<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DP World will soon take control of the 1.3-million-TEU capacity Embraport terminal.</div>

DP World will soon take control of the 1.3-million-TEU capacity Embraport terminal.

<div>DP World first invested in the Embraport terminal in 2009.DP World will soon take control of the 1.3-million-TEU capacity Embraport terminal in the port of Santos, which has been saddled with overcapacity for several years.The Brazilian government announced that its competition watchdog had no problem with DP World’s purchase of the 66.6 percent shares controlled of by the Odebrecht corporation in Santos’ third-largest container terminal, which handled 664,000 TEU last year, a decline of 18 percent year over year. The terms of the deal have not been finalized.There are six container terminals in Santos, where traffic fell 3.4 percent year...

DP World first invested in the Embraport terminal in 2009. DP World will soon take control of the 1.3-million-TEU capacity Embraport terminal in the port of Santos, which has been saddled with overcapacity for several years. The Brazilian government announced that its competition watchdog had no problem with DP World’s purchase of the 66.6 percent shares controlled of by the Odebrecht corporation in Santos’ third-largest container terminal, which handled 664,000 TEU last year, a decline of 18 percent year over year. The terms of the deal have not been finalized. There are six container terminals in Santos, where traffic fell 3.4 percent year over year in 2016 to 3.6 million TEU, and the combination of Brazil’s economic struggles and Santos overcapacity has caused terminal-handling charges to fall 30 percent. DP World is buying the shares held by Odebrecht, which is trying to regroup after it became embroiled in the Car Wash scandal that resulted in the company’s scion jailed on corruption charges. The scandal, which led to the impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff, now threatens to engulf her replacement, Michel Temer. A source close to Embraport told JOC.com that the completion of the DP World deal will be made over the next two months, probably by early July. “I guess now it just depends on price,” said the source. “And it won’t be a particularly high price, as Embraport is saddled with a very high debt.” Embraport owed 2.03 billion reais ($625 million) to its various banks at the end of 2015, which was more than the 1.73 billion reais at the end of 2014, while net revenue in 2015 was 220 million reais, according to the newspaper Valor. Neither DP World nor Odebrecht Transport would comment on financial figures. While the terminal has struggled and borrowed heavily since its 2013 opening, it has made gains in the first quarter, with traffic rising 4 percent to 154,300 TEU as Embraport and Santos as a whole benefited from a surge in exports . Embraport has room to expand to 2 million TEU should more capacity be necessary in the future. Contact Rob Ward at rcward788@btinternet.com .

Marine terminals

DP World to take control of Santos box terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Member states voiced determination to continue work this week on essential decarbonization measures despite a strongly worded missive from Washington urging governments to reconsider their support for emissions-cutting regulations.</div>

