<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Local carrier and forwarder sources expressed relief that the truck strike ended before it had become a crisis extending beyond the two ports.</div>

Local carrier and forwarder sources expressed relief that the truck strike ended before it had become a crisis extending beyond the two ports.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Indian drayage strike that threatened to exacerbate pressure on supply chains out of the western ports of Mundra and Kandla has been called off following talks between stakeholders and port authorities. Various truck owner <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/drayage-strike-shuts-inland-flow-from-mundra-kandla-ports-6079773">groups walked off the road en masse on Friday</a> demanding highway infrastructure improvements, a concern they said had been long standing. “Officials were issued strict instructions to complete road repairs on a war footing within three days,” a Mundra-based truck owner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The source also said authorities agreed to waive highway toll charges during the time frame set for repairs. Local carrier and forwarder sources expressed relief that the truck strike ended before it had become a crisis of alarming proportions extending beyond the two ports. “Some residual delays were to be anticipated because of the backlogs, but a quicker resolution has averted operational chaos,” a carrier executive said. Capacity at Mundra — India’s busiest container gateway — has been under pressure amid steady trade growth and increasing transshipment activity by Mediterranean Shipping Co., which has a terminal partnership with port owner Adani Ports. Meanwhile, DP World, which holds the oldest terminal concession at Mundra, has embarked on an infrastructure upgrade there to better handle future growth. The upgrade involves adding four new cranes, including one advanced quay crane and three electric gantry cranes, which is expected to increase DP World Mundra’s capacity from 1.3 million TEUs to 1.56 million TEUs a year upon completion of the equipment installation, targeted for 2027. “The new quay cranes can handle vessels 22 rows across, enabling Mundra to serve some of the world’s largest container ships with greater efficiency and reliability,” the company told the Journal of Commerce. “With this addition, DP World Mundra now operates eight quay cranes, boosting its capability to deliver faster vessel turnarounds and enhancing service consistency.” Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

The Indian drayage strike that threatened to exacerbate pressure on supply chains out of the western ports of Mundra and Kandla has been called off following talks between stakeholders and port authorities. Various truck owner groups walked off the road en masse on Friday demanding highway infrastructure improvements, a concern they said had been long standing. “Officials were issued strict instructions to complete road repairs on a war footing within three days,” a Mundra-based truck owner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The source also said authorities agreed to waive highway toll charges during the time frame set for repairs. Local carrier and forwarder sources expressed relief that the truck strike ended before it had become a crisis of alarming proportions extending beyond the two ports. “Some residual delays were to be anticipated because of the backlogs, but a quicker resolution has averted operational chaos,” a carrier executive said. Capacity at Mundra — India’s busiest container gateway — has been under pressure amid steady trade growth and increasing transshipment activity by Mediterranean Shipping Co., which has a terminal partnership with port owner Adani Ports. Meanwhile, DP World, which holds the oldest terminal concession at Mundra, has embarked on an infrastructure upgrade there to better handle future growth. The upgrade involves adding four new cranes, including one advanced quay crane and three electric gantry cranes, which is expected to increase DP World Mundra’s capacity from 1.3 million TEUs to 1.56 million TEUs a year upon completion of the equipment installation, targeted for 2027. “The new quay cranes can handle vessels 22 rows across, enabling Mundra to serve some of the world’s largest container ships with greater efficiency and reliability,” the company told the Journal of Commerce. “With this addition, DP World Mundra now operates eight quay cranes, boosting its capability to deliver faster vessel turnarounds and enhancing service consistency.” Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

Port News

Drayage

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Indian drayage strike at Mundra, Kandla ports ends

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion.</div>

Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion.

