<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">July 5, 1989 U.S. spot oil products price indications, sellers range, in cents per gallon, f</div>

July 5, 1989 U.S. spot oil products price indications, sellers range, in cents per gallon, f

<div>July 5, 1989U.S. spot oil products price indications, sellers range, in cents per gallon, f.o.b., ex. barge. Prices are midday quotes compared with the previous day's close of business. Compiled by Knight-Ridder Financial.NY HARBOR PREVIOUSNo. 2 Heating Oil 50.65-50.90 NAJet Fuel 54.90-55.15 NAUnleaded Gasoline 56.45-56.50 NAPremium Unleaded 62.65-62.90 NAU.S. GULF COASTNo. 2 Heating Oil 56.00-56.25 NAJet Fuel 59.50-59.75 NAUnleaded Gasoline 57.35-57.60 NAPremium Unleaded 61.85-62.10 NADomestic crude oil, dollars per barrel:(AUG. DELIVERY)W. TexasIntermediate 20.85---- NA- ---Light LouisianaSweet 20.30N--- NA- ---N) Nominal</div>...

July 5, 1989 U.S. spot oil products price indications, sellers range, in cents per gallon, f.o.b., ex. barge. Prices are midday quotes compared with the previous day's close of business. Compiled by Knight-Ridder Financial.NY HARBOR PREVIOUS No. 2 Heating Oil 50.65-50.90 NA Jet Fuel 54.90-55.15 NA Unleaded Gasoline 56.45-56.50 NA Premium Unleaded 62.65-62.90 NA U.S. GULF COAST No. 2 Heating Oil 56.00-56.25 NA Jet Fuel 59.50-59.75 NA Unleaded Gasoline 57.35-57.60 NA Premium Unleaded 61.85-62.10 NA Domestic crude oil, dollars per barrel: (AUG. DELIVERY) W. Texas Intermediate 20.85---- NA- --- Light Louisiana Sweet 20.30N--- NA- --- N) Nominal

SPOT PRODUCT PRICES

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The financial risks to shippers are rising as the increasing costs of EU carbon tax and fuel intensity regulations are passed on by Mediterranean carriers, a report from maritime technology company OceanScore has found.</div>

