<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY is the best assurance that sharp increases in fuel prices, such as t</div>

A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY is the best assurance that sharp increases in fuel prices, such as t

<div>A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY is the best assurance that sharp increases in fuel prices, such as those following last month's Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, won't send the economy into a tailspin. Making cars that travel farther on a gallon of gasoline is one easy step. But efforts to mandate improved fuel efficiency are facing opposition from insurance groups, which claim that more miles a gallon means more serious accidents. That's a trade-off that doesn't have to be.The easiest way to squeeze more mileage out of a car is to make it smaller and lighter. That is the course carmakers pursued...

A MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY is the best assurance that sharp increases in fuel prices, such as those following last month's Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, won't send the economy into a tailspin. Making cars that travel farther on a gallon of gasoline is one easy step. But efforts to mandate improved fuel efficiency are facing opposition from insurance groups, which claim that more miles a gallon means more serious accidents. That's a trade-off that doesn't have to be. The easiest way to squeeze more mileage out of a car is to make it smaller and lighter. That is the course carmakers pursued starting in the late 1970s, when the federal government began requiring annual improvements in the average fuel economy of the cars sold by each manufacturer. Vehicles shrank in length. Steel and aluminum body parts gave way to lightweight plastic, which offers less resistance in accidents.The consequences were predictable. After studying the deaths of passengers in 47 models of four-door cars, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that every one-mile-a-gallon improvement in fuel economy meant a 3.9 percent increase in the fatality rate. It also recorded higher insurance damage claims for smaller cars. Those findings, unfortunately, are being used to argue against legislation requiring manufacturers to make their vehicles more fuel efficient. The same arguments presumably apply to large increases in motor fuels taxes, which would drive consumers to demand better fuel economy. In either case, they are being misused. Cars, large or small, are required to meet federal safety standards. Those standards, unfortunately, were not improved in the anti-regulation environment of the Reagan administration. If they are inadequate, they can be tightened, forcing manufacturers to improve fuel economy without sacrificing safety. But Congress shouldn't buy the claim that the only safe car is a gas guzzler.

FUEL EFFICIENCY

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Iran-driven fuel spike has created the widest intermodal cost advantage in years, but capturing it — and keeping it — requires something railroads have rarely practiced: orchestrated intermodal, writes Paul Tonsager.</div>