<div class="phx-topic">Yang Ming Marine Transport has upgraded a newbuild deal with South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean for larger capacity 16,000-TEU container ships costing $1.4 billion, Taiwan's second-largest liner has confirmed. Yang Ming directors initially agreed to order seven 15,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered dual-fuel vessels from Hanwha Ocean at a meeting on July 17, the first time the carrier agreed to order ships from Hanwha. Subsequent talks between Yang Ming and the shipbuilder led the carrier, ranked 10th-largest in terms of capacity by Alphaliner, to increase the capacity of the ships to 15,880 TEUs while also making them capable of operating on ammonia fuel. Details of the enhancements were outlined by Yang Ming in a statement following the signing of the revised shipbuilding contracts Tuesday. Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e7519da5-d3fa-4798-b072-f2777589a4cf"></dynamic-object></div>“This ensures both high operational efficiency and flexibility in alternative fuel adoption during the decarbonization transition,” the carrier said. The latest contract signing takes Yang Ming’s order backlog to 18 ships, with 13 earmarked to replace smaller 5,500-TEU and 6,500-TEU vessels that have been in service for more than 20 years. The backlog includes six 8,000-TEU vessels being built by Japan’s Imabari Shipbuilding and Nihon Shipyard for delivery between 2028 and 2030, and five 15,500-TEU LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries with deliveries starting early next year. The 15,500-16,000 TEU ships will be deployed on east-west trades, Yang Ming said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Yang Ming Marine Transport has upgraded a newbuild deal with South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean for larger capacity 16,000-TEU container ships costing $1.4 billion, Taiwan's second-largest liner has confirmed. Yang Ming directors initially agreed to order seven 15,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered dual-fuel vessels from Hanwha Ocean at a meeting on July 17, the first time the carrier agreed to order ships from Hanwha. Subsequent talks between Yang Ming and the shipbuilder led the carrier, ranked 10th-largest in terms of capacity by Alphaliner, to increase the capacity of the ships to 15,880 TEUs while also making them capable of operating on ammonia fuel. Details of the enhancements were outlined by Yang Ming in a statement following the signing of the revised shipbuilding contracts Tuesday. Yang Ming said the ships will be the first LNG dual-fuel container vessels in Taiwan to feature specifications allowing them to be converted to ammonia dual-fuel propulsion. “This ensures both high operational efficiency and flexibility in alternative fuel adoption during the decarbonization transition,” the carrier said. The latest contract signing takes Yang Ming’s order backlog to 18 ships, with 13 earmarked to replace smaller 5,500-TEU and 6,500-TEU vessels that have been in service for more than 20 years. The backlog includes six 8,000-TEU vessels being built by Japan’s Imabari Shipbuilding and Nihon Shipyard for delivery between 2028 and 2030, and five 15,500-TEU LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered from HD Hyundai Heavy Industries with deliveries starting early next year. The 15,500-16,000 TEU ships will be deployed on east-west trades, Yang Ming said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Container lines

Yang Ming signs $1.4 billion upgraded ship order for 16,000-TEU vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.</div>

Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.

<div class="phx-topic">Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14-17. US officials earlier this month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-steps-up-attempts-to-derail-imos-net-zero-ambitions-6076148">threatened IMO members supporting the framework</a> with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. ”If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for ship owners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. "At the moment, there's no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It's more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if (the net-zero framework) is not adopted...wow,” he added. <h3>Direction of travel has been set </h3>Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway towards carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. ”There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to the chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for around 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. ”Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. <h3>New generation of carbon-free fuel </h3>The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">walked out of the MEPC meeting in April</a> in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14-17. US officials earlier this month threatened IMO members supporting the framework with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. ”If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for ship owners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. "At the moment, there's no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It's more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if (the net-zero framework) is not adopted...wow,” he added. Direction of travel has been set Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway towards carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. ”There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to the chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for around 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. ”Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. New generation of carbon-free fuel The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation walked out of the MEPC meeting in April in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com . Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Shipping experts warn of ‘disaster’ if IMO’s net-zero framework voted down

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the average is projected to land at only 33 next year.</div>

The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the average is projected to land at only 33 next year.

