<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 2016 US presidential election has been fraught with divisive discourse and reality television-style drama, but the top two leading candidates appear to actually agree when it comes to matters of transportation infrastructure and trade.</div>

The 2016 US presidential election has been fraught with divisive discourse and reality television-style drama, but the top two leading candidates appear to actually agree when it comes to matters of transportation infrastructure and trade.

<div class="phx-topic">WASHINGTON — The 2016 US presidential election has been fraught with divisive discourse and reality television-style drama, but the top two leading candidates appear to actually agree when it comes to matters of transportation infrastructure and trade.That, of course, depends on whether the rhetoric of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump is to be believed. Both acknowledge that the nation’s crumbling infrastructure is in desperate need of a billion-dollar booster shot. The two have also been critical of trade deals that stand to significantly impact the cost of moving goods and break down or build regulatory barriers for shippers and logistics providers.Indeed, the tone and tenor of their decidedly pro-infrastructure but anti-trade discourse is already having <a href="http://www.joc.com/trucking-logistics/ltl-shipping/slow-growth-forecast-us-economy-trucking-market_20160829.html">an impact on the industry</a>. Election year politics and strident economic rhetoric is depressing some consumer demand, and that’s weighing on freight markets, according to Charles Clowdis, managing director for transportation for IHS Markit Economics &amp; Country Risk.“There’s a lot of pent-up demand that will only get spent after Nov. 8,” Clowdis has said.But if Trump and Clinton agree on the broad points, it’s in the details where they diverge — often, if only because just one candidate has details.“The Republican candidate? There isn’t much to opine about because he hasn’t said much,” Robert Puentes, president and CEO of non-partisan thinktank the Eno Center for Transportation, told JOC.com.Like her Democratic predecessor, Clinton has proposed an aggressive infrastructure investment plan. Unlike President Obama, who faced significant pushback once in office, Clinton’s proposal not only has some teeth, but bipartisan support.The former secretary of state has specifically called for $275 billion in direct spending on infrastructure over five years, plus another $225 billion in loans and loan-guarantee programs. The Democratic nominee has said she would bankroll the spending through business tax reform: repatriating corporate profits made overseas by US companies. There would be $250 billion allocated to direct public investment and the other $25 billion to a “national infrastructure bank.”“The bank would leverage its $25 billion in funds to support up to an additional $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of credit enhancement,” according to the text of Clinton’s own infrastructure plan.Trump’s plan: double that.“Her number is a fraction of what we’re talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said in an interview on the Fox Business Network. “I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need a lot more than that.”Trump has made similar promises in other news media, never going into any more detail.“All he’s said it that he would double whatever the Democratic candidate would propose. He’s said something about an infrastructure bank, but that’s something that came out of the Clinton camp,” Puentes said.According to Puentes, the multi-billion-dollar infusion and the infrastructure bank supported by both candidates is actually a sound policy proposal. Corporate tax reform is a priority for US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and repatriating the dollars and cents made overseas to avoid US taxes for the explicit purpose of rebuilding infrastructure stateside seems not only fair but just.“The infrastructure bank is the best idea of what we’ve talked about for the last 30 years. It’s a good idea,” Puentes told JOC.com. “There does seem to be some legitimacy to that and there does seem to be some bipartisan agreement that a lot can be worked out through repatriation.”But transportation is a soft target for candidates. Crumbling highways and bridges is physical evidence that something must be done and the infrastructure industry employs roughly 11 percent of the civilian workforce, Puentes pointed out.“The challenge we have in this country is not making the the case for infrastructure,” said Puentes.That’s not the case for trade. The candidates’ positions on trade agreements and trading partners have been nuanced, in large part because their rhetoric has not always matched reality.Clinton and Trump are critical of free trade agreements, although the former has made a career brokering those deals and the latter has built an empire taking advantage of them. They’re deals like the now-22-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement and the yet-to-be-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership. They're deals that have provoked the ire of broad swaths of US voters who blame open economic borders for US job losses, but have had strong support from US shippers and transportation providers — like parcel giants UPS and FedEX — that have trumpeted the benefits of those same open borders for the cost-savings they drive.While Clinton took time to ease into the conversation on trade, Trump’s assault on free trade began the moment he descended the gilded escalator in the lobby of Trump Tower in June 2015.