<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A federal court has cleared the way for an anti-trust complaint to proceed against the nation's top </div>

A federal court has cleared the way for an anti-trust complaint to proceed against the nation's top

<div>A federal court has cleared the way for an anti-trust complaint to proceed against the nation's top railroads over how they have developed and imposed fuel surcharges.If successful, the case could ultimately lead to large damages awarded to rail customers, who have reportedly paid billions of dollars in fuel fees in recent years.Judge Paul L. Friedman, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, denied an industry motion to throw out the fuel surcharge case. His decision means the plaintiffs, small shippers who say they have been wrongfully charged for the fuel fees, will be able to pursue...

A federal court has cleared the way for an anti-trust complaint to proceed against the nation's top railroads over how they have developed and imposed fuel surcharges. If successful, the case could ultimately lead to large damages awarded to rail customers, who have reportedly paid billions of dollars in fuel fees in recent years. Judge Paul L. Friedman, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, denied an industry motion to throw out the fuel surcharge case. His decision means the plaintiffs, small shippers who say they have been wrongfully charged for the fuel fees, will be able to pursue evidence discovery from the railroads. Up to now, the plaintiff attorneys relied on public records and their own investigation to assemble information. At issue is whether the Class I railroads - Union Pacific and BNSF in the West, plus CSX, Norfolk Southern and Kansas City Southern in the East - collaborated along with the Association of American Railroads to impose new fuel surcharges in 2003. Plaintiffs allege they planned it together as a price-fixing conspiracy. The railroads have stoutly rejected those charges, maintaining that their use of new but similar fuel fees was a perfectly legal way to cover costs and gain revenue. Friedman ruled Nov. 7 that the complaint meets a key test the Supreme Court set out in a 2007 case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. The high court said, in effect, that parallel behavior by companies is not enough to justify an anti-trust case, but plaintiffs must also clearly allege anti-trust actions between those parties. "This court finds ample support for a plausible inference of an agreement made illegal" under the Sherman anti-trust act, Friedman said in his decision.

Rail News

Rail Surcharge Case to Proceed

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But if current rate competition doesn’t possess the edge it did in prior years, the question is why and whether that matters if the overall effect is to substantially lower rates for shippers in a down market, writes Peter Tirschwell. </div>