Member states voiced determination to continue work this week on essential decarbonization measures despite a strongly worded missive from Washington urging governments to reconsider their support for emissions-cutting regulations.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Crucial shipping decarbonization talks underway this week at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London will continue without US participation and against the backdrop of Washington’s threat to retaliate against any member states that impose carbon levies on US ships. In an extraordinary attack on the process taking place at the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, the US delegation announced Wednesday it was withdrawing from the talks via a statement sent to all London and Washington-based embassies of IMO member states. The statement urged governments of IMO members to reconsider support for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measures that are under consideration at the closely watched MEPC meeting. “We must be clear the US rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice,” the statement said, adding for that reason the US was not engaging in negotiations at the London meeting. The US also threatened member states agreeing to “such blatantly unfair measures” with “reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to US ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures.” While the US delegation’s dramatic move to exit MEPC has disrupted the negotiations, the IMO insisted it will not derail the talks meant to set a fuel intensity standard and a pricing mechanism on carbon emissions. “MEPC discussions are ongoing as scheduled,” an IMO spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “The working group on GHG emissions from ships will report back to the plenary session on Friday with a view to the committee's approval of the draft text.” <h3>Clock ticking on agreement timeline </h3>The MEPC meeting is being held primarily to design a GHG fuel intensity regulation and settle on a pricing measure for carbon emissions from shipping, which produces 3% of the world’s output. Agreement on the legal text and framework must be decided by the end of this week or the planned implementation by October could be at risk. Years of intense negotiations and compromises have gone into the efforts of IMO members to reach this point, with the shipping industry on the cusp of having the first global agreement on a fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism. Both measures 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. But with the arrival of President Donald Trump in the White House this year, the US position on climate-related global conventions, much like its trade policy, has shifted. The US is in the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement climate change accord as part of a broader initiative to "review for rescission all regulations that impose undue burdens on energy production and use.” “The IMO’s effort to achieve absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping include net-zero emissions by around 2050 (which) would unwisely promote the use of hypothetical expensive and unproven fuels at the expense of existing and proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets,” the US said in Wednesday’s statement. “These measures would impose substantial economic burdens on the sector and drive inflation globally,” it added. “The UN should halt all efforts to proliferate the deeply unfair agenda reflected in the Paris Agreement in other fora.” <h3>Renewed focus on reaching consensus </h3>While the US seats remained empty in the MEPC chamber Wednesday, the mood at the London meeting was one of resolve to finish a process started in 2018 with the adoption of the IMO GHG Strategy that outlined the pathway to shipping decarbonization. Albon Ishoda, special presidential envoy for shipping decarbonization from the Marshall Islands, was determined not to allow the US withdrawal to derail progress towards reaching consensus on mid-term GHG measures. “The IMO, including the US, have agreed (to) decarbonization targets,” Ishoda told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “We are here in London to agree on how we meet those targets. In this time of instability in the markets, a clear direction from this IMO meeting is needed more than ever.” He noted that the US is just one of 176 IMO member states. “While their impact on this process is considerable, we cannot afford to let a squall from one nation blow all of us off course,” Ishoda said. “We are going to continue negotiating with those that are prepared to talk.” A European Commission spokesperson declined to comment on the US withdrawal from the MEPC meeting, but told the Journal of Commerce the focus of their delegation “was now on the negotiations.” Another delegate pointed out that even with the US withdrawal, it remained a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol). Once consensus is achieved on the mid-term measures, they will be incorporated into the Marpol regulations. “By not participating, the US is missing out an opportunity to contribute to the discussions,” the delegate said. “Politics do not affect the science and the climate impact from shipping that needs to be addressed this week.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Crucial shipping decarbonization talks underway this week at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London will continue without US participation and against the backdrop of Washington’s threat to retaliate against any member states that impose carbon levies on US ships. In an extraordinary attack on the process taking place at the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, the US delegation announced Wednesday it was withdrawing from the talks via a statement sent to all London and Washington-based embassies of IMO member states. The statement urged governments of IMO members to reconsider support for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measures that are under consideration at the closely watched MEPC meeting. “We must be clear the US rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice,” the statement said, adding for that reason the US was not engaging in negotiations at the London meeting. The US also threatened member states agreeing to “such blatantly unfair measures” with “reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to US ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures.” While the US delegation’s dramatic move to exit MEPC has disrupted the negotiations, the IMO insisted it will not derail the talks meant to set a fuel intensity standard and a pricing mechanism on carbon emissions. “MEPC discussions are ongoing as scheduled,” an IMO spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “The working group on GHG emissions from ships will report back to the plenary session on Friday with a view to the committee's approval of the draft text.” Clock ticking on agreement timeline The MEPC meeting is being held primarily to design a GHG fuel intensity regulation and settle on a pricing measure for carbon emissions from shipping, which produces 3% of the world’s output. Agreement on the legal text and framework must be decided by the end of this week or the planned implementation by October could be at risk. Years of intense negotiations and compromises have gone into the efforts of IMO members to reach this point, with the shipping industry on the cusp of having the first global agreement on a fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism. Both measures 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. But with the arrival of President Donald Trump in the White House this year, the US position on climate-related global conventions, much like its trade policy, has shifted. The US is in the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement climate change accord as part of a broader initiative to "review for rescission all regulations that impose undue burdens on energy production and use.” “The IMO’s effort to achieve absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping include net-zero emissions by around 2050 (which) would unwisely promote the use of hypothetical expensive and unproven fuels at the expense of existing and proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets,” the US said in Wednesday’s statement. “These measures would impose substantial economic burdens on the sector and drive inflation globally,” it added. “The UN should halt all efforts to proliferate the deeply unfair agenda reflected in the Paris Agreement in other fora.” Renewed focus on reaching consensus While the US seats remained empty in the MEPC chamber Wednesday, the mood at the London meeting was one of resolve to finish a process started in 2018 with the adoption of the IMO GHG Strategy that outlined the pathway to shipping decarbonization. Albon Ishoda, special presidential envoy for shipping decarbonization from the Marshall Islands, was determined not to allow the US withdrawal to derail progress towards reaching consensus on mid-term GHG measures. “The IMO, including the US, have agreed (to) decarbonization targets,” Ishoda told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “We are here in London to agree on how we meet those targets. In this time of instability in the markets, a clear direction from this IMO meeting is needed more than ever.” He noted that the US is just one of 176 IMO member states. “While their impact on this process is considerable, we cannot afford to let a squall from one nation blow all of us off course,” Ishoda said. “We are going to continue negotiating with those that are prepared to talk.” A European Commission spokesperson declined to comment on the US withdrawal from the MEPC meeting, but told the Journal of Commerce the focus of their delegation “was now on the negotiations.” Another delegate pointed out that even with the US withdrawal, it remained a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol). Once consensus is achieved on the mid-term measures, they will be incorporated into the Marpol regulations. “By not participating, the US is missing out an opportunity to contribute to the discussions,” the delegate said. “Politics do not affect the science and the climate impact from shipping that needs to be addressed this week.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Maritime