“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically,” Trump told the crowd, now more than a year ago. He also targeted China and Japan in the same speech.The Republican candidate has said he has no intention of signing TPP, even if Congress approved the deal. Moreover, Trump has said he would break or renegotiate its predecessor NAFTA and institute tariffs on imports to discourage the outsourcing of US manufacturing south of the border.Trump has specifically called for a 35 percent tariff on Mexican auto imports. It’s a single policy detail but it would have major consequences, according to cross-border trade experts. That one tariff, alone, would effectively restore the whole lot of the tariffs that NAFTA historically removed between the United States, Canada, and Mexico more than 20 years ago.But cross-border experts say Trump’s initiatives are not just drastic, they’re <a href="http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/trade-agreements/us-trade-agreements/president-trump-would-face-herculean-task-abolishing-nafta_20160316.html">impossible</a>.“NAFTA is a treaty. It’s been ratified. Trump, even if he were elected, is bound by the laws of the United States. A treaty is the supreme law of the land,” Michael Camuñez, president and CEO of consulting firm MannattJones Global Strategies, said at a Brookings Institution panel in Washington, D.C., this past March.And dismantling NAFTA — whether or not Trump would have the legal authority to do so— wouldn’t just hurt North American trade, according to Chappel Lawson, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Lawson, who served as executive director and senior advisor to the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection from 2009 through 2011, said “tariffs would shred NAFTA up to the detriment of the United States and destruction of millions of jobs that depend on this cross-border trade.”Mexico is the United States’ second-largest export market and third-largest overall trading partner, according to 2015 data from the US Census Bureau. US imports from Mexico held steady last year, growing from $294.1 to $294.7 billion. Exports, on the other hand, dropped some $3.8 billion. But it’s a drop that has less to do with NAFTA and more to do with depressed energy prices and a historically strong US dollar, experts say.Even if a "President Trump" did seek to abrogate the treaty, Camuñez said he is confident it will never come to that. “I don’t believe there will be unilateral tariffs. I don’t believe there will be a trade war. I don’t believe there is any political constituency in the United States, in Congress or otherwise to support it, notwithstanding the campaign rhetoric.”Camuñez said he’s come to that conclusion, in part, because he doesn’t honestly believe Trump even supports his own policy platform.“This is a guy who is hypocritically manufacturing in Mexico and taking advantage of NAFTA just as he is criticizing it,” Camuñez pointed out.In 2014, Trump signed a deal to produce his own clothing line with Phillips-Van Heusen, which manufactures apparel in factories in 85 countries around the world, including Mexico. It should be noted that PVH, which is also behind other name brands such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, has since said it is “in the process of winding down” that licensing agreement after Trump announced his candidacy last year.Camunez and Lawson agreed that Trump’s trade platform amounts to little more than protectionist promises to rally the support of conservative voters who, by and large, blame NAFTA for the mass exodus of American jobs to other countries in the 1990s.While experts question the legitimacy of Trump’s proposals, they question the sincerity of Clinton’s.Clinton has been critical of NAFTA, arguing that perhaps the treaty should be reevaluated. "I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people," she told USA TODAY.Her tone on the North American deal has been softer than her opponent’s, perhaps because her husband championed the treaty while president. Clinton, though, has come out strong against TPP. Like Trump, she has said she would “never” sign the Pacific trade deal, even if Congress mustered the votes to move it to her desk.That promise has put her at odds, not only with the Obama administration which has made TPP a cornerstone of its own trade agenda, but with her own remarks she made as secretary of state in the Obama White House.There is no doubt that she was “for it before she was against it” and called TPP the “gold standard in trade agreements” during the early days before the deal was entirely hashed out.There has been some talk that Clinton’s anti-trade talk has, like Trump’s, been a tactic to rally voter support. Not only do plenty of left-leaning Americans also blame free trade deals for US job losses, but many also see them as threats to human rights and the environment.Fuel on that fire: Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend of the Clintons, said in July that he believes Clinton would actually support TPP if elected president, given “a couple things we want to fix.”As the nation careens toward the November election, US voters have heard plenty of promises. With just days to go, they’re bound to hear plenty more. But, there are two things voters concerned with transportation and trade should bear in mind as they head to the polls Nov. 8, industry experts say.First, promises are just that: words with no guarantee. What convinces voters doesn’t always convince lawmakers. And, second, both candidates are going to need lawmakers to push their agendas if elected.“All presidential proposals would require legislative action. Whatever happens in November would require lawmakers approval which is going to be tough given the congressional mood,” the Eno Center’s Puentes told JOC.com. “The next president has his or her hands full.”Contact Reynolds Hutchins at <a href="mailto:reynolds.hutchins@ihsmarkit.com">reynolds.hutchins@ihsmarkit.com</a> and follow him on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/hutchins_joc">@Hutchins_JOC</a>.</div>