But if current rate competition doesn’t possess the edge it did in prior years, the question is why and whether that matters if the overall effect is to substantially lower rates for shippers in a down market, writes Peter Tirschwell.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Does the recent rate plunge in the eastbound trans-Pacific — with trade from Asia to the US West Coast down 28% since mid-September after having fallen 66% since June amid a deepening sense of gloom among carriers — qualify as a “rate war”? Before answering, it might help to define rate war in a container shipping context. Although the term has surfaced in recent weeks to describe rates in the vicinity of loss-making for carriers, it was more common in the 1990s. Back then it described not just downward rate adjustments by carriers to reflect realities of supply and demand, but predatory moves by one carrier on another’s book of business, a result of animosity and carriers’ single-minded focused on market share. Many believe that the market has moved on from those days. While it’s as price competitive as ever despite significant consolidation, animosity among carriers has subsided over the years despite well-known rivalries, particularly among family-owned European carriers. For example, it would be unusual for a carrier CEO to make remarks today like this one from Nils Smedegaard Anderson of Maersk during the Great Recession in 2009, as reported by American Shipper: “We will not allow anyone to take market share from us by systematically undercutting our prices. If it comes down to that we’re ready to fight it out on prices.” “If a rate war is to be defined as 1) lowering the rate to below break-even level and 2) that is with the intent to harm another player with the potential goal of forcing consolidation, then I agree that today’s situation is not a rate war,” said Nils Roche, former deputy general manager for operations at PIL who wrote about the topic <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/y25m9-war-new-normal-nils-roche-7nrjc/">in his newsletter</a>. “Carriers no longer follow the traditional path of predatory pricing,” said Jon Monroe, the veteran carrier, non-vessel-operating common carrier and technology executive. “I believe the carriers have too much at stake to play the oldest games of predatory pricing. That does not mean they won't drop their rates for more business.” For some, that is the point — it doesn’t matter what you call it when rates are headed south amid overcapacity and evaporating volumes, and the mantra from on high is “My ship must be full, do as you must,” as Roche said. But if current rate competition lacks the edge it did in prior years, the question is why and whether it matters if the overall effect is to substantially lower rates for shippers in a down market? <h3>Recent carrier experiences are more shared than divergent </h3>The atmosphere among carriers has changed in part due to recent experience, which is more shared than divergent. On one hand, carriers are going their separate ways in acquisitions and business models, pursuing more holistic relationships with shippers covering a range of logistics services. But having said that, the accumulation of record profits during COVID-19 and the subsequent discovery after years of self-doubt that making money is within their reach, solidified a shared view among carriers that actions contrary to the interests of their customers – such as blank sailings, slow steaming at scale or imposing multi-thousand dollar rate increase at the first sign of market tightness – is no longer regrettable, but desirable in pursuit of profits that for decades had been elusive. One factor that could accrue to shippers’ benefit is in some ways the best of both worlds: a free and transparent market in freight rates occurring in parallel with efforts by several carriers to build deeper partnerships with shippers that in a down market they will struggle to be fully compensated for. The first half-year of the Gemini alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd largely delivered the very high on-time reliability initially promised, but they are struggling so far to translate that into premium pricing. “I don’t think customers have experienced this long enough that they’re ready to entertain such a discussion, but it is something that is going to come,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc told investors on Aug. 7. In other words, as the market deteriorates in the fall of 2025, Gemini is looking like earlier carrier struggles to translate reliability into profitability, like Daily Maersk launched in 2011 or APL maintaining high schedule reliability in the trans-Pacific. Until the market rebounds, they may have to settle for stickiness in regard to customer relationships and cargo on their ships, but not pricing. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Does the recent rate plunge in the eastbound trans-Pacific — with trade from Asia to the US West Coast down 28% since mid-September after having fallen 66% since June amid a deepening sense of gloom among carriers — qualify as a “rate war”? Before answering, it might help to define rate war in a container shipping context. Although the term has surfaced in recent weeks to describe rates in the vicinity of loss-making for carriers, it was more common in the 1990s. Back then it described not just downward rate adjustments by carriers to reflect realities of supply and demand, but predatory moves by one carrier on another’s book of business, a result of animosity and carriers’ single-minded focused on market share. Many believe that the market has moved on from those days. While it’s as price competitive as ever despite significant consolidation, animosity among carriers has subsided over the years despite well-known rivalries, particularly among family-owned European carriers. For example, it would be unusual for a carrier CEO to make remarks today like this one from Nils Smedegaard Anderson of Maersk during the Great Recession in 2009, as reported by American Shipper: “We will not allow anyone to take market share from us by systematically undercutting our prices. If it comes down to that we’re ready to fight it out on prices.” “If a rate war is to be defined as 1) lowering the rate to below break-even level and 2) that is with the intent to harm another player with the potential goal of forcing consolidation, then I agree that today’s situation is not a rate war,” said Nils Roche, former deputy general manager for operations at PIL who wrote about the topic in his newsletter . “Carriers no longer follow the traditional path of predatory pricing,” said Jon Monroe, the veteran carrier, non-vessel-operating common carrier and technology executive. “I believe the carriers have too much at stake to play the oldest games of predatory pricing. That does not mean they won't drop their rates for more business.” For some, that is the point — it doesn’t matter what you call it when rates are headed south amid overcapacity and evaporating volumes, and the mantra from on high is “My ship must be full, do as you must,” as Roche said. But if current rate competition lacks the edge it did in prior years, the question is why and whether it matters if the overall effect is to substantially lower rates for shippers in a down market? Recent carrier experiences are more shared than divergent The atmosphere among carriers has changed in part due to recent experience, which is more shared than divergent. On one hand, carriers are going their separate ways in acquisitions and business models, pursuing more holistic relationships with shippers covering a range of logistics services. But having said that, the accumulation of record profits during COVID-19 and the subsequent discovery after years of self-doubt that making money is within their reach, solidified a shared view among carriers that actions contrary to the interests of their customers – such as blank sailings, slow steaming at scale or imposing multi-thousand dollar rate increase at the first sign of market tightness – is no longer regrettable, but desirable in pursuit of profits that for decades had been elusive. One factor that could accrue to shippers’ benefit is in some ways the best of both worlds: a free and transparent market in freight rates occurring in parallel with efforts by several carriers to build deeper partnerships with shippers that in a down market they will struggle to be fully compensated for. The first half-year of the Gemini alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd largely delivered the very high on-time reliability initially promised, but they are struggling so far to translate that into premium pricing. “I don’t think customers have experienced this long enough that they’re ready to entertain such a discussion, but it is something that is going to come,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc told investors on Aug. 7. In other words, as the market deteriorates in the fall of 2025, Gemini is looking like earlier carrier struggles to translate reliability into profitability, like Daily Maersk launched in 2011 or APL maintaining high schedule reliability in the trans-Pacific. Until the market rebounds, they may have to settle for stickiness in regard to customer relationships and cargo on their ships, but not pricing. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Current trans-Pacific price plunge lacks the echoes of prior ‘rate wars’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers and their forwarders will soon be launching long-term contract tenders for 2026 as the spot market — which heavily influences the contract market — slides closer to pre-Red Sea attack levels. </div>

Shippers and their forwarders will soon be launching long-term contract tenders for 2026 as the spot market — which heavily influences the contract market — slides closer to pre-Red Sea attack levels.