US pulls out of IMO climate talks, threatens retaliation for emissions fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ad hoc call was a precursor to the Gemini Cooperation carriers preparing to position two regular services out of the Colombo West International Terminal beginning next month, sources in Colombo told the Journal of Commerce.</div>

The ad hoc call was a precursor to the Gemini Cooperation carriers preparing to position two regular services out of the Colombo West International Terminal beginning next month, sources in Colombo told the Journal of Commerce.

<div class="phx-topic">Colombo West International Terminal (CWIT), a fifth container-handler at Sri Lanka’s Colombo Port that holds significant transshipment stakes in South Asia, has opened for business, adding more capacity into the market as volumes slow across trades. The project is owned 51% by Indian port conglomerate Adani Ports (APSEZ), involving a total $800 million investment in two phases in return for 35-year concession rights. The consortium includes Colombo-based John Keells Holdings (34%) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (15%). An April 5 call from the Maersk Salalah marked the launch of CWIT’s Phase I operations, featuring a 600-meter quay, a draft of 18 meters and an annual capacity of 1.6 million TEUs. The ad hoc call was a precursor to the Gemini Cooperation liners preparing to position two regular services out of CWIT from next month, sources in Colombo told the Journal of Commerce. CWIT’s capacity will double to 3.2 million TEUs on a 1,400-meter wharf and a 20-meter draft when fully built out, which is targeted for the end of 2026 or early 2027. “It is the first deepwater terminal in Colombo to be fully automated, designed to enhance cargo handling capabilities, improve vessel turnaround times and elevate the port’s status as a key transshipment hub in South Asia,” APSEZ said in a statement. For Adani, the Colombo project presents a potential opportunity to create considerable synergistic advantages in regional trade operations due to its expansive port network in India, which includes the newest Vizhinjam terminal. APSEZ now commands nearly 50% of Indian containerized trade, racking up 11.6 million TEUs out of a total 24.1 million TEUs reported nationally for fiscal year 2024-25, data shows. “The commencement of operations at CWIT marks a momentous milestone in regional cooperation between India and Sri Lanka,” said group Chairman Gautam Adani. “Delivering this world-class facility in record time also reflects the Adani Group’s proven ability to efficiently execute large-scale critical infrastructure projects anywhere in the world.” Colombo saw 647,000 TEUs in March, with transshipment loads pegged at 531,000 TEUs, data shows. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

Colombo West International Terminal (CWIT), a fifth container-handler at Sri Lanka’s Colombo Port that holds significant transshipment stakes in South Asia, has opened for business, adding more capacity into the market as volumes slow across trades. The project is owned 51% by Indian port conglomerate Adani Ports (APSEZ), involving a total $800 million investment in two phases in return for 35-year concession rights. The consortium includes Colombo-based John Keells Holdings (34%) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (15%). An April 5 call from the Maersk Salalah marked the launch of CWIT’s Phase I operations, featuring a 600-meter quay, a draft of 18 meters and an annual capacity of 1.6 million TEUs. The ad hoc call was a precursor to the Gemini Cooperation liners preparing to position two regular services out of CWIT from next month, sources in Colombo told the Journal of Commerce. CWIT’s capacity will double to 3.2 million TEUs on a 1,400-meter wharf and a 20-meter draft when fully built out, which is targeted for the end of 2026 or early 2027. “It is the first deepwater terminal in Colombo to be fully automated, designed to enhance cargo handling capabilities, improve vessel turnaround times and elevate the port’s status as a key transshipment hub in South Asia,” APSEZ said in a statement. For Adani, the Colombo project presents a potential opportunity to create considerable synergistic advantages in regional trade operations due to its expansive port network in India, which includes the newest Vizhinjam terminal. APSEZ now commands nearly 50% of Indian containerized trade, racking up 11.6 million TEUs out of a total 24.1 million TEUs reported nationally for fiscal year 2024-25, data shows. “The commencement of operations at CWIT marks a momentous milestone in regional cooperation between India and Sri Lanka,” said group Chairman Gautam Adani. “Delivering this world-class facility in record time also reflects the Adani Group’s proven ability to efficiently execute large-scale critical infrastructure projects anywhere in the world.” Colombo saw 647,000 TEUs in March, with transshipment loads pegged at 531,000 TEUs, data shows. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

Port News

International ports

Adani opens Colombo's fifth box terminal with Maersk trial call for Gemini

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">AFS Logistics and TD Cowen are forecasting a decline in truckload pricing and moderation in the LTL market as shippers and carriers alike navigate a new trade reality. </div>

AFS Logistics and TD Cowen are forecasting a decline in truckload pricing and moderation in the LTL market as shippers and carriers alike navigate a new trade reality.