The financial risks to shippers are rising as the increasing costs of EU carbon tax and fuel intensity regulations are passed on by Mediterranean carriers, a report from maritime technology company OceanScore has found.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A new report has found that European cargo owners should be factoring in carbon emissions when securing feeder shipping services as the financial costs of regional decarbonization regulations begin to bite. The report – Scope 3 at Sea: Intra-Mediterranean &amp; Black Sea Edition by maritime technology provider OceanScore – found that shipper exposure to so-called Scope 3 emissions on feeder-dominated routes was clearly influenced by carrier selection and behavior. Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions generated along a company’s supply chain. ”You can’t control if a ship sails full or half-empty, but you can choose carriers who operate predictably and efficiently,” said Thomas Smith, head of cargo solutions at OceanScore. “That’s where real Scope 3 reduction potential lies.” Adding to the financial risk of cargo owners was the FuelEU Maritime and EU Emissions Trading System rules that enter full effect in 2026, the report said. The EU ETS for shipping includes 100% of emissions from intra-EU voyages, while coverage for voyages starting or ending in an EU port is 50%. Drawing on more than 45,000 voyages across the intra-Mediterranean and Black Sea corridor, OceanScore found that emissions intensity on the same trade lane could vary by up to 10 times. ”The same corridor, the same vessel class, yet emissions can range from 9 to over 80 (grams of carbon dioxide) per tonne-kilometer,” said Smith. “That’s not a distance problem; that’s a consistency problem.” The report found that Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and CMA CGM dominated the intra-Mediterranean and Black Sea corridor by voyage count, while carriers like Maersk and Turkey’s Arkas Denizcilik achieved stronger emissions efficiency. High-intensity operators such as X-Press Feeders and Boluda Lines displayed greater volatility, which inflated Scope 3 exposure when used at scale. <h3>Volatile operators increase pass-through costs </h3>OceanScore's analysis mapped the top feeder operators across the corridor using two metrics – average carbon intensity and voyage consistency. Carriers with narrower, stable distributions such as MSC, Maersk and Arkas Denizcilik, offered predictable Scope 3 outcomes, while more volatile operators exposed shippers to reporting risk and inflated cost pass-throughs. The report found that ship utilization was a key factor driving both efficiency and predictability of emissions. Most voyages on the East Mediterranean and Black Sea routes operated at 37% to 67% utilization, with the higher load factors corresponding to significantly lower carbon intensity per tonne. CMA CGM maintained the highest proportion of heavily loaded voyages (52% to 72%), while MSC’s wider spread led to more variable utilization patterns. Maersk displayed the most balanced distribution with steady clustering in the 57% to 67% range. The data also revealed that emissions of a vessel can quadruple from a single port delay, particularly on shorter routes around the Mediterranean. ”Short-sea operations are far less predictable than long-haul,” said Eduardo Ramos, senior data analyst at OceanScore. “On these routes, every delay or underutilized sailing compounds emissions.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A new report has found that European cargo owners should be factoring in carbon emissions when securing feeder shipping services as the financial costs of regional decarbonization regulations begin to bite. The report – Scope 3 at Sea: Intra-Mediterranean & Black Sea Edition by maritime technology provider OceanScore – found that shipper exposure to so-called Scope 3 emissions on feeder-dominated routes was clearly influenced by carrier selection and behavior. Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions generated along a company’s supply chain. ”You can’t control if a ship sails full or half-empty, but you can choose carriers who operate predictably and efficiently,” said Thomas Smith, head of cargo solutions at OceanScore. “That’s where real Scope 3 reduction potential lies.” Adding to the financial risk of cargo owners was the FuelEU Maritime and EU Emissions Trading System rules that enter full effect in 2026, the report said. The EU ETS for shipping includes 100% of emissions from intra-EU voyages, while coverage for voyages starting or ending in an EU port is 50%. Drawing on more than 45,000 voyages across the intra-Mediterranean and Black Sea corridor, OceanScore found that emissions intensity on the same trade lane could vary by up to 10 times. ”The same corridor, the same vessel class, yet emissions can range from 9 to over 80 (grams of carbon dioxide) per tonne-kilometer,” said Smith. “That’s not a distance problem; that’s a consistency problem.” The report found that Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and CMA CGM dominated the intra-Mediterranean and Black Sea corridor by voyage count, while carriers like Maersk and Turkey’s Arkas Denizcilik achieved stronger emissions efficiency. High-intensity operators such as X-Press Feeders and Boluda Lines displayed greater volatility, which inflated Scope 3 exposure when used at scale. Volatile operators increase pass-through costs OceanScore's analysis mapped the top feeder operators across the corridor using two metrics – average carbon intensity and voyage consistency. Carriers with narrower, stable distributions such as MSC, Maersk and Arkas Denizcilik, offered predictable Scope 3 outcomes, while more volatile operators exposed shippers to reporting risk and inflated cost pass-throughs. The report found that ship utilization was a key factor driving both efficiency and predictability of emissions. Most voyages on the East Mediterranean and Black Sea routes operated at 37% to 67% utilization, with the higher load factors corresponding to significantly lower carbon intensity per tonne. CMA CGM maintained the highest proportion of heavily loaded voyages (52% to 72%), while MSC’s wider spread led to more variable utilization patterns. Maersk displayed the most balanced distribution with steady clustering in the 57% to 67% range. The data also revealed that emissions of a vessel can quadruple from a single port delay, particularly on shorter routes around the Mediterranean. ”Short-sea operations are far less predictable than long-haul,” said Eduardo Ramos, senior data analyst at OceanScore. “On these routes, every delay or underutilized sailing compounds emissions.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Intra-Europe emissions exposure affected by feeder services selection: report

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Amid tariffs of up 130%, US laden imports from China for the six months between April and September fell to levels not seen since 2013.</div>

Amid tariffs of up 130%, US laden imports from China for the six months between April and September fell to levels not seen since 2013.