<div class="phx-topic">Asia–Europe ocean carriers are under mounting pressure to raise rate levels on the westbound trade while shippers can expect aggressive capacity management action by carriers as the annual contract negotiation season draws closer, forwarders on the trade lane say. Shippers and their forwarders will soon be launching long-term contract tenders for 2026 as the spot market — which heavily influences the contract market — slides closer to pre-Red Sea attack levels. Helge Neumann-Lezius, global head of full container load (FCL) at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, said “loads of tenders” will go out in the next two months, with the expectation that long-term rates will come down for the next season. “There is already a rate war (on Asia–Europe), and I think the only part that helped the industry not end up in a race to the bottom is that we have very few tenders out,” Neumann-Lezius told the Journal of Commerce. “A lot of people are counting on that, which means tenders will start to be launched, some of them with the pressure of their companies being in difficult situations,” he added. “That is the context behind the new tender launches — the companies themselves are having a difficult time, and their volumes will be more unpredictable.” Asia–North Europe spot rates are at $1,300 per FEU, down 57% year over year, while Asia–Mediterranean rates of $1,600 are down 53.5%, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The spot market has plummeted since reaching $3,340/FEU in July on Asia–North Europe and $4,660/FEU on Asia–Mediterranean in June. Average long-term rates for China to North Europe signed in the last three months were at $3,582/FEU as of Monday, down 56% compared to the same time last year, data from industry analyst Xeneta shows. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="73f31d19-63a1-4d2b-950b-193943809ae3"></dynamic-object></div>Still, with no guarantee that rates will continue to decline through the fourth quarter, Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics, warned shippers to expect aggressive capacity and rate-managing action from carriers in October and early November in the run-up to contract talks. ”We have seen the push by carriers to implement rate increases — the next one is mid-October — and there will be some additional ad hoc blank sailings on top of the 17% blanks already announced,” he said. Hapag-Lloyd and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) will be setting Asia–North Europe freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates at between $2,400 and $2,660/FEU as of Oct. 15, with Asia–Mediterranean rates between $3,500 and $4,600/FEU. Capacity removed through blank sailings in October has reached 195,116 TEUs, up from 109,000 TEUs in September, Xeneta data shows. But deployed capacity is up from 988,600 TEUs in September to just shy of 1.2 million TEUs in October. That number drops sharply in November to 1 million TEUs, with blank sailings announced for the month standing at 108,720 TEUs thus far. ”It’s extremely important for carriers to manage capacity and supply versus demand in this quarter, otherwise they are doomed in terms of the contracting season for next year,” Tejwani said. <h3>Annual contracts ‘not all about rates’ </h3>Just how the negotiating environment will shape up remains uncertain, with carriers facing a widening capacity overhang and demand undermined by weak European economies. Drewry Supply Chain Advisors noted in a market update this week that as inflationary pressures on freight rates stemming from Red Sea disruptions, frontloading and tariff-related issues begin to ease, shippers are likely to negotiate more favorable contract rates and improved terms with carriers and forwarders for 2026. But the contract talks should not only be about rates, warned Chantal McRoberts, director of Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. “Other than the prospect of lower contract rates for shippers, the other important aspect of bid strategy for 2026 contracts is risk management and resilience,” she said. Drewry is advising its shipper customers to review their carrier contract language to include longer payment terms, more service quality commitments and clauses to control surcharges such as detention and demurrage. In some cases, Drewry is also recommending that shippers include a clause where a rate review is triggered if market prices collapse. Tejwani told the Journal of Commerce that if cargo owners wanted to avoid having their contracts torn up should the tide turn, they would sign annual rates above loss-making levels for the oversupplied carriers. ”Some carriers may blink first and sign deals at very low rates, but the minute you have a rush coming in, those contracts are not going to be worth the paper they’re written on, and I think a lot of shippers realize this,” he said. “If shippers really want to have a smooth supply chain for all of 2026 and access to capacity when the crunch comes, those smart shippers will agree to reasonable rate levels and not push carriers for the last single dollar,” Tejwani