<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Walmart remained atop the list of the 100 largest US importers by a wide margin in 2019, while Koch Industries retained to the No. 1 export spot.</div>

Walmart remained atop the list of the 100 largest US importers by a wide margin in 2019, while Koch Industries retained to the No. 1 export spot.

3635406_FI.jpg

<div>The US-China trade war took its toll on containerized trade to the United States last year, with total US import volume ticking up just 0.43 percent year over year to 24.9 million TEU, down from a 7.1 percent increase the previous year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of JOC.com within IHS Markit.Total <a>US imports from Asia fell 2.2 percent</a> to 16.55 million TEU in 2019. Imports from China were hit especially hard, declining 9.8 percent to 10.5 million TEU as retailers and manufacturers shifted some of their sourcing from China to Southeast Asia. Excluding China, US imports...

The US-China trade war took its toll on containerized trade to the United States last year, with total US import volume ticking up just 0.43 percent year over year to 24.9 million TEU, down from a 7.1 percent increase the previous year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of JOC.com within IHS Markit. Total US imports from Asia fell 2.2 percent to 16.55 million TEU in 2019. Imports from China were hit especially hard, declining 9.8 percent to 10.5 million TEU as retailers and manufacturers shifted some of their sourcing from China to Southeast Asia. Excluding China, US imports from the rest of Asia increased 14.8 percent in 2019. Container exports from the US, meanwhile, rose 2.1 percent to just shy of 13 million TEU, after growing 0.1 percent in 2019, despite retaliatory Chinese tariffs on US export products. Walmart remained atop the list of the largest US importers by a wide margin, despite importing fewer TEU than it did in 2018. The five largest importers by volume — Walmart, Target, The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Ashley Furniture — collectively imported more than 2.47 million TEU in 2019, accounting for nearly one out of every 10 US import TEU. On the export side, Koch Industries retained to the No. 1 spot, increasing its volume another 13.5 percent to 283,511 TEU after more than doubling it the year before. JOC.com’s annual Top 100 US Importers and Exporters ranking begins with data from PIERS and is enhanced by information gathered from other industry sources. The figures are expressed in TEU, the most common measurement of containerized ocean shipping. One standard 40-foot ocean container equals two TEU. These lists are restricted to shippers — beneficial owners of containerized cargo that entered or exited US ports by ocean vessel during 2019 — and don’t include shippers associations, carriers, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs), forwarders or brokers, third-party logistics providers (3PLs), banks, or “to-order” negotiable bills of lading, or data falling under privacy strictures. International import and export cargoes moving into and out of the US via air, rail, or truck also are not included. The JOC analysis accounts for changes in ownership structures and impacts on volume by tallying volume at subsidiary companies to the best of our ability. We also rely on self-reported numbers backed by documentation from companies that fall under privacy strictures. Rankings compiled by Marcin Lejk, data analyst. 2020 JOC Top 100 Importers US foreign trade via ocean container transport. TEU in 2019 Sector Headquarters 2020 rank JOC Top 100 Importers 1 Walmart 893,390 Retail Bentonville, Ark. 2 Target 600,040 Retail Minneapolis, Minn. 3 Home Depot 400,100 Retail Atlanta, Ga 4 Lowe’s 292,244 Retail Mooresville, N.C. 5 Ashley Furniture 270,000 Furniture Arcadia, Wisconsin 6 Dole Food 230,117 Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Thousand Oaks, Calif. 7 Samsung America 181,328 Conglomerate Ridgefield Park, N.J. 8 Family Dollar Stores/Dollar Tree 171,936 Retail Matthews, NC, Chesapeake, Va. 9 LG Group 156,348 Conglomerate Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 10 Chiquita Brands International 151,589 Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Charlotte, N.C.. 11 IKEA International 131,684 Retail Conshohocken, Pa. 12 Nike 118,219 Footwear and Apparel sport equipment Beaverton, Ore. 13 Williams-Sonoma 88,800 Retail San Francisco, Calif. 14 Red Bull North America 70,700 Beverages Santa Monica, Calif. 15 Rooms to Go 69,680 Retail Furniture Seffner, Fla. 16 Hyundai Motor Company 65,014 Automotive goods West Point, Ga.; Mongomery, Ala. 17 Dollar General 57,458 Retail Goodlettsville, Tenn. 18 Fresh Del Monte Produce 52,388 Foods Coral Gables, Fla. 19 Mercedes Benz USA/Daimler Trucks 50,515 Automotive goods Atlanta, Portland 20 Sumitomo 48,661 Conglomerate New York, N.Y. 21 Hankook Tire America 48,090 Tires Wayne, N.J. 22 Toyota Tsusho America 46,138 Conglomerate Georgetown, Ky. 23 Costco Wholesale 45,438 Retail Issaquah, Wash. 24 Michaels Stores 42,834 Retail Irving, Texas 25 Newell Brands 40,722 Outdoor and home goods Hoboken, N.J. 26 Bridgestone Tires 40,106 Tires Nashville, Tennessee 27 Anheuser Busch InBev 38,257 Beverages St. Louis, Mo. 28 Dorel Industries 37,121 Conglomerate Foxborough, Massachusetts 29 SOL Group Marketing 37,038 Fruit Pompano Beach, Fla. 30 Amazon 35,779 Retail Seattle, Washington 31 Electrolux 35,124 Appliances Charlotte, NC; Stockholm 32 Mitsubishi Motors 35,020 Automotive goods Cypress, Calif. 33 Arauco Wood Products 34,755 Forest Products Atlanta, Ga 34 Continental Tire 33,333 Tires Fort Mill, S.C. 35 Adidas Group 31,202 Footwear and Apparel sport equipment Portland, Ore. 36 Kubota Tractor 30,908 Tractors and Agri Tools Torrence, Calif. 37 Fyffes 30,076 Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Miami, FL 38 At Home Procurement Inc 29,396 Retail Plano, Texas 39 Best Buy 29,376 Retail Richfield, Minn. 40 Ross Stores 26,959 Retail Dublin, California 41 American Honda Motor, Honda Trading America 25,533 Automotive goods Torrance, Calif.; Marysville, Ohio 42 American Tire Distributors 25,441 Tires Huntersville, N.C 43 Subaru 24,890 Automotive goods Camden, N.J. 44 Michelin North America 24,856 Mfg-Tire & Rubber Greenville, S.C. 45 Coaster of America 23,908 Furniture Santa Fe Springs, Calif. 46 Haier America Trading 23,875 Appliances Wayne, N.J. 47 Bissell Homecare 23,780 Household Grand Rapids, Mich. 48 Conair 23,558 Appliances & Personal Care East Windsor, N.J. 49 John Deere 23,379 Mfg-Machinery/Tire Moline, Ill. 50 Euromarket Designs 23,320 Retail Northbrook, Ill. 51 Yokohama Tire 23,074 Tires Fullerton, Calif. 52 PVH 22,220 Appliances New York, N.Y. 53 Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits 21,227 Beverages Miami, Florida 54 Living Spaces 20,987 Furniture La Mirada, Calilf. 55 Shark Ninja 20,513 Appliances Newton, Mass 56 LANXESS Corporation 19,492 Chemicals-diversified Pittsburgh, Pa. 57 Panasonic Corp of North America 18,896 Electronics Newark, NJ 58 Keter North America Inc 18,894 Storage Anderson, In 59 Vestas American Wind Technology 18,769 Mfg-Machinery Ellsworth, IL 60 Toyo Tires 18,706 Tires Cypress, Calif. 61 Samsonite 18,510 Luggage Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong 62 Mattel 18,383 Toys El Segundo, Calif. 63 Liberty Procurement 18,267 Retail Liberty Avenue Union, NJ 64 FIJI Water 18,213 Retail Los Angeles, Calif. 65 CMPC USA Inc. 18,179 Paper Products/Pulp/Forest Products Atlanta, Ga 66 Q Cells 18,158 Technology Irving, Calif. 67 Hyosung Motors 18,155 Automotive goods Irving, Texas 68 E&E 18,130 Furniture Fremont, Calif 69 Nissan North America/Nissan Trading 18,107 Automotive goods Franklin, Tenn.; Farmington Hills, Mich. 70 Raymour & Flanigan Furniture 17,337 Retail Liverpool, N.Y. 71 Gildan Activewear 17,013 Apparel Mfg. Montreal 72 Spectrum Brands 16,906 Mfg-consumer products Madison, Wisconsin 73 Goya Foods 16,730 Foods Secaucus, N.Y. 74 BJ's Wholesale Inc. 15,934 Retail Westborough, Mass. 75 Pirelli 15,726 Tires Rome, Ga. 76 QVC 15,467 Retail West Chester, Pennsylvania 77 Global Agri-trade 15,310 Grain/Animal Feed Rancho Dominguez, Calif. 78 99 Cents Only Stores 15,293 Retail Commerce, Calif. 79 Bob’s Discount Furniture 15,079 Furniture retailer Manchester, Conn. 80 Solaris Paper 15,071 Paper Products/Pulp/Forest Products Santa Fe Springs, Calif. 81 Dubal America Inc. 14,967 Mfg-Machinery St. Louis, Mo. 82 DAK Americas 14,697 Chemicals Charlotte, North Carolina, 83 American Power Conversion Corporation 14,612 Electronics West Kingston, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, United States 84 Badcock Home Furniture 14,604 Furniture Mulberry, Florida 85 Joann Fabric and Craft Stores 14,527 Retail Hudson, Ohio 86 Michael Kors 14,249 Footwear and Apparel New York, N.Y. 87 Yazaki North America 14,198 Automotive goods Canton, Michigan 88 Safavieh 14,121 Furniture Washington, N.Y. 89 American Furniture Warehouse 13,873 Furniture Englewood, Colorado, 90 American Omni Trading Co. 13,599 Mfg-Tire & Rubber Katy, TX 91 Giti Tire USA 13,448 Tires Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 92 Epson 13,411 Electronics Long Beach, Calif. 93 H&M 13,356 Footwear and Apparel New York, N.Y. 94 LG Chemical America, Inc. 13,109 Chemicals Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 95 Olam International 13,100 Cotton/Spices & Vegetables Fresno, Calif. 96 Icon Health & Fitness 13,094 Mfg-consumer products Logan, Utah 97 Sentury Tire 12,930 Tires Miami, Florida 98 Belnick Incorporated 12,645 Furniture Canton, Ga. 99 Volkswagen Group 12,267 Automotive goods Herndon, Va. 100 Standard Furniture 12,026 Furniture Bay Minette, Ala. 2020 JOC Top 100 Exporters US foreign trade via ocean container transport. TEU in 2019 Sector Headquarters 2020 rank JOC Top 100 Exporters 1 Koch Industries 283,511 Conglomerate Wichita, Kan. 2 International Paper 229,760 Paper/Packaging Memphis , Tennessee 3 America Chung Nam 184,434 Paper/Plastics Recyclables City of Industry, Calif. 4 DeLong 145,503 Animal Feed and Grain Clinton, Wis. 5 ExxonMobil Chemical 116,380 Chemicals Spring, Texas 6 Louis Dreyfus Company 102,772 Cotton Cordova, TN 7 International Forest Products 97,709 Paper Products/Pulp/Forest Products Foxborough, MA 8 WestRock 81,726 Paper/ Packaging Norcross, Ga. 9 BMW of North America 79,183 Automotive Goods Woodcliff Lake, N.J. Spartansburg, S.C. 10 Shintech 72,980 Chemicals Houston, Texas 11 WM Recycle America 69,534 Diversified/Recycler Houston, Texas 12 Scoular 67,953 Grain/Animal Feed Omaha, Neb. 13 Sims Metal Management 66,365 Paper/Metals /Plastics Recyclables New York, N.Y. 14 Ravago Group 63,415 Plastics, rubber, and chemicals Orlando, Fla. 15 Denison International PLC 63,300 Mfg-Machinery Marysville, Ohio 16 Newport CH International 62,445 Paper/Metals /Plastics Recyclables Orange, Calif. 17 JBS USA 58,728 Refrigerated Meats/Poultry Greeley, Colo. 18 Cargill 58,657 Conglomerate Wayzata, Minn. 19 Cycle Link USA 57,919 Paper/Recyclables Diamond Bar, Calif. 20 Lansing Trade Group 54,970 Animal Feed and Grain Overland Park, Kan. 21 Smithfield Foods 54,455 Food/refrigerated Smithfield, Va. 22 Winfibre 53,945 Paper/Recyclables Chino, Calif. 23 Domtar 50,744 Paper/Forest Products Fort Mill, SC; Montreal, Canada 24 Eastman Chemical Company 46,382 Chemicals Kingsport, Tennessee 25 Tyson Foods 45,373 Refrigerated Meats/Poultry Springdale, Ark. 26 Rayonier Advanced Materials 45,121 Chemicals/Forest products Jacksonville, Fla. 27 Gavilon 41,223 Animal Feed and Grain Omaha, Ne. 28 AJC International 41,051 Food/refrigerated Atlanta, Ga. 29 Vinmar International 39,837 Chemicals/Plastics Houston, Texas 30 Al Dahra ACX Inc 39,729 Animal Feed and Grain Wilmington, California 31 CHS 38,145 Agriculture/Energy/Food Inver Grove Heights, Minn. 32 Archer Daniels Midland 38,013 Agriculture Chicago, Ill. 33 PriceSmart 36,999 Membership Warehouse Club San Diego 34 Walmart 36,256 Retail Bentonville, Ark. 35 JC Horizon 35,015 Paper/Metals /Plastics Recyclables Ontario, Calif. 36 Perdue 34,272 Food/refrigerated Salisburgy, Md. 37 Potential Industries 34,132 Paper/Recyclables Wilmington, Calif. 38 Ekman Group 33,725 Paper/Recyclables Gothenburg, Miami, Hong Kong 39 U.S. Borax Inc 33,101 Chemicals Boron, California 40 DuPont 31,606 Diversified Wilmington, Del. 41 Dole Food 30,265 Fruit and vegetables Thousand Oaks, Calif. 42 Graphic Packaging Holding 29,672 Paper Products Atlanta, Ga. 43 Almarai 29,051 Agricultural goods Saudi Arabia 44 Staple Cotton Cooperative Association 28,419 Cotton Greenwood, Miss. 45 Mercedes Benz USA/Daimler Trucks 25,012 Automotive Goods Atlanta, Ga. 46 Chevron Phillips Chemical 24,830 Chemicals The Woodlands, Texas 47 Procter & Gamble 24,702 Mfg-consumer products Cincinnati, Ohio 48 CellMark Group 24,409 Diversified Norwalk and Stamford, Conn.; Pearl River, N.Y.; San Rafael, Calif. 49 John Deere 23,665 Mfg-Machinery/Tire Moline, Ill. 50 Prairie Creek Grain 23,553 Animal Feed and Grain Elwood, Ill. 51 American Honda Motor, Honda Trading America 23,542 Automotive Goods Torrance, Calif.; Marysville, Ohio 52 Lamb Weston 23,374 Food/refrigerated Eagle, Idaho 53 Michelin North America 22,373 Mfg-Tire & Rubber Greenville, S.C. 54 Fornazor International 22,191 Animal Feed and Grain Hillsdale, N.J. 55 Khanna Paper Inc. 21,970 Paper Products North Bergen, NJ 56 Active Minerals International 21,641 Minerals Sparks, Md. 57 Alco Iron and Metal 20,909 Paper/Recyclables San Leandro, Calif. 58 Fibre Trade 20,711 Paper/Recyclables Burlingame, Calif. 59 Caterpillar 20,513 Mfg-Machinery Peoria, Ill. 60 Imerys 20,506 Minerals Roswell, Ga. 61 Montachem 20,031 Plastics/Chemicals Fort Lauderdale, Fla 62 Mitsui & Co. 19,981 Conglomerate New York, N.Y. 63 Ascend Performance Materials 19,721 Chemicals/Fibers/Plastics Houston, Texas 64 Central National Gottesman 19,518 Paper Products/Pulp/Forest Products Purchase, N.Y. 65 Sigma Recycling Inc 19,203 Paper/Metals /Plastics Recyclables Norcross, Ga. 66 Toyota Tsusho America 18,974 Conglomerate Georgetown, Ky. 67 POET Nutrition 18,965 Animal Feed and Grain Sioux Falls, S.D. 68 Genesis Resource Enterprises 18,880 Paper/Recyclables Springfield, N.J. 69 Costco Wholesale 18,641 Retail Issaquah, Wash. 70 KaMin 18,149 Minerals-Clay Macon, Ga. 71 Allan Company 17,896 Paper/Recyclables Baldwin Park, Calif. 72 Anheuser Busch InBev 16,799 Beverages St. Louis, Mo. 73 Advanced Steel Recovery 16,274 Metal/Recyclables Fontana, Calif. 74 Hyundai Motor Company 16,271 Motor Vehicles Montgomery, Ala. 75 Stone Arch Commodities 16,176 Animal Feed and Grain Minneapolis, Minnesota 76 Nissan North America/Nissan Trading 15,982 Automotive Goods Franklin, Tenn.; Farmington Hills, Mich. 77 David J. Joseph Company 15,978 Paper/Metals /Plastics Recyclables Cincinnati, Oh 78 Chemours 15,000 Chemicals Wilmington, Del. 79 Nippon Dynawave Packaging 14,838 Paper Products Longview, Wash. 80 America Metal Export 14,738 Chemicals Alhambra, Calif. 81 Union Underwear 14,503 Apparel Mfg. Bowling Green, Ky. 82 Vipa Group 14,300 Paper/Recyclables Brea, Calif. 83 G.A. Paper Intl. 14,293 Paper/Recyclables Tampa, Fla.; Markham, Canada 84 Sappi Cloquet 14,239 Paper/Pulp/Paper Products Cloquet, Minn. 85 Dow Chemical 14,238 Diversified Midland, Mich. 86 Sasol 14,120 Chemicals Houston, Texas 87 Zen Trading 13,999 Animal Feed and Grain San Francisco, Calif. 88 Kimberly-Clark 13,515 Paper Products Irving, Texas 89 National Beef 13,177 Food/refrigerated Kansas City, Missouri 90 Seaboard Foods 12,977 Food/refrigerated Kansas, United States 91 Sysco 12,746 Food/refrigerated Houston, Texas 92 Zen-Noh Grain Corporation 12,667 Animal Feed and Grain New Orleans, La 93 Canusa Hershman Recycling Co 12,396 Diversified/Recycler Branford, Ct. 94 Gildan Activewear 12,201 Apparel Mfg. Montreal, Canada 95 Ecom America 11,911 Mfg-Equipment Gainesville, Ga 96 Mehali Inc 11,786 Paper/Recyclables Hoboken, N.J. 97 Cofco Americas Resources 11,755 Animal Feed and Grain Chicago, Ill. 98 Sonoco Products 10,973 Packaging Hartsville, S.C. 99 Mountaire Farms 10,951 Animal Feed and Grain Little Rock, Arkansas 100 OGO Fibers 10,946 Paper/Recyclables Richmond Hill, Ontario; Summerville, S.C.

