<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Fed up with the growing U.S. proclivity to impose uni- lateral economic sanctions against other c</div>

Fed up with the growing U.S. proclivity to impose uni- lateral economic sanctions against other c

<div>Fed up with the growing U.S. proclivity to impose uni- lateral economic sanctions against other countries, big business has launched a new coalition to halt the practice.The sanctions cost U.S. business billions of dollars in lost export sales each year, according to USA-Engage, a group comprised of more than 500 companies and trade associations.Moreover, the sanctions - imposed for human rights, anti-terrorism, environmental, drug-interdiction and other ''non-economic'' reasons - are generally ineffective, rarely helping advance U.S. policy interests, according to coalition leaders who spoke at a well-attended press conference in the nation's capital April 16. But less than a week...

Fed up with the growing U.S. proclivity to impose uni- lateral economic sanctions against other countries, big business has launched a new coalition to halt the practice. The sanctions cost U.S. business billions of dollars in lost export sales each year, according to USA-Engage, a group comprised of more than 500 companies and trade associations.Moreover, the sanctions - imposed for human rights, anti-terrorism, environmental, drug-interdiction and other ''non-economic'' reasons - are generally ineffective, rarely helping advance U.S. policy interests, according to coalition leaders who spoke at a well-attended press conference in the nation's capital April 16. But less than a week later, President Clinton invoked yet another unilateral U.S. sanction: banning new U.S. investment in Myanmar, formerly Burma. The action, officials explained, was in response to the Myanmar government's oppressive human rights practices and refusal to cooperate in controlling illegal drug trade. This latest sanction brought a swift condemnation from USA-Engage and some of its leading members, such as the National Association of Manufacturers. Frank Kittredge, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and vice chairman of USA-Engage, said the Myanmar sanction ''represents a failure of American foreign policy.'' Engagement - not isolation - is ''the best tool for promoting values and democracy abroad,'' he argued. The Myanmar sanction, contended NAM President Jerry Jasinowski, will ''only harm the interests of the Burmese people, while doing nothing to advance human rights in Burma. Meantime, we merely surrender the Burmese market to our international competitors.'' The sanction, especially its timing, appeared to be a slap in the face of the business community. But USA-Engage members vow to keep pressing their case against unilateral sanctions. They are especially concentrating their effort in Congress, where sanctions proposals usually emanate. ''We're engaging a lot of congressmen in dialogues in their home offices,'' said one USA-Engage member, ''and we're getting quite a positive reaction. Most of them acknowledge that sanctions don't work and are counterproductive. ''The problem,'' he sighed, ''is translating that into votes.'' There has been some recent progress, however. A farm bill passed last year provides that the federal government compensate farmers for financial losses incurred because of U.S. trade sanctions. Sixty-one laws or executive orders authorizing unilateral sanctions have been enacted over the past four years, and more such measures are in the works. Tighter curbs on U.S. investment in Myanmar, a cutoff of military aid to Indonesia and economic reprisals against countries practicing religious persecution are among the pending bills on Capitol Hill. At the same time, Massachusetts, New York City and other state or local governments are mulling more sanctions of their own. The primary targets of the existing sanctions are China, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar. But two laws enacted last year - the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act - make almost any country vulnerable to U.S. unilateral sanctions. Exactly how much these sanctions are damaging the U.S. economy nobody can say with accuracy. The Washington-based Institute for International Economics recently estimated that in 1995 they cost U.S. business $15 billion to $20 billion in export sales to 26 countries. Job losses may have been as high as 250,000, it said. Some companies, such as Westinghouse Electric Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Boeing and Hughes Aircraft, have begun spelling out how sanctions cost them business. W estinghouse Chief Executive Michael Jordan says a 1989 sanctions law has shut his firm out of China's multibillion dollar nuclear equipment market. As many as 3,500 jobs at Westinghouse may have been saved had it not been for the law, he suggests. ''The terrible irony,'' he notes, is that many congressmen voting for sanctions laws are at the same time ''decrying the escalating Sino-U.S. trade deficit.'' What USA-Engage members want is greater accountability by both Congress and the administration in weighing the political benefits and economic costs of applying sanctions. Any sanctions, they argue, should be applied only if diplomatic measures fail and then, except in extreme cases, only if they are undertaken jointly with other countries.

US SANCTIONS SPUR OUTCRY \ CORPORATE AMERICA PRESSES CASE AGAINST INCREASING CURBS ON OTHER NATIONS

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Capacity improvements at the New Jersey facility will include optimization of the terminal layout, rebuilding berths at a higher level to allow for anticipated increases in the sea level and replacing existing cargo-handling equipment with zero-emission, electric machines.</div>

Capacity improvements at the New Jersey facility will include optimization of the terminal layout, rebuilding berths at a higher level to allow for anticipated increases in the sea level and replacing existing cargo-handling equipment with zero-emission, electric machines.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">APM Terminals will invest more than $500 million to improve cargo handling capacity at its 350-acre Elizabeth terminal after it agreed to a 33-year lease extension with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the two parties announced Monday. The current lease, which was due to expire in December 2029, will be extended to December 2062, according to the new agreement. The deal will be voted on by the port authority’s board of commissioners on March 27. APM Terminals said the capacity improvements will include optimization of the terminal layout, rebuilding the berths at a higher level to allow for anticipated increases in sea level and replacing existing cargo-handling equipment with zero-emission, electric machines. Elizabeth has a current terminal capacity of 2.3 million TEUs over 6,000 feet of wharfage. Specifics of the planned capacity growth at the New Jersey facility were not disclosed. Work to optimize the terminal layout and invest in the electrification of equipment will begin in the coming weeks as soon as the new lease is signed, an APM Terminals spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The optimization of the layout and electrification will take place over the next several years as the terminal is modernized,” the spokesperson said. “Optimization entails improving the densification of the terminal to be able to efficiently handle higher cargo volumes within the same footprint.” The construction work at the terminal will result in an increase in jobs at the facility. “The modernization improvements will result in a significant capacity increase and our experience shows that the biggest driver of longshore employment is increases in volume growth,” the APM spokesperson said. “As a result, we expect our workforce on the terminal to expand as our volumes increase due to these investments.” The Elizabeth terminal handles more than 25% of the annual container throughput at the port’s terminals, which saw combined volumes rise 11.5% last year to 8.7 million TEUs. The Port Authority said the investment supports its 2050 port master plan, which anticipates cargo volumes doubling or tripling by mid-century. “This lease extension secures transformative infrastructure and capacity enhancements at the second-largest container terminal in the East Coast’s busiest port,” Port Authority Executive Director Rick Cotton said in a statement. “These commitments will enable the Port of New York and New Jersey to move more goods, create more jobs and further cement its role as an essential driver of our region’s economy and our nation’s supply chain.” <h3>Fixed berthing windows </h3>The APM Terminals spokesperson said the new Gemini Cooperation network of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd is expected to slightly increase cargo volumes at the Elizabeth terminal when fully implemented. APM is owned by A.P. Moller–Maersk. APM Terminals is also introducing fixed berthing windows at dedicated berths for Gemini vessels and those of other carriers. “Keeping all services at dedicated and separate berths consistently will isolate port delays,” the spokesperson said, adding that if a vessel arrives late due to bad weather it will only affect other vessels calling at that specific berth. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

APM Terminals will invest more than $500 million to improve cargo handling capacity at its 350-acre Elizabeth terminal after it agreed to a 33-year lease extension with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the two parties announced Monday. The current lease, which was due to expire in December 2029, will be extended to December 2062, according to the new agreement. The deal will be voted on by the port authority’s board of commissioners on March 27. APM Terminals said the capacity improvements will include optimization of the terminal layout, rebuilding the berths at a higher level to allow for anticipated increases in sea level and replacing existing cargo-handling equipment with zero-emission, electric machines. Elizabeth has a current terminal capacity of 2.3 million TEUs over 6,000 feet of wharfage. Specifics of the planned capacity growth at the New Jersey facility were not disclosed. Work to optimize the terminal layout and invest in the electrification of equipment will begin in the coming weeks as soon as the new lease is signed, an APM Terminals spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “The optimization of the layout and electrification will take place over the next several years as the terminal is modernized,” the spokesperson said. “Optimization entails improving the densification of the terminal to be able to efficiently handle higher cargo volumes within the same footprint.” The construction work at the terminal will result in an increase in jobs at the facility. “The modernization improvements will result in a significant capacity increase and our experience shows that the biggest driver of longshore employment is increases in volume growth,” the APM spokesperson said. “As a result, we expect our workforce on the terminal to expand as our volumes increase due to these investments.” The Elizabeth terminal handles more than 25% of the annual container throughput at the port’s terminals, which saw combined volumes rise 11.5% last year to 8.7 million TEUs. The Port Authority said the investment supports its 2050 port master plan, which anticipates cargo volumes doubling or tripling by mid-century. “This lease extension secures transformative infrastructure and capacity enhancements at the second-largest container terminal in the East Coast’s busiest port,” Port Authority Executive Director Rick Cotton said in a statement. “These commitments will enable the Port of New York and New Jersey to move more goods, create more jobs and further cement its role as an essential driver of our region’s economy and our nation’s supply chain.” Fixed berthing windows The APM Terminals spokesperson said the new Gemini Cooperation network of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd is expected to slightly increase cargo volumes at the Elizabeth terminal when fully implemented. APM is owned by A.P. Moller–Maersk. APM Terminals is also introducing fixed berthing windows at dedicated berths for Gemini vessels and those of other carriers. “Keeping all services at dedicated and separate berths consistently will isolate port delays,” the spokesperson said, adding that if a vessel arrives late due to bad weather it will only affect other vessels calling at that specific berth. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

Maritime

APM to spend $500 million to enhance cargo handling at Elizabeth terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The top 10 carriers for imports collectively hauled 2.43 million TEUs into the Gulf Coast last year and had a market share of almost 94%, according to the latest Journal of Commerce rankings. </div>

The top 10 carriers for imports collectively hauled 2.43 million TEUs into the Gulf Coast last year and had a market share of almost 94%, according to the latest Journal of Commerce rankings.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk held its top position in the Journal of Commerce’s rankings of the top 10 carriers importing into US Gulf ports in 2024 — but the carrier was bumped by Mediterranean Shipping Co. from the top slot for exports. Maersk imported 513,016 TEUs to Gulf Coast ports last year, down 0.5% from 2023. Similarly, its import market share fell slightly to 19.1% from 20.6%. MSC maintained the second spot in the Gulf Coast rankings, hauling 476,387 TEUs, up 8.3% from 2023. The carrier claimed 17.8% of the import market share, up slightly from 17.6% in 2023. CMA CGM was in third with 407,626 TEUs and a 15.2% market share for Gulf imports — up from 13.9% in 2023. The carrier also increased its Gulf Coast import volumes by 17.2%. Meanwhile, the combined Cosco Shipping/OOCL was good for fourth with 270,340 TEUs imported to the Gulf Coast, up 11.7% from the year prior. Its share of the regional import market climbed to 10.1% from 9.7%. The fifth slot for imports was maintained by Hapag-Lloyd, which held an 8.8% market share with 234,939 TEUs imported, an almost 9% jump from 2023. In sixth, Ocean Network Express (ONE) imported 149,397 TEUs to the Gulf Coast in 2024, up more than 10% over the year. It held 5.6% of the market share, up from 5.4% in 2023. Carriers in spots seven and eight swapped places in 2024, with Evergreen Marine edging out Zim Integrated Shipping Services with 4.8% of the market share and 129,105 TEUs imported. Zim brought in 123,000 TEUs, good for a 4.6% market share. Dole/Tropical Fruit Americas held 2.9% of the market share in 2024, down slightly from 2023, and moved 78,863 TEUs. Del Monte’s market share was essentially unchanged at about 2.1% with 55,046 TEUs brought into the Gulf Coast. Overall, the top five carriers bringing in US Gulf Coast imports hauled 1.90 million TEUs in 2024, accounting for 71% of the total market share. The top 10 carriers collectively hauled 2.43 million TEUs into the Gulf Coast, up 7.4% from 2023, and had a market share of 93.6%. <h3>MSC leads in US Gulf exports </h3>MSC held 24.1% of the export market share in 2024, up from 21.8% in 2023. The carrier moved 459,789 TEUs from the Gulf Coast, up 14.5% over the year. Maersk, bumped to second place for exports, held 22.7% of the market share — unchanged from 2023 — with 433,483 TEUs. Its volumes increased by 5% from 2023. Spots three through 10 on the list were unchanged compared with 2023. In total, exports from the Gulf Coast reached 1.91 million TEUs in 2024, up 3.8% from 2023. Of that total, the top 10 carriers hauled 1.81 million TEUs — up more than 5% from 2023. <h3>Houston top Gulf port </h3>Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-gulf-coast-ports-expanding-to-handle-continued-volume-growth-5911512">Houston’s chokehold on Gulf Coast imports continued</a> in 2024, bringing in 1.89 million TEUs, an 8.4% year-over-year increase and good for more than 70% of the Gulf import market share in 2024. The Port of Mobile maintained its position at number two for Gulf Coast imports with just under 11% of the market share at 291,121 TEUs, up 2% from 2023. Tampa Bay climbed into the top three for the first time with 4.8% of Gulf Coast imports, at 129,571 TEUs, besting New Orleans’ 4.4% market share and 119,348 TEUs. Tampa Bay demonstrated the most year-over-year import growth for Gulf Coast imports, with volumes climbing 15.6%. Rankings on the export side stayed largely unchanged compared with 2023. Houston continued to dominate Gulf Coast exports in 2024 with nearly 75% of the market share. It moved out 1.4 million TEUs during the year, up 6.1% from 2023. New Orleans and Mobile continued to hold second and third place, respectively, with 237,536 TEUs and 159,148 TEUs. Each had year-over-year changes of less than 2.5%. Overall, Gulf Coast ports imported 2.68 million TEUs, up 7.1% from 2023. Exports reached 1.91 million TEUs, gaining 3.8% over the year. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Maersk held its top position in the Journal of Commerce’s rankings of the top 10 carriers importing into US Gulf ports in 2024 — but the carrier was bumped by Mediterranean Shipping Co. from the top slot for exports. Maersk imported 513,016 TEUs to Gulf Coast ports last year, down 0.5% from 2023. Similarly, its import market share fell slightly to 19.1% from 20.6%. MSC maintained the second spot in the Gulf Coast rankings, hauling 476,387 TEUs, up 8.3% from 2023. The carrier claimed 17.8% of the import market share, up slightly from 17.6% in 2023. CMA CGM was in third with 407,626 TEUs and a 15.2% market share for Gulf imports — up from 13.9% in 2023. The carrier also increased its Gulf Coast import volumes by 17.2%. Meanwhile, the combined Cosco Shipping/OOCL was good for fourth with 270,340 TEUs imported to the Gulf Coast, up 11.7% from the year prior. Its share of the regional import market climbed to 10.1% from 9.7%. The fifth slot for imports was maintained by Hapag-Lloyd, which held an 8.8% market share with 234,939 TEUs imported, an almost 9% jump from 2023. In sixth, Ocean Network Express (ONE) imported 149,397 TEUs to the Gulf Coast in 2024, up more than 10% over the year. It held 5.6% of the market share, up from 5.4% in 2023. Carriers in spots seven and eight swapped places in 2024, with Evergreen Marine edging out Zim Integrated Shipping Services with 4.8% of the market share and 129,105 TEUs imported. Zim brought in 123,000 TEUs, good for a 4.6% market share. Dole/Tropical Fruit Americas held 2.9% of the market share in 2024, down slightly from 2023, and moved 78,863 TEUs. Del Monte’s market share was essentially unchanged at about 2.1% with 55,046 TEUs brought into the Gulf Coast. Overall, the top five carriers bringing in US Gulf Coast imports hauled 1.90 million TEUs in 2024, accounting for 71% of the total market share. The top 10 carriers collectively hauled 2.43 million TEUs into the Gulf Coast, up 7.4% from 2023, and had a market share of 93.6%. MSC leads in US Gulf exports MSC held 24.1% of the export market share in 2024, up from 21.8% in 2023. The carrier moved 459,789 TEUs from the Gulf Coast, up 14.5% over the year. Maersk, bumped to second place for exports, held 22.7% of the market share — unchanged from 2023 — with 433,483 TEUs. Its volumes increased by 5% from 2023. Spots three through 10 on the list were unchanged compared with 2023. In total, exports from the Gulf Coast reached 1.91 million TEUs in 2024, up 3.8% from 2023. Of that total, the top 10 carriers hauled 1.81 million TEUs — up more than 5% from 2023. Houston top Gulf port Meanwhile, Houston’s chokehold on Gulf Coast imports continued in 2024, bringing in 1.89 million TEUs, an 8.4% year-over-year increase and good for more than 70% of the Gulf import market share in 2024. The Port of Mobile maintained its position at number two for Gulf Coast imports with just under 11% of the market share at 291,121 TEUs, up 2% from 2023. Tampa Bay climbed into the top three for the first time with 4.8% of Gulf Coast imports, at 129,571 TEUs, besting New Orleans’ 4.4% market share and 119,348 TEUs. Tampa Bay demonstrated the most year-over-year import growth for Gulf Coast imports, with volumes climbing 15.6%. Rankings on the export side stayed largely unchanged compared with 2023. Houston continued to dominate Gulf Coast exports in 2024 with nearly 75% of the market share. It moved out 1.4 million TEUs during the year, up 6.1% from 2023. New Orleans and Mobile continued to hold second and third place, respectively, with 237,536 TEUs and 159,148 TEUs. Each had year-over-year changes of less than 2.5%. Overall, Gulf Coast ports imported 2.68 million TEUs, up 7.1% from 2023. Exports reached 1.91 million TEUs, gaining 3.8% over the year. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Pacific

Maersk holds top spot for US Gulf import carriers in 2024; MSC best for exports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While there is no strong demand trigger for LTL freight on the horizon, providers continue to add terminals and lanes to growing networks. </div>

While there is no strong demand trigger for LTL freight on the horizon, providers continue to add terminals and lanes to growing networks.

<div class="phx-topic">US freight demand is declining, but less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers keep building, adding terminals and lanes at a time when they might be expected to rein in expansion plans. Instead of hedging against uncertainty, LTL trucking companies say they are positioning themselves for the upswing in freight demand they hope will come sometime this year. “For the first time in decades, nobody is seeing the traditional March peak for LTL,” Chris Jamroz, CEO of Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “It used to be that anybody who had a pulse could deliver a great result in LTL in March.” Not this year. Four of the top 10 publicly owned LTL companies reported declines in shipments and tonnage in January and February, with only one, Saia, reporting gains, including a 5.5% increase in shipments — almost certainly market share gains from competitors. Shipments at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, fell 4.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. Shipments were down 5.9% from a year ago at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in January and February and were 6.2% lower at XPO in February. Shipments per day were down 1% in January and February at ABF Freight System, but the ArcBest subsidiary’s tonnage slipped 6%, according to its mid-quarter report. ABF in February began hauling more heavy-weight truckload-rated shipments to bolster its volumes.The Cass Freight Shipments Index, a broad measure of freight volume that blends LTL, truckload and rail shipments, was down 5.5% year over year in February and 9.5% from two years ago. The annualized decline was 8.2% in January. Although data for early March isn’t available yet, LTL executives and shippers point to little change in freight demand. LTL executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce but did not want to be identified say freight volumes were down by low single-digit percentages from a year ago. Those executives are still optimistic, though, partly because they are winning contractual rate hikes, as they have been since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-sector-growth-efficiencies-still-fueled-by-loss-of-yellow-5715785">bankrupt LTL provider Yellow collapsed</a> in 2023. The US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) rose 6.3% from a year ago in January and 6.1% in February. The measure of all-inclusive LTL selling prices is now at its highest point ever, having recovered from a 12% slide between June 2022 and April 2023. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="eea5e7a8-7e1e-4d7c-9068-ac1fc2db0a5e"></dynamic-object></div>The LTL PPI is now 12.3% higher than it was when Yellow shut down in July 2023. That makes it easier for LTL carriers to begin building toward a demand recovery. “We still see a soft domestic economy, but it feels like it’s improving,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line, told the Journal of Commerce. “Sequentially, we saw shipments and tonnage improve more than average from January to February.” <h3>Larger, denser LTL networks</h3>ODFL spent $664 million over the past two years on its service center network — without buying terminals from Yellow. “We continue to add capacity,” said Satterfield. “Capacity is an important part of the equation in the first year of an economic inflection.” After two slow years, ODFL has “more excess capacity than we’ve ever had,” at about 30%, Satterfield said. “But we still have a robust capex [capital expenditure] plan,” he added. “Investing in new service centers is a key part of our strategy, and we want to stay ahead of the curve.” ODFL opened four facilities in 2024 and has several service centers under construction that can be opened when the market heats up, he said. Other carriers, including regional LTL providers Dayton Freight Lines, A. Duie Pyle and Averitt <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-carriers-expanding-networks-to-prepare-for-long-term-growth-5915148">are opening or expanding service centers</a> to gain greater freight density and expand next-day and same-day service. Yellow continues to sell the last of its terminals. There is still less LTL capacity available than there was before Yellow’s exit, Satterfield said. That is helping to keep LTL pricing elevated. Roadrunner, which is leasing a former Yellow terminal in Atlanta, one of its network hubs, last week expanded by adding 278 lanes, its largest expansion since its current restructuring began in 2021. One-third of those 278 new lanes are more than 1,000 miles long, originating at the company’s hubs in Atlanta, Detroit, Nashville, Cleveland and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The new lanes aren’t a reaction to rising demand, however; they’re all about prepositioning for coming demand. LTL carriers are also prepping for the eventual spinoff of FedEx Freight as an independent carrier in 2026 and a possible LTL play by Amazon. “We’re at the bottom of the trough, but we will go up, and we want to be positioned to respond to shippers very fast,” Jamroz said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US freight demand is declining, but less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers keep building, adding terminals and lanes at a time when they might be expected to rein in expansion plans. Instead of hedging against uncertainty, LTL trucking companies say they are positioning themselves for the upswing in freight demand they hope will come sometime this year. “For the first time in decades, nobody is seeing the traditional March peak for LTL,” Chris Jamroz, CEO of Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “It used to be that anybody who had a pulse could deliver a great result in LTL in March.” Not this year. Four of the top 10 publicly owned LTL companies reported declines in shipments and tonnage in January and February, with only one, Saia, reporting gains, including a 5.5% increase in shipments — almost certainly market share gains from competitors. Shipments at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, fell 4.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. Shipments were down 5.9% from a year ago at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in January and February and were 6.2% lower at XPO in February. Shipments per day were down 1% in January and February at ABF Freight System, but the ArcBest subsidiary’s tonnage slipped 6%, according to its mid-quarter report. ABF in February began hauling more heavy-weight truckload-rated shipments to bolster its volumes. The Cass Freight Shipments Index, a broad measure of freight volume that blends LTL, truckload and rail shipments, was down 5.5% year over year in February and 9.5% from two years ago. The annualized decline was 8.2% in January. Although data for early March isn’t available yet, LTL executives and shippers point to little change in freight demand. LTL executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce but did not want to be identified say freight volumes were down by low single-digit percentages from a year ago. Those executives are still optimistic, though, partly because they are winning contractual rate hikes, as they have been since bankrupt LTL provider Yellow collapsed in 2023. The US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) rose 6.3% from a year ago in January and 6.1% in February. The measure of all-inclusive LTL selling prices is now at its highest point ever, having recovered from a 12% slide between June 2022 and April 2023. The LTL PPI is now 12.3% higher than it was when Yellow shut down in July 2023. That makes it easier for LTL carriers to begin building toward a demand recovery. “We still see a soft domestic economy, but it feels like it’s improving,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line, told the Journal of Commerce. “Sequentially, we saw shipments and tonnage improve more than average from January to February.” Larger, denser LTL networks ODFL spent $664 million over the past two years on its service center network — without buying terminals from Yellow. “We continue to add capacity,” said Satterfield. “Capacity is an important part of the equation in the first year of an economic inflection.” After two slow years, ODFL has “more excess capacity than we’ve ever had,” at about 30%, Satterfield said. “But we still have a robust capex [capital expenditure] plan,” he added. “Investing in new service centers is a key part of our strategy, and we want to stay ahead of the curve.” ODFL opened four facilities in 2024 and has several service centers under construction that can be opened when the market heats up, he said. Other carriers, including regional LTL providers Dayton Freight Lines, A. Duie Pyle and Averitt are opening or expanding service centers to gain greater freight density and expand next-day and same-day service. Yellow continues to sell the last of its terminals. There is still less LTL capacity available than there was before Yellow’s exit, Satterfield said. That is helping to keep LTL pricing elevated. Roadrunner, which is leasing a former Yellow terminal in Atlanta, one of its network hubs, last week expanded by adding 278 lanes, its largest expansion since its current restructuring began in 2021. One-third of those 278 new lanes are more than 1,000 miles long, originating at the company’s hubs in Atlanta, Detroit, Nashville, Cleveland and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The new lanes aren’t a reaction to rising demand, however; they’re all about prepositioning for coming demand. LTL carriers are also prepping for the eventual spinoff of FedEx Freight as an independent carrier in 2026 and a possible LTL play by Amazon. “We’re at the bottom of the trough, but we will go up, and we want to be positioned to respond to shippers very fast,” Jamroz said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Surface

US LTL getting in position for higher freight demand — when it comes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario in which a fuel standard is imposed on them, but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario in which a fuel standard is imposed on them, but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">What happens at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Marine and Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in early April will have profound implications for shippers, dwarfing the impact, for example, of proposed fines on Chinese ships calling at US ports. The reason is the possibility, if not the likelihood, that IMO negotiators will fail to agree to a meaningful carbon tax on shipping, instead choosing to achieve the organization’s goal of net-zero emissions by or around 2050 via a fuel standard. IMO watchers say the standard is all but certain to gain the necessary support of member states in April. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5968479_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Opposition by certain powerful member states to a fuel levy makes it “exceedingly unlikely” that the tax will be part of the final MEPC agreement, Eirik Nyhus, environment director at the classification society DNV, said on a recent podcast. Here is why that is critical: A fuel standard mandating a reduction in carbon intensity over time to reach the 2050 goal is similar conceptually to the IMO 2020 low-sulfur fuel requirement. The message to shipowners was, and would be again: “Here’s the requirement, and if it means higher fuel costs it’s on you to mitigate those costs or pass higher costs on to your customers.” That is why, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, 25% of container ships are now fitted with scrubbers that remove sulfur from vessel emissions while enabling ships to run on traditional bunkers versus higher-cost low sulfur fuel oil. The message to the industry would be identical if the IMO failed to reach consensus on a carbon tax, which is controversial among IMO member states, and proceeded with a fuel standard-type regulation to put teeth behind its 2050 goal. The showdown will occur at the 83rd MEPC meeting on April 7–11. <h3>How would carriers respond to a fuel standard? </h3>A fuel standard, on the other hand, is not seen as controversial. “There appears to be broad support across the numerous member states that we will agree to a legally binding greenhouse gas intensity limit for the fuels themselves which would take effect in 2028 and become increasingly stringent as you move to 2050,” Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC), told TPM25 in early March. Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario in which a fuel standard is imposed on them — to increasingly use fuels that at least today are much higher priced than traditional bunkers — but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay. Carriers would have no choice but to go all out to protect their interests, which, practically speaking, means flexing their muscles on capacity to keep the market as tight as possible and rates as high as possible to offset the higher cost of zero- or low-carbon bunkers. That is increasingly familiar territory for carriers. The trajectory of the past 25 years of container shipping shows carriers steadily ratcheting up capacity management through their own actions — slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, scrapping — increasingly aided by external phenomena in the form of pandemics, geopolitics and climate change. “Since 2019, carriers have built a revenue model around inefficiency,” said Peter Creeden, a longtime senior Hamburg Sud operations executive now leading Sydney-based consultant MPC International. “Their focus is not on supply chain efficiency but on leveraging inefficiencies to sustain profitability.” <h3>‘Dependent on customers to ... pay for’ energy transition </h3>The incentive for carriers to act to mitigate periodic waves of overcapacity is clear: Costs of alternative fuels will be higher for longer because major energy producers have made it clear that in the absence of a fuel tax — what they consider to be a bona fide demand signal — they will limit investments in production capacity. The possibility that methanol prices would remain high due to a high level of uncertainty regarding regulation, said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersks-lng-order-hedges-bet-on-green-fuel-technology-ceo-5703200">led the company last year to pivot its fleet renewal to LNG ships</a>, a fuel it had long disparaged as inadequate in the energy transition. Underlying the need of carriers to ensure market advantage to fund any IMO-mandated energy transition is a lack of uptake from shippers to fund the transition themselves. Maersk Chairman Robert Uggla told shareholders on March 18 it is “clear that we are dependent on customers to support and pay for” the energy transition, and that “the biggest challenge ... we face [is] the cost gap between clean and traditional fuels.” Without the cost gap being closed or narrowed — the point of a fuel tax — the uptake among customers is, and will likely continue to be, limited. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen, meanwhile, has reported progress with the carrier’s biofuel-based sustainability product Ship Green that allows shippers to decarbonize 25%, 50% or 100% of what they move with the liner. Volumes last year doubled to 200,000 TEUs, or 1.6% of the carrier’s total volume. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this analysis. </div>

What happens at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Marine and Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in early April will have profound implications for shippers, dwarfing the impact, for example, of proposed fines on Chinese ships calling at US ports. The reason is the possibility, if not the likelihood, that IMO negotiators will fail to agree to a meaningful carbon tax on shipping, instead choosing to achieve the organization’s goal of net-zero emissions by or around 2050 via a fuel standard. IMO watchers say the standard is all but certain to gain the necessary support of member states in April. Opposition by certain powerful member states to a fuel levy makes it “exceedingly unlikely” that the tax will be part of the final MEPC agreement, Eirik Nyhus, environment director at the classification society DNV, said on a recent podcast. Here is why that is critical: A fuel standard mandating a reduction in carbon intensity over time to reach the 2050 goal is similar conceptually to the IMO 2020 low-sulfur fuel requirement. The message to shipowners was, and would be again: “Here’s the requirement, and if it means higher fuel costs it’s on you to mitigate those costs or pass higher costs on to your customers.” That is why, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, 25% of container ships are now fitted with scrubbers that remove sulfur from vessel emissions while enabling ships to run on traditional bunkers versus higher-cost low sulfur fuel oil. The message to the industry would be identical if the IMO failed to reach consensus on a carbon tax, which is controversial among IMO member states, and proceeded with a fuel standard-type regulation to put teeth behind its 2050 goal. The showdown will occur at the 83rd MEPC meeting on April 7–11. How would carriers respond to a fuel standard? A fuel standard, on the other hand, is not seen as controversial. “There appears to be broad support across the numerous member states that we will agree to a legally binding greenhouse gas intensity limit for the fuels themselves which would take effect in 2028 and become increasingly stringent as you move to 2050,” Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC), told TPM25 in early March. Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario in which a fuel standard is imposed on them — to increasingly use fuels that at least today are much higher priced than traditional bunkers — but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay. Carriers would have no choice but to go all out to protect their interests, which, practically speaking, means flexing their muscles on capacity to keep the market as tight as possible and rates as high as possible to offset the higher cost of zero- or low-carbon bunkers. That is increasingly familiar territory for carriers. The trajectory of the past 25 years of container shipping shows carriers steadily ratcheting up capacity management through their own actions — slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, scrapping — increasingly aided by external phenomena in the form of pandemics, geopolitics and climate change. “Since 2019, carriers have built a revenue model around inefficiency,” said Peter Creeden, a longtime senior Hamburg Sud operations executive now leading Sydney-based consultant MPC International. “Their focus is not on supply chain efficiency but on leveraging inefficiencies to sustain profitability.” ‘Dependent on customers to ... pay for’ energy transition The incentive for carriers to act to mitigate periodic waves of overcapacity is clear: Costs of alternative fuels will be higher for longer because major energy producers have made it clear that in the absence of a fuel tax — what they consider to be a bona fide demand signal — they will limit investments in production capacity. The possibility that methanol prices would remain high due to a high level of uncertainty regarding regulation, said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, led the company last year to pivot its fleet renewal to LNG ships , a fuel it had long disparaged as inadequate in the energy transition. Underlying the need of carriers to ensure market advantage to fund any IMO-mandated energy transition is a lack of uptake from shippers to fund the transition themselves. Maersk Chairman Robert Uggla told shareholders on March 18 it is “clear that we are dependent on customers to support and pay for” the energy transition, and that “the biggest challenge ... we face [is] the cost gap between clean and traditional fuels.” Without the cost gap being closed or narrowed — the point of a fuel tax — the uptake among customers is, and will likely continue to be, limited. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen, meanwhile, has reported progress with the carrier’s biofuel-based sustainability product Ship Green that allows shippers to decarbonize 25%, 50% or 100% of what they move with the liner. Volumes last year doubled to 200,000 TEUs, or 1.6% of the carrier’s total volume. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this analysis.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Likelihood of IMO fuel standard set to reshape container shipping market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cosco said changes in the shipping alliances this year will trigger competition in digitization and decarbonization.</div>

Cosco said changes in the shipping alliances this year will trigger competition in digitization and decarbonization.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping Holdings said Friday that the industry will experience “profound changes in global cargo flow patterns” due to tariff- and trade-related policies after reporting strong profits in 2024. Container shipping demand growth is set to moderate this year, the carrier said, thanks to the combined effects of an easing of “global inflationary pressures and accommodative monetary policies in Europe and the United States.” The carrier, the fourth-largest by tonnage, according to Alphaliner, said changes among the major container shipping alliances are expected to trigger increased competition this year, “particularly in two strategic arenas: digitalized supply chains and green and low-carbon development initiatives.” That came as Cosco reported a 106% increase in net profit, to $6.8 billion, last year, on revenues that rose 33% to $32 billion thanks to significantly higher freight rates and a 10% year-over-year increase in total container volumes. Average revenue per TEU on international routes climbed 30% to $1,055 per TEU. Industrywide operating profits reached nearly $60 billion in 2024, according to estimates from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, but analysts are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/oversupplied-ocean-carriers-sailing-into-new-downcycle-analysts-5963852">warning of a downcycle beginning this year</a>. The state-owned carrier said it will accelerate the scaled development of its dual-brand fleet, consisting of Cosco Shipping Lines and Hong Kong-based subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), after it ordered a dozen 14,000-TEU methanol dual-fuel container ships last year. Cosco Shipping Lines accounted for approximately two-thirds ($4.3 billion) of the $6.8 billion in reported profits last year, with the balance coming from OOCL and terminal arm Cosco Shipping Port, which saw its net profit slip 5% to $309 million. Revenue gains were led by the trans-Pacific trade, which spiked 63% to $9 billion on a 13% jump in volumes. Asia-Europe revenue rose 41% to $6.4 billion despite a 13% drop in liftings, a reflection of operational capacity cuts stemming from vessels diverting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi militant attacks in the Red Sea area. Revenue from intra-Asia, including Australia, climbed 23% to $7.4 billion on volumes that increased 11%. Earnings from other trades, including the trans-Atlantic and Latin America, grew 27% year over year to $4.5 billion as liftings rose 10%.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping Holdings said Friday that the industry will experience “profound changes in global cargo flow patterns” due to tariff- and trade-related policies after reporting strong profits in 2024. Container shipping demand growth is set to moderate this year, the carrier said, thanks to the combined effects of an easing of “global inflationary pressures and accommodative monetary policies in Europe and the United States.” The carrier, the fourth-largest by tonnage, according to Alphaliner, said changes among the major container shipping alliances are expected to trigger increased competition this year, “particularly in two strategic arenas: digitalized supply chains and green and low-carbon development initiatives.” That came as Cosco reported a 106% increase in net profit, to $6.8 billion, last year, on revenues that rose 33% to $32 billion thanks to significantly higher freight rates and a 10% year-over-year increase in total container volumes. Average revenue per TEU on international routes climbed 30% to $1,055 per TEU. Industrywide operating profits reached nearly $60 billion in 2024, according to estimates from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, but analysts are warning of a downcycle beginning this year . The state-owned carrier said it will accelerate the scaled development of its dual-brand fleet, consisting of Cosco Shipping Lines and Hong Kong-based subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), after it ordered a dozen 14,000-TEU methanol dual-fuel container ships last year. Cosco Shipping Lines accounted for approximately two-thirds ($4.3 billion) of the $6.8 billion in reported profits last year, with the balance coming from OOCL and terminal arm Cosco Shipping Port, which saw its net profit slip 5% to $309 million. Revenue gains were led by the trans-Pacific trade, which spiked 63% to $9 billion on a 13% jump in volumes. Asia-Europe revenue rose 41% to $6.4 billion despite a 13% drop in liftings, a reflection of operational capacity cuts stemming from vessels diverting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi militant attacks in the Red Sea area. Revenue from intra-Asia, including Australia, climbed 23% to $7.4 billion on volumes that increased 11%. Earnings from other trades, including the trans-Atlantic and Latin America, grew 27% year over year to $4.5 billion as liftings rose 10%. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Asia-Europe

Escalating tariffs will cause ‘profound’ trade pattern changes: Cosco

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

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 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 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

Latest News

Intermodal Savings Index

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

APM to spend $500 million to enhance cargo handling at Elizabeth terminal

Maersk holds top spot for US Gulf import carriers in 2024; MSC best for exports

US LTL getting in position for higher freight demand — when it comes