<div class="phx-topic">Daily transits of commercial vessels through the Panama Canal will remain below its capacity next year due to the tariff-linked frontloading of US imports this year and the softer demand the duties will cause on the East and Gulf coasts, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) said Tuesday. The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the daily average is projected to land at only 33 in 2026, still below levels seen before Panama’s 2023–24 drought. The frontloading of US imports to avoid higher tariffs is “bread for today and hunger for tomorrow,” Morales said, adding that tariffs will raise product costs and dampen demand. The canal saw an average of 32.5 daily transits in August, up from an average of 30.9 in 2024. It last hit its capacity of 36 daily transits on average in 2022. In both 2023 and 2024, low water levels drove the ACP to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-transits-rise-to-almost-normal-levels-as-expansion-work-begins-5703116">limit daily passages through the canal</a>, including a low of 25 in November 2023. While ACP data shows container ships accounted for about 24% of Panama Canal transits during the first eight months of 2025, Morales said about 45% of the canal’s revenue comes from container vessels. The Panama Canal’s fiscal year 2026 budget, approved in August, forecasts a 400-million-ton reduction in transits compared with the 2025 fiscal year, said Morales. “In this volatility, we need to be very careful [and] not generate bigger expectations other than what we consider reasonable, because the Panama Canal revenue represents between 20% and 25% of overall Panamanian government revenue,” he said. Other significant 2026 budget items include investments in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-transits-rise-to-almost-normal-levels-as-expansion-work-begins-5703116">Río Indio Lake project</a>, which would address low water concerns through the damming of a Panamanian river. That project, which is expected to cost up to $1.6 billion, will take about four years to complete and is set to begin in 2027. In the meantime, Morales said the canal is better positioned to handle low water levels than it was in the past. “If we have to face [another] El Nino phenomenon, we are prepared,” he said. “The frequency of which this phenomenon occurs is [increasing] and we need to be prepared for that type of condition.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Daily transits of commercial vessels through the Panama Canal will remain below its capacity next year due to the tariff-linked frontloading of US imports this year and the softer demand the duties will cause on the East and Gulf coasts, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) said Tuesday. The waterway has the capacity to handle 36 daily transits, but ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told a media briefing the daily average is projected to land at only 33 in 2026, still below levels seen before Panama’s 2023–24 drought. The frontloading of US imports to avoid higher tariffs is “bread for today and hunger for tomorrow,” Morales said, adding that tariffs will raise product costs and dampen demand. The canal saw an average of 32.5 daily transits in August, up from an average of 30.9 in 2024. It last hit its capacity of 36 daily transits on average in 2022. In both 2023 and 2024, low water levels drove the ACP to limit daily passages through the canal , including a low of 25 in November 2023. While ACP data shows container ships accounted for about 24% of Panama Canal transits during the first eight months of 2025, Morales said about 45% of the canal’s revenue comes from container vessels. The Panama Canal’s fiscal year 2026 budget, approved in August, forecasts a 400-million-ton reduction in transits compared with the 2025 fiscal year, said Morales. “In this volatility, we need to be very careful [and] not generate bigger expectations other than what we consider reasonable, because the Panama Canal revenue represents between 20% and 25% of overall Panamanian government revenue,” he said. Other significant 2026 budget items include investments in the Río Indio Lake project , which would address low water concerns through the damming of a Panamanian river. That project, which is expected to cost up to $1.6 billion, will take about four years to complete and is set to begin in 2027. In the meantime, Morales said the canal is better positioned to handle low water levels than it was in the past. “If we have to face [another] El Nino phenomenon, we are prepared,” he said. “The frequency of which this phenomenon occurs is [increasing] and we need to be prepared for that type of condition.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Trans-Pacific

Port infrastructure

US tariffs to keep Panama Canal transits below capacity in 2026: ACP

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Outside of Cosco and OOCL, the new port fees will likely be a non-event for ocean carriers that have spent the summer rerouting Chinese ships away from the US. </div>