Maritime

Top 100 US importer and exporter rankings 2019

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Any investment by the largest trucking scale network in North America gives Truck Parking Club capital to expand its list of partner parking facilities. </div>

Any investment by the largest trucking scale network in North America gives Truck Parking Club capital to expand its list of partner parking facilities.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The connection between an available parking space for a truck driver and adequate capacity for truckload shippers may not seem immediately obvious. But the direct impact of drivers finding space to park at the most favorable time to fully use their hours of service is clear to a company aiming to build the largest collection of bookable space for truckload drivers in North America. “It’s been up to drivers to make decisions on where to park, and that often means they’re stopping with five hours left to drive,” said Reed Loustalot, chief marketing officer at Truck Parking Club, which offers a platform for fleets and drivers to arrange parking spaces. “That’s lost efficiency, and [if] you add that up across the industry, that’s a lot of wasted hours.” Loustalot said it’s hard to quantify that inefficiency across a nearly $1 billion industry. But arming drivers with the ability to book a space ahead of time in a way that lets them maximize their driving time definitely benefits shippers, carriers, brokers and the drivers, he said. “It’s worth it for the carrier to provide drivers with $25 for a space,” he said. “The alternative is they stop a few hours short [of their hours of service limit] and waste everyone’s time.” Truck Parking Club, founded in 2022 by CEO Evan Shelley, has been steadily building its network of available and bookable spaces through its app. From barely more than 1,000 spaces in November, the company now has 2,300 and plans to hit 10,000 by the end of 2026. Locations include space at trucking companies, truck repair shops, tow truck companies, storage companies, truck driving schools, trailer leasing companies, real estate investors, truck parking operators and truck stops. “Our north star is getting more locations,” Loustalot said. “Drivers just say they want more locations from us, so every dollar in the business is about getting more locations and better service.” Earlier this month, Truck Parking Club tied up an undisclosed investment from CAT Scale, North America's largest truck weighing network. The investment provides Truck Parking Club with capital to add more parking spots to the assortment it can offer drivers. Shelley also said in a statement “leveraging [CAT Scale’s] knowledge and experience from building a trusted nationwide network will be invaluable as we continue building our truck parking network.” <h3>Broader reach to drivers </h3>Truck Parking Club last week also announced an integration with Platform Science, a widely used electronic logging device (ELD) hardware maker. That integration expands the distribution of Truck Parking Club’s app by making it available directly in-cab through the Platform Science device that drivers use for a range of functions. “We had fleets say to us, ‘let us know when you’re in Platform Science,’” Loustalot said. The cooperation is not exclusive, meaning Truck Parking Club can pursue integrations with other ELD providers and truckload telematics platforms. In May, Truck Parking Club began <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckload-technology-providers-partner-on-cargo-theft-initiative-5996628">partnering with GenLogs</a> to battle cargo and equipment theft by connecting Truck Parking Club’s data on commercial vehicles and their movements with GenLogs’ network of roadside sensors that track equipment location. Aside from aiming to drive more available capacity in the market, there’s a more direct link to shippers. Loustalot said the company has been seeing a “good amount of activity from private fleets, primarily using us for storage, and especially for trailers.” Those fleets tend to have drivers moving local loads or facility-to-facility shipments, “so parking isn’t the biggest issue, but trailers and drop trailer storage is an issue,” he said. “They use us as external yard.” As Truck Parking Club’s footprint grows, it begs the question: Why has there been no centralized parking platform before, and why do many fleets hand off the responsibility for finding, and paying for, parking to their drivers? “There are fleets that pay for their drivers to park,” Loustalot said. “But there are a million reasons they don’t want to do it. Most big fleets rent space, but cutting checks is another issue, and it takes a day to find a place to stash trucks. Folks have thrown their hands up, especially fleets that don’t have lots of real estate.