added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Asia–Europe ocean carriers are under mounting pressure to raise rate levels on the westbound trade while shippers can expect aggressive capacity management action by carriers as the annual contract negotiation season draws closer, forwarders on the trade lane say. Shippers and their forwarders will soon be launching long-term contract tenders for 2026 as the spot market — which heavily influences the contract market — slides closer to pre-Red Sea attack levels. Helge Neumann-Lezius, global head of full container load (FCL) at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, said “loads of tenders” will go out in the next two months, with the expectation that long-term rates will come down for the next season. “There is already a rate war (on Asia–Europe), and I think the only part that helped the industry not end up in a race to the bottom is that we have very few tenders out,” Neumann-Lezius told the Journal of Commerce. “A lot of people are counting on that, which means tenders will start to be launched, some of them with the pressure of their companies being in difficult situations,” he added. “That is the context behind the new tender launches — the companies themselves are having a difficult time, and their volumes will be more unpredictable.” Asia–North Europe spot rates are at $1,300 per FEU, down 57% year over year, while Asia–Mediterranean rates of $1,600 are down 53.5%, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The spot market has plummeted since reaching $3,340/FEU in July on Asia–North Europe and $4,660/FEU on Asia–Mediterranean in June. Average long-term rates for China to North Europe signed in the last three months were at $3,582/FEU as of Monday, down 56% compared to the same time last year, data from industry analyst Xeneta shows. Still, with no guarantee that rates will continue to decline through the fourth quarter, Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics, warned shippers to expect aggressive capacity and rate-managing action from carriers in October and early November in the run-up to contract talks. ”We have seen the push by carriers to implement rate increases — the next one is mid-October — and there will be some additional ad hoc blank sailings on top of the 17% blanks already announced,” he said. Hapag-Lloyd and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) will be setting Asia–North Europe freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates at between $2,400 and $2,660/FEU as of Oct. 15, with Asia–Mediterranean rates between $3,500 and $4,600/FEU. Capacity removed through blank sailings in October has reached 195,116 TEUs, up from 109,000 TEUs in September, Xeneta data shows. But deployed capacity is up from 988,600 TEUs in September to just shy of 1.2 million TEUs in October. That number drops sharply in November to 1 million TEUs, with blank sailings announced for the month standing at 108,720 TEUs thus far. ”It’s extremely important for carriers to manage capacity and supply versus demand in this quarter, otherwise they are doomed in terms of the contracting season for next year,” Tejwani said. Annual contracts ‘not all about rates’ Just how the negotiating environment will shape up remains uncertain, with carriers facing a widening capacity overhang and demand undermined by weak European economies. Drewry Supply Chain Advisors noted in a market update this week that as inflationary pressures on freight rates stemming from Red Sea disruptions, frontloading and tariff-related issues begin to ease, shippers are likely to negotiate more favorable contract rates and improved terms with carriers and forwarders for 2026. But the contract talks should not only be about rates, warned Chantal McRoberts, director of Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. “Other than the prospect of lower contract rates for shippers, the other important aspect of bid strategy for 2026 contracts is risk management and resilience,” she said. Drewry is advising its shipper customers to review their carrier contract language to include longer payment terms, more service quality commitments and clauses to control surcharges such as detention and demurrage. In some cases, Drewry is also recommending that shippers include a clause where a rate review is triggered if market prices collapse. Tejwani told the Journal of Commerce that if cargo owners wanted to avoid having their contracts torn up should the tide turn, they would sign annual rates above loss-making levels for the oversupplied carriers. ”Some carriers may blink first and sign deals at very low rates, but the minute you have a rush coming in, those contracts are not going to be worth the paper they’re written on, and I think a lot of shippers realize this,” he said. “If shippers really want to have a smooth supply chain for all of 2026 and access to capacity when the crunch comes, those smart shippers will agree to reasonable rate levels and not push carriers for the last single dollar,” Tejwani added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Contract season looms for ocean carriers facing Asia–Europe rate slump