The Iran-driven fuel spike has created the widest intermodal cost advantage in years, but capturing it — and keeping it — requires something railroads have rarely practiced: orchestrated intermodal, writes Paul Tonsager.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Gulf Coast diesel hit $5.13 per gallon for the week ended March 23 — up 30 cents in a single week and still the cheapest regional price in the country, according to government data. East Coast truckers are paying $5.48; California operators are staring at $6.87. For long-haul carriers already squeezed by two years of overcapacity and compressed margins, the Iran conflict’s disruption to Strait of Hormuz crude flows has turned a manageable cost structure into a cash hemorrhage. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6192409_0.1.jpg"></img></div>For railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), this is the moment they have been waiting for since freight markets went soft in 2023. The fuel efficiency advantage of rail is not new. Most beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) have already run the numbers — and until now, trucking won. What is new is that the price spread has widened to the point where the math is changing answers that shippers thought were settled. That question is the gift. Namely, what railroads do with it — and what their entire partner network does with it — determines whether the next 12 months represent a lasting franchise expansion or another cycle of mode-shift freight that returns to trucks the moment diesel retreats. <h3>Sell the network, not the lane </h3>When a shipper calls because diesel just hit $5 per gallon, the instinct is to quote the lane they asked about and close the booking. That is the wrong move. A shipper under fuel pressure is not just repricing one lane — they are repricing their entire transportation wallet. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) that arrive with a network proposal — (“here is your freight portfolio across high-density corridors, here is the landed cost comparison across your full book”) — will capture meaningful wallet share, not just the lane that prompted the call. The shipper asking about Chicago-to-Dallas may have 10 corridors where intermodal is now the better economic answer. Sell the lane and you win the booking. Sell the network and you win the account. <h3>Orchestrated intermodal </h3>Here is the part most railroads get wrong even when the commercial conversation goes well: The railroad cannot retain the shipper alone — and when it was talking to the shipper directly, it was a strategy call, not the day-to-day operational relationship that actually creates loyalty. To the BCO, the underlying carriers — the steamship line, the dray operator, the chassis pool — are largely unknown. The IMC is the only throat to choke. When something breaks, that call goes to the IMC. And if the IMC can't fix it, the freight goes back to trucking. But here is the structural reality: Railroads have largely ceded the BCO relationship to their wholesale partners — the steamship lines and IMCs who hold the direct commercial connection to the cargo owner. That is not a failure; it is the model. The liner and the IMC own the loyalty, the wallet conversation, and the export opportunity as BCOs move polyethylene and other commodities into Atlantic markets. The railroad’s job is not to reclaim that relationship — it is to make its wholesale partners effective enough orchestrators that the freight stays on rail. That means investing in the partners, not competing with them. Shared visibility tools. Service commitments at the account level, not just the corridor level. Chassis and terminal performance the IMC can actually promise a BCO without hedging. Winning this window — and I borrow that term from tech, where timing a market shift is the whole game — requires the railroad to function as the backbone of orchestrated intermodal, enabling the steamship lines and IMCs who own the customer to deliver on the promise. <h3>Is your tech stack ready to orchestrate? </h3>That is the question every railroad and IMC should be asking because orchestrated intermodal is not a commercial concept; it is a technology commitment. Can you see the dray carrier's ETA in real time, or are you still making phone calls? Is chassis pool visibility live, or a spreadsheet updated twice a day? Is terminal dwell data current enough to intervene before a shipper's container becomes a problem? Can your systems flag new conversion accounts showing stress signals before the shipper calls their broker? Orchestration requires account-level visibility — knowing that this shipper's container, on this lane, with this dray partner, is at risk right now. The technology exists: visibility platforms, AI-driven exception management, connected partner APIs. The question is whether a diesel spike is finally the urgency that accelerates the investment. Show up with a rate sheet but not a visibility platform and you win the booking and lose the account. Show up with both and you build something that outlasts the fuel cycle. The diesel spike hands railroads the invitation. Orchestrating the entire service chain — and the technology behind it — to deliver on it is entirely up to them. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io.</a></div>