<div class="phx-topic">Expectations that the domestic truckload market would turn upward by mid- or even late 2025 are fading as US tariffs rattle freight markets. After an uptick in the first quarter, truckload pricing is returning to depressed levels close to the bottom it first struck in 2023, third-party logistics provider AFS Logistics said Tuesday in its second-quarter TD Cowen/AFS Freight Index Forecast. AFS Logistics and investment bank TD Cowen said they expect truckload rates to decline in the second quarter, with their truckload index dropping from a reading of 5.9% to 5.5%. The index readings are pegged to a January 2018 pricing baseline. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6d055963-a301-4117-b5ff-7895aa6979b1"></dynamic-object></div>The main contributing factor in the projected decline is the economic uncertainty resulting from President Donald Trump’s trade policy. Although US importers dodged higher costs when Trump held back on expanding the existing 25% tariffs on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/disrupted-cross-border-freight-shipping-braces-for-us-tariffs-5974787">Mexican and Canadian goods</a>, they are still paying duties on half of Mexican imports and 62% of goods shipped from Canada. So-called reciprocal tariffs targeting most other nations are scheduled to be imposed Wednesday. And tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive products are already in place. A weakening macroeconomic outlook combined with tariffs is “a recipe for uncertainty,” AFS Logistics CEO Andy Dyer said in a statement. “These conditions do not indicate a shift away from the malaise of soft demand that has shaped domestic transportation markets for quite some time,” Dyer said. <h3>Spot market uptick </h3>There are some signs of life in the truckload spot market, but they may be attributed to a pre-tariff rush of freight from ports as well as Canada and Mexico. However, there could also be early signs of a seasonal spring uptick in freight demand and spot pricing. Dry-van linehaul spot rates increased by just over 2 cents per mile last week, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. At $1.66 per mile, excluding fuel surcharges, DAT’s seven-day rolling average US spot rate was 8 cents per mile higher than a year ago. Broker-posted spot rates in load board operator Truckstop’s system rose for all equipment types for a second straight week in the week that ended April 4. Dry-van spot rates rose 2.7% from the previous week to $1.94 per mile and were up 1.2% year over year. Increases in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-tariff-imports-seen-driving-us-flatbed-spot-demand-higher-5973654">flatbed spot rates</a> continued in both the DAT and Truckstop networks, but those increases have been tied at least in part to a pre-tariff pull-forward of freight. Longer-term measuring sticks such as the TD Cowen/AFS Logistics forecast and the US long-distance truckload producer price index (PPI), which include both contract and spot market rates, don’t point to higher truckload pricing — at least not yet. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="584ff364-6345-48cf-81f9-11883d8b58ce"></dynamic-object></div>The TD Cowen/AFS Logistics forecast reported that the truckload linehaul cost per shipment dropped 1.5% quarter to quarter in the first three months of 2025, its ninth consecutive quarterly decline. The shipper-paid, all-inclusive spot rates tracked monthly by the Journal of Commerce have dropped 19 cents since January, falling 13 cents in February and 6 cents in March to $2.18 per mile, flat with the year-ago average. <h3>LTL carriers tighten focus </h3>In the much more consolidated less-than-truckload (LTL) market, carriers are working <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-getting-in-position-for-higher-freight-demand-when-it-comes-5968547">to keep the rate increases</a> they’ve gained since Yellow, once one of the largest LTL providers, collapsed in 2023. “For now, LTL carriers are effectively navigating a low-demand environment with a focus on profitable lanes, contractual relationships and reliable freight, rather than chasing volume with pricing concessions,” Aaron LaGanke, AFS vice president of freight services, said in the statement. Even so, AFS Logistics expects its LTL freight index to decline from 63.8% in the first quarter to 63.4% this quarter — still up 0.7% from a year ago. “Truckload typically feels the impact of macroeconomic forces and trade policy first, then LTL has more of a delayed reaction,” LaGanke said. The US long-distance LTL PPI in February reached the peak it last hit in June 2022, rising 6.1% year over year. The LTL PPI is up 6.6% from December. In its forecast, AFS Logistics noted that annual rate increases and higher fuel surcharges kept upward pressure on LTL shipping costs in the first quarter, with the average carrier fuel surcharge rising 1.8% from the fourth quarter.Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Expectations that the domestic truckload market would turn upward by mid- or even late 2025 are fading as US tariffs rattle freight markets. After an uptick in the first quarter, truckload pricing is returning to depressed levels close to the bottom it first struck in 2023, third-party logistics provider AFS Logistics said Tuesday in its second-quarter TD Cowen/AFS Freight Index Forecast. AFS Logistics and investment bank TD Cowen said they expect truckload rates to decline in the second quarter, with their truckload index dropping from a reading of 5.9% to 5.5%. The index readings are pegged to a January 2018 pricing baseline. The main contributing factor in the projected decline is the economic uncertainty resulting from President Donald Trump’s trade policy. Although US importers dodged higher costs when Trump held back on expanding the existing 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods , they are still paying duties on half of Mexican imports and 62% of goods shipped from Canada. So-called reciprocal tariffs targeting most other nations are scheduled to be imposed Wednesday. And tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive products are already in place. A weakening macroeconomic outlook combined with tariffs is “a recipe for uncertainty,” AFS Logistics CEO Andy Dyer said in a statement. “These conditions do not indicate a shift away from the malaise of soft demand that has shaped domestic transportation markets for quite some time,” Dyer said. Spot market uptick There are some signs of life in the truckload spot market, but they may be attributed to a pre-tariff rush of freight from ports as well as Canada and Mexico. However, there could also be early signs of a seasonal spring uptick in freight demand and spot pricing. Dry-van linehaul spot rates increased by just over 2 cents per mile last week, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. At $1.66 per mile, excluding fuel surcharges, DAT’s seven-day rolling average US spot rate was 8 cents per mile higher than a year ago. Broker-posted spot rates in load board operator Truckstop’s system rose for all equipment types for a second straight week in the week that ended April 4. Dry-van spot rates rose 2.7% from the previous week to $1.94 per mile and were up 1.2% year over year. Increases in flatbed spot rates continued in both the DAT and Truckstop networks, but those increases have been tied at least in part to a pre-tariff pull-forward of freight. Longer-term measuring sticks such as the TD Cowen/AFS Logistics forecast and the US long-distance truckload producer price index (PPI), which include both contract and spot market rates, don’t point to higher truckload pricing — at least not yet. The TD Cowen/AFS Logistics forecast reported that the truckload linehaul cost per shipment dropped 1.5% quarter to quarter in the first three months of 2025, its ninth consecutive quarterly decline. The shipper-paid, all-inclusive spot rates tracked monthly by the Journal of Commerce have dropped 19 cents since January, falling 13 cents in February and 6 cents in March to $2.18 per mile, flat with the year-ago average. LTL carriers tighten focus In the much more consolidated less-than-truckload (LTL) market, carriers are working to keep the rate increases they’ve gained since Yellow, once one of the largest LTL providers, collapsed in 2023. “For now, LTL carriers are effectively navigating a low-demand environment with a focus on profitable lanes, contractual relationships and reliable freight, rather than chasing volume with pricing concessions,” Aaron LaGanke, AFS vice president of freight services, said in the statement. Even so, AFS Logistics expects its LTL freight index to decline from 63.8% in the first quarter to 63.4% this quarter — still up 0.7% from a year ago. “Truckload typically feels the impact of macroeconomic forces and trade policy first, then LTL has more of a delayed reaction,” LaGanke said. The US long-distance LTL PPI in February reached the peak it last hit in June 2022, rising 6.1% year over year. The LTL PPI is up 6.6% from December. In its forecast, AFS Logistics noted that annual rate increases and higher fuel surcharges kept upward pressure on LTL shipping costs in the first quarter, with the average carrier fuel surcharge rising 1.8% from the fourth quarter. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Surface