<div class="phx-topic">President Donald Trump’s tariff onslaught has, arguably, forever shifted US import flows away from China after a six-month rollercoaster of ever-changing amounts and deadlines. But US tariffs – while denting shipments from China – aren’t yet showing signs of hurting overall global container volumes. “The rest of the world trucks along just nicely,” said Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. “It's a little bit volatile. It's a bit up and down, but basically throughout the year, you’ve seen global growth in container volumes around 6%, which is twice what you expect given global development. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6101629_0.1.jpg"></img></div> “So the rest of the world is doing just fine, more or less unperturbed by the US trade war,” Jensen added. “It’s the US that’s suffering from this, not everybody else.” US laden imports between April, when sweeping tariffs were imposed on all trade partners, and September are virtually flat compared to a year ago, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. US laden exports in the five months ending August, the most recent data available, are flat as well. Global container volumes, including empties, rose 4.1% in that same period, according to data from Container Trade Statistics. But the extent to which US tariffs on China imports – currently up to 130% -- have upended the trans-Pacific is clear: Imports from China for April through September were at levels not seen since 2013. US imports from China were down 15% from a year ago, equating to 875,000 fewer TEUs. Looking at it another way, one-third of laden, ocean-going imports that came into the US during the six-month period originated from China. Last year, four out of 10 laden containers entering US seaports came from China. Some of those volumes from China were lost due to Canadian importers diverting goods away from US ports in favor of domestic ports to avoid paying tariffs. Other shipments, as tracked by PIERS, originated from China and were illegally declared differently. <h3>Beneficiaries of China tariffs </h3>Vietnam, facing a US tariff rate of 20%, has been the biggest benefactor from tariffs on China. US laden imports from Vietnam jumped nearly 26% in the six-month period and volumes accounted for 16.8% of all inbound traffic into the United States. India, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia all gained from the higher US tariffs on China. And while each still accounted for less than 1% of total US laden imports, Columbia, Ecuador, and Guatemala were leaned on more by US importers. Notably, the US tariffs on imports from the European Union haven’t stopped import growth, with laden volumes expanding 4.9% between April and September. Despite high US tariffs on its exports, China’s factory production hasn’t slowed yet, with activity in September rising at its fastest pace since March, according to the RatingDog China General Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index, which is compiled by S&amp;P Global. Chinese exporters have found buyers for their wares, contributing to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/growing-box-backlogs-at-europes-strike-hit-hubs-could-take-weeks-to-clear-6098397">port congestion in Europe</a> and increasingly feeding factories in Mexico. With record profits from the pandemic and a scale-up of ship deliveries, container lines are following the growth, deploying tonnage and investing in marine terminals that strengthen so-called secondary trades. Evergreen Line, for example, in its five-plan released last month, said it would focus on expanding service to Latin America and the Middle East. The carrier plans to increase the number of vessels deployed on the Asia-Latin America trade and deploy 12,000-TEU ships on the Asia-West Coast of South America trades. Evergreen also plans to add capacity between Europe and Mexico, and from Asia to the Caribbean. Still, container lines, importantly, aren’t abandoning the US market, even if it comes at a higher cost than other markets thanks to elevated labor costs and the inability to impose terminal handling charges on cargo owners and consignees. “If you look at the United States, the market is not going anywhere. This is an extremely strategic market for our group, and we will continue to invest here,” Adeline Chouraqui, CEO and president at CMA CGM Americas, said Oct. 16 at the Virgina Maritime Association’s International Trade Forum. CMA CGM in March <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">committed to investing $20 billion in the US over the next five years.</a> ”It’s a continuation of what we’ve always done, but changes in flows do bring opportunities for investment,” she said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com.</a></div>