Gulf Coast diesel hit $5.13 per gallon for the week ended March 23 — up 30 cents in a single week and still the cheapest regional price in the country, according to government data. East Coast truckers are paying $5.48; California operators are staring at $6.87. For long-haul carriers already squeezed by two years of overcapacity and compressed margins, the Iran conflict’s disruption to Strait of Hormuz crude flows has turned a manageable cost structure into a cash hemorrhage. For railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), this is the moment they have been waiting for since freight markets went soft in 2023. The fuel efficiency advantage of rail is not new. Most beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) have already run the numbers — and until now, trucking won. What is new is that the price spread has widened to the point where the math is changing answers that shippers thought were settled. That question is the gift. Namely, what railroads do with it — and what their entire partner network does with it — determines whether the next 12 months represent a lasting franchise expansion or another cycle of mode-shift freight that returns to trucks the moment diesel retreats. Sell the network, not the lane When a shipper calls because diesel just hit $5 per gallon, the instinct is to quote the lane they asked about and close the booking. That is the wrong move. A shipper under fuel pressure is not just repricing one lane — they are repricing their entire transportation wallet. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) that arrive with a network proposal — (“here is your freight portfolio across high-density corridors, here is the landed cost comparison across your full book”) — will capture meaningful wallet share, not just the lane that prompted the call. The shipper asking about Chicago-to-Dallas may have 10 corridors where intermodal is now the better economic answer. Sell the lane and you win the booking. Sell the network and you win the account. Orchestrated intermodal Here is the part most railroads get wrong even when the commercial conversation goes well: The railroad cannot retain the shipper alone — and when it was talking to the shipper directly, it was a strategy call, not the day-to-day operational relationship that actually creates loyalty. To the BCO, the underlying carriers — the steamship line, the dray operator, the chassis pool — are largely unknown. The IMC is the only throat to choke. When something breaks, that call goes to the IMC. And if the IMC can't fix it, the freight goes back to trucking. But here is the structural reality: Railroads have largely ceded the BCO relationship to their wholesale partners — the steamship lines and IMCs who hold the direct commercial connection to the cargo owner. That is not a failure; it is the model. The liner and the IMC own the loyalty, the wallet conversation, and the export opportunity as BCOs move polyethylene and other commodities into Atlantic markets. The railroad’s job is not to reclaim that relationship — it is to make its wholesale partners effective enough orchestrators that the freight stays on rail. That means investing in the partners, not competing with them. Shared visibility tools. Service commitments at the account level, not just the corridor level. Chassis and terminal performance the IMC can actually promise a BCO without hedging. Winning this window — and I borrow that term from tech, where timing a market shift is the whole game — requires the railroad to function as the backbone of orchestrated intermodal, enabling the steamship lines and IMCs who own the customer to deliver on the promise. Is your tech stack ready to orchestrate? That is the question every railroad and IMC should be asking because orchestrated intermodal is not a commercial concept; it is a technology commitment. Can you see the dray carrier's ETA in real time, or are you still making phone calls? Is chassis pool visibility live, or a spreadsheet updated twice a day? Is terminal dwell data current enough to intervene before a shipper's container becomes a problem? Can your systems flag new conversion accounts showing stress signals before the shipper calls their broker? Orchestration requires account-level visibility — knowing that this shipper's container, on this lane, with this dray partner, is at risk right now. The technology exists: visibility platforms, AI-driven exception management, connected partner APIs. The question is whether a diesel spike is finally the urgency that accelerates the investment. Show up with a rate sheet but not a visibility platform and you win the booking and lose the account. Show up with both and you build something that outlasts the fuel cycle. The diesel spike hands railroads the invitation. Orchestrating the entire service chain — and the technology behind it — to deliver on it is entirely up to them. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io.

Truckload

North-American rail

International rail

Surface

War hands railroads the ‘gift’ of higher diesel prices

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Union Pacific for the second time in five weeks is resetting freight-all-kinds rates on key lanes for rail-owned boxes used by intermodal marketing companies.</div>