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Micah Mallace, who served for over a decade at the port, will return to take the reins as chief executive. </div>

Micah Mallace, who served for over a decade at the port, will return to take the reins as chief executive.

<div class="phx-topic">The South Carolina Port Authority (SC Ports) picked as its new chief executive a former insider at the port who was key in attracting Walmart to Charleston. On Monday, its SC Ports’ board of directors voted unanimously to approve Micah Mallace as its next President and Chief Executive for a five-year contract. Mallace, who was most recently president of Charleston-based third-party logistics provider Harbor Logistics, worked at SC Ports from 2011 through 2022, where he served in various roles before being named chief commercial officer. SC Ports said in a statement announcing his new role that Mallace “facilitated numerous commercial successes, including attracting Walmart to build a new import distribution center near the Port of Charleston.” “I am humbled by the opportunity to serve as the next President and CEO at SC Ports,” Mallace said in the statement. “The port team and South Carolina’s broader maritime community provide port service that is unmatched, and I know, together, we will further strengthen our competitiveness.” Interim SC President Phil Padgett will resume his role as chief financial officer. Mallace will deliver his first State of the Port address on Oct. 28, where he will provide industry updates and lay out his vision for the future of SC Ports. One issue that Mallace will now face as chief executive is ensuring the success of Charleston’s Navy Base Intermodal Facility, the port’s first on-dock rail. The project’s opening has been delayed due to design changes and budget overruns that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/charlestons-navy-base-rail-yard-project-faces-delays-big-cost-overruns-6070926">prompted the resignation of SC Ports’ previous chief executive</a>. While the port has committed to fully developing the project, it remains unclear whether it will also pay for necessary track sidings that Norfolk Southern requested for accessing Navy Base. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The South Carolina Port Authority (SC Ports) picked as its new chief executive a former insider at the port who was key in attracting Walmart to Charleston. On Monday, its SC Ports’ board of directors voted unanimously to approve Micah Mallace as its next President and Chief Executive for a five-year contract. Mallace, who was most recently president of Charleston-based third-party logistics provider Harbor Logistics, worked at SC Ports from 2011 through 2022, where he served in various roles before being named chief commercial officer. SC Ports said in a statement announcing his new role that Mallace “facilitated numerous commercial successes, including attracting Walmart to build a new import distribution center near the Port of Charleston.” “I am humbled by the opportunity to serve as the next President and CEO at SC Ports,” Mallace said in the statement. “The port team and South Carolina’s broader maritime community provide port service that is unmatched, and I know, together, we will further strengthen our competitiveness.” Interim SC President Phil Padgett will resume his role as chief financial officer. Mallace will deliver his first State of the Port address on Oct. 28, where he will provide industry updates and lay out his vision for the future of SC Ports. One issue that Mallace will now face as chief executive is ensuring the success of Charleston’s Navy Base Intermodal Facility, the port’s first on-dock rail. The project’s opening has been delayed due to design changes and budget overruns that prompted the resignation of SC Ports’ previous chief executive . While the port has committed to fully developing the project, it remains unclear whether it will also pay for necessary track sidings that Norfolk Southern requested for accessing Navy Base. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

SC Ports taps former commercial executive to lead

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Port of Mobile is now the deepest container port on the Gulf Coast, a region that has been limited on ship capacity because of service rotations through Houston’s shallower depth. </div>