President Donald Trump’s tariff onslaught has, arguably, forever shifted US import flows away from China after a six-month rollercoaster of ever-changing amounts and deadlines. But US tariffs – while denting shipments from China – aren’t yet showing signs of hurting overall global container volumes. “The rest of the world trucks along just nicely,” said Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. “It's a little bit volatile. It's a bit up and down, but basically throughout the year, you’ve seen global growth in container volumes around 6%, which is twice what you expect given global development. “So the rest of the world is doing just fine, more or less unperturbed by the US trade war,” Jensen added. “It’s the US that’s suffering from this, not everybody else.” US laden imports between April, when sweeping tariffs were imposed on all trade partners, and September are virtually flat compared to a year ago, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. US laden exports in the five months ending August, the most recent data available, are flat as well. Global container volumes, including empties, rose 4.1% in that same period, according to data from Container Trade Statistics. But the extent to which US tariffs on China imports – currently up to 130% -- have upended the trans-Pacific is clear: Imports from China for April through September were at levels not seen since 2013. US imports from China were down 15% from a year ago, equating to 875,000 fewer TEUs. Looking at it another way, one-third of laden, ocean-going imports that came into the US during the six-month period originated from China. Last year, four out of 10 laden containers entering US seaports came from China. Some of those volumes from China were lost due to Canadian importers diverting goods away from US ports in favor of domestic ports to avoid paying tariffs. Other shipments, as tracked by PIERS, originated from China and were illegally declared differently. Beneficiaries of China tariffs Vietnam, facing a US tariff rate of 20%, has been the biggest benefactor from tariffs on China. US laden imports from Vietnam jumped nearly 26% in the six-month period and volumes accounted for 16.8% of all inbound traffic into the United States. India, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Cambodia all gained from the higher US tariffs on China. And while each still accounted for less than 1% of total US laden imports, Columbia, Ecuador, and Guatemala were leaned on more by US importers. Notably, the US tariffs on imports from the European Union haven’t stopped import growth, with laden volumes expanding 4.9% between April and September. Despite high US tariffs on its exports, China’s factory production hasn’t slowed yet, with activity in September rising at its fastest pace since March, according to the RatingDog China General Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index, which is compiled by S&P Global. Chinese exporters have found buyers for their wares, contributing to port congestion in Europe and increasingly feeding factories in Mexico. With record profits from the pandemic and a scale-up of ship deliveries, container lines are following the growth, deploying tonnage and investing in marine terminals that strengthen so-called secondary trades. Evergreen Line, for example, in its five-plan released last month, said it would focus on expanding service to Latin America and the Middle East. The carrier plans to increase the number of vessels deployed on the Asia-Latin America trade and deploy 12,000-TEU ships on the Asia-West Coast of South America trades. Evergreen also plans to add capacity between Europe and Mexico, and from Asia to the Caribbean. Still, container lines, importantly, aren’t abandoning the US market, even if it comes at a higher cost than other markets thanks to elevated labor costs and the inability to impose terminal handling charges on cargo owners and consignees. “If you look at the United States, the market is not going anywhere. This is an extremely strategic market for our group, and we will continue to invest here,” Adeline Chouraqui, CEO and president at CMA CGM Americas, said Oct. 16 at the Virgina Maritime Association’s International Trade Forum. CMA CGM in March committed to investing $20 billion in the US over the next five years. ”It’s a continuation of what we’ve always done, but changes in flows do bring opportunities for investment,” she said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com.

Trans-Pacific

Maritime

US tariffs dent China import volumes, but not global container growth

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Record container volumes resulted in greater port activity amid an increase in calls by vessels, trucks and trains, as well as increased use of cargo-handling equipment.</div>

Record container volumes resulted in greater port activity amid an increase in calls by vessels, trucks and trains, as well as increased use of cargo-handling equipment.

