routes, according to Tiaca.</div>

But freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading, and no capacity shortages are being reported on China-US routes, according to Tiaca.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Air freight demand on the trans-Pacific has risen sharply as shippers advance orders following a threat by President Donald Trump to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods from Nov. 1. There has been no official announcement on the new tariff levels announced by the White House on Oct. 10 in response to Beijing's plan to raise export controls on rare earth minerals, a crucial commodity primarily used in high-tech, renewables and defence industries. Still, jittery US importers were taking no chances, and with little time to frontload trans-Pacific ocean freight have turned to air cargo. ”Many shippers are rushing to get their airfreight shipments into the US prior to Nov. 1 to beat the additional 100% tariffs that were announced recently,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of 365 Logistics. “But I think this is a negotiating tactic to get China to review its recent regulations on the export of rare earth minerals,” he added. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said air freight volume booked for this week into the US was “surging” ahead of the potential tariffs from Nov. 1. The Oct. 10 tariff announcement saw an initial 19% increase in rates compared to the previous week to $5.30 per kilogram, but rates have remained mostly flat since then, according to Freightos. Analysts expect to have a better idea of how rising demand is impacting pricing later this week. One factor preventing rates from spiking despite the rising demand is the available air freight capacity on the trans-Pacific. Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading and there were no capacity shortages on China-US routes. ”This is the third round of such actions so to some degree it was expected and carriers were able to mobilize capacity on the trans-Pacific trade lane,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. In the week after the tariff announcement, available air freight capacity on China-US routes increased 24% compared to the previous week, according to data from air cargo analyst Rotate. Capacity deployed on the routes is currently up 21% year over year. Hughes said maritime supply chains were longer and slower to respond to deferred or implemented tariff decisions, with shippers preferring to take a “wait and see” approach and loading urgent consignments by air as required. “Overall, though, these constant frontloading spikes in capacity demand do not provide for a consistent operational environment conducive to rate stability and regularized network connectivity,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air freight demand on the trans-Pacific has risen sharply as shippers advance orders following a threat by President Donald Trump to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods from Nov. 1. There has been no official announcement on the new tariff levels announced by the White House on Oct. 10 in response to Beijing's plan to raise export controls on rare earth minerals, a crucial commodity primarily used in high-tech, renewables and defence industries. Still, jittery US importers were taking no chances, and with little time to frontload trans-Pacific ocean freight have turned to air cargo. ”Many shippers are rushing to get their airfreight shipments into the US prior to Nov. 1 to beat the additional 100% tariffs that were announced recently,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of 365 Logistics. “But I think this is a negotiating tactic to get China to review its recent regulations on the export of rare earth minerals,” he added. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said air freight volume booked for this week into the US was “surging” ahead of the potential tariffs from Nov. 1. The Oct. 10 tariff announcement saw an initial 19% increase in rates compared to the previous week to $5.30 per kilogram, but rates have remained mostly flat since then, according to Freightos. Analysts expect to have a better idea of how rising demand is impacting pricing later this week. One factor preventing rates from spiking despite the rising demand is the available air freight capacity on the trans-Pacific. Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading and there were no capacity shortages on China-US routes. ”This is the third round of such actions so to some degree it was expected and carriers were able to mobilize capacity on the trans-Pacific trade lane,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. In the week after the tariff announcement, available air freight capacity on China-US routes increased 24% compared to the previous week, according to data from air cargo analyst Rotate. Capacity deployed on the routes is currently up 21% year over year. Hughes said maritime supply chains were longer and slower to respond to deferred or implemented tariff decisions, with shippers preferring to take a “wait and see” approach and loading urgent consignments by air as required. “Overall, though, these constant frontloading spikes in capacity demand do not provide for a consistent operational environment conducive to rate stability and regularized network connectivity,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Air Cargo

China air freight demand, rates surge on new 100% US tariff

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Virginia Port Authority said the longshore union’s lawsuit alleging violations of the master contract doesn’t give clear picture of when it knew about the new rail gantry cranes. </div>

