Gary Frantz is a contributing editor for DC Velocity and its sister publication, Supply Chain Xchange. He is a veteran communications executive with more than 30 years of experience in the transportation and logistics industries. He's served as communications director and strategic media relations counselor for companies including XPO Logistics, Con-way, Menlo Logistics, GT Nexus, Circle International Group, and Consolidated Freightways. Gary is currently principal of GNF Communications LLC, a consultancy providing freelance writing, editorial and media strategy services. He's a proud graduate of the Journalism program at California State University–Chico.
The great ocean freight tsunami that swamped the maritime industry from the fall of 2021 through spring 2022—and threw ports and containership lines for a loop—has subsided. In its place has emerged a market slowly returning to some semblance of pre-pandemic normal while facing the prospect of a recession on the near-term horizon, rapidly softening demand, and plummeting rates for container cargoes that have yet to hit bottom—and are foreshadowing rate wars of past years.
“Spot rate levels are back to pre-pandemic levels,” observes Lars Jensen, chief executive officer of consulting firm Vespucci Maritime. He cites two principal reasons. One has been the recovery of ports from congestion bottlenecks through the first half of last year. “High rate levels were partly a function of vessels trapped by congestion. As those eased, more capacity was released into the market,” he notes.
The second was a sudden sharp drop in demand starting in September, “where [the market] collapsed, especially in Asia-to-North America and Asia-to-Europe lanes,” driven by inventory corrections on the part of importers in the U.S. and Europe, he says. It’s a cycle that’s typical of a market bracing for uncertain economic times, and shippers consequently dialing back ordering and more aggressively managing inventory levels.
Yet there could be a silver lining on the other side, Jensen notes. “Every time an inventory correction occurs, once addressed, you get a wave of cargo on the back side. Consumers regain confidence, and importers need to bring business back to normal levels, which leads to a surge in cargo,” he explains.
Betting on how deep the decline will be and when the rebound will begin is the challenge for shippers, ports, and vessel operators alike. Ship operators are likely to cancel more sailings in response to weaker demand and the diminished need for capacity. “One scenario is that we are heading into a recession that is short-lived,” Jensen says. In that case, he sees a market continuing to collapse in January and February, then rebounding sometime in the spring.
“If we are heading into a deeper and longer recession, then cargo going back to the normal surge will be late in the year,” he predicts. “That will leave a relatively depressed [ocean freight] market for [most of] 2023.”
PORTS: A RETURN TO NORMALCY?
Ports are feeling the impact as well, although in different ways. The double-digit surge in cargo experienced in 2021 has been considerably dialed back. In October, the Port of Long Beach (POLB) saw a 16% decline in container volumes compared to the previous year. Yet for the first 10 months of 2022, the port was tracking 1.5% ahead of 2021. Mario Cordero, POLB’s executive director, says he expects the full year 2022 to be flat. “For me, that’s not a bad number given that 2021 was a record year of unprecedented surges.”
He sees the port “on the cusp of normalization.” Where in January 2021, there were nearly 110 containerships anchored outside the port waiting to unload, “today there are zero vessels at anchor and backed up,” he notes. Container dwell, the amount of time a container sits in the port, is down 93% from the worst congestion in November 2021. Today, only 3% of containers dwell in the port more than a few days. On the rail side, “back in July, we had 13,000 rail containers that were dwelling at the terminals nine days or more. That number today is less than 350,” he reports.
Cordero is optimistic as he considers lessons learned from the past two years. “Anytime you move 20 million containers in a gateway, you need to transform your operations,” he says. Looking ahead, Cordero and his team are focused on improving and expanding the port’s infrastructure and increasing productivity and velocity. Over the past decade, the port has invested some $4 billion in its infrastructure. Over the next decade, the port’s plans call for $2.6 billion in capital expenditures, “a lot of that directed toward rail improvements and expansion,” Cordero notes.
One particular issue somewhat unique to Southern California ports is meeting upcoming goals for emissions reduction, notably a zero-emissions goal for trucks by 2035 and for cargo-handling equipment by 2030. “Both of these objectives are very challenging,” Cordero says. The port is getting a helping hand from the federal government, having recently won a $30 million grant to replace diesel-powered yard tractors with zero-emission electric models. “We’re moving ahead with electrification in a socially responsible way sensitive to the importance of the job market.”
DIVERSIONARY TACTICS
The 2021/2022 port congestion issues, particularly on the West Coast, also caused shippers to take a more in-depth look at their supply chains—and where they have import ocean cargoes landing in the U.S. One outcome was a marked diversion of ocean container cargo from West Coast to East Coast ports, a surge that led to congestion issues there, particularly in Savannah, Georgia. Another factor was concern about rail labor contracts and fears of a looming strike, which Congress averted. Some believed that trucking—and to some extent, westbound rail service—would be easier to find from East Coast ports and would reduce their risk of exposure to potentially strike-affected rail service from the West Coast.
A recent survey of shippers by investment firm Cowen & Co. found that while a majority of shippers likely will move much of their freight back to the West Coast, a small but significant portion of that volume will never return. “We believe there may be a [roughly] 10% permanent shift of freight to the East Coast … creating long-term opportunities for Eastern transportation companies,” the report said.
Among the motives the report’s lead author, Jason Seidl, cites for the shift are: the impact on Southern California truck capacity from regulations related to California emission requirements and the impact of AB5, the law that restricts businesses from classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees; the opportunity for (and increasing interest in) reshoring to Mexico and the benefits associated with potential shifts; reduced political risk; the lower cost of transportation; and the further technology enablement of the supply chain.
“A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM”
East Coast ports have been adjusting to the shifts in business as well. Beth Rooney, director of the Port of New York & New Jersey, noted that of the port’s 10.5% growth in the past year, roughly 85% of that was cargo diverted to New York/New Jersey from West Coast ports. “It has been an interesting evolution,” she says. “All the East and Gulf Coast ports benefited from those shipper decisions.”
In her conversations with the maritime community about freight diversion, she says, she’s found “it’s more a function of anxiety, what is going to happen with [West Coast longshore] labor negotiations, rail congestion concerns, what’s happening on the drayage trucking side,” and the prospect of California ports losing some 25% of their drayage capacity on January 1, when new laws kicked in.
More than anything else, shippers are searching for reliability, consistency, and peace of mind, Rooney observes. And that presents opportunity. “We won’t have another 18% increase like we had in 2021, but I don’t think we are going to be flat or losing ground in 2023,” she notes. “We will get close to what we have been, which is 2% to 2.5% compound annual growth.”
One upside of the softer market, Rooney says, is that “we have a little bit of breathing room. We handled volumes we were not expecting until the 2027 or 2028 time frame [last year].” The slower pace makes this a good time to continue to work on developing capacity and improving fluidity, she oberves.
She also cites the need for increased creativity and innovation. “We are operating as a supply chain participant pretty much the same way as when container shipping started in 1956. And it’s not unique to us. It’s a national issue.”
A MATTER OF CAPACITY
For their part, vessel operators are watching the market and reacting swiftly to address declining demand, rationing capacity to match. That could lead to more blank (canceled) sailings and other adjustments.
“Our aim is to focus on improving service levels and vessel schedule integrity, which has been impacted by record cargo volumes the past two years,” says Narin Phol, Maersk North America regional managing director based in the U.S. As for capacity, Phol believes that “current fleet capacity will stay the same. And as we retire old tonnage, we will replace it with new, green methanol-fuel ships. We have 19 green methanol ships on order.”
Vessel operator Hapag-Lloyd has also put plans for further expansion on hold. Over the past two years, the containership giant has placed orders for 22 new vessels “with a capacity of more than 400,000 TEUs [20-foot equivalent units],” notes company spokesman Tim Siefert. “We have no plans for [additional] newbuilds at the moment.”
Will rate wars of the past return? “We cannot speculate,” Siefert says. “As usual, it is hard to foretell rate developments in the market when they always depend on the supply and demand balance,” he explains. “A crucial point will be the influx of capacity over the next [several] years. At the same time, we will see more scrapping and fleet modernization programs on the back of environmental obligations.”
Vespucci Maritime’s Jensen says that while there hasn’t been much scrapping over the past two years, he expects it will pick up. “In a market where you had $20,000 per-container freight rates, it doesn’t matter how rusted or leaky your ship is, because someone will pay you for it,” he says.
Yet between a looming recession, declining demand, new environmental obligations, and operational changes such as fewer vessels in service and slow steaming (the practice of deliberately reducing ship speeds to minimize fuel consumption and carbon emissions), capacity eventually will come out of the industry. He cites consensus estimates of about a 10% capacity reduction over the next year. New capacity is not expected to come on-stream until later in 2023 or 2024.
At the end of the day, Jensen says, vessel operators are watching closely how deep a “hard landing” will be for the market and how low rates will go ahead of a rebound. “The rule of thumb was if a freight rate goes so low [that] the carrier becomes cash-negative, they’d step away from the brink” to stem potential losses, he says, adding that excessively low rates and negative cash flow would push them toward bankruptcy.
But vessel operators, reaping the benefits of two years of record profits, are in much better shape today than in the market downturns of the past. “They are all sitting on massive coffers of cash,” Jensen says.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.