Trump tariff chaos restrains US truckload, LTL markets

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Inclement weather, the lingering effects of labor disruptions and a January surge in imports contributed to the fifth consecutive month of excessive rail dwells at Canada’s largest port.</div>

Inclement weather, the lingering effects of labor disruptions and a January surge in imports contributed to the fifth consecutive month of excessive rail dwells at Canada’s largest port.

<div class="phx-topic">Challenged by severe winter weather in the Canadian interior and a backlog of containers from longshore labor disruption in late 2024, marine terminal operators at the Port of Vancouver continue to grapple with a problem that seems ever-present: extended dwell times for containers moving inland by rail. Railroads normally run fewer, shorter trains during Canadian winters, but this season’s weather restrictions were more severe than usual, which has caused eastbound containers to pile up on the docks over the past three months. “Inclement weather across much of Canada in February, including a deep freeze in the prairies and a severe snowstorm in Ontario, affected rail turnaround times and reduced railcar availability on the West Coast,” a spokesperson for the Port of Vancouver told the Journal of Commerce. “Shorter trains mean more people and equipment are required to move the same amount of goods,” a spokesperson for Canadian National Railway (CN) said. The average rail container dwell time in March at Vancouver’s four container terminals was 7.7 days. While that was marginally down from 8.5 days in February and 8.3 days in January, according to port statistics, it’s well above the four to five days terminal operators on North America’s West Coast say they can live with in order to keep rail dwells at their facilities manageable. Infor Nexus pegged March rail dwells at seven days, down from nearly 10 days in February.Vancouver’s dwell times have been above five days since last November. <h3>Multiple factors contribute to congestion </h3>In addition to the weather issues, the port spokesperson blamed the rail container backlogs on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bc-container-ports-set-for-shutdown-after-foremen-begin-strike-5785499">longshore labor woes in Vancouver last November</a>. That came amid an import surge at North America’s West Coast ports as retailers diverted merchandise from US East and Gulf Coast ports during the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-usmx-contract-talks-set-for-jan-7-restart-ahead-of-strike-deadline-sources-5913854">prolonged contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and maritime employers</a>. Laden import containers in January at Vancouver totaled 239,454 TEUs, up from 201,023 TEUs in January 2024, according to port statistics. However, imports dropped to 183,808 TEUs in February compared with 226,612 TEUs in February 2024. February is traditionally the slowest month of the year in the eastbound trans-Pacific due to factory shutdowns in Asia for the annual Lunar New Year holidays. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0f5acedd-9b85-4984-9584-8948f0f1dd09"></dynamic-object></div>Importers in Canada and the US say rail congestion at Vancouver is a given during the peak shipping season in August through October, when the port and inland rail networks must handle greater volumes than they are designed to handle. But Vancouver has struggled with extended rail dwells over the past several months, well beyond the end of the traditional peak season. A forwarder said it has taken him as long as 30 days to retrieve some of his containers from Vancouver, saying whether it’s a weather event or labor action or a peak season surge in imports, excessive rail container dwell times are a condition he’s come to expect at the port, calling it “business as usual.” Stakeholders, however, say they see signs of improvement. A spokesperson for Canadian Pacific Kansas City Southern (CPKC) said its rail container dwell times are improving at the Vanterm and Centerm terminals in Vancouver. According to the port’s website, CPKC’s rail container dwell at Vanterm on Monday was three to five days, with the average Centerm dwell at zero to three days. Still, CPKC’s dwells were seven days or longer at the Deltaport terminal. “Driven by dwell improvements at Centerm and Vanterm terminals, we are seeing elevated volumes that we are now moving with improved network and overall supply chain performance following weeks of sustained extreme winter temperatures that impacted operations across the Canadian supply chain,” the CPKC spokesman said. CN is targeting later this spring for a return to normal at its operations. “Assuming no further weather impacts, CN anticipates the trend line for container dwell to continue downward through the early spring, getting back to more normal dwell times by mid-late spring,” the CN spokesperson said. The Vancouver spokesperson said as April progresses, rail business is returning to seasonal norms, “with on-dock volumes and dwell times both trending positively.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Challenged by severe winter weather in the Canadian interior and a backlog of containers from longshore labor disruption in late 2024, marine terminal operators at the Port of Vancouver continue to grapple with a problem that seems ever-present: extended dwell times for containers moving inland by rail. Railroads normally run fewer, shorter trains during Canadian winters, but this season’s weather restrictions were more severe than usual, which has caused eastbound containers to pile up on the docks over the past three months. “Inclement weather across much of Canada in February, including a deep freeze in the prairies and a severe snowstorm in Ontario, affected rail turnaround times and reduced railcar availability on the West Coast,” a spokesperson for the Port of Vancouver told the Journal of Commerce. “Shorter trains mean more people and equipment are required to move the same amount of goods,” a spokesperson for Canadian National Railway (CN) said. The average rail container dwell time in March at Vancouver’s four container terminals was 7.7 days. While that was marginally down from 8.5 days in February and 8.3 days in January, according to port statistics, it’s well above the four to five days terminal operators on North America’s West Coast say they can live with in order to keep rail dwells at their facilities manageable. Infor Nexus pegged March rail dwells at seven days, down from nearly 10 days in February. Vancouver’s dwell times have been above five days since last November. Multiple factors contribute to congestion In addition to the weather issues, the port spokesperson blamed the rail container backlogs on longshore labor woes in Vancouver last November . That came amid an import surge at North America’s West Coast ports as retailers diverted merchandise from US East and Gulf Coast ports during the prolonged contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and maritime employers . Laden import containers in January at Vancouver totaled 239,454 TEUs, up from 201,023 TEUs in January 2024, according to port statistics. However, imports dropped to 183,808 TEUs in February compared with 226,612 TEUs in February 2024. February is traditionally the slowest month of the year in the eastbound trans-Pacific due to factory shutdowns in Asia for the annual Lunar New Year holidays. Importers in Canada and the US say rail congestion at Vancouver is a given during the peak shipping season in August through October, when the port and inland rail networks must handle greater volumes than they are designed to handle. But Vancouver has struggled with extended rail dwells over the past several months, well beyond the end of the traditional peak season. A forwarder said it has taken him as long as 30 days to retrieve some of his containers from Vancouver, saying whether it’s a weather event or labor action or a peak season surge in imports, excessive rail container dwell times are a condition he’s come to expect at the port, calling it “business as usual.” Stakeholders, however, say they see signs of improvement. A spokesperson for Canadian Pacific Kansas City Southern (CPKC) said its rail container dwell times are improving at the Vanterm and Centerm terminals in Vancouver. According to the port’s website, CPKC’s rail container dwell at Vanterm on Monday was three to five days, with the average Centerm dwell at zero to three days. Still, CPKC’s dwells were seven days or longer at the Deltaport terminal. “Driven by dwell improvements at Centerm and Vanterm terminals, we are seeing elevated volumes that we are now moving with improved network and overall supply chain performance following weeks of sustained extreme winter temperatures that impacted operations across the Canadian supply chain,” the CPKC spokesman said. CN is targeting later this spring for a return to normal at its operations. “Assuming no further weather impacts, CN anticipates the trend line for container dwell to continue downward through the early spring, getting back to more normal dwell times by mid-late spring,” the CN spokesperson said. The Vancouver spokesperson said as April progresses, rail business is returning to seasonal norms, “with on-dock volumes and dwell times both trending positively.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North American ports