Outside of Cosco and OOCL, the new port fees will likely be a non-event for ocean carriers that have spent the summer rerouting Chinese ships away from the US.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines will have removed nearly half of the China-built ship capacity from US service by October, according to Xeneta, allowing the industry to better weather the Trump administration’s new fee on US port calls by using non-Chinese vessels. And despite Washington’s attempt to break China’s dominance of the maritime industry with the fees, that country’s shipbuilders also appear poised to survive. Xeneta data shows that eight of the largest ocean carriers had approximately a combined 566,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ship capacity in regular rotation to the US this year. But Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst, told the Journal of Commerce half of that capacity could be replaced by non-Chinese vessels by October when <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to start collecting the new fees</a>. “It’s been a tall order for the carriers to shuffle ships around due to ‘place-of-build’ restrictions in the USTR legislation and adopting a profile for the services that’s no longer operationally optimal,” Sand said. The number of Chinese-built container ships calling the US won’t drop to zero because of Cosco Shipping and Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate OOCL, which account for 296,000 TEUs of Chinese-built capacity. Because they will be subject to the fees based on their ownership, Sand said Cosco and OOCL don’t have any levers to pull for avoiding the fees. “OOCL and Cosco will likely have the most difficulty as Chinese carriers, regardless of how they shuffle ships around,” he said. Despite this, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-ready-for-us-port-fees-after-network-changes-ceo-6079762">Cosco does not plan to introduce fee-related surcharges to its US shippers</a>, according to sources familiar with the matter. After Cosco, its Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM had the most Chinese-built capacity deployed to the US this year at 107,000 TEUs, Xeneta data shows. But the French carrier is in the process of swapping out 42,000 TEUs of the capacity, Sand said, primarily by shifting larger Chinese-built ships from US rotations to European and South American trades. CMA CGM <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">recently announced</a> that it does not plan a surcharge on US imports due to the new port call fee. Evergreen Marine, the fourth carrier in Ocean Alliance, is likely to avoid paying the port fee because it only has four Chinese ships in its entire global fleet, Sand said. He added that capacity from CMA CGM and Evergreen could fill in for Cosco and OOCL on some US trades. “The CMA CGM and Evergreen fleets will be powerful tools for the Ocean Alliance in navigating these hurdles and minimizing associated costs,” Sand said. Other container lines and alliances are readying to avoid the fee altogether. Deployment data shows that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are swapping out some 60,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ships from the Gemini Cooperation’s US trans-Pacific services, with most of those swaps occurring over August and October. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have “made concerted efforts to remove Chinese-built vessel capacity on the trans-Pacific,” Sand said, adding the two carriers “are well-suited to navigating this disruption without passing surcharges off to shippers and forwarders.” Mediterranean Shipping Co., which also told shippers it’s prepared for the new US port fees, dropped some 19,000 TEUs of Chinese-built vessels from its US rotations, Sand said. Ocean Network Express (ONE), which had nearly one-third of its post Panamax ship fleet built in China, now has only one small Chinese-built ship deployed to the US, while its Premier Alliance partners Yang Ming and HMM have negligible exposure to Chinese ships. <h3>Chinese shipbuilders on the mend </h3>The potential that any type of Chinese-built ship calling a US port would face a fee was a factor in a downturn of orders at Chinese shipbuilders, according to an August report on the industry from S&amp;P Global Ratings, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The report said newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards in the first half of 2025 were set to drop 54% from a year earlier, noting that the release of the USTR’s fee proposal earlier this year prompted carriers to shift to “non-Chinese shipyards to avoid port call fees in the US.” “The [USTR fees] have disrupted shipbuilding orders, prompting shipowners to rethink order volumes,” the report said. “The impact was most pronounced in the first quarter when the original port fee proposal was announced.” However, newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards have since risen as the impact of the fees on the broader shipping industry may be limited, the report said, adding that only about 9% of total US port calls in 2024 would likely be affected by the fees. S&amp;P Global Ratings said China’s lead in shipbuilding appears safe despite the new fees. While the new port fees may swing some orders to South Korea and Japan, “their market share expansion will be constrained by limited production capacity and labor scarcity,” the report said. “We expect China will maintain its dominance in the global shipbuilding market over the next two to three years.