<div class="phx-topic">Emissions from vessel and surface operations at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were up by only small to moderate amounts in 2024 despite the Southern California gateway handling record container volumes that jumped about 20% from the year prior. The new data was included in the annual emissions inventories published separately last week by each port. “Cargo volume shot up from 2023 to 2024, and we did see increases in emissions in that time period,” said Noel Hacegaba, COO at the Port of Long Beach. “However, the reduction figures from the baseline year of 2005 to 2024 show we still have dramatically reduced air pollution in the long run.” Record container volumes resulted in greater port activity amid an increase in calls by vessels, trucks and trains, as well as increased use of cargo-handling equipment, said Jacqueline Moore, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which represents marine terminal operators and shipping lines in legislative matters. Los Angeles in 2024 handled 10.3 million laden and empty TEUs, up 19% from 2023. Long Beach handled 9.6 million TEUs, up 20% from 2023, according to statistics in their emissions reports. Despite the growth in activity, “the increases in emissions were small to moderate,” Moore told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. Los Angeles and Long Beach each year release details of more than a half-dozen health risk categories of emissions at the ports, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In most categories, the increase in emissions for 2024 was in the mid- to upper-single-digit range, Moore said. <h3>Ports account for ‘miniscule” percentage of regional pollution </h3>Port-generated emissions are a “miniscule” percentage of total pollutants in Southern California, Moore said. That includes mobile sources such as automobiles and regional trucking, and stationary sources such as manufacturing and residences. For example, the ports account for 0.5% of all NOx emissions in the South Coast region, 1.3% of DPMs and 5.6% of NOx, she said. The ports’ emission inventories have been measuring gains in emission reductions since 2005. According to an Oct. 16 PMSA release, the port complex has reduced DPMs by 90%, NOx by 70%, SOx by 98%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 10% since that baseline year. The ports will continue to cite these figures before regional, state and federal regulatory agencies to show that they and their stakeholders are doing their part to reduce pollution, Moore said. Last month, the ports reached a “cooperative” agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to seek further emissions reductions. The PMSA said at the time gains should now be realized without resorting to burdensome measures proposed by the AQMD in its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/proposed-emissions-rule-would-cap-la-lb-port-volumes-5679341">original Indirect Source Rule.</a>The AQMD agreement recognizes the ports’ achievements to date. The easier gains have been made, and squeezing further reductions from vessels, trucks, trains and cargo-handling equipment <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-likely-to-work-with-regulator-on-emissions-cutting-plan-for-ports-6084550">will be much more costly to achieve</a>, PMSA President Mike Jacob told the regulatory agency last month. The ports will also work in a similar capacity with the California Air Resources Board and the federal Environmental Protection Agency to further reduce emissions in areas where those agencies’ jurisdictions intersect with port operations, Moore said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Emissions from vessel and surface operations at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were up by only small to moderate amounts in 2024 despite the Southern California gateway handling record container volumes that jumped about 20% from the year prior. The new data was included in the annual emissions inventories published separately last week by each port. “Cargo volume shot up from 2023 to 2024, and we did see increases in emissions in that time period,” said Noel Hacegaba, COO at the Port of Long Beach. “However, the reduction figures from the baseline year of 2005 to 2024 show we still have dramatically reduced air pollution in the long run.” Record container volumes resulted in greater port activity amid an increase in calls by vessels, trucks and trains, as well as increased use of cargo-handling equipment, said Jacqueline Moore, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which represents marine terminal operators and shipping lines in legislative matters. Los Angeles in 2024 handled 10.3 million laden and empty TEUs, up 19% from 2023. Long Beach handled 9.6 million TEUs, up 20% from 2023, according to statistics in their emissions reports. Despite the growth in activity, “the increases in emissions were small to moderate,” Moore told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. Los Angeles and Long Beach each year release details of more than a half-dozen health risk categories of emissions at the ports, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). In most categories, the increase in emissions for 2024 was in the mid- to upper-single-digit range, Moore said. Ports account for ‘miniscule” percentage of regional pollution Port-generated emissions are a “miniscule” percentage of total pollutants in Southern California, Moore said. That includes mobile sources such as automobiles and regional trucking, and stationary sources such as manufacturing and residences. For example, the ports account for 0.5% of all NOx emissions in the South Coast region, 1.3% of DPMs and 5.6% of NOx, she said. The ports’ emission inventories have been measuring gains in emission reductions since 2005. According to an Oct. 16 PMSA release, the port complex has reduced DPMs by 90%, NOx by 70%, SOx by 98%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 10% since that baseline year. The ports will continue to cite these figures before regional, state and federal regulatory agencies to show that they and their stakeholders are doing their part to reduce pollution, Moore said. Last month, the ports reached a “cooperative” agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to seek further emissions reductions. The PMSA said at the time gains should now be realized without resorting to burdensome measures proposed by the AQMD in its original Indirect Source Rule. The AQMD agreement recognizes the ports’ achievements to date. The easier gains have been made, and squeezing further reductions from vessels, trucks, trains and cargo-handling equipment will be much more costly to achieve , PMSA President Mike Jacob told the regulatory agency last month. The ports will also work in a similar capacity with the California Air Resources Board and the federal Environmental Protection Agency to further reduce emissions in areas where those agencies’ jurisdictions intersect with port operations, Moore said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

Container Shipping News

LA-LB saw ‘small to moderate’ rise in emissions despite record volumes in 2024

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association is urging Congress to codify new regulations aimed at tightening oversight of commercial driver licensing and to support more training for new drivers. </div>

The Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association is urging Congress to codify new regulations aimed at tightening oversight of commercial driver licensing and to support more training for new drivers.