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The connection between an available parking space for a truck driver and adequate capacity for truckload shippers may not seem immediately obvious. But the direct impact of drivers finding space to park at the most favorable time to fully use their hours of service is clear to a company aiming to build the largest collection of bookable space for truckload drivers in North America. “It’s been up to drivers to make decisions on where to park, and that often means they’re stopping with five hours left to drive,” said Reed Loustalot, chief marketing officer at Truck Parking Club, which offers a platform for fleets and drivers to arrange parking spaces. “That’s lost efficiency, and [if] you add that up across the industry, that’s a lot of wasted hours.” Loustalot said it’s hard to quantify that inefficiency across a nearly $1 billion industry. But arming drivers with the ability to book a space ahead of time in a way that lets them maximize their driving time definitely benefits shippers, carriers, brokers and the drivers, he said. “It’s worth it for the carrier to provide drivers with $25 for a space,” he said. “The alternative is they stop a few hours short [of their hours of service limit] and waste everyone’s time.” Truck Parking Club, founded in 2022 by CEO Evan Shelley, has been steadily building its network of available and bookable spaces through its app. From barely more than 1,000 spaces in November, the company now has 2,300 and plans to hit 10,000 by the end of 2026. Locations include space at trucking companies, truck repair shops, tow truck companies, storage companies, truck driving schools, trailer leasing companies, real estate investors, truck parking operators and truck stops. “Our north star is getting more locations,” Loustalot said. “Drivers just say they want more locations from us, so every dollar in the business is about getting more locations and better service.” Earlier this month, Truck Parking Club tied up an undisclosed investment from CAT Scale, North America's largest truck weighing network. The investment provides Truck Parking Club with capital to add more parking spots to the assortment it can offer drivers. Shelley also said in a statement “leveraging [CAT Scale’s] knowledge and experience from building a trusted nationwide network will be invaluable as we continue building our truck parking network.” Broader reach to drivers Truck Parking Club last week also announced an integration with Platform Science, a widely used electronic logging device (ELD) hardware maker. That integration expands the distribution of Truck Parking Club’s app by making it available directly in-cab through the Platform Science device that drivers use for a range of functions. “We had fleets say to us, ‘let us know when you’re in Platform Science,’” Loustalot said. The cooperation is not exclusive, meaning Truck Parking Club can pursue integrations with other ELD providers and truckload telematics platforms. In May, Truck Parking Club began partnering with GenLogs to battle cargo and equipment theft by connecting Truck Parking Club’s data on commercial vehicles and their movements with GenLogs’ network of roadside sensors that track equipment location. Aside from aiming to drive more available capacity in the market, there’s a more direct link to shippers. Loustalot said the company has been seeing a “good amount of activity from private fleets, primarily using us for storage, and especially for trailers.” Those fleets tend to have drivers moving local loads or facility-to-facility shipments, “so parking isn’t the biggest issue, but trailers and drop trailer storage is an issue,” he said. “They use us as external yard.” As Truck Parking Club’s footprint grows, it begs the question: Why has there been no centralized parking platform before, and why do many fleets hand off the responsibility for finding, and paying for, parking to their drivers? “There are fleets that pay for their drivers to park,” Loustalot said. “But there are a million reasons they don’t want to do it. Most big fleets rent space, but cutting checks is another issue, and it takes a day to find a place to stash trucks. Folks have thrown their hands up, especially fleets that don’t have lots of real estate.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Surface