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines will have removed nearly half of the China-built ship capacity from US service by October, according to Xeneta, allowing the industry to better weather the Trump administration’s new fee on US port calls by using non-Chinese vessels. And despite Washington’s attempt to break China’s dominance of the maritime industry with the fees, that country’s shipbuilders also appear poised to survive. Xeneta data shows that eight of the largest ocean carriers had approximately a combined 566,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ship capacity in regular rotation to the US this year. But Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst, told the Journal of Commerce half of that capacity could be replaced by non-Chinese vessels by October when the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to start collecting the new fees . “It’s been a tall order for the carriers to shuffle ships around due to ‘place-of-build’ restrictions in the USTR legislation and adopting a profile for the services that’s no longer operationally optimal,” Sand said. The number of Chinese-built container ships calling the US won’t drop to zero because of Cosco Shipping and Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate OOCL, which account for 296,000 TEUs of Chinese-built capacity. Because they will be subject to the fees based on their ownership, Sand said Cosco and OOCL don’t have any levers to pull for avoiding the fees. “OOCL and Cosco will likely have the most difficulty as Chinese carriers, regardless of how they shuffle ships around,” he said. Despite this, Cosco does not plan to introduce fee-related surcharges to its US shippers , according to sources familiar with the matter. After Cosco, its Ocean Alliance partner CMA CGM had the most Chinese-built capacity deployed to the US this year at 107,000 TEUs, Xeneta data shows. But the French carrier is in the process of swapping out 42,000 TEUs of the capacity, Sand said, primarily by shifting larger Chinese-built ships from US rotations to European and South American trades. CMA CGM recently announced that it does not plan a surcharge on US imports due to the new port call fee. Evergreen Marine, the fourth carrier in Ocean Alliance, is likely to avoid paying the port fee because it only has four Chinese ships in its entire global fleet, Sand said. He added that capacity from CMA CGM and Evergreen could fill in for Cosco and OOCL on some US trades. “The CMA CGM and Evergreen fleets will be powerful tools for the Ocean Alliance in navigating these hurdles and minimizing associated costs,” Sand said. Other container lines and alliances are readying to avoid the fee altogether. Deployment data shows that Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are swapping out some 60,000 TEUs of Chinese-built ships from the Gemini Cooperation’s US trans-Pacific services, with most of those swaps occurring over August and October. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have “made concerted efforts to remove Chinese-built vessel capacity on the trans-Pacific,” Sand said, adding the two carriers “are well-suited to navigating this disruption without passing surcharges off to shippers and forwarders.” Mediterranean Shipping Co., which also told shippers it’s prepared for the new US port fees, dropped some 19,000 TEUs of Chinese-built vessels from its US rotations, Sand said. Ocean Network Express (ONE), which had nearly one-third of its post Panamax ship fleet built in China, now has only one small Chinese-built ship deployed to the US, while its Premier Alliance partners Yang Ming and HMM have negligible exposure to Chinese ships. Chinese shipbuilders on the mend The potential that any type of Chinese-built ship calling a US port would face a fee was a factor in a downturn of orders at Chinese shipbuilders, according to an August report on the industry from S&P Global Ratings, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The report said newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards in the first half of 2025 were set to drop 54% from a year earlier, noting that the release of the USTR’s fee proposal earlier this year prompted carriers to shift to “non-Chinese shipyards to avoid port call fees in the US.” “The [USTR fees] have disrupted shipbuilding orders, prompting shipowners to rethink order volumes,” the report said. “The impact was most pronounced in the first quarter when the original port fee proposal was announced.” However, newbuild orders at Chinese shipyards have since risen as the impact of the fees on the broader shipping industry may be limited, the report said, adding that only about 9% of total US port calls in 2024 would likely be affected by the fees. S&P Global Ratings said China’s lead in shipbuilding appears safe despite the new fees. While the new port fees may swing some orders to South Korea and Japan, “their market share expansion will be constrained by limited production capacity and labor scarcity,” the report said. “We expect China will maintain its dominance in the global shipbuilding market over the next two to three years.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Chinese tonnage moving out of US container trade ahead of new fees: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.</div>