<div class="phx-topic">A crackdown on unqualified and illegal truck drivers in the US is already said to be tightening capacity in certain markets, but some want the crackdown to go further. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association (OOIDA) is urging the House of Representatives and Senate to write <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-cracks-down-on-non-domiciled-cdls-targets-california-6087419">new truck driver licensing rules</a> into law. OOIDA is also calling for enhanced new driver training and more stringent audits of new carriers. The group also opposes efforts to lower the legal age required to drive a commercial truck in interstate commerce from 21 to 18. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2022 established a three-year pilot program for 18- to 20-year-old truck drivers. “Simply put, far too many individuals are entering the trucking industry without the basic skills necessary to safely operate a commercial vehicle,” Todd Spencer, OOIDA’s president, said in a letter to the House and Senate transportation committees. “Additionally, inconsistent and improper licensing processes among states have permitted hundreds of thousands of unqualified drivers to work on our nation’s roads, which has needlessly resulted in numerous fatal crashes,” Spencer wrote. Since June, truck drivers have been the focus of English-language proficiency (ELP) and commercial driver’s license (CDL) enforcement initiatives by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The DOT initiatives have focused on enforcing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-dot-presses-states-to-enforce-english-language-trucking-rules-6069884">English-language proficiency</a> requirements and tightening standards for non-domiciled CDLs issued by states. The US also stopped issuing certain work visas for foreign truck drivers. In its letter, the OOIDA urged Congress to take up the Non-Domiciled CDL Integrity Act <a href="https://rouzer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2587">introduced in the House</a> on Oct. 8 by Rep. David Rouzer (R-North Carolina). The bill would codify the interim final rule on non-domiciled CDLs published by the FMCSA on Sept. 29. The interim final rule and the House bill attempt to prevent those in the US illegally from receiving non-domiciled licenses that some states issue to drivers living outside their jurisdiction. The rules also tighten state enforcement of licensing requirements. <h3>‘A little tightness’ </h3>The DOT crackdown on ELP requirements and licensing is already having an impact on some truck lanes and on spot market truckload rates, according to motor carriers. The extent of the impact, however, is hard to measure. “We believe recent developments in regulations and enforcement when taken together could have a noticeable impact on available industry capacity,” Nicholas Hobbs, COO at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during a third-quarter earnings call Oct. 15. “We’ve seen a little tightness in probably eight to 10 markets,” said Hobbs. He attributed that not just to DOT roadside inspections, but also immigration enforcement. “You can follow the news and see where [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] is active,” he said. The average US national truckload spot rate was $1.70 per mile in the week ending Oct. 18, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics, flat with the week prior. The load board operator is seeing evidence that DOT and ICE enforcement are affecting capacity. “We’re seeing drivers who are US citizens saying, ‘We’re going to sit this one out,’” said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. “They’ll go do something else, [such as] maybe run locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A crackdown on unqualified and illegal truck drivers in the US is already said to be tightening capacity in certain markets, but some want the crackdown to go further. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association (OOIDA) is urging the House of Representatives and Senate to write new truck driver licensing rules into law. OOIDA is also calling for enhanced new driver training and more stringent audits of new carriers. The group also opposes efforts to lower the legal age required to drive a commercial truck in interstate commerce from 21 to 18. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2022 established a three-year pilot program for 18- to 20-year-old truck drivers. “Simply put, far too many individuals are entering the trucking industry without the basic skills necessary to safely operate a commercial vehicle,” Todd Spencer, OOIDA’s president, said in a letter to the House and Senate transportation committees. “Additionally, inconsistent and improper licensing processes among states have permitted hundreds of thousands of unqualified drivers to work on our nation’s roads, which has needlessly resulted in numerous fatal crashes,” Spencer wrote. Since June, truck drivers have been the focus of English-language proficiency (ELP) and commercial driver’s license (CDL) enforcement initiatives by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The DOT initiatives have focused on enforcing English-language proficiency requirements and tightening standards for non-domiciled CDLs issued by states. The US also stopped issuing certain work visas for foreign truck drivers. In its letter, the OOIDA urged Congress to take up the Non-Domiciled CDL Integrity Act introduced in the House on Oct. 8 by Rep. David Rouzer (R-North Carolina). The bill would codify the interim final rule on non-domiciled CDLs published by the FMCSA on Sept. 29. The interim final rule and the House bill attempt to prevent those in the US illegally from receiving non-domiciled licenses that some states issue to drivers living outside their jurisdiction. The rules also tighten state enforcement of licensing requirements. ‘A little tightness’ The DOT crackdown on ELP requirements and licensing is already having an impact on some truck lanes and on spot market truckload rates, according to motor carriers. The extent of the impact, however, is hard to measure. “We believe recent developments in regulations and enforcement when taken together could have a noticeable impact on available industry capacity,” Nicholas Hobbs, COO at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during a third-quarter earnings call Oct. 15. “We’ve seen a little tightness in probably eight to 10 markets,” said Hobbs. He attributed that not just to DOT roadside inspections, but also immigration enforcement. “You can follow the news and see where [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] is active,” he said. The average US national truckload spot rate was $1.70 per mile in the week ending Oct. 18, according to DAT Freight & Analytics, flat with the week prior. The load board operator is seeing evidence that DOT and ICE enforcement are affecting capacity. “We’re seeing drivers who are US citizens saying, ‘We’re going to sit this one out,’” said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. “They’ll go do something else, [such as] maybe run locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Surface

Industry group calls for tougher licensing, better training amid trucker crackdown

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels to cargo owners will likely stall investment in the sector. </div>

The absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels to cargo owners will likely stall investment in the sector.