North-American rail

Supply chain

Vancouver still dealing with extended rail container dwell times

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Risks in the containerized supply chain are only growing, and futures provide a potentially viable risk mitigation tool, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Risks in the containerized supply chain are only growing, and futures provide a potentially viable risk mitigation tool, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">The industry is about to hear a lot more about futures trading in container shipping — again. An idea born with fanfare around the time of the 2008–09 financial crisis on the premise that container shipping is a commodity awaiting the inevitable conversion into a financial market gained no traction then and laid dormant for years. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5979850_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Then came the COVID-19 pandemic and the mega-disruptions that followed, together with the recent successful launch of a container freight futures market in Shanghai. The value of contracts traded on a weekly basis on the Shanghai Futures Exchange is many times the value of the underlying freight rate, despite virtually no forwarders, beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) or carriers participating — only traders. Now, fresh attempts will be made to establish futures markets on Western exchanges, with the idea of de-risking container shipping for forwarders, BCOs and carriers. For BCOs, the premise, at least in theory, makes sense: remove price as a factor putting stress on contracts and carrier relationships by having deals ride the ups and downs of index-linked pricing, thus ensuring contract prices don’t fall out of line with spot prices and put space allocations at risk. With a liquid futures market to trade on, the BCO can then ensure price predictability by buying and selling futures against its index-linked contract pricing. New bets are being placed that this is coming. The New York Shipping Exchange (NYSHEX) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/nyshex-says-will-launch-ocean-freight-rate-indexes-next-year-5820643">completed a new funding round in November</a> with participation by Goldman Sachs and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), based on plans to create a new set of tradeable indexes. Contracts based on Freightos indexes are already traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Singapore Exchange markets, although volumes are limited. The Shanghai futures market is based on a tradeable version of the weekly Shanghai Containerized Freight Index called the SCFI-S. The promotion of container freight indexes goes beyond creating price transparency for the market and seeing the indexes used as the basis for index-linked contracts. It is ultimately to foster the additional step of having the indexes be used as the basis for futures trading, with fees attached. Is the conservative shipping industry ready to take that step? Risks in the containerized supply chain are only growing, and futures provide a potentially viable risk mitigation tool. It has long been the case that contracts, space commitments, relationships and trust still come under extreme stress when spot and contract rates diverge, as analysts believe could happen this year if the spot market continues to plunge due to tariffs, recession and excess capacity. For the carrier, the chief benefit could not be more core: using hedging to reduce volatility in its core freight rate revenue stream, eliminate boom-and-bust cycles and create credibility with financial markets. A carrier would sell space in the future, locking in future pricing today. That would enable it to focus on service, which is a competitive battleground among carriers in addition to price. The benefits are similar for non-vessel-operating common carriers — more stable relationships with both BCOs and carriers and less volatile revenues. <h3>Wide gulf to overcome </h3>But even after many years of the concept being bandied about, a wide gulf remains between the shipping industry and the financial players promoting freight derivatives, to the point there is no guarantee futures, despite the potential benefits, will take hold in container shipping. Why? There are many reasons, some practical, others visceral. Carriers have cited multiple issues as to why they distrust the concept, including untested counterparty risk, lack of liquidity and distrust in index methodology. Their hesitation goes deeper, rejecting the idea their industry is a commodity versus a service. At an even deeper level lies the question of whether carriers or banks will control their market. Carriers know the answer to that one. “[I] don’t see a market for that developing any time soon,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told the Journal of Commerce in 2023. Another factor that gives doubters pause is the potential for market manipulation based on factors other than supply and demand. Carriers have grown more assertive in managing capacity through blank sailings, slow steaming, idling and other means, which are legal even when coordinated within vessel alliances as the goal is to adjust capacity to meet diminished demand as any business is entitled to do. But that can still have an indirect impact on pricing, and thus futures prices. For BCOs, a key to adaption will be to get CFOs involved. They are the ones within the company often charged with hedging risk in areas such as foreign currency, interest rates and energy prices, with risk management often reporting up to them. In the pre-COVID-19 era of only periodic supply chain disruptions, hedging container freight risk was considered an exotic outlier. Maybe no longer. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The industry is about to hear a lot more about futures trading in container shipping — again. An idea born with fanfare around the time of the 2008–09 financial crisis on the premise that container shipping is a commodity awaiting the inevitable conversion into a financial market gained no traction then and laid dormant for years. Then came the COVID-19 pandemic and the mega-disruptions that followed, together with the recent successful launch of a container freight futures market in Shanghai. The value of contracts traded on a weekly basis on the Shanghai Futures Exchange is many times the value of the underlying freight rate, despite virtually no forwarders, beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) or carriers participating — only traders. Now, fresh attempts will be made to establish futures markets on Western exchanges, with the idea of de-risking container shipping for forwarders, BCOs and carriers. For BCOs, the premise, at least in theory, makes sense: remove price as a factor putting stress on contracts and carrier relationships by having deals ride the ups and downs of index-linked pricing, thus ensuring contract prices don’t fall out of line with spot prices and put space allocations at risk. With a liquid futures market to trade on, the BCO can then ensure price predictability by buying and selling futures against its index-linked contract pricing. New bets are being placed that this is coming. The New York Shipping Exchange (NYSHEX) completed a new funding round in November with participation by Goldman Sachs and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), based on plans to create a new set of tradeable indexes. Contracts based on Freightos indexes are already traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Singapore Exchange markets, although volumes are limited. The Shanghai futures market is based on a tradeable version of the weekly Shanghai Containerized Freight Index called the SCFI-S. The promotion of container freight indexes goes beyond creating price transparency for the market and seeing the indexes used as the basis for index-linked contracts. It is ultimately to foster the additional step of having the indexes be used as the basis for futures trading, with fees attached. Is the conservative shipping industry ready to take that step? Risks in the containerized supply chain are only growing, and futures provide a potentially viable risk mitigation tool. It has long been the case that contracts, space commitments, relationships and trust still come under extreme stress when spot and contract rates diverge, as analysts believe could happen this year if the spot market continues to plunge due to tariffs, recession and excess capacity. For the carrier, the chief benefit could not be more core: using hedging to reduce volatility in its core freight rate revenue stream, eliminate boom-and-bust cycles and create credibility with financial markets. A carrier would sell space in the future, locking in future pricing today. That would enable it to focus on service, which is a competitive battleground among carriers in addition to price. The benefits are similar for non-vessel-operating common carriers — more stable relationships with both BCOs and carriers and less volatile revenues. Wide gulf to overcome But even after many years of the concept being bandied about, a wide gulf remains between the shipping industry and the financial players promoting freight derivatives, to the point there is no guarantee futures, despite the potential benefits, will take hold in container shipping. Why? There are many reasons, some practical, others visceral. Carriers have cited multiple issues as to why they distrust the concept, including untested counterparty risk, lack of liquidity and distrust in index methodology. Their hesitation goes deeper, rejecting the idea their industry is a commodity versus a service. At an even deeper level lies the question of whether carriers or banks will control their market. Carriers know the answer to that one. “[I] don’t see a market for that developing any time soon,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told the Journal of Commerce in 2023. Another factor that gives doubters pause is the potential for market manipulation based on factors other than supply and demand. Carriers have grown more assertive in managing capacity through blank sailings, slow steaming, idling and other means, which are legal even when coordinated within vessel alliances as the goal is to adjust capacity to meet diminished demand as any business is entitled to do. But that can still have an indirect impact on pricing, and thus futures prices. For BCOs, a key to adaption will be to get CFOs involved. They are the ones within the company often charged with hedging risk in areas such as foreign currency, interest rates and energy prices, with risk management often reporting up to them. In the pre-COVID-19 era of only periodic supply chain disruptions, hedging container freight risk was considered an exotic outlier. Maybe no longer. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Near-constant disruption giving new momentum to freight futures

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 STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

Longshore labor

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

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

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

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

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

Latest News

Intermodal Savings Index

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

US pulls out of IMO climate talks, threatens retaliation for emissions fees

Adani opens Colombo's fifth box terminal with Maersk trial call for Gemini

Trump tariff chaos restrains US truckload, LTL markets