Union Pacific for the second time in five weeks is resetting freight-all-kinds rates on key lanes for rail-owned boxes used by intermodal marketing companies.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) on Tuesday adjusted rates for rail-owned boxes used by intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), the second such move in the last five weeks amid a widening gap between the truckload spot market and domestic intermodal rates. The pricing adjustments, which go into effect April 1, cover freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on roughly 30 lanes on so-called EMP boxes and UMAX boxes which interchange with Norfolk Southern and CSX, respectively. About half of the adjustments seek a rate increase, ranging from 1.6% to 14.8%, while the other half actually lower rates between 1.2% and 29%. The moves come as current truckload spot rates have soared since the start of 2026, up between 15% to 20% year on year, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. UP is eyeing an opportunity to win back cargo that can flex between domestic intermodal and truckload as truckload spot rates rise. Truckload contract rates have risen by the low single digits thus far in 2026, due in part to tightening capacity from US regulatory scrutiny over non-domiciled and non-English language proficient drivers, and the lingering effects of weather disruptions from February. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9f53592f-fdc6-46d3-b392-18fdccf441fe"></dynamic-object></div>A big jump in diesel prices due to the war in the Middle East has also pushed truckload carriers to raise all-in spot rates as they attempt to recapture an unexpected operational cost, while the increased cost of diesel is captured through fuel surcharges on contract rates. Those dynamics present an opportunity for railroads to recapture volume lost to truckload as the full truckload market navigated three years of low pricing, inducing shippers to move cargo to truckload. Even before the recent jump in diesel prices, the spread between spot truckload and spot intermodal rates was widening, with the gap at 68 cents in February, according to the Journal of Commerce’s Intermodal Savings Index (ISI). Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) on Tuesday adjusted rates for rail-owned boxes used by intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), the second such move in the last five weeks amid a widening gap between the truckload spot market and domestic intermodal rates. The pricing adjustments, which go into effect April 1, cover freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on roughly 30 lanes on so-called EMP boxes and UMAX boxes which interchange with Norfolk Southern and CSX, respectively. About half of the adjustments seek a rate increase, ranging from 1.6% to 14.8%, while the other half actually lower rates between 1.2% and 29%. The moves come as current truckload spot rates have soared since the start of 2026, up between 15% to 20% year on year, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. UP is eyeing an opportunity to win back cargo that can flex between domestic intermodal and truckload as truckload spot rates rise. Truckload contract rates have risen by the low single digits thus far in 2026, due in part to tightening capacity from US regulatory scrutiny over non-domiciled and non-English language proficient drivers, and the lingering effects of weather disruptions from February. A big jump in diesel prices due to the war in the Middle East has also pushed truckload carriers to raise all-in spot rates as they attempt to recapture an unexpected operational cost, while the increased cost of diesel is captured through fuel surcharges on contract rates. Those dynamics present an opportunity for railroads to recapture volume lost to truckload as the full truckload market navigated three years of low pricing, inducing shippers to move cargo to truckload. Even before the recent jump in diesel prices, the spread between spot truckload and spot intermodal rates was widening, with the gap at 68 cents in February, according to the Journal of Commerce’s Intermodal Savings Index (ISI). Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Trucking News

Rail News

UP adjusts intermodal pricing to win back volume as truckload rates climb

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Houston and New Orleans are coming off a year of growth for project cargo volumes, albeit with a drop in steel imports, and both ports anticipate a continuation of those trends.</div>

Houston and New Orleans are coming off a year of growth for project cargo volumes, albeit with a drop in steel imports, and both ports anticipate a continuation of those trends.

<div class="phx-topic">Major industrial and energy projects on the Gulf Coast are dialing up cargo activity at two of the largest US ports for breakbulk and project cargo, even as conflict in the Middle East introduces global shipping disruptions and tariff-induced market volatilities linger. The Port of New Orleans and Port Houston are coming off a year of growth for project cargo volumes, albeit with a drop in steel imports, and both ports anticipate a continuation of those trends. For New Orleans, the latest development expected to drive project cargo activity is the $3.4 billion expansion of Shintech’s chemical manufacturing complex in southeastern Louisiana, a project announced March 4. Construction is set to take place in phases, with the first phase slated for completion in 2030. Shintech is the world’s largest manufacturer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). “With them announcing a new expansion, there’s a lot of optimism from the petrochemical sector, especially in light of the challenges in the Middle East that affect the products they’re producing on a competitive scale,” Janine Mansour, director of trade development for the Port of New Orleans, told the Journal of Commerce. Project cargo volumes at the Port of New Orleans increased 31% to 64,806 tons in 2025, with shipments originating from multiple global locations including Italy, China, India, Thailand, and South Korea, according to data from the Port. That growth comes after a 46% increase in project cargo volumes in 2024. Major projects producing project cargo include Venture Global’s massive CP2 liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in southwest Louisiana, UBE Corporation’s Louisiana EV battery plant outside of New Orleans that will produce key chemicals used in EV battery manufacturing, and Meta’s 4-million-square-foot data center in northeast Louisiana. Hyundai Steel also plans to build a $5.8 billion low-carbon steel mill in southeast Louisiana. Overall breakbulk volumes at the Port of New Orleans fell 22% to 958,152 tons in 2025, according to port data, because of tariff-related market uncertainty and because some steel and non-ferrous cargoes have shifted to containers, Mansour said. Breakbulk steel volumes declined 29% to 524,749 short tons in 2025, with most cargo coming from Japan, followed by South Korea and China, according to data from the port. “Steel imports have been severely hit by tariff increases to foster domestic production,” Mansour said, adding that the port last year measured an 80% year-over-year increase, to 129,705 tons, of bulk imports of ferro alloys and silico-alloys, both of which are used in steel manufacturing. With the declines in breakbulk cargoes, the total number of multipurpose/heavy-lift vessel (MPV/HL) calls at New Orleans fell to 163 in 2025 from 189 the previous year. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East could potentially squeeze vessel capacity for breakbulk and project cargoes worldwide, as port closures and route changes have already been tying up vessels on the container side, Mansour said. That could indirectly affect vessel movements at the Port of New Orleans. “For the carriers that are calling New Orleans, if they do have routes in the Middle East, they may have disruptions where it affects their capacity from a global fleet perspective,” she said. “But we’re not anticipating significant impacts on the breakbulk and project cargo side, and we haven’t really seen any direct impacts yet.” Mansour acknowledged that the Middle East is not a major shipping lane for breakbulk and project cargoes for the port. <h3>Cargo mix offsets steel slump for Houston </h3>With tariffs chipping away at steel imports, Port Houston is looking to cargo diversification and Gulf Coast project developments to expand cargo shipments for the nation’s largest breakbulk and project cargo gateway. Volumes of general cargo — which the port defines to include project cargo, breakbulk, and other non-containerized goods — reached 564,346 tons in January, a 27% year-over-year increase, according to Port Houston data. That growth trend is expected to continue, driven in part by a mix of projects under development in the region, port spokesperson Lisa Ashley-Daniels told the Journal of Commerce. “There are several major industrial and energy projects along the Gulf Coast that are expected to move forward between 2026 and 2028, with the potential to generate considerable breakbulk and heavy-lift cargo through Port Houston,” she said. Breakbulk steel imports at Port Houston declined 35% year over year to 213,653 tons in January, according to port data, mirroring larger trends tied to lower drilling activity, Ashley-Daniels said. For all of 2025, breakbulk steel volumes fell 8% to just under 4.2 million tons. “The decline in steel imports that Houston experienced in January is not unique to the port, but reflects broad shifts in energy markets, supply and demand drivers, regulatory environments, and trade policies, among other contributing factors,” she said. Significant activity from cargo types other than steel is driving an overall rise in general cargo volumes at the port, Ashley-Daniels said, citing quadruple-digit growth in machinery, triple-digit increases in grain, and double-digit gains in pet coke volumes and roll-on/roll-off cargo in February. “The growing diversification of breakbulk cargo beyond steel is helping to stabilize overall activity,” Ashley-Daniels said, adding that cargo activity for these commodities is expected to increase further. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com.</a></div>

Major industrial and energy projects on the Gulf Coast are dialing up cargo activity at two of the largest US ports for breakbulk and project cargo, even as conflict in the Middle East introduces global shipping disruptions and tariff-induced market volatilities linger. The Port of New Orleans and Port Houston are coming off a year of growth for project cargo volumes, albeit with a drop in steel imports, and both ports anticipate a continuation of those trends. For New Orleans, the latest development expected to drive project cargo activity is the $3.4 billion expansion of Shintech’s chemical manufacturing complex in southeastern Louisiana, a project announced March 4. Construction is set to take place in phases, with the first phase slated for completion in 2030. Shintech is the world’s largest manufacturer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). “With them announcing a new expansion, there’s a lot of optimism from the petrochemical sector, especially in light of the challenges in the Middle East that affect the products they’re producing on a competitive scale,” Janine Mansour, director of trade development for the Port of New Orleans, told the Journal of Commerce. Project cargo volumes at the Port of New Orleans increased 31% to 64,806 tons in 2025, with shipments originating from multiple global locations including Italy, China, India, Thailand, and South Korea, according to data from the Port. That growth comes after a 46% increase in project cargo volumes in 2024. Major projects producing project cargo include Venture Global’s massive CP2 liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in southwest Louisiana, UBE Corporation’s Louisiana EV battery plant outside of New Orleans that will produce key chemicals used in EV battery manufacturing, and Meta’s 4-million-square-foot data center in northeast Louisiana. Hyundai Steel also plans to build a $5.8 billion low-carbon steel mill in southeast Louisiana. Overall breakbulk volumes at the Port of New Orleans fell 22% to 958,152 tons in 2025, according to port data, because of tariff-related market uncertainty and because some steel and non-ferrous cargoes have shifted to containers, Mansour said. Breakbulk steel volumes declined 29% to 524,749 short tons in 2025, with most cargo coming from Japan, followed by South Korea and China, according to data from the port. “Steel imports have been severely hit by tariff increases to foster domestic production,” Mansour said, adding that the port last year measured an 80% year-over-year increase, to 129,705 tons, of bulk imports of ferro alloys and silico-alloys, both of which are used in steel manufacturing. With the declines in breakbulk cargoes, the total number of multipurpose/heavy-lift vessel (MPV/HL) calls at New Orleans fell to 163 in 2025 from 189 the previous year. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East could potentially squeeze vessel capacity for breakbulk and project cargoes worldwide, as port closures and route changes have already been tying up vessels on the container side, Mansour said. That could indirectly affect vessel movements at the Port of New Orleans. “For the carriers that are calling New Orleans, if they do have routes in the Middle East, they may have disruptions where it affects their capacity from a global fleet perspective,” she said. “But we’re not anticipating significant impacts on the breakbulk and project cargo side, and we haven’t really seen any direct impacts yet.” Mansour acknowledged that the Middle East is not a major shipping lane for breakbulk and project cargoes for the port. Cargo mix offsets steel slump for Houston With tariffs chipping away at steel imports, Port Houston is looking to cargo diversification and Gulf Coast project developments to expand cargo shipments for the nation’s largest breakbulk and project cargo gateway. Volumes of general cargo — which the port defines to include project cargo, breakbulk, and other non-containerized goods — reached 564,346 tons in January, a 27% year-over-year increase, according to Port Houston data. That growth trend is expected to continue, driven in part by a mix of projects under development in the region, port spokesperson Lisa Ashley-Daniels told the Journal of Commerce. “There are several major industrial and energy projects along the Gulf Coast that are expected to move forward between 2026 and 2028, with the potential to generate considerable breakbulk and heavy-lift cargo through Port Houston,” she said. Breakbulk steel imports at Port Houston declined 35% year over year to 213,653 tons in January, according to port data, mirroring larger trends tied to lower drilling activity, Ashley-Daniels said. For all of 2025, breakbulk steel volumes fell 8% to just under 4.2 million tons. “The decline in steel imports that Houston experienced in January is not unique to the port, but reflects broad shifts in energy markets, supply and demand drivers, regulatory environments, and trade policies, among other contributing factors,” she said. Significant activity from cargo types other than steel is driving an overall rise in general cargo volumes at the port, Ashley-Daniels said, citing quadruple-digit growth in machinery, triple-digit increases in grain, and double-digit gains in pet coke volumes and roll-on/roll-off cargo in February. “The growing diversification of breakbulk cargo beyond steel is helping to stabilize overall activity,” Ashley-Daniels said, adding that cargo activity for these commodities is expected to increase further. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com.

Port News

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Breakbulk News

Maritime

US Gulf breakbulk ports lean into project boom

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier alliance will shake up its Asia-Europe network in April with Busan becoming the focus of its North Asia trade and direct calls ending to ports in Japan and Taiwan.</div>

The carrier alliance will shake up its Asia-Europe network in April with Busan becoming the focus of its North Asia trade and direct calls ending to ports in Japan and Taiwan.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express (ONE) has expanded its Asia container terminal network by acquiring a stake in Dongwon Global Terminal Busan (DGT) from South Korean conglomerate and terminal owner Dongwon Group, ONE said Tuesday. The carrier gave no details about how much it paid for what it referred to in a statement as an “indirect but meaningful share” or the size of the shareholding in the fully automated DGT. The terminal, which opened in April 2024, will have a capacity of more than 4.5 million TEUs with five mainline berths totaling 5,740 feet and one berth of 1,263 feet for feeder ships when completed around 2030. ONE previously took minority stakes in China’s Dalian Container Terminal last December and Jakarta’s New Priok Container Terminal One (NPCT1) in Indonesia in November 2024. More broadly, ONE’s move comes as container lines, supported by record profits from several years of supply chain disruption, are investing more in marine terminals to gain better control of landside operations and mitigate port congestion. ONE CEO Jeremey Nixon, speaking at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference earlier this month, said carriers are "increasingly having to come into the terminal space and taking over involvement in major gateway ports, or major hub ports, and that trend will continue to accelerate, I think, over the next 10 to 15 years.” ”But the problem there is the number of terminals or ports that are available to be acquired is not that significant,” Nixon said. <h3>Premier Alliance Asia-Europe network shift </h3>ONE’s terminal move in Busan also comes ahead of a shakeup in the Premier Alliance’s Asia-Europe network in April that will see Busan become the focus of its North Asia trade, while ending direct calls at ports in Japan and Taiwan. Instead, the group, comprising ONE, HMM and Yang Ming Marine Transport, will launch four shuttle services connecting Busan with Tokyo, Nagoya and Kobe in Japan and with Kaohsiung and Taichung in Taiwan, plus Xiamen in eastern China. While CMA CGM is launching its own <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-launch-standalone-japan-europe-express-service-in-april-6177297">direct Asia-Japan service in April</a>, it will use smaller vessels – 14 ships ranging in size from 7,000 to 10,000 TEU – compared with 20 9,500-13,000-TEU ships previously deployed by the Premier Alliance. It is also one service while the Premier Alliance operated two direct Asia-Europe services from Japan which have now ended with the new 2026 network. The shift in focus to Busan is expected to drive a further increase in transshipment traffic through the port, which has seen transshipment make up an increasing proportion of total container volumes over the last five years, from almost 53% in 2021 to 56% last year. Transshipment volumes are also growing at a faster clip than origin and destination cargo. Busan port authority figures show transshipment cargoes increased 4.4% to 14.1 million TEUs last year out of total throughput of 24.9 million TEUs. That followed an 8.8% surge to 13.5 million TEUs in transshipment volumes in 2024. By comparison, origin and destination cargoes at Busan nudged lower last year to 10.8 million TEUs from 10.9 million TEUs in 2024. Busan has also been consistently higher on the UN Conference on Trade and Development port liner shipping connectivity index than its Japanese rival ports since at least 2008. Results for the fourth quarter of 2025 show Busan with an index ranking of 1,648 compared with Tokyo at 585 and Kobe at 555. According to UNCTAD’s methodology, the higher the ranking number, the better the connectivity. <h3>Improving transshipment cargo handling </h3>The growth in transshipment volumes comes as the Busan Port Authority is introducing a comprehensive digital port community system this year that will improve cargo handling efficiencies for transshipment cargo moving between the port’s nine terminals. Results from pilot tests last year have already shown significant productivity gains with a 90% reduction in container rehandling, up to a 50% reduction in truck waiting times and a threefold increase in load factors, Lee Eung-hyuk, the port authority’s director of international logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Final quantitative outcomes are expected to be confirmed around 2027, he added. The digital port community system is part of a wider initiative to solidify Busan’s position as the main transshipment hub for north Asia. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Ocean Network Express (ONE) has expanded its Asia container terminal network by acquiring a stake in Dongwon Global Terminal Busan (DGT) from South Korean conglomerate and terminal owner Dongwon Group, ONE said Tuesday. The carrier gave no details about how much it paid for what it referred to in a statement as an “indirect but meaningful share” or the size of the shareholding in the fully automated DGT. The terminal, which opened in April 2024, will have a capacity of more than 4.5 million TEUs with five mainline berths totaling 5,740 feet and one berth of 1,263 feet for feeder ships when completed around 2030. ONE previously took minority stakes in China’s Dalian Container Terminal last December and Jakarta’s New Priok Container Terminal One (NPCT1) in Indonesia in November 2024. More broadly, ONE’s move comes as container lines, supported by record profits from several years of supply chain disruption, are investing more in marine terminals to gain better control of landside operations and mitigate port congestion. ONE CEO Jeremey Nixon, speaking at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference earlier this month, said carriers are "increasingly having to come into the terminal space and taking over involvement in major gateway ports, or major hub ports, and that trend will continue to accelerate, I think, over the next 10 to 15 years.” ”But the problem there is the number of terminals or ports that are available to be acquired is not that significant,” Nixon said. Premier Alliance Asia-Europe network shift ONE’s terminal move in Busan also comes ahead of a shakeup in the Premier Alliance’s Asia-Europe network in April that will see Busan become the focus of its North Asia trade, while ending direct calls at ports in Japan and Taiwan. Instead, the group, comprising ONE, HMM and Yang Ming Marine Transport, will launch four shuttle services connecting Busan with Tokyo, Nagoya and Kobe in Japan and with Kaohsiung and Taichung in Taiwan, plus Xiamen in eastern China. While CMA CGM is launching its own direct Asia-Japan service in April , it will use smaller vessels – 14 ships ranging in size from 7,000 to 10,000 TEU – compared with 20 9,500-13,000-TEU ships previously deployed by the Premier Alliance. It is also one service while the Premier Alliance operated two direct Asia-Europe services from Japan which have now ended with the new 2026 network. The shift in focus to Busan is expected to drive a further increase in transshipment traffic through the port, which has seen transshipment make up an increasing proportion of total container volumes over the last five years, from almost 53% in 2021 to 56% last year. Transshipment volumes are also growing at a faster clip than origin and destination cargo. Busan port authority figures show transshipment cargoes increased 4.4% to 14.1 million TEUs last year out of total throughput of 24.9 million TEUs. That followed an 8.8% surge to 13.5 million TEUs in transshipment volumes in 2024. By comparison, origin and destination cargoes at Busan nudged lower last year to 10.8 million TEUs from 10.9 million TEUs in 2024. Busan has also been consistently higher on the UN Conference on Trade and Development port liner shipping connectivity index than its Japanese rival ports since at least 2008. Results for the fourth quarter of 2025 show Busan with an index ranking of 1,648 compared with Tokyo at 585 and Kobe at 555. According to UNCTAD’s methodology, the higher the ranking number, the better the connectivity. Improving transshipment cargo handling The growth in transshipment volumes comes as the Busan Port Authority is introducing a comprehensive digital port community system this year that will improve cargo handling efficiencies for transshipment cargo moving between the port’s nine terminals. Results from pilot tests last year have already shown significant productivity gains with a 90% reduction in container rehandling, up to a 50% reduction in truck waiting times and a threefold increase in load factors, Lee Eung-hyuk, the port authority’s director of international logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Final quantitative outcomes are expected to be confirmed around 2027, he added. The digital port community system is part of a wider initiative to solidify Busan’s position as the main transshipment hub for north Asia. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Container lines

Marine terminals

International ports

Container Shipping News

ONE takes stake in Busan’s Dongwon terminal ahead of Premier network shift

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East. </div>

The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">recoup the higher operating costs</a> tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are: linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” <h3>Seeking to recoup higher costs </h3>The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds rates (FAK) are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU; and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&amp;I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. <h3>Waiver requests filed in early March </h3>The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2-5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the (FMC).” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a></div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to recoup the higher operating costs tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are: linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” Seeking to recoup higher costs The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds rates (FAK) are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU; and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. Waiver requests filed in early March The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2-5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the (FMC).” Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Supply chain

FMC rejects requests by carriers to waive waiting period for Middle East surcharges

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 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 FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Latest News

More News & Analysis

War hands railroads the ‘gift’ of higher diesel prices

UP adjusts intermodal pricing to win back volume as truckload rates climb

US Gulf breakbulk ports lean into project boom