The Port of Mobile is now the deepest container port on the Gulf Coast, a region that has been limited on ship capacity because of service rotations through Houston’s shallower depth.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Mobile finished a deepening project allowing it to become the first US Gulf Coast port capable of handling super-post-Panamax container ships. Mobile’s deeper harbor could eventually vault it ahead of Houston as the first US call for more Gulf Coast services if it can further develop its inland franchise. The Alabama Port Authority said last week final tests by the US Army Corps of Engineers and local ship pilots have determined Mobile’s ship channel is now at a depth of 50 feet, adding an extra five feet from its previous depth and making Mobile the deepest port on the Gulf Coast. The tests mark the end of a five-year, $366 million project to boost Mobile’s ship capacity, which also includes widening three miles of its shipping channel by 100 feet to allow for two-way ship traffic. The port said a fully loaded bulk coal ship with a depth of just over 48 feet was the first vessel to transit the deeper harbor. As for container ships, APM Terminals Mobile expects “ocean lines to begin upsizing ships in the near future” as a result of the deepening, according to the statement from the state port authority. <h3>Mobile first, then Houston? </h3>Its previous depth restrictions limited Mobile to handling post-Panamax container ships between 6,000 and 10,000 TEUs. Now, as the first deepwater port on the Gulf Coast, container lines may rethink how they deploy capacity and structure services. As the region’s biggest container market, Houston is still the first port of call for all five Asia services that also call Mobile. But even though Houston is widening its ship channel to handle more two-way traffic, most of its ship channel will remain at 45 feet. That difference in channel depth translates to about 1,400 TEUs of extra capacity that carriers are foregoing by calling Houston first instead of Mobile, according to a source familiar with ocean carrier operations along the Gulf Coast. A larger ship could actually call Mobile first, lighten its load, then possibly call Houston with a shallower draft, he added. “Carriers can really maximize on their allocation,” the source said. “Five feet of draft is significant for capacity.” In addition to bringing in larger ships, Mobile is looking to position itself as the faster alternative from Asia, shaving off up to five days of ocean transit, the source said. Some of the time savings stem from Houston’s episodic issues such as heavy fog or channel silting that periodically limit transits and ship capacity. Houston is currently “managing draft restrictions at both Bayport and Barbours Cut container terminals” due to shoaling, the port said in a statement, with dredging expected to begin Tuesday. Being a less busy port overall than Houston, which also handles major tanker and bulker traffic, also means Mobile can more quickly turn over container ships with fewer delays, the source said. Houston and Mobile are on par with the relative number of container ships facing delays, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Over the last 12 months, 24% of the container ships that call Houston have sat at anchorage, Sea-web data shows, compared with about 19% of similar calls to Mobile. However, container ships spend 32 hours on average waiting at Houston’s anchorage compared with about 13 hours at Mobile’s. Along with widening its ship channel for faster transits, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-houston-berth-to-enhance-post-panamax-handling-6062105">Houston is adding berth capacity to handle more ships</a>. Mediterranean Shipping Co. has been the most frequent caller to Mobile, according to Sea-web. MSC-operated ships have made 83 of the 298 ship calls to Mobile over the past 12 months, bringing in an average vessel size of about 6,500 TEUs. MSC and Zim Shipping Services, which made 17 calls over the same time, jointly operate one of Mobile’s Asia services, while MSC also operates a standalone trans-Atlantic and Indian service. One of those Asia services, the Lone Star-Zim Gulf Coast (ZGC) had previously been using Mobile as a first call, until it switched to Houston because of greater cargo demand there. The service has since been folded into another MSC-Zim Gulf Coast service. CMA CGM is the second most frequent caller, with some 46 to Mobile since last October, Sea-web data shows. But as part of the Ocean Alliance, whose other members made 48 calls to Mobile, CMA CGM brings in larger capacity ships of about 9,000 TEUs through its Pacific Express 3 service. Ocean Alliance members Cosco Shipping and Orient Overseas Container Line bring in 8,000-TEU ships on average as part of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-upsizes-asia-us-gulf-service-to-post-panamax-ships-amid-port-upgrades-5221981">their expansion of the Gulf of Mexico Express Service</a>. <h3>More Midwest reach for Mobile </h3>The addition of more ship capacity, though, will largely depend on how much <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mobile-looks-to-boost-container-terminal-capacity-to-handle-intermodal-demand-5215600">Mobile’s intermodal reach will grow</a>. About 20% of the port’s cargo volume is going inland, putting it more into competition with Savannah and Los Angeles for intermodal access. CSX Transportation broke ground earlier this year on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mobile-teams-up-with-csx-on-new-inland-port-to-serve-northern-alabama-5214860">the Montgomery Inland port developed in conjunction with the state port authority</a>. The site, which will serve the state’s carmakers and other logistics hubs, is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027. CSX is also reportedly looking at developing a site in Decatur, close to Huntsville, a major destination for intermodal cargo from Savannah. In that same vein, CSX is looking at developing intermodal access in Louisville and Cincinnati through Mobile, according to a source familiar with the railroad’s plans. In turn, Canadian National Railway, which offers service into Chicago, is looking at developing Memphis as a market for intermodal cargo from Mobile, according to carrier sources in the region. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is considering an eastbound intermodal service from Mobile to Dallas, putting the port more into competition with Houston for that market, according to a source familiar with their plans. While it did not comment on specific origin and destination pairs, CPKC and CSX entered a cooperative agreement in July on growing a joint service that connects the US Southeast and Mexico through Texas. As for terminal capacity, APM Mobile is in the midst of its fourth expansion that will bring it to 1.1 million-TEU capacity by 2027. The state port authority is said to have recently approved a land acquisition that will eventually allow APM Mobile to add a third berth, although the timeline for the development remains unclear. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Mobile finished a deepening project allowing it to become the first US Gulf Coast port capable of handling super-post-Panamax container ships. Mobile’s deeper harbor could eventually vault it ahead of Houston as the first US call for more Gulf Coast services if it can further develop its inland franchise. The Alabama Port Authority said last week final tests by the US Army Corps of Engineers and local ship pilots have determined Mobile’s ship channel is now at a depth of 50 feet, adding an extra five feet from its previous depth and making Mobile the deepest port on the Gulf Coast. The tests mark the end of a five-year, $366 million project to boost Mobile’s ship capacity, which also includes widening three miles of its shipping channel by 100 feet to allow for two-way ship traffic. The port said a fully loaded bulk coal ship with a depth of just over 48 feet was the first vessel to transit the deeper harbor. As for container ships, APM Terminals Mobile expects “ocean lines to begin upsizing ships in the near future” as a result of the deepening, according to the statement from the state port authority. Mobile first, then Houston? Its previous depth restrictions limited Mobile to handling post-Panamax container ships between 6,000 and 10,000 TEUs. Now, as the first deepwater port on the Gulf Coast, container lines may rethink how they deploy capacity and structure services. As the region’s biggest container market, Houston is still the first port of call for all five Asia services that also call Mobile. But even though Houston is widening its ship channel to handle more two-way traffic, most of its ship channel will remain at 45 feet. That difference in channel depth translates to about 1,400 TEUs of extra capacity that carriers are foregoing by calling Houston first instead of Mobile, according to a source familiar with ocean carrier operations along the Gulf Coast. A larger ship could actually call Mobile first, lighten its load, then possibly call Houston with a shallower draft, he added. “Carriers can really maximize on their allocation,” the source said. “Five feet of draft is significant for capacity.” In addition to bringing in larger ships, Mobile is looking to position itself as the faster alternative from Asia, shaving off up to five days of ocean transit, the source said. Some of the time savings stem from Houston’s episodic issues such as heavy fog or channel silting that periodically limit transits and ship capacity. Houston is currently “managing draft restrictions at both Bayport and Barbours Cut container terminals” due to shoaling, the port said in a statement, with dredging expected to begin Tuesday. Being a less busy port overall than Houston, which also handles major tanker and bulker traffic, also means Mobile can more quickly turn over container ships with fewer delays, the source said. Houston and Mobile are on par with the relative number of container ships facing delays, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Over the last 12 months, 24% of the container ships that call Houston have sat at anchorage, Sea-web data shows, compared with about 19% of similar calls to Mobile. However, container ships spend 32 hours on average waiting at Houston’s anchorage compared with about 13 hours at Mobile’s. Along with widening its ship channel for faster transits, Houston is adding berth capacity to handle more ships . Mediterranean Shipping Co. has been the most frequent caller to Mobile, according to Sea-web. MSC-operated ships have made 83 of the 298 ship calls to Mobile over the past 12 months, bringing in an average vessel size of about 6,500 TEUs. MSC and Zim Shipping Services, which made 17 calls over the same time, jointly operate one of Mobile’s Asia services, while MSC also operates a standalone trans-Atlantic and Indian service. One of those Asia services, the Lone Star-Zim Gulf Coast (ZGC) had previously been using Mobile as a first call, until it switched to Houston because of greater cargo demand there. The service has since been folded into another MSC-Zim Gulf Coast service. CMA CGM is the second most frequent caller, with some 46 to Mobile since last October, Sea-web data shows. But as part of the Ocean Alliance, whose other members made 48 calls to Mobile, CMA CGM brings in larger capacity ships of about 9,000 TEUs through its Pacific Express 3 service. Ocean Alliance members Cosco Shipping and Orient Overseas Container Line bring in 8,000-TEU ships on average as part of their expansion of the Gulf of Mexico Express Service . More Midwest reach for Mobile The addition of more ship capacity, though, will largely depend on how much Mobile’s intermodal reach will grow . About 20% of the port’s cargo volume is going inland, putting it more into competition with Savannah and Los Angeles for intermodal access. CSX Transportation broke ground earlier this year on the Montgomery Inland port developed in conjunction with the state port authority . The site, which will serve the state’s carmakers and other logistics hubs, is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027. CSX is also reportedly looking at developing a site in Decatur, close to Huntsville, a major destination for intermodal cargo from Savannah. In that same vein, CSX is looking at developing intermodal access in Louisville and Cincinnati through Mobile, according to a source familiar with the railroad’s plans. In turn, Canadian National Railway, which offers service into Chicago, is looking at developing Memphis as a market for intermodal cargo from Mobile, according to carrier sources in the region. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is considering an eastbound intermodal service from Mobile to Dallas, putting the port more into competition with Houston for that market, according to a source familiar with their plans. While it did not comment on specific origin and destination pairs, CPKC and CSX entered a cooperative agreement in July on growing a joint service that connects the US Southeast and Mexico through Texas. As for terminal capacity, APM Mobile is in the midst of its fourth expansion that will bring it to 1.1 million-TEU capacity by 2027. The state port authority is said to have recently approved a land acquisition that will eventually allow APM Mobile to add a third berth, although the timeline for the development remains unclear. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