<div class="phx-topic">The most optimistic view of global maritime regulators punting on a new net-zero emissions framework is that efforts to derail it completely were avoided. For most in the shipping industry, however, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) one-year delay is viewed as a major missed opportunity to give the investment community the certainty it needs to fund the transition to net-zero fuels. The Friday motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. In the interim, member states will continue to work toward consensus on the decarbonization plans, but achieving the emissions-cutting targets agreed under the revised IMO greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy in 2023 will now be under pressure. The IMO’s targets include at least a 20% — striving for 30% — reduction in emissions by 2030 and at least a 70%, striving for 80%, reduction by 2040 compared with 2008 levels. The ultimate goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But critics argue that the absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on to cargo owners the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels will likely stall investment in shipbuilding and in scaling up production of alternative fuels to replace conventional, heavy-emission bunkers. They fear that with no global pricing mechanism, there is likely to emerge a host of local carbon pricing initiatives that will be difficult for carriers to navigate. The United States’ willingness to threaten IMO member states voting against White House efforts to water down the regulations brings a challenge that wasn’t present in July 2023 when the IMO’s revised GHG strategy was agreed. The US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. It was what triggered the extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. President Donald Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post last week saying, “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London...!” <h3>States swayed by US threats </h3>The US was supported in its opposition to the measures by petrostates Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, with Singapore raising the idea that the regulation be delayed and Saudi Arabia calling for the vote. Pressure from the US saw Liberia, the world’s largest ship registry with 16% of global tonnage, and Bahamas, home to almost 4% of global tonnage, reversing their support for the framework. Not everyone was cowed by the US threats, particularly the tiny Pacific Island states that are most vulnerable to the climate change dismissed as a hoax by Trump. “Don’t pretend that the Pacific was voiceless. We were ignored, bullied, threatened, cornered, sidelined and harassed. But we stood tall,” Marshall Islands Ambassador Albon Ishoda <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/albon-ishoda-384472333/recent-activity/all/">wrote in a LinkedIn post</a>. “When you mention those large countries that fought for or against the framework, don’t forget that it was the Pacific Island countries and Seychelles that gave the hardest miles and took the hardest hit,” Ishoda wrote. “A year delay is a year of more devastation and displacement for our communities that have nothing to do with this catastrophe. We don’t have the luxury of time.” There are concerns that the US considers the delay in adopting IMO decarbonization plans as a win and will use the time between now and next October to build further opposition against the net-zero framework, potentially killing the regulation. There are also concerns that the delay is a win for liquefied natural gas (LNG) that will continue to be the fuel of choice across shipping sectors. Reaction to the IMO vote to adjourn the attempted adoption of the net-zero framework for a year has been loud and predominantly negative, particularly concerning the enormous investment required to decarbonize the maritime industry. The Global Maritime Forum has estimated that achieving a 50% reduction in shipping's GHG emissions by 2050 will require investment of $1 trillion to $1.4 trillion between 2030 and 2050. If full decarbonization is the goal, the total could be as high as $1.9 trillion. “From an economic standpoint, introducing carbon pricing is essential to level the playing field with sustainable fuels, which are currently not economically viable,” said Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING. “Regardless of the timing, a pricing mechanism will eventually be necessary to drive progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, also as it helps funding green investments,” Luman noted. <h3>Delay puts targets under pressure </h3>It was a sentiment repeated time and again as the reaction rolled in following the Friday afternoon vote. “The industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO greenhouse gas strategy,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping. Kazakos said the framework would have created the first global carbon pricing mechanism for any industrial sector, with the aim of delivering a clear path for shipping’s transition to net zero. The delay means meeting the IMO’s decarbonization targets has been made more difficult, Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “The current timeline needs to be reassessed, as the projected CO₂ reductions by 2030 already fall short of earlier ambitions,” he said. “As a result, achieving the 2040 and 2050 targets set out in the IMO’s net-zero strategy is becoming increasingly challenging — particularly given the long investment horizons typical in the shipping industry.” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, agreed, calling Friday’s adjournment “a disappointing setback for shipping” that will make delivery of maritime decarbonization targets even more challenging. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the main container carriers were unlikely to stray from their current newbuilding path, at least for now. “But it will make it more difficult to convince ... investors to come in hard on green fuel production with the new uncertainty,” <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/larsjensenvespuccimaritime/recent-activity/all/">Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post</a> Monday. “In such an environment, LNG just got another improvement in its relative competitiveness versus the fully green fuels.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The most optimistic view of global maritime regulators punting on a new net-zero emissions framework is that efforts to derail it completely were avoided. For most in the shipping industry, however, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) one-year delay is viewed as a major missed opportunity to give the investment community the certainty it needs to fund the transition to net-zero fuels. The Friday motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. In the interim, member states will continue to work toward consensus on the decarbonization plans, but achieving the emissions-cutting targets agreed under the revised IMO greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy in 2023 will now be under pressure. The IMO’s targets include at least a 20% — striving for 30% — reduction in emissions by 2030 and at least a 70%, striving for 80%, reduction by 2040 compared with 2008 levels. The ultimate goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But critics argue that the absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on to cargo owners the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels will likely stall investment in shipbuilding and in scaling up production of alternative fuels to replace conventional, heavy-emission bunkers. They fear that with no global pricing mechanism, there is likely to emerge a host of local carbon pricing initiatives that will be difficult for carriers to navigate. The United States’ willingness to threaten IMO member states voting against White House efforts to water down the regulations brings a challenge that wasn’t present in July 2023 when the IMO’s revised GHG strategy was agreed. The US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. It was what triggered the extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. President Donald Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post last week saying, “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London...!” States swayed by US threats The US was supported in its opposition to the measures by petrostates Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, with Singapore raising the idea that the regulation be delayed and Saudi Arabia calling for the vote. Pressure from the US saw Liberia, the world’s largest ship registry with 16% of global tonnage, and Bahamas, home to almost 4% of global tonnage, reversing their support for the framework. Not everyone was cowed by the US threats, particularly the tiny Pacific Island states that are most vulnerable to the climate change dismissed as a hoax by Trump. “Don’t pretend that the Pacific was voiceless. We were ignored, bullied, threatened, cornered, sidelined and harassed. But we stood tall,” Marshall Islands Ambassador Albon Ishoda wrote in a LinkedIn post . “When you mention those large countries that fought for or against the framework, don’t forget that it was the Pacific Island countries and Seychelles that gave the hardest miles and took the hardest hit,” Ishoda wrote. “A year delay is a year of more devastation and displacement for our communities that have nothing to do with this catastrophe. We don’t have the luxury of time.” There are concerns that the US considers the delay in adopting IMO decarbonization plans as a win and will use the time between now and next October to build further opposition against the net-zero framework, potentially killing the regulation. There are also concerns that the delay is a win for liquefied natural gas (LNG) that will continue to be the fuel of choice across shipping sectors. Reaction to the IMO vote to adjourn the attempted adoption of the net-zero framework for a year has been loud and predominantly negative, particularly concerning the enormous investment required to decarbonize the maritime industry. The Global Maritime Forum has estimated that achieving a 50% reduction in shipping's GHG emissions by 2050 will require investment of $1 trillion to $1.4 trillion between 2030 and 2050. If full decarbonization is the goal, the total could be as high as $1.9 trillion. “From an economic standpoint, introducing carbon pricing is essential to level the playing field with sustainable fuels, which are currently not economically viable,” said Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING. “Regardless of the timing, a pricing mechanism will eventually be necessary to drive progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, also as it helps funding green investments,” Luman noted. Delay puts targets under pressure It was a sentiment repeated time and again as the reaction rolled in following the Friday afternoon vote. “The industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO greenhouse gas strategy,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping. Kazakos said the framework would have created the first global carbon pricing mechanism for any industrial sector, with the aim of delivering a clear path for shipping’s transition to net zero. The delay means meeting the IMO’s decarbonization targets has been made more difficult, Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “The current timeline needs to be reassessed, as the projected CO₂ reductions by 2030 already fall short of earlier ambitions,” he said. “As a result, achieving the 2040 and 2050 targets set out in the IMO’s net-zero strategy is becoming increasingly challenging — particularly given the long investment horizons typical in the shipping industry.” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, agreed, calling Friday’s adjournment “a disappointing setback for shipping” that will make delivery of maritime decarbonization targets even more challenging. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the main container carriers were unlikely to stray from their current newbuilding path, at least for now. “But it will make it more difficult to convince ... investors to come in hard on green fuel production with the new uncertainty,” Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post Monday. “In such an environment, LNG just got another improvement in its relative competitiveness versus the fully green fuels.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Delay in IMO decarbonization plans robs green fuel investors of certainty

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 FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

FALL SALE

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

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

FALL SALE: Use code FSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

FALL SALE: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Intra-Europe emissions exposure affected by feeder services selection: report

US tariffs dent China import volumes, but not global container growth

LA-LB saw ‘small to moderate’ rise in emissions despite record volumes in 2024