Trucking News

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

Parking platform using investment, integration to target truckload fleet inefficiency

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. </div>

But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/railroad-operator-union-pacific-exploring-deal-for-norfolk-southern-1d06e822?mod=Searchresults_pos2&amp;page=1">The Wall Street Journal</a>, in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-regulators-approve-cp-kcs-merger-to-form-first-us-canada-mexico-rail-5192986">completed in 2023</a>. However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6046006_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials &amp; Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” <h3>Intermodal implications would be profound </h3>If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to The Wall Street Journal , in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern completed in 2023 . However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials & Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” Intermodal implications would be profound If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships. </div>

MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships.

<div class="phx-topic">Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships</a>. They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e01ed4f0-6075-42bf-a2f7-a63be815f7e0"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships . They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

MSC, Yang Ming lead nearly $4 billion ordering spree for new vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. </div>

US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure.

<div class="phx-topic">Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement <a href="https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-gsc-shutdown-shocks-port-of-oakland-maritime-community">by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations</a> has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. <h3>Technology threat </h3>Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-clean-truck-rule-puts-california-dray-capacity-on-chopping-block-5221564">ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035</a>. New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-port-interests-spar-with-agency-over-emissions-rule-under-development-5223229">“indirect source rules”</a> under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” <h3>Smaller companies in danger </h3>In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. Technology threat Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035 . New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by “indirect source rules” under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” Smaller companies in danger In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Drayage

Port News

Drayage stakeholders say industry under threat from falling rates, increased costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.</div>

The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/schneider-bolsters-us-east-coast-business-by-acquiring-cowan-systems-5824223">acquired for $390 million last November</a> to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” <h3>Fate of employees unclear </h3>The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at <a href="mailto:clarissahawes@gmail.com">clarissahawes@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it acquired for $390 million last November to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” Fate of employees unclear The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at clarissahawes@gmail.com .

Schneider National to ‘dissolve’ Cowan brokerage arm Oct. 1 in rebranding move

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

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

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

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

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

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

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

Port News | Journal of Commerce

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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Parking platform using investment, integration to target truckload fleet inefficiency

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

MSC, Yang Ming lead nearly $4 billion ordering spree for new vessels