The Virginia Port Authority said the longshore union’s lawsuit alleging violations of the master contract doesn’t give clear picture of when it knew about the new rail gantry cranes.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Virginia argues the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) knew two years ago about the rollout of new rail-mounted stacking cranes, despite the union saying it didn’t know about them until this year. The port made the claim as it seeks to dismiss the union’s lawsuit alleging a violation of the new master contract’s provisions on technology deployments. As part of an earlier motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) last week attached minutes from a May 2023 meeting of its board of commissioners at which the purchase of 36 automated stacking cranes had been discussed. According to the minutes, the meeting was attended by four ILA officials from two local chapters that represent about 1,500 of the port’s approximately 2,800 longshore workers. In August, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-suing-virginia-port-chief-executive-over-rollout-of-new-rail-cranes-6070318">the ILA sued the VPA</a> for what the union said was a violation of the new master contract ratified in March 2025. While the VPA is not a party to that contract, the union alleged the violation was done through the port’s control of stevedore Virginia International Terminals (VIT), which is the port’s actual employer. The union’s lawsuit said its members were only made aware of the new cranes as the first batch began to be installed in April 2025. The ILA claimed VIT did not bargain with the national union and its local unions about the new cranes as required under the master contract. Instead, the VIT deferred the matter to the VPA because it bought the cranes, the union’s lawsuit said. “If the ILA was to share the actual timeline surrounding the purchase of the RMG [rail-mounted gantry] cranes, it would reveal that the purchase took place in 2023 under a prior Master Contract and with the knowledge of the ILA,” the VPA’s filing said. The RMG cranes, purchased from Konecranes for $149 million, are part of a $650 million northern expansion of Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-of-virginia-readies-more-cranes-for-ultra-large-container-ships-5985615">that will add two new super-post-Panamax berths and bring NIT’s capacity to 3.6 million TEUs by 2027</a>. <h3>RMGs long a bane of ILA </h3>Virginia is the first US port credited with implementation of RMG technology, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-targets-rail-mounted-gantry-cranes-amid-impasse-in-port-labor-talks-5874742">having rolled it out in 2007</a>. RMGs allow for more densely-stacked container yards than using rubber tire gantry cranes or straddle carriers, which require more room to operate. Across both terminals, Virginia will have 152 RMGs in place by 2027. Despite being called “automated stacking cranes,” RMGs are still operated by a human, either in a cab or remotely. Even so, the ILA’s leadership has viewed RMGs as threatening other skilled operator jobs at the ports. One issue at the heart of local contract negotiations has been staffing machines such as RMGs. Maritime employers won the right to implement remotely-controlled RMGs, which should save time during shift changes or rest breaks. For its part, the ILA secured guarantees for one longshore operator on each RMG, as opposed to one operator on multiple RMGs. The federal judge overseeing the case can either rule directly on VPA’s motion to dismiss or schedule a hearing for both sides, according to the ILA’s legal representative. But there is no specific timeline for either action. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Virginia argues the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) knew two years ago about the rollout of new rail-mounted stacking cranes, despite the union saying it didn’t know about them until this year. The port made the claim as it seeks to dismiss the union’s lawsuit alleging a violation of the new master contract’s provisions on technology deployments. As part of an earlier motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) last week attached minutes from a May 2023 meeting of its board of commissioners at which the purchase of 36 automated stacking cranes had been discussed. According to the minutes, the meeting was attended by four ILA officials from two local chapters that represent about 1,500 of the port’s approximately 2,800 longshore workers. In August, the ILA sued the VPA for what the union said was a violation of the new master contract ratified in March 2025. While the VPA is not a party to that contract, the union alleged the violation was done through the port’s control of stevedore Virginia International Terminals (VIT), which is the port’s actual employer. The union’s lawsuit said its members were only made aware of the new cranes as the first batch began to be installed in April 2025. The ILA claimed VIT did not bargain with the national union and its local unions about the new cranes as required under the master contract. Instead, the VIT deferred the matter to the VPA because it bought the cranes, the union’s lawsuit said. “If the ILA was to share the actual timeline surrounding the purchase of the RMG [rail-mounted gantry] cranes, it would reveal that the purchase took place in 2023 under a prior Master Contract and with the knowledge of the ILA,” the VPA’s filing said. The RMG cranes, purchased from Konecranes for $149 million, are part of a $650 million northern expansion of Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) that will add two new super-post-Panamax berths and bring NIT’s capacity to 3.6 million TEUs by 2027 . RMGs long a bane of ILA Virginia is the first US port credited with implementation of RMG technology, having rolled it out in 2007 . RMGs allow for more densely-stacked container yards than using rubber tire gantry cranes or straddle carriers, which require more room to operate. Across both terminals, Virginia will have 152 RMGs in place by 2027. Despite being called “automated stacking cranes,” RMGs are still operated by a human, either in a cab or remotely. Even so, the ILA’s leadership has viewed RMGs as threatening other skilled operator jobs at the ports. One issue at the heart of local contract negotiations has been staffing machines such as RMGs. Maritime employers won the right to implement remotely-controlled RMGs, which should save time during shift changes or rest breaks. For its part, the ILA secured guarantees for one longshore operator on each RMG, as opposed to one operator on multiple RMGs. The federal judge overseeing the case can either rule directly on VPA’s motion to dismiss or schedule a hearing for both sides, according to the ILA’s legal representative. But there is no specific timeline for either action. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