If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6081112_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, similar to all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. <h3>Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion </h3>From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice — maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping, as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, similar to all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice — maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping, as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Supply chain

Moving beyond the ‘waste’ inherent in ‘essential’ container shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters. </div>

There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. <h3>Pushing pause </h3>The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. <h3>Beyond parking </h3>Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. Pushing pause The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. Beyond parking Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.</div>

The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.

<div class="phx-topic">For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. <h3>‘Manageable’ constraints </h3>Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at <a href="mailto:plamarre@portofmonroe.com">plamarre@portofmonroe.com</a>. </div>

For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. ‘Manageable’ constraints Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at plamarre@portofmonroe.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Marine terminals

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

LTL PPI

{dateX.formatDate('MMM yyyy')}: {valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {bls_ltl_ppi_year_over_year_change.formatNumber('#.0%')}

Producer Price Indices (PPIs) measure the average change over time in selling prices, including surcharges and other costs, that domestic producers — in this case, truckload carriers — receive for their output — i.e., transportation services. The truckload PPI reflects the dominant role that contract carriage plays in the truckload market, as opposed to transactional rates, which makes up a small portion of industry pricing and PPI data. [BLS](https://www.bls.gov/)

US long-haul less-than-truckload producer price index (BTS)

US BLS Long-haul less-than-truckload producer price index (PPI) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.</div>

The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees.In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports</a>. The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates.“This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">it doesn’t plan to charge customers</a> shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan.Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global.While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service.MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees. In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports . The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates. “This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that it doesn’t plan to charge customers shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan. Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service. MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

MSC ready for US port fees after network changes: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.</div>

Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.

<div class="phx-topic">US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/25/2025-16191/notice-of-request-for-public-comments-on-section-232-national-security-investigation-of-imports-of">public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation</a>, US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation , US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Energy projects

US wind sector warns against further increase in import tariffs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The suspension of the TP9/WC6 service from Xiamen and Busan is the latest effort by carriers to stem declining container spot rates and adjusting capacity to softening demand.</div>

The suspension of the TP9/WC6 service from Xiamen and Busan is the latest effort by carriers to stem declining container spot rates and adjusting capacity to softening demand.

<div class="phx-topic">Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to the TP9/WC6 as a standalone Maersk service. The Gemini Cooperation is suspending a relatively new trans-Pacific service, the latest effort by ocean carriers to adjust capacity to meet falling demand and put a floor on US inbound container spot rates, Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said Wednesday. The suspension of the T9/WC6 service, which Gemini introduced to take advantage of a tariff-induced volume surge, comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/premier-alliance-service-halt-latest-sign-of-trans-pacific-demand-downturn-6076326">after Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd warned customers of three blank sailings next month</a>, reflecting a fast-shifting market. The last sailing of the TP9, which connected Xiamen, Busan and Long Beach, will depart Busan Sept. 23. “This service was introduced over the summer to provide more capacity in those traditional peak-volume months, with a port coverage that duplicates what we have on the standing network,” a Maersk spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The suspension followed a similar announcement that the Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming would <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/premier-alliance-service-halt-latest-sign-of-trans-pacific-demand-downturn-6076326">suspend its Pacific South 5 express service</a>. US retailers forecast import volumes will <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-upgrade-import-forecast-but-still-expect-q4-decline-6077875">fall sharply in the fourth quarter</a> and into January, putting pressure on carriers to remove functional capacity. Carriers are also leaning on blank sailings to manage trans-Pacific capacity, blanking about 10% of deployed tonnage to the US West Coast in September and October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Almost 18% of deployed capacity from Asia to the East and Gulf coasts will be blanked, up from 12.8% in September. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="81917b3f-7cba-4731-a290-03737b85adbe"></dynamic-object></div>Even so, container lines plan to deploy a total of 2.1 million TEUs of capacity from Asia to the US this month after accounting for blank sailings, up from 1.9 million TEUs in September 2024, according to eeSea. The next significant wave of capacity adjustments will come during the first half of October, when carriers will blank at least 18 sailings on Asia–North America routes. Container spot rates, as tracked by various indices, have been declining since early June. Average pricing from Asia to the West Coast reached $2,100 per FEU on Sept. 9, down 66% from $6,040 per FEU in the week of June 6, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to the TP9/WC6 as a standalone Maersk service. The Gemini Cooperation is suspending a relatively new trans-Pacific service, the latest effort by ocean carriers to adjust capacity to meet falling demand and put a floor on US inbound container spot rates, Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said Wednesday. The suspension of the T9/WC6 service, which Gemini introduced to take advantage of a tariff-induced volume surge, comes after Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd warned customers of three blank sailings next month , reflecting a fast-shifting market. The last sailing of the TP9, which connected Xiamen, Busan and Long Beach, will depart Busan Sept. 23. “This service was introduced over the summer to provide more capacity in those traditional peak-volume months, with a port coverage that duplicates what we have on the standing network,” a Maersk spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The suspension followed a similar announcement that the Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming would suspend its Pacific South 5 express service . US retailers forecast import volumes will fall sharply in the fourth quarter and into January, putting pressure on carriers to remove functional capacity. Carriers are also leaning on blank sailings to manage trans-Pacific capacity, blanking about 10% of deployed tonnage to the US West Coast in September and October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Almost 18% of deployed capacity from Asia to the East and Gulf coasts will be blanked, up from 12.8% in September. Even so, container lines plan to deploy a total of 2.1 million TEUs of capacity from Asia to the US this month after accounting for blank sailings, up from 1.9 million TEUs in September 2024, according to eeSea. The next significant wave of capacity adjustments will come during the first half of October, when carriers will blank at least 18 sailings on Asia–North America routes. Container spot rates, as tracked by various indices, have been declining since early June. Average pricing from Asia to the West Coast reached $2,100 per FEU on Sept. 9, down 66% from $6,040 per FEU in the week of June 6, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com.