WASHINGTON — The 2016 US presidential election has been fraught with divisive discourse and reality television-style drama, but the top two leading candidates appear to actually agree when it comes to matters of transportation infrastructure and trade. That, of course, depends on whether the rhetoric of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump is to be believed. Both acknowledge that the nation’s crumbling infrastructure is in desperate need of a billion-dollar booster shot. The two have also been critical of trade deals that stand to significantly impact the cost of moving goods and break down or build regulatory barriers for shippers and logistics providers. Indeed, the tone and tenor of their decidedly pro-infrastructure but anti-trade discourse is already having an impact on the industry . Election year politics and strident economic rhetoric is depressing some consumer demand, and that’s weighing on freight markets, according to Charles Clowdis, managing director for transportation for IHS Markit Economics & Country Risk. “There’s a lot of pent-up demand that will only get spent after Nov. 8,” Clowdis has said. But if Trump and Clinton agree on the broad points, it’s in the details where they diverge — often, if only because just one candidate has details. “The Republican candidate? There isn’t much to opine about because he hasn’t said much,” Robert Puentes, president and CEO of non-partisan thinktank the Eno Center for Transportation, told JOC.com. Like her Democratic predecessor, Clinton has proposed an aggressive infrastructure investment plan. Unlike President Obama, who faced significant pushback once in office, Clinton’s proposal not only has some teeth, but bipartisan support. The former secretary of state has specifically called for $275 billion in direct spending on infrastructure over five years, plus another $225 billion in loans and loan-guarantee programs. The Democratic nominee has said she would bankroll the spending through business tax reform: repatriating corporate profits made overseas by US companies. There would be $250 billion allocated to direct public investment and the other $25 billion to a “national infrastructure bank.” “The bank would leverage its $25 billion in funds to support up to an additional $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of credit enhancement,” according to the text of Clinton’s own infrastructure plan. Trump’s plan: double that. “Her number is a fraction of what we’re talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said in an interview on the Fox Business Network. “I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need a lot more than that.” Trump has made similar promises in other news media, never going into any more detail. “All he’s said it that he would double whatever the Democratic candidate would propose. He’s said something about an infrastructure bank, but that’s something that came out of the Clinton camp,” Puentes said. According to Puentes, the multi-billion-dollar infusion and the infrastructure bank supported by both candidates is actually a sound policy proposal. Corporate tax reform is a priority for US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and repatriating the dollars and cents made overseas to avoid US taxes for the explicit purpose of rebuilding infrastructure stateside seems not only fair but just. “The infrastructure bank is the best idea of what we’ve talked about for the last 30 years. It’s a good idea,” Puentes told JOC.com. “There does seem to be some legitimacy to that and there does seem to be some bipartisan agreement that a lot can be worked out through repatriation.” But transportation is a soft target for candidates. Crumbling highways and bridges is physical evidence that something must be done and the infrastructure industry employs roughly 11 percent of the civilian workforce, Puentes pointed out. “The challenge we have in this country is not making the the case for infrastructure,” said Puentes. That’s not the case for trade. The candidates’ positions on trade agreements and trading partners have been nuanced, in large part because their rhetoric has not always matched reality. Clinton and Trump are critical of free trade agreements, although the former has made a career brokering those deals and the latter has built an empire taking advantage of them. They’re deals like the now-22-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement and the yet-to-be-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership. They're deals that have provoked the ire of broad swaths of US voters who blame open economic borders for US job losses, but have had strong support from US shippers and transportation providers — like parcel giants UPS and FedEX — that have trumpeted the benefits of those same open borders for the cost-savings they drive. While Clinton took time to ease into the conversation on trade, Trump’s assault on free trade began the moment he descended the gilded escalator in the lobby of Trump Tower in June 2015. “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically,” Trump told the crowd, now more than a year ago. He also targeted China and Japan in the same speech. The Republican candidate has said he has no intention of signing TPP, even if Congress approved the deal. Moreover, Trump has said he would break or renegotiate its predecessor NAFTA and institute tariffs on imports to discourage the outsourcing of US manufacturing south of the border. Trump has specifically called for a 35 percent tariff on Mexican auto imports. It’s a single policy detail but it would have major consequences, according to cross-border trade experts. That one tariff, alone, would effectively restore the whole lot of the tariffs that NAFTA historically removed between the United States, Canada, and Mexico more than 20 years ago. But cross-border experts say Trump’s initiatives are not just drastic, they’re impossible . “NAFTA is a treaty. It’s been ratified. Trump, even if he were elected, is bound by the laws of the United States. A treaty is the supreme law of the land,” Michael Camuñez, president and CEO of consulting firm MannattJones Global Strategies, said at a Brookings Institution panel in Washington, D.C., this past March. And dismantling NAFTA — whether or not Trump would have the legal authority to do so— wouldn’t just hurt North American trade, according to Chappel Lawson, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lawson, who served as executive director and senior advisor to the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection from 2009 through 2011, said “tariffs would shred NAFTA up to the detriment of the United States and destruction of millions of jobs that depend on this cross-border trade.” Mexico is the United States’ second-largest export market and third-largest overall trading partner, according to 2015 data from the US Census Bureau. US imports from Mexico held steady last year, growing from $294.1 to $294.7 billion. Exports, on the other hand, dropped some $3.8 billion. But it’s a drop that has less to do with NAFTA and more to do with depressed energy prices and a historically strong US dollar, experts say. Even if a "President Trump" did seek to abrogate the treaty, Camuñez said he is confident it will never come to that. “I don’t believe there will be unilateral tariffs. I don’t believe there will be a trade war. I don’t believe there is any political constituency in the United States, in Congress or otherwise to support it, notwithstanding the campaign rhetoric.” Camuñez said he’s come to that conclusion, in part, because he doesn’t honestly believe Trump even supports his own policy platform. “This is a guy who is hypocritically manufacturing in Mexico and taking advantage of NAFTA just as he is criticizing it,” Camuñez pointed out. In 2014, Trump signed a deal to produce his own clothing line with Phillips-Van Heusen, which manufactures apparel in factories in 85 countries around the world, including Mexico. It should be noted that PVH, which is also behind other name brands such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, has since said it is “in the process of winding down” that licensing agreement after Trump announced his candidacy last year. Camunez and Lawson agreed that Trump’s trade platform amounts to little more than protectionist promises to rally the support of conservative voters who, by and large, blame NAFTA for the mass exodus of American jobs to other countries in the 1990s. While experts question the legitimacy of Trump’s proposals, they question the sincerity of Clinton’s. Clinton has been critical of NAFTA, arguing that perhaps the treaty should be reevaluated. "I think we do need to take a deep breath and figure out how we can make it work for the greatest numbers of people," she told USA TODAY. Her tone on the North American deal has been softer than her opponent’s, perhaps because her husband championed the treaty while president. Clinton, though, has come out strong against TPP. Like Trump, she has said she would “never” sign the Pacific trade deal, even if Congress mustered the votes to move it to her desk. That promise has put her at odds, not only with the Obama administration which has made TPP a cornerstone of its own trade agenda, but with her own remarks she made as secretary of state in the Obama White House. There is no doubt that she was “for it before she was against it” and called TPP the “gold standard in trade agreements” during the early days before the deal was entirely hashed out. There has been some talk that Clinton’s anti-trade talk has, like Trump’s, been a tactic to rally voter support. Not only do plenty of left-leaning Americans also blame free trade deals for US job losses, but many also see them as threats to human rights and the environment. Fuel on that fire: Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend of the Clintons, said in July that he believes Clinton would actually support TPP if elected president, given “a couple things we want to fix.” As the nation careens toward the November election, US voters have heard plenty of promises. With just days to go, they’re bound to hear plenty more. But, there are two things voters concerned with transportation and trade should bear in mind as they head to the polls Nov. 8, industry experts say. First, promises are just that: words with no guarantee. What convinces voters doesn’t always convince lawmakers. And, second, both candidates are going to need lawmakers to push their agendas if elected. “All presidential proposals would require legislative action. Whatever happens in November would require lawmakers approval which is going to be tough given the congressional mood,” the Eno Center’s Puentes told JOC.com. “The next president has his or her hands full.” Contact Reynolds Hutchins at reynolds.hutchins@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @Hutchins_JOC .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Trump and Clinton agree on freight infrastructure and trade — if rhetoric is true

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.</div>

The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deutsche-bank-to-sell-maher-terminals-at-port-of-ny-nj-5230328">which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund</a>, is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ssa-marine-looks-to-expand-into-new-us-ports-with-deal-for-ceres-5221078">MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies</a>, Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. <h3>Rising maintenance costs </h3>Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022</a>. However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers</a>. Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “<a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2023/12/08/tiny-shipworms-ravaging-wood-pilings-of-nj-ny-wharves-port-authority-newark-bay/71813583007/">toothpick</a>,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund , is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies , Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. Rising maintenance costs Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022 . However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers . Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “ toothpick ,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

North American ports

Port News

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston. </div>

The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston wasn’t immediately available for comment. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston wasn’t immediately available for comment. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

FMC probing service agreements between Port Houston, ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region. </div>

The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/import-surge-pushing-los-angeles-outbound-spot-truck-rates-higher-5724894">second consecutive year</a> that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. <h3>BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks </h3>BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-lines-cutting-trans-pacific-capacity-overhang-6040426">declined steadily</a> since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the second consecutive year that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have declined steadily since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Rail News

Surface

J.B. Hunt hits some shippers with big surcharges in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the longer voyages are also seeing container shipping companies cutting the average fuel intensity per TEU mile and ensuring vessels are sailing full. </div>

But the longer voyages are also seeing container shipping companies cutting the average fuel intensity per TEU mile and ensuring vessels are sailing full.

<div class="phx-topic">Container traffic diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks in the Red Sea drove up emissions in early 2025 by nearly one-fifth compared with a year earlier. But while ocean carriers have improved their fuel burning and ship utilization, recent attacks in the Red Sea have killed any hopes of a return to more fuel-efficient transits via the Suez Canal this year. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the first quarter rose 19.38% year over year to just under 60 million tons, according to VesselBot, a sustainable supply chain platform. In 2024, emissions jumped 45% on container trades tied to Europe compared with 2023, according to European Union data. The southern Africa route for the Asia-Europe trade has been in operation since Houthi militants began targeting commercial shipping in late 2023. It is a 30% longer route than using the Suez Canal and adds 10-12 days to transits, absorbing up to 10% of global container shipping capacity and keeping rates elevated. “In an era with high focus on reductions of carbon emissions, the impact of the Red Sea crisis on specifically container shipping has been an increase in emissions matching the total annual emissions of Cambodia,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, wrote in his Sunday Spotlight. “The responsibility for this substantial increase in carbon emissions is solely to be placed on the Houthis. The consequence of their actions has been to more than negate years of effort by the container lines to reduce the carbon emissions for container shipping,” he added. Houthi militant attacks last week on two vessels within three days, leaving four seafarers dead and 11 unaccounted for, killed off <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-houthi-attacks-likely-kill-hopes-of-shipping-returning-to-red-sea-this-year-6040923">any prospect of major ocean carriers returning to Suez Canal</a> transits in 2025. <h3>Greater efficiency </h3>But as emissions from container shipping increase, carriers sailing around Africa are optimizing voyage efficiency by reducing speed and the average emission intensity and ensuring vessels are sailing full, according to the VesselBot report. Better environmental performance per unit of cargo transported could be seen in the first-quarter average emissions intensity of 206.93 grams of well-to-wake CO2 per TEU-kilometer compared with 231.55 in the first three months of last year. VesselBot also found ship utilization in the first quarter for vessels using the round-Africa route was higher than 80% as more cargo was transported on fewer ships. The rise in shipping emissions will find its way into the pockets of European cargo owners as regulators phase in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/european-parliament-approves-shipping-ets-but-stakeholders-wary-5202492">EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)</a> and the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-carriers-to-shoulder-bulk-of-europe-fuel-intensity-rule-5192246">FuelEU Maritime regulation</a>. The ETS tax on carrier emissions on voyages beginning or ending in the EU this year is at 40% and will increase to 70% from Jan. 1, 2026, with 100% of emissions charged in 2027. Also from Jan. 1, the new FuelEU Maritime regulation will set limits on the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used by ships that call at European ports. These limits will gradually decrease over time, starting with a 2% reduction by 2025 and reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. Customer advisories show carriers plan to “simplify the process” by merging compliance with the EU ETS and FuelEU regulations into one fuel surcharge, but this move has not gone down well with shippers. There has been little transparency when carriers pass this cost to customers, James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers’ Forum, told the Journal of Commerce. “Shippers quite reasonably ask why they are paying a regulatory penalty as well as the difference in operating costs for the new technology. Frustration over the lines’ lack of engagement with customers will make building this confidence and unity of purpose a tough job.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container traffic diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks in the Red Sea drove up emissions in early 2025 by nearly one-fifth compared with a year earlier. But while ocean carriers have improved their fuel burning and ship utilization, recent attacks in the Red Sea have killed any hopes of a return to more fuel-efficient transits via the Suez Canal this year. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the first quarter rose 19.38% year over year to just under 60 million tons, according to VesselBot, a sustainable supply chain platform. In 2024, emissions jumped 45% on container trades tied to Europe compared with 2023, according to European Union data. The southern Africa route for the Asia-Europe trade has been in operation since Houthi militants began targeting commercial shipping in late 2023. It is a 30% longer route than using the Suez Canal and adds 10-12 days to transits, absorbing up to 10% of global container shipping capacity and keeping rates elevated. “In an era with high focus on reductions of carbon emissions, the impact of the Red Sea crisis on specifically container shipping has been an increase in emissions matching the total annual emissions of Cambodia,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, wrote in his Sunday Spotlight. “The responsibility for this substantial increase in carbon emissions is solely to be placed on the Houthis. The consequence of their actions has been to more than negate years of effort by the container lines to reduce the carbon emissions for container shipping,” he added. Houthi militant attacks last week on two vessels within three days, leaving four seafarers dead and 11 unaccounted for, killed off any prospect of major ocean carriers returning to Suez Canal transits in 2025. Greater efficiency But as emissions from container shipping increase, carriers sailing around Africa are optimizing voyage efficiency by reducing speed and the average emission intensity and ensuring vessels are sailing full, according to the VesselBot report. Better environmental performance per unit of cargo transported could be seen in the first-quarter average emissions intensity of 206.93 grams of well-to-wake CO2 per TEU-kilometer compared with 231.55 in the first three months of last year. VesselBot also found ship utilization in the first quarter for vessels using the round-Africa route was higher than 80% as more cargo was transported on fewer ships. The rise in shipping emissions will find its way into the pockets of European cargo owners as regulators phase in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the FuelEU Maritime regulation . The ETS tax on carrier emissions on voyages beginning or ending in the EU this year is at 40% and will increase to 70% from Jan. 1, 2026, with 100% of emissions charged in 2027. Also from Jan. 1, the new FuelEU Maritime regulation will set limits on the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used by ships that call at European ports. These limits will gradually decrease over time, starting with a 2% reduction by 2025 and reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. Customer advisories show carriers plan to “simplify the process” by merging compliance with the EU ETS and FuelEU regulations into one fuel surcharge, but this move has not gone down well with shippers. There has been little transparency when carriers pass this cost to customers, James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers’ Forum, told the Journal of Commerce. “Shippers quite reasonably ask why they are paying a regulatory penalty as well as the difference in operating costs for the new technology. Frustration over the lines’ lack of engagement with customers will make building this confidence and unity of purpose a tough job.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Africa diversions drive sharp rise in ocean carrier emissions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The journey time, about two to three days better than typical industry metrics, comes despite congestion in other parts of partner CPKC’s network.</div>

The journey time, about two to three days better than typical industry metrics, comes despite congestion in other parts of partner CPKC’s network.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National said Friday its flagship Mexico Midwest Express (MMX) intermodal service with partner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is continuing to deliver strong results in 2025, offering faster transit times and higher on-time reliability than many cross-border alternatives despite congestion in other parts of CPKC’s network. The MMX service, launched two years ago, connects inland Mexican cities such as Monterrey and San Luis Potosí with Chicago via a single-line rail route. The service bypasses traditional interchange delays at the border, with two spans over the Laredo bridge and switching yards on each side of the border to handle crew changes. While Schneider did not disclose current shipment totals due to its quiet period ahead of the release of its second-quarter earnings, the company said MMX performance metrics through the first half of 2025 were strong, with average transit times of four days and a cargo theft rate of less than 0.02%. Schneider also said the on-time performance of MMX remains above 95%. The typical transit time from Monterrey to Chicago is about six or seven days. “Decreasing shipping time by even a few days matters to our customers because the faster products can get on the shelves, the faster those items can land in the hands of consumers,” Michael Baumgardt, Schneider’s senior vice president of intermodal, said in a statement. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported that railroads hauled a combined 86,000-plus domestic containers this year through May 31, a 21% increase compared with the same period a year earlier. Railroads hauled nearly 60,000 domestic containers to the Midwest during the same period, up 9% from a year earlier. Schneider is currently the only intermodal provider offering a true single-line cross-border solution from Mexico to the Midwest, eliminating any chance of delays caused by an interchange between two railroads. Schneider said service on the MMX has not deteriorated much since CPKC’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-acknowledges-service-woes-to-us-regulators-vows-remediation-6030412">messy IT transition</a> in May that affected service in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The exception is that some shippers have experienced lengthy delays moving cargo from Laredo to Chicago because the container dwell inside the Laredo yard is up 122% since early May compared with a year ago. Schneider rivals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-launching-quantum-de-mexico-for-time-sensitive-cross-border-freight-6014579">J.B. Hunt Transport Services</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hub-group-boosts-cross-border-business-in-jv-with-mexican-dray-carrier-5745355">Hub Group</a> have also ramped up investments in cross-border intermodal in recent months, introducing new services and partnerships aimed at capturing a growing share of freight moving between the US and Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad completed a pilot program this spring to speed up the handoff between Mexican and US crews by doing it inside UP’s Eagle Pass terminal rather than on the middle of the International Railway Bridge. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Schneider National said Friday its flagship Mexico Midwest Express (MMX) intermodal service with partner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is continuing to deliver strong results in 2025, offering faster transit times and higher on-time reliability than many cross-border alternatives despite congestion in other parts of CPKC’s network. The MMX service, launched two years ago, connects inland Mexican cities such as Monterrey and San Luis Potosí with Chicago via a single-line rail route. The service bypasses traditional interchange delays at the border, with two spans over the Laredo bridge and switching yards on each side of the border to handle crew changes. While Schneider did not disclose current shipment totals due to its quiet period ahead of the release of its second-quarter earnings, the company said MMX performance metrics through the first half of 2025 were strong, with average transit times of four days and a cargo theft rate of less than 0.02%. Schneider also said the on-time performance of MMX remains above 95%. The typical transit time from Monterrey to Chicago is about six or seven days. “Decreasing shipping time by even a few days matters to our customers because the faster products can get on the shelves, the faster those items can land in the hands of consumers,” Michael Baumgardt, Schneider’s senior vice president of intermodal, said in a statement. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported that railroads hauled a combined 86,000-plus domestic containers this year through May 31, a 21% increase compared with the same period a year earlier. Railroads hauled nearly 60,000 domestic containers to the Midwest during the same period, up 9% from a year earlier. Schneider is currently the only intermodal provider offering a true single-line cross-border solution from Mexico to the Midwest, eliminating any chance of delays caused by an interchange between two railroads. Schneider said service on the MMX has not deteriorated much since CPKC’s messy IT transition in May that affected service in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The exception is that some shippers have experienced lengthy delays moving cargo from Laredo to Chicago because the container dwell inside the Laredo yard is up 122% since early May compared with a year ago. Schneider rivals J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group have also ramped up investments in cross-border intermodal in recent months, introducing new services and partnerships aimed at capturing a growing share of freight moving between the US and Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad completed a pilot program this spring to speed up the handoff between Mexican and US crews by doing it inside UP’s Eagle Pass terminal rather than on the middle of the International Railway Bridge. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Schneider says MMX service delivering four-day Mexico-Chicago transit time

Use code TPM25GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

FMC probing service agreements between Port Houston, ocean carriers

J.B. Hunt hits some shippers with big surcharges in Southern California