Harbor deepening primes Mobile for bigger ships, first US calls

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The onus of calculating new US port fees that kick in next week falls on ocean carriers. </div>

The onus of calculating new US port fees that kick in next week falls on ocean carriers.

<div class="phx-topic">The United States is moving forward with a plan to collect port fees, putting the onus on ocean carriers to calculate and setting the stage for a showdown with China, which is teeing up its own retaliatory actions. The US Customs and Border Protection in a notice issued Friday, directed ocean carriers to determine any China-built tonnage calling US ports and pay new fees starting Oct. 14. China-based operators face harsher fees than their counterparts, spurring Beijing last week to prepare its own retaliatory “special fees” for ships that are tied to actors hurting Chinese interests. The vagueness of the criteria China could use to determine ties to the United States has expanded the risk of other ocean carriers getting caught in the crossfire beyond the obvious targets: US-flag vessel operators. A change to Chinese shipping law that took effect Sept. 29 allows China to go as far as blocking vessels from its ports. The US Maritime Administration has been in a long-running disagreement with China’s Ministry of Transport, accusing Chinese ports of giving unfavorable treatment to US-owned vessels. Both countries agreed to a level playing field through the US-China Bilateral Maritime Agreement, which took effect in 1998. The US federal register notice doesn’t detail how US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would enforce the new port fee. The shipping industry largely failed to convince the USTR to again water down the Section 301 tariffs underpinning the port fees, although LNG-vessel shipowners and operators were exempted. The shipping industry successfully lobbied to ease the planned USTR port fee, with the agency releasing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">a less-severe plan in mid-April</a>. Container lines <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">have made moves to avoid the new fees</a>. A week prior to Oct 14, there were 647,000 TEUs of China-built capacity, equating to 13% of the tonnage on the trade between Asia and North America, according to rate benchmarking provider Xeneta. On the trans-Atlantic, which includes some Canada-only calls, there were 81,000 TEUs of capacity or 8.6% of deployed capacity. There’s more than 118,00 TEUs of China-built tonnage from vessels that are smaller than 4,000 TEUs and deployed on US services but are excluded from the new port fee. But Cosco Shipping, its subsidiary OOCL, and Hede can’t avoid them and are the primary targets of the US response to what it sees as unfair subsidies to Chinese shipbuilding. Cosco and OOCL, which handle most US laden imports from China, have pledged to continue operating in the US trades. China has stayed largely silent on the planned US port fees since they were proposed in late February, acting by changing its shipping law just two weeks before planned implementation. Chinese shipowners were quick last week to back the change to the Regulations of the People’s Republic on International Ocean Shipping, which China modeled on the US Shipping Act approximately 20 years ago. “This is of great significance for promoting the establishment of a fair and equal international maritime transportation governance system, facilitating the smooth flow of global trade, and safeguarding the security and resilience of industrial and supply chains,” the China Shipowners’ Association said in a Sept. 30 statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The United States is moving forward with a plan to collect port fees, putting the onus on ocean carriers to calculate and setting the stage for a showdown with China, which is teeing up its own retaliatory actions. The US Customs and Border Protection in a notice issued Friday, directed ocean carriers to determine any China-built tonnage calling US ports and pay new fees starting Oct. 14. China-based operators face harsher fees than their counterparts, spurring Beijing last week to prepare its own retaliatory “special fees” for ships that are tied to actors hurting Chinese interests. The vagueness of the criteria China could use to determine ties to the United States has expanded the risk of other ocean carriers getting caught in the crossfire beyond the obvious targets: US-flag vessel operators. A change to Chinese shipping law that took effect Sept. 29 allows China to go as far as blocking vessels from its ports. The US Maritime Administration has been in a long-running disagreement with China’s Ministry of Transport, accusing Chinese ports of giving unfavorable treatment to US-owned vessels. Both countries agreed to a level playing field through the US-China Bilateral Maritime Agreement, which took effect in 1998. The US federal register notice doesn’t detail how US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would enforce the new port fee. The shipping industry largely failed to convince the USTR to again water down the Section 301 tariffs underpinning the port fees, although LNG-vessel shipowners and operators were exempted. The shipping industry successfully lobbied to ease the planned USTR port fee, with the agency releasing a less-severe plan in mid-April . Container lines have made moves to avoid the new fees . A week prior to Oct 14, there were 647,000 TEUs of China-built capacity, equating to 13% of the tonnage on the trade between Asia and North America, according to rate benchmarking provider Xeneta. On the trans-Atlantic, which includes some Canada-only calls, there were 81,000 TEUs of capacity or 8.6% of deployed capacity. There’s more than 118,00 TEUs of China-built tonnage from vessels that are smaller than 4,000 TEUs and deployed on US services but are excluded from the new port fee. But Cosco Shipping, its subsidiary OOCL, and Hede can’t avoid them and are the primary targets of the US response to what it sees as unfair subsidies to Chinese shipbuilding. Cosco and OOCL, which handle most US laden imports from China, have pledged to continue operating in the US trades. China has stayed largely silent on the planned US port fees since they were proposed in late February, acting by changing its shipping law just two weeks before planned implementation. Chinese shipowners were quick last week to back the change to the Regulations of the People’s Republic on International Ocean Shipping, which China modeled on the US Shipping Act approximately 20 years ago. “This is of great significance for promoting the establishment of a fair and equal international maritime transportation governance system, facilitating the smooth flow of global trade, and safeguarding the security and resilience of industrial and supply chains,” the China Shipowners’ Association said in a Sept. 30 statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

International ports

US presses forward on port fees despite China’s warning

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 Journal of Commerce’s analysis and coverage of North American and global rail news encompasses Class I railroad, intermodal marketing providers, and supporting drayage and truckload services. Reporting on freight railroad news today, journalists track volume, intermodal freight rates, service levels, precision schedule railroading, transloading, regulation, union labor and network investment at domestic and international intermodal terminals.

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

International rail

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

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

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

Trucking News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Current trans-Pacific price plunge lacks the echoes of prior ‘rate wars’

Contract season looms for ocean carriers facing Asia–Europe rate slump

SC Ports taps former commercial executive to lead