The national average price per gallon, for the week of June 1, declined 17.3 cents, to $5.350, marking the steepest weekly decline since the week of April 20, when the national average fell from $5.608 to $5.403, for the largest weekly decline in more than three years, according to EIA data.

Prior to that, the national average price per