Gemini suspends seasonal trans-Pacific service

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!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 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

In today’s competitive logistical landscape, efficiency is an absolute necessity for smooth operations. Yet, in the barge sector, many operators still rely on fragmented systems, delayed updates, and manual tracking methods that slow decision-making and increase operational risk. OpenTug’s new eBook, How Enhanced Visibility Transforms Barge Operations, reveals how unified, real-time data can become your competitive advantage leading to improved voyage management and more actionable insights. Drawing on industry best practices and real-world examples, it explores how operational transparency empowers teams to: ●	Reduce delays with accurate ETAs and proactive scheduling decisions ●	Improve asset utilization by identifying underused equipment and optimizing cargos ●	Strengthen safety and compliance through consistent, accessible documentation and reporting ●	Boost customer satisfaction with transparent status updates and faster response time You’ll learn how visibility can connect every part of your operation into a single, actionable view. The ability to see and act on real-time information transforms the way you plan, execute, and deliver. From managing a small regional fleet to running a large, national operation, this eBook will help you understand the measurable benefits of enhanced visibility and how technology like BargeOS is transforming the way barge logistics is managed. Get your copy today and see how clear insights lead to stronger performance, smarter decisions, and more profitable operations. <a href="https://9315820.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/9315820/eBook/Nav-theFuture-AJW-08.19.25.pdf" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">Click here</a><span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1756152344211_Opentug%20logo.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Opentug11.png

Transform Barge Operations with Total Visibility

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: <a href="https://www.ssamarine.mx/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">https://www.ssamarine.mx/</a>

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.</div>

The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports</a>. As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call</a> and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump</a>. “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. <h3>New orders skew toward China </h3>CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgms-q2-earnings-slide-as-geopolitics-tariffs-hit-shipping-business-6052414">a July interview with the Journal of Commerce</a>, adding that the carrier wants to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry</a>. “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article. </div>

CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports . As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump . “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. New orders skew toward China CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during a July interview with the Journal of Commerce, adding that the carrier wants to support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry . “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article.

CMA CGM reroutes China-built ships to avoid US port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.</div>

The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.

<div class="phx-topic">Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congestion-choking-mundra-port-threatens-north-india-cargo-flow-6074653">severe rail congestion</a>. Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from severe rail congestion . Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Drayage strike shuts inland flow from Mundra, Kandla ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.</div>

COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.

<div class="phx-topic">COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/service-levels-to-determine-success-in-reshaped-mexico-us-intermodal-market-5192946">Falcon and Eagle Premium services</a>, but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the Falcon and Eagle Premium services , but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Rail News

BNSF intermodal partner returning to Mexico

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.</div>

The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.

<div class="phx-topic">Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. <h3>Waiver attempts not successful </h3>Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. Waiver attempts not successful Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.

Indian drayage strike at Mundra, Kandla ports ends

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

MSC ready for US port fees after network changes: CEO

US wind sector warns against further increase in import tariffs

Gemini suspends seasonal trans-Pacific service

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories