<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The national average price for diesel last week dropped 3.3 cents to $2.186 per gallon, according to</div>

The national average price for diesel last week dropped 3.3 cents to $2.186 per gallon, according to

<div>The national average price for diesel last week dropped 3.3 cents to $2.186 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. As crude oil deepened its slide on Friday to $37.51 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the cost of refined products fell lower as well. The East Coast saw the biggest drop as diesel fell 4.6 cents to $2.25 per gallon, down $1.194 from a year ago. The smallest change, a drop of eight-tenths of a cent, brought the West Coast back to the top of the price chart with diesel selling for $2.284 per gallon,...

The national average price for diesel last week dropped 3.3 cents to $2.186 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. As crude oil deepened its slide on Friday to $37.51 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the cost of refined products fell lower as well. The East Coast saw the biggest drop as diesel fell 4.6 cents to $2.25 per gallon, down $1.194 from a year ago. The smallest change, a drop of eight-tenths of a cent, brought the West Coast back to the top of the price chart with diesel selling for $2.284 per gallon, down $1.17 from a year ago. Lowest cost diesel was available on the Gulf Coast for $2.133 per gallon, down 2.3 cents from last week and down $1.234 from a year ago.

Trucking News

Diesel Drops 3.3 Cents to $2.186

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.</div>

While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">There is no doubt that the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday</a> is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">in the lead-up</a> to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6052287_0.1.jpg"></img></div>There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. <ul><li>In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. </li><li>The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on-dock at origin. </li></ul>That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. <h3>More deals to come? </h3>There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

There is no doubt that the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already in the lead-up to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on-dock at origin. That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. More deals to come? There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Surface

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

Resolution of ‘major issues' now takes spotlight in UP-NS merger process

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Union Pacific said the acquisition of its smaller rival would improve service by reducing interchanges while taking market share from Canada’s Class I railroads and the truckload market.</div>

Union Pacific said the acquisition of its smaller rival would improve service by reducing interchanges while taking market share from Canada’s Class I railroads and the truckload market.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific said Tuesday it will acquire Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion cash-and-stock deal that will create the first transcontinental railroad in the US and take greater aim at Canadian rivals and the truckload market. UP said it will pay $320 per share for NS, which represents a 25% premium to the Class I railroad’s recent share price. NS shareholders will receive one share of UP and $88.82 in cash for each NS share. UP will fund the cash portion through new debt and its existing cash. The combined entity will be valued at $250 billion. The combined railroads will have over 50,000 miles of track across 43 states, with access to 100 ports, UP said. BNSF Railway, currently the largest Class I railroad, has about 32,500 miles of track. UP CEO Jim Vena said in a statement that a transcontinental railroad will create a more efficient network for shippers by reducing interchanges between the two carriers and offer customers more routing options for their goods. UP said rail markets such as the Ohio Valley and on both sides of the Mississippi River should see more efficient service by reducing interchanges. A US transcontinental railroad will also be able to compete more effectively with Canada’s Class I railroads that link to the Port of Vancouver and “win back US freight volume and American jobs,” UP said in the statement. Vena also touted the acquisition as creating “a more truck-competitive solution...that will decrease highway congestion, reducing wear-and-tear on taxpayer funded roads.” Still, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">analysts differ on whether a transcontinental railroad</a> would ease congestion in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and Kansas City, where trains are broken up and containers exchanged between carriers. UP expects about $2.75 billion in cost savings through the merger. Vena will remain CEO of UP while NS Chief Executive Mark George will join the board of the combined railroad. UP expects to file for merger approval with the US Surface Transportation Board within six months. The transaction is expected to be completed in early 2027 and includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee. Federal regulators such as the STB have the authority to impose conditions on major mergers. Railroads must show that any deal serves the public interest, reduces highway congestion and promotes competition. Other railroads, as well as non-intermodal shippers, are likely to use the UP-NS deal as an opportunity to seek concessions from UP in exchange for public support. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific said Tuesday it will acquire Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion cash-and-stock deal that will create the first transcontinental railroad in the US and take greater aim at Canadian rivals and the truckload market. UP said it will pay $320 per share for NS, which represents a 25% premium to the Class I railroad’s recent share price. NS shareholders will receive one share of UP and $88.82 in cash for each NS share. UP will fund the cash portion through new debt and its existing cash. The combined entity will be valued at $250 billion. The combined railroads will have over 50,000 miles of track across 43 states, with access to 100 ports, UP said. BNSF Railway, currently the largest Class I railroad, has about 32,500 miles of track. UP CEO Jim Vena said in a statement that a transcontinental railroad will create a more efficient network for shippers by reducing interchanges between the two carriers and offer customers more routing options for their goods. UP said rail markets such as the Ohio Valley and on both sides of the Mississippi River should see more efficient service by reducing interchanges. A US transcontinental railroad will also be able to compete more effectively with Canada’s Class I railroads that link to the Port of Vancouver and “win back US freight volume and American jobs,” UP said in the statement. Vena also touted the acquisition as creating “a more truck-competitive solution...that will decrease highway congestion, reducing wear-and-tear on taxpayer funded roads.” Still, analysts differ on whether a transcontinental railroad would ease congestion in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and Kansas City, where trains are broken up and containers exchanged between carriers. UP expects about $2.75 billion in cost savings through the merger. Vena will remain CEO of UP while NS Chief Executive Mark George will join the board of the combined railroad. UP expects to file for merger approval with the US Surface Transportation Board within six months. The transaction is expected to be completed in early 2027 and includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee. Federal regulators such as the STB have the authority to impose conditions on major mergers. Railroads must show that any deal serves the public interest, reduces highway congestion and promotes competition. Other railroads, as well as non-intermodal shippers, are likely to use the UP-NS deal as an opportunity to seek concessions from UP in exchange for public support. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Rail News

UP looks to create first coast-to-coast railroad with $85 billion NS deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The deal is DAT’s third in seven months as the freight marketplace seeks to build a multifaceted and trusted truckload transactional platform.</div>

The deal is DAT’s third in seven months as the freight marketplace seeks to build a multifaceted and trusted truckload transactional platform.

<div class="phx-topic">DAT Freight &amp; Analytics said Monday it has acquired Flexport’s Convoy Platform product for an undisclosed amount as the spot market load board operator aims to give its broker customers more direct and automated transactional access to truckload carriers. The purchase of Convoy is DAT’s third acquisition in seven months, after deals in May for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-adds-in-house-factoring-services-with-latest-acquisition-6005462">payment and factoring vendor Outgo</a> and December for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-acquires-trucker-tools-in-move-to-reduce-load-board-driver-churn-5907848">visibility provider Trucker Tools</a>, as it seeks to add more functionality to its load board business, the largest such marketplace in North America. It’s also the third owner of Convoy’s technology in less than two years, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/convoy-acquisition-meant-to-serve-import-customer-truckload-demand-flexport-ceo-5201037">Flexport having acquired the technology platform</a> after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/convoy-says-will-shut-operations-sell-off-technology-amid-market-downturn-5215523">demise of Convoy’s freight brokerage</a> business in the fall of 2023. For seller Flexport, the deal represents an apparent solid profit on its short-term ownership of the Convoy technology. A source who did not want to be identified pegged the Convoy sales price at about $250 million; Flexport acquired Convoy Platform for about $15 million. “We’re the biggest marketplace, but brokers and carriers want the most trusted and efficient marketplace, not just the biggest,” DAT CEO Jeff Clementz told the Journal of Commerce. “Trucker Tools helps with visibility and Outgo allows us to embed payments into the flow, which helps verify the broker and the carrier. “The last piece was an end-to-end automation platform, and we looked at building this ourselves, but we saw Convoy as having the best platform.” Clementz said the Convoy Platform will run in parallel with DAT One, the company’s core product for finding, booking and paying for loads, with both apps remaining operational until they’re merged over the next year. “This will be a free add-on service for customers,” he said. “Only when a broker is successful in automating a load will they pay a transaction fee. It’s free for carriers. We’re recommending they push all their loads into the platform, and those that can’t be automated will go through the DAT marketplace.” Clementz said existing DAT customers can onboard into Convoy in minutes using their DAT login credentials. About 98% of all loads in the Convoy Platform are automated, said Bill Driegert, executive vice president of trucking at Flexport, who is moving to DAT along with the Convoy team as part of the transaction. <h3>Straightforward migration </h3>In the first half of 2025, DAT’s executive team reached out to Driegert to explore the possibility of DAT acquiring the Convoy Platform, which had been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/flexport-resurrects-convoy-truckload-tech-as-tool-for-drivers-brokers-5200185">resurrected in early 2024</a> as a standalone transactional app for carriers and brokers. While Convoy had <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/resurrected-convoy-app-gaining-traction-among-small-carriers-brokers-flexport-5214133">attracted 30,000 carriers onto the app</a>, it was constrained by being associated with Flexport and its own brokerage business, Driegert said. “We were still in the early stages of bringing this back to market, and DAT has this huge reach,” he said. “And Convoy has the end-to-end execution.” Clementz said DAT sees up to half of the currently brokered loads as being “ultimately automatable.” “But we think, as brokers get more efficient, that number rises,” he said. Clementz added that the similarities in technology setups between DAT and Convoy will make the migration of Convoy’s automation toward the broader DAT platform straightforward, especially because the Convoy team already has experience in moving its technology from Convoy’s defunct brokerage business to Flexport. Driegert, meanwhile, said the deal gives brokers “optionality.” “Brokers have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-escaping-the-truckload-markets-inherent-fragmentation-for-convoy-5241498">different operating models</a>,” he said. “Those eager to automate and who love the latest tech have more options now.” <h3>Fraud prevention </h3>Driegert said the sale also “unencumbers” Flexport by allowing it to build out its brokerage while staying a partner with DAT. “I came to Flexport to build a brokerage,” said Driegert, who <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uber-freights-driegert-jumps-to-flexport-to-lead-new-brokerage-unit-5216644">moved from Uber Freight to Flexport in 2023</a>. “When we acquired the Convoy platform, it was clear that selling to brokers would bring the highest value. So we focused on that strategic direction and backed away from building the brokerage.” Clementz also pointed to the Convoy Platform’s track record in virtually eliminating fraud and fraud-enabled theft through its app. One of the final focuses for Convoy’s brokerage before its demise was a rollout of tools intended to root out fraud to the benefit of its shipper-customers. “We have so much information on the transaction and the device,” Driegert said. “We have a level of detail you can’t get at arm’s length, in terms of behavioral patterns that we’re following and how they interact with the platform.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DAT Freight & Analytics said Monday it has acquired Flexport’s Convoy Platform product for an undisclosed amount as the spot market load board operator aims to give its broker customers more direct and automated transactional access to truckload carriers. The purchase of Convoy is DAT’s third acquisition in seven months, after deals in May for payment and factoring vendor Outgo and December for visibility provider Trucker Tools , as it seeks to add more functionality to its load board business, the largest such marketplace in North America. It’s also the third owner of Convoy’s technology in less than two years, with Flexport having acquired the technology platform after the demise of Convoy’s freight brokerage business in the fall of 2023. For seller Flexport, the deal represents an apparent solid profit on its short-term ownership of the Convoy technology. A source who did not want to be identified pegged the Convoy sales price at about $250 million; Flexport acquired Convoy Platform for about $15 million. “We’re the biggest marketplace, but brokers and carriers want the most trusted and efficient marketplace, not just the biggest,” DAT CEO Jeff Clementz told the Journal of Commerce. “Trucker Tools helps with visibility and Outgo allows us to embed payments into the flow, which helps verify the broker and the carrier. “The last piece was an end-to-end automation platform, and we looked at building this ourselves, but we saw Convoy as having the best platform.” Clementz said the Convoy Platform will run in parallel with DAT One, the company’s core product for finding, booking and paying for loads, with both apps remaining operational until they’re merged over the next year. “This will be a free add-on service for customers,” he said. “Only when a broker is successful in automating a load will they pay a transaction fee. It’s free for carriers. We’re recommending they push all their loads into the platform, and those that can’t be automated will go through the DAT marketplace.” Clementz said existing DAT customers can onboard into Convoy in minutes using their DAT login credentials. About 98% of all loads in the Convoy Platform are automated, said Bill Driegert, executive vice president of trucking at Flexport, who is moving to DAT along with the Convoy team as part of the transaction. Straightforward migration In the first half of 2025, DAT’s executive team reached out to Driegert to explore the possibility of DAT acquiring the Convoy Platform, which had been resurrected in early 2024 as a standalone transactional app for carriers and brokers. While Convoy had attracted 30,000 carriers onto the app , it was constrained by being associated with Flexport and its own brokerage business, Driegert said. “We were still in the early stages of bringing this back to market, and DAT has this huge reach,” he said. “And Convoy has the end-to-end execution.” Clementz said DAT sees up to half of the currently brokered loads as being “ultimately automatable.” “But we think, as brokers get more efficient, that number rises,” he said. Clementz added that the similarities in technology setups between DAT and Convoy will make the migration of Convoy’s automation toward the broader DAT platform straightforward, especially because the Convoy team already has experience in moving its technology from Convoy’s defunct brokerage business to Flexport. Driegert, meanwhile, said the deal gives brokers “optionality.” “Brokers have different operating models ,” he said. “Those eager to automate and who love the latest tech have more options now.” Fraud prevention Driegert said the sale also “unencumbers” Flexport by allowing it to build out its brokerage while staying a partner with DAT. “I came to Flexport to build a brokerage,” said Driegert, who moved from Uber Freight to Flexport in 2023 . “When we acquired the Convoy platform, it was clear that selling to brokers would bring the highest value. So we focused on that strategic direction and backed away from building the brokerage.” Clementz also pointed to the Convoy Platform’s track record in virtually eliminating fraud and fraud-enabled theft through its app. One of the final focuses for Convoy’s brokerage before its demise was a rollout of tools intended to root out fraud to the benefit of its shipper-customers. “We have so much information on the transaction and the device,” Driegert said. “We have a level of detail you can’t get at arm’s length, in terms of behavioral patterns that we’re following and how they interact with the platform.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Truckload

Logistics Technology News

DAT acquiring Convoy automation platform from Flexport

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.</div>

The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.

<div class="phx-topic">CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/beijing-issues-warning-over-hutchisons-proposed-sale-of-panama-ports-company-5962910">Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal</a>, announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. <h3>Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy </h3>There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/big-hutchison-deal-could-reshuffle-global-ports-network-drewry-5958162">previously told the Journal of Commerce</a> that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal , announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, previously told the Journal of Commerce that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

International ports

Maritime

Hutchison confirms Chinese investor interest in BlackRock-TiL ports sale

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US Customs and Border Protection requires importers to maintain a bond for estimated duties owed, a number that has increased significantly as new tariffs take effect.</div>

US Customs and Border Protection requires importers to maintain a bond for estimated duties owed, a number that has increased significantly as new tariffs take effect.

<div class="phx-topic">US importers have been forced to significantly increase the amount of bond protection they are required to put up to cover anticipated tariffs amid the upheaval in trade policy driven by the Trump administration, trade compliance professionals say. That financial impact is huge given the rapid increase and variability of tariffs assessed over the last five months, largely because importers must predict the amount of tariffs they will pay in the future in order to calculate the bond coverage they need to maintain. In most cases, they’re also required to provide collateral that impacts their cash flow. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires importers to maintain a bond amount of at least 10% of the duties they estimate they will owe over a 12-month period, with mandated minimum continuous coverage of $50,000. “The sufficient bond amount is based on a rolling period of the prior 12 months,” said Sandy Coty, director of operational development at customs broker AN Deringer. “Customs monitors sufficiency on a monthly basis. Because recent months have higher duties than 12 months ago, the sum of the past 12 months is growing, and that growth is eventually causing the current bond amount [for most importers] to be insufficient based on CBP’s 10% rule.” Coty said an importer with 0% duties on $1 million of what’s known as “entered value” of imports each month would have only needed a $50,000 bond. At 10% to 25% tariffs now, after a few months, the importer would eclipse $500,000 in duty paid, meaning its $50,000 bond would no longer be sufficient. “They must plan for the 12 months under current rates to avoid the next bond becoming insufficient,” she said. “The problem is, it’s difficult to predict where the tariff will be in the future, or what the sales volume may be. Projecting a bond amount can be difficult in these uncertain times.” To put in context the extent that increased tariffs are burdening importers, Coty said more than 90% of continuous bonds were for the minimum $50,000 amount prior to January. Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics, said many importers are just beginning to understand the impact of the bond requirements because they never needed to maintain more than the minimum amount required with tariffs at relatively low levels. “Sureties are asking for full letters of credit [for collateral],” he said. “This is starting to happen right now.” <h3>Rapid increase in bonds </h3>To account for increased duties owed, importers generally need to secure a new bond, which is typically done in increments of $10,000. For example, an importer that held the minimum bond amount to cover no more than $500,000 in estimated duties and tariffs owed would have to increase it to $60,000 if it estimated it now owes between $500,001 and $600,000. The bond amount is generally rounded up to the nearest $10,000 for amounts under $1 million and to the nearest $100,000 for amounts over $1 million. Larger bonds for companies with weak balance sheets or operating losses may require collateral as well, Coty said. “Importers are typically granted a 30-day grace period to bring their surety to suitable levels,” customs broker Livingston International said in a blog about the increasing bond requirements. “Bonds that are not adequately increased within the 30-day period will likely be terminated and the importer will no longer have surety to cover their customs duties. Should this occur, goods will be held at the border until the importer secures adequate surety or pays the duties in full.” For most US importers, the amount of bond they need to maintain will far surpass what was required prior to the Trump administration ratcheting up tariffs. Rob Burdette, vice president of strategy at customs broker Shapiro, said clients that previously had bonds of $100,000 or higher are having to triple the size of those bonds, with the highest increase he’s seen at 15 times the previous levels. Bond levels have increased so quickly that CBP on July 21 circulated a message to customs brokers that it was forced to update its system for collecting bonds to accommodate estimated tariff “owed” amounts with 10 digits ($1 billion or more). <h3>‘Stacking’ bonds creates new challenges </h3>The headache for importers doesn’t stop at having to merely increase the amount of their bonds. Importers cannot just increase their existing bonds; they must write new bonds for the higher value required but don’t get a refund on the existing bond. And the “stacking” of bonds creates liability complexity that can be tricky to manage, as well as collateral demands that place financial pressure on importers. For instance, if an importer secured a $100,000 bond on Nov. 1, 2024, that renews on the same date in 2025, the importer’s bond will become insufficient before that date due to higher tariffs. CBP would force the company to get a new bond through an insufficiency notice, Burdette said. “Even if the importer acts on their own accord to increase the bond before the insufficiency, it still creates the stacking,” he said. “In this case, starting with the $100,000 bond, then having to add the $300,000 bond creates an aggregate bond liability of $400,000. Typically bonds over $200,000 require financials, so now, instead of your financials being able to support $100,000, it must support $400,000.” Burdette said the stacking is leading to financial exposure where “importers get in a situation where they are funding their own risk with collateral.” The collateral required is generally equal to the bond amount when more than $100,000, usually in the form of a cash deposit or a letter of credit, said Paul Diedrich, compliance officer at Ardent Global Logistics. “Importers have always needed a bond,” he said. “In the past some brokers may have allowed the use of their bonds, but that practice is now gone. The biggest new issue is the bond amount that is required.” In terms of the premiums importers are paying to secure those bonds, the general guideline is that it costs 1% of the amount of the bond, with premiums increasing proportionally to bond amounts, sources told the Journal of Commerce. In most cases, the collateral required to support the higher bonds is the bigger financial burden. “I tell our customers that paying a little extra bond premium to get a larger bond with some wiggle room is much cheaper than the cost of paying for a [letter of credit from a bank] or having their cash tied up in bond collateral,” Burdette said. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US importers have been forced to significantly increase the amount of bond protection they are required to put up to cover anticipated tariffs amid the upheaval in trade policy driven by the Trump administration, trade compliance professionals say. That financial impact is huge given the rapid increase and variability of tariffs assessed over the last five months, largely because importers must predict the amount of tariffs they will pay in the future in order to calculate the bond coverage they need to maintain. In most cases, they’re also required to provide collateral that impacts their cash flow. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires importers to maintain a bond amount of at least 10% of the duties they estimate they will owe over a 12-month period, with mandated minimum continuous coverage of $50,000. “The sufficient bond amount is based on a rolling period of the prior 12 months,” said Sandy Coty, director of operational development at customs broker AN Deringer. “Customs monitors sufficiency on a monthly basis. Because recent months have higher duties than 12 months ago, the sum of the past 12 months is growing, and that growth is eventually causing the current bond amount [for most importers] to be insufficient based on CBP’s 10% rule.” Coty said an importer with 0% duties on $1 million of what’s known as “entered value” of imports each month would have only needed a $50,000 bond. At 10% to 25% tariffs now, after a few months, the importer would eclipse $500,000 in duty paid, meaning its $50,000 bond would no longer be sufficient. “They must plan for the 12 months under current rates to avoid the next bond becoming insufficient,” she said. “The problem is, it’s difficult to predict where the tariff will be in the future, or what the sales volume may be. Projecting a bond amount can be difficult in these uncertain times.” To put in context the extent that increased tariffs are burdening importers, Coty said more than 90% of continuous bonds were for the minimum $50,000 amount prior to January. Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics, said many importers are just beginning to understand the impact of the bond requirements because they never needed to maintain more than the minimum amount required with tariffs at relatively low levels. “Sureties are asking for full letters of credit [for collateral],” he said. “This is starting to happen right now.” Rapid increase in bonds To account for increased duties owed, importers generally need to secure a new bond, which is typically done in increments of $10,000. For example, an importer that held the minimum bond amount to cover no more than $500,000 in estimated duties and tariffs owed would have to increase it to $60,000 if it estimated it now owes between $500,001 and $600,000. The bond amount is generally rounded up to the nearest $10,000 for amounts under $1 million and to the nearest $100,000 for amounts over $1 million. Larger bonds for companies with weak balance sheets or operating losses may require collateral as well, Coty said. “Importers are typically granted a 30-day grace period to bring their surety to suitable levels,” customs broker Livingston International said in a blog about the increasing bond requirements. “Bonds that are not adequately increased within the 30-day period will likely be terminated and the importer will no longer have surety to cover their customs duties. Should this occur, goods will be held at the border until the importer secures adequate surety or pays the duties in full.” For most US importers, the amount of bond they need to maintain will far surpass what was required prior to the Trump administration ratcheting up tariffs. Rob Burdette, vice president of strategy at customs broker Shapiro, said clients that previously had bonds of $100,000 or higher are having to triple the size of those bonds, with the highest increase he’s seen at 15 times the previous levels. Bond levels have increased so quickly that CBP on July 21 circulated a message to customs brokers that it was forced to update its system for collecting bonds to accommodate estimated tariff “owed” amounts with 10 digits ($1 billion or more). ‘Stacking’ bonds creates new challenges The headache for importers doesn’t stop at having to merely increase the amount of their bonds. Importers cannot just increase their existing bonds; they must write new bonds for the higher value required but don’t get a refund on the existing bond. And the “stacking” of bonds creates liability complexity that can be tricky to manage, as well as collateral demands that place financial pressure on importers. For instance, if an importer secured a $100,000 bond on Nov. 1, 2024, that renews on the same date in 2025, the importer’s bond will become insufficient before that date due to higher tariffs. CBP would force the company to get a new bond through an insufficiency notice, Burdette said. “Even if the importer acts on their own accord to increase the bond before the insufficiency, it still creates the stacking,” he said. “In this case, starting with the $100,000 bond, then having to add the $300,000 bond creates an aggregate bond liability of $400,000. Typically bonds over $200,000 require financials, so now, instead of your financials being able to support $100,000, it must support $400,000.” Burdette said the stacking is leading to financial exposure where “importers get in a situation where they are funding their own risk with collateral.” The collateral required is generally equal to the bond amount when more than $100,000, usually in the form of a cash deposit or a letter of credit, said Paul Diedrich, compliance officer at Ardent Global Logistics. “Importers have always needed a bond,” he said. “In the past some brokers may have allowed the use of their bonds, but that practice is now gone. The biggest new issue is the bond amount that is required.” In terms of the premiums importers are paying to secure those bonds, the general guideline is that it costs 1% of the amount of the bond, with premiums increasing proportionally to bond amounts, sources told the Journal of Commerce. In most cases, the collateral required to support the higher bonds is the bigger financial burden. “I tell our customers that paying a little extra bond premium to get a larger bond with some wiggle room is much cheaper than the cost of paying for a [letter of credit from a bank] or having their cash tied up in bond collateral,” Burdette said. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

US importers scramble to manage huge hike in bond outlay linked to higher tariffs

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

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

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Resolution of ‘major issues' now takes spotlight in UP-NS merger process

UP looks to create first coast-to-coast railroad with $85 billion NS deal

DAT acquiring Convoy automation platform from Flexport