North American ports

Virginia port looks to dismiss ILA lawsuit on rail crane rollout

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. </div>

Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court.

<div class="phx-topic">The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/appeals-court-strikes-down-fmcs-detention-and-demurrage-billing-rule-6086773">striking down part of an FMC rulemaking</a> to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said. The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September striking down part of an FMC rulemaking to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said. The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Drayage

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers continue to struggle to raise rates on intermodal shippers, resulting in revenue gains or losses based solely on volume.</div>

Carriers continue to struggle to raise rates on intermodal shippers, resulting in revenue gains or losses based solely on volume.

<div class="phx-topic">Domestic intermodal providers — whether the railroads or intermodal marketing companies — will have to find revenue gains through volume growth rather than stronger pricing into 2026. CSX Transportation said that intermodal revenue grew 4% in the third quarter largely based on a 5% increase in volume rather than raising rates on rail shippers, putting shippers on track for competitive pricing into 2026. The railroad reported Thursday that intermodal volume was led by “strong growth” in international business and “modest growth” in domestic, suggesting containerized ocean freight outpaced 53-foot domestic demand. CSX attributed most of its growth to “new service offerings” rather than higher prices on legacy business. The carrier expects momentum to continue into 2026, bolstered when double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore commences in the spring. The expanded clearance project is expected to attract freight shipped along the Interstate 95 corridor and between the West Coast and Northeast via CSX’s partnership with BNSF Railway. “Intermodal performed well despite a soft trucking market and muted pricing,” said Kevin Boone, CSX’s chief commercial officer, on a Thursday earnings call. “Looking across the markets we serve, business conditions are mixed. Customers face uncertainty and headwinds from shifting trade policies, weak global commodity prices, unsupportive interest rates and a persistently soft trucking market.” Boone described the truckload sector as “the longest down cycle that all of us have seen in a long, long time,” now stretching past three years. CSX’s comments reflect a broader trend that pricing is stagnant nationally, and volume is dictating quarterly results for intermodal. <h3>Rate pressure persists in 2026 </h3>With trucking rates still depressed, intermodal providers are bracing for a fourth straight bid season in which carriers will be unable to recoup rising costs to serve. The average domestic intermodal contract stood at $1.50 per mile in September — approximately the same as pre-pandemic levels — according to the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index. National rates were unchanged from September 2024 and remain more than 25% below the pandemic-era peak. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ea6d4c62-90a1-4a5f-8fb1-9f00b53850b0"></dynamic-object></div>J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, said rates are rising on major US lanes traveling west to east, particularly out of Southern California, but are flat or down elsewhere. “There is some good pricing movement in the headhauls and some negative pricing in backhauls, and when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, on an earnings call Wednesday. Schneider National, the third-largest domestic intermodal provider, said recent intermodal awards have produced very little change in pricing. “We expected flat pricing in 2025, and it ultimately played out that way,” said Mark Rourke, CEO of Schneider, speaking Oct. 1 at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in Chicago. “Trucking rates serve as the catalyst to intermodal, and that’s where we are in discussions with customers planning for the 2026 season.” While Rourke declined to provide forward guidance, he said Schneider has been able to raise dry-van truckload rates, although only by sacrificing volume. “When our goal is rate recovery and margin recovery, that’s our number one priority and volume is a lesser concern,” Rourke said. “If we have to get smaller or make different decisions in the one-way [truckload] network, that’s the trade-off we’re willing to make at this part of the cycle.” <h3>Muted peak season demand won’t help carriers </h3>Executives across the sector said the weak freight environment continues to limit carrier pricing power. Schneider said intermodal volume was “sub-standard” in August, while J.B. Hunt reported transcontinental volume <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-intermodal-volume-retracts-amid-cost-cutting-measures-6098480">declined 6% year over year</a> in the third quarter. Leaders at logistics providers C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Radiant Road &amp; Rail, and Werner Enterprises echoed that peak season volume on the West Coast was “muted.” “Intermodal contracts are going to follow trucking, and we’ve seen trucking remain really flat,” said Julia Hoult, assistant vice president of logistics for Werner, speaking Oct. 1 at the Inland conference. “We shouldn’t be surprised intermodal is feeling the same way.” Taylor Harrington, director of C.H. Robinson’s intermodal division, said that a modest uptick in pricing is possible in early 2026 but probably not enough to offset rising costs. The producer price index for commercial transportation insurance rose 6% year over year in August, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Inflationary costs could be 4% or 5%, but the question becomes: can carriers recover 1%? Can they recover 2%?” Harrington said at the conference. “It’ll vary shipper by shipper and lane by lane, but it’ll be tough to recover all of it.” Chris Brach, senior vice president of Radiant Road &amp; Rail, said pricing remains challenging in the East, where the cost gap between rail and trucking is narrower than on long-haul moves from the West Coast to the Midwest. Backhaul lanes into Southern California are also under pressure as Amazon increasingly fills its own containers with return freight from other shippers, undercutting traditional intermodal carriers and intensifying competition for backhaul business. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Domestic intermodal providers — whether the railroads or intermodal marketing companies — will have to find revenue gains through volume growth rather than stronger pricing into 2026. CSX Transportation said that intermodal revenue grew 4% in the third quarter largely based on a 5% increase in volume rather than raising rates on rail shippers, putting shippers on track for competitive pricing into 2026. The railroad reported Thursday that intermodal volume was led by “strong growth” in international business and “modest growth” in domestic, suggesting containerized ocean freight outpaced 53-foot domestic demand. CSX attributed most of its growth to “new service offerings” rather than higher prices on legacy business. The carrier expects momentum to continue into 2026, bolstered when double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore commences in the spring. The expanded clearance project is expected to attract freight shipped along the Interstate 95 corridor and between the West Coast and Northeast via CSX’s partnership with BNSF Railway. “Intermodal performed well despite a soft trucking market and muted pricing,” said Kevin Boone, CSX’s chief commercial officer, on a Thursday earnings call. “Looking across the markets we serve, business conditions are mixed. Customers face uncertainty and headwinds from shifting trade policies, weak global commodity prices, unsupportive interest rates and a persistently soft trucking market.” Boone described the truckload sector as “the longest down cycle that all of us have seen in a long, long time,” now stretching past three years. CSX’s comments reflect a broader trend that pricing is stagnant nationally, and volume is dictating quarterly results for intermodal. Rate pressure persists in 2026 With trucking rates still depressed, intermodal providers are bracing for a fourth straight bid season in which carriers will be unable to recoup rising costs to serve. The average domestic intermodal contract stood at $1.50 per mile in September — approximately the same as pre-pandemic levels — according to the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index. National rates were unchanged from September 2024 and remain more than 25% below the pandemic-era peak. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, said rates are rising on major US lanes traveling west to east, particularly out of Southern California, but are flat or down elsewhere. “There is some good pricing movement in the headhauls and some negative pricing in backhauls, and when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, on an earnings call Wednesday. Schneider National, the third-largest domestic intermodal provider, said recent intermodal awards have produced very little change in pricing. “We expected flat pricing in 2025, and it ultimately played out that way,” said Mark Rourke, CEO of Schneider, speaking Oct. 1 at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in Chicago. “Trucking rates serve as the catalyst to intermodal, and that’s where we are in discussions with customers planning for the 2026 season.” While Rourke declined to provide forward guidance, he said Schneider has been able to raise dry-van truckload rates, although only by sacrificing volume. “When our goal is rate recovery and margin recovery, that’s our number one priority and volume is a lesser concern,” Rourke said. “If we have to get smaller or make different decisions in the one-way [truckload] network, that’s the trade-off we’re willing to make at this part of the cycle.” Muted peak season demand won’t help carriers Executives across the sector said the weak freight environment continues to limit carrier pricing power. Schneider said intermodal volume was “sub-standard” in August, while J.B. Hunt reported transcontinental volume declined 6% year over year in the third quarter. Leaders at logistics providers C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Radiant Road & Rail, and Werner Enterprises echoed that peak season volume on the West Coast was “muted.” “Intermodal contracts are going to follow trucking, and we’ve seen trucking remain really flat,” said Julia Hoult, assistant vice president of logistics for Werner, speaking Oct. 1 at the Inland conference. “We shouldn’t be surprised intermodal is feeling the same way.” Taylor Harrington, director of C.H. Robinson’s intermodal division, said that a modest uptick in pricing is possible in early 2026 but probably not enough to offset rising costs. The producer price index for commercial transportation insurance rose 6% year over year in August, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Inflationary costs could be 4% or 5%, but the question becomes: can carriers recover 1%? Can they recover 2%?” Harrington said at the conference. “It’ll vary shipper by shipper and lane by lane, but it’ll be tough to recover all of it.” Chris Brach, senior vice president of Radiant Road & Rail, said pricing remains challenging in the East, where the cost gap between rail and trucking is narrower than on long-haul moves from the West Coast to the Midwest. Backhaul lanes into Southern California are also under pressure as Amazon increasingly fills its own containers with return freight from other shippers, undercutting traditional intermodal carriers and intensifying competition for backhaul business. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Volume, not pricing, driving US intermodal results in Q3

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ill-tempered environmental protection committee session was filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. </div>

The ill-tempered environmental protection committee session was filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings.

<div class="phx-topic">Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to postpone for one year the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans, with the US and petrostates Saudia Arabia and Russia leading efforts to derail the adoption of the greenhouse gas cutting measures. The United States has gone as far as threatening to target the ships of IMO member states that didn’t support efforts to ease fuel standards. A visibly upset IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez told delegates in his remarks following the Friday vote that “there are no winners and losers in this session.” The motion to delay the adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework, put forward by Singapore, was called to a vote by Saudi Arabia in a tense and combative session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London this week. The vote to delay was 57 in favor, 49 against and 21 abstentions. “The outcome is your decision, and I will always respect that, but it is the manner in which the conversations took place this week … this was not a normal IMO meeting,” Dominguez said. “As we come to an end, my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in future discussions of this or any other meeting at the IMO,” he added. “It doesn’t help you or your organization.” In the MEPC meeting in April, there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). That momentum has now been lost following this week’s ill-tempered MEPC session filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. At one point, the secretary general was forced to intervene in a debate over carbon rules after the US accused the IMO secretariat of bias. Saudi Arabia and the US later attempted to further stall proceedings by proposing that the rules be accepted by explicit acceptance rather than tacit, an approach to voting that seldom delivers a result. <h3>Aggressive US attempts to limit support </h3>The lead up to the meeting was characterized by aggressive US attempts to limit support for the net-zero framework, with Washington threatening sanctions, port fees and visa restrictions on countries voting in support of the measure. President Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post Thursday saying “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London tomorrow!” As delegates prepared to return home empty-handed, some reflected that putting the talks on hold will give countries more time to find consensus on a flagship climate law, while others fear it was a missed opportunity and the US will simply ramp up pressure on developing countries to oppose adoption at a later stage. Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, called the adjournment a “disappointing setback for shipping.” “The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the net-zero framework agreed in April and will make delivery of the sector’s decarbonization targets even more challenging,” he said. “We encourage member states that agreed on the framework in April to re-confirm their commitment to multilateralism and continue the urgent work of developing guidelines and adopting a regulatory framework that can deliver on the IMO’s unanimously agreed greenhouse gas strategy,” he added. Natacha Stamatiou, manager of global shipping and IMO delegation lead at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the delay means “innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.” Other climate activists were more direct in their criticism. Emma Fenton, senior diplomacy director at Opportunity Green, called the outcome “a devastating indictment of member states’ lack of courage.” “Faced with pressure, too many governments chose political compromise over climate justice, and in doing so, abandoned the countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis,” she said after the meeting concluded. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to postpone for one year the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans, with the US and petrostates Saudia Arabia and Russia leading efforts to derail the adoption of the greenhouse gas cutting measures. The United States has gone as far as threatening to target the ships of IMO member states that didn’t support efforts to ease fuel standards. A visibly upset IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez told delegates in his remarks following the Friday vote that “there are no winners and losers in this session.” The motion to delay the adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework, put forward by Singapore, was called to a vote by Saudi Arabia in a tense and combative session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London this week. The vote to delay was 57 in favor, 49 against and 21 abstentions. “The outcome is your decision, and I will always respect that, but it is the manner in which the conversations took place this week … this was not a normal IMO meeting,” Dominguez said. “As we come to an end, my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in future discussions of this or any other meeting at the IMO,” he added. “It doesn’t help you or your organization.” In the MEPC meeting in April, there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). That momentum has now been lost following this week’s ill-tempered MEPC session filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. At one point, the secretary general was forced to intervene in a debate over carbon rules after the US accused the IMO secretariat of bias. Saudi Arabia and the US later attempted to further stall proceedings by proposing that the rules be accepted by explicit acceptance rather than tacit, an approach to voting that seldom delivers a result. Aggressive US attempts to limit support The lead up to the meeting was characterized by aggressive US attempts to limit support for the net-zero framework, with Washington threatening sanctions, port fees and visa restrictions on countries voting in support of the measure. President Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post Thursday saying “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London tomorrow!” As delegates prepared to return home empty-handed, some reflected that putting the talks on hold will give countries more time to find consensus on a flagship climate law, while others fear it was a missed opportunity and the US will simply ramp up pressure on developing countries to oppose adoption at a later stage. Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, called the adjournment a “disappointing setback for shipping.” “The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the net-zero framework agreed in April and will make delivery of the sector’s decarbonization targets even more challenging,” he said. “We encourage member states that agreed on the framework in April to re-confirm their commitment to multilateralism and continue the urgent work of developing guidelines and adopting a regulatory framework that can deliver on the IMO’s unanimously agreed greenhouse gas strategy,” he added. Natacha Stamatiou, manager of global shipping and IMO delegation lead at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the delay means “innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.” Other climate activists were more direct in their criticism. Emma Fenton, senior diplomacy director at Opportunity Green, called the outcome “a devastating indictment of member states’ lack of courage.” “Faced with pressure, too many governments chose political compromise over climate justice, and in doing so, abandoned the countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis,” she said after the meeting concluded. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Maritime

IMO punts on pivotal net-zero shipping regulation

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND SAVE!

Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Container Shipping News

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

China air freight demand, rates surge on new 100% US tariff

Virginia port looks to dismiss ILA lawsuit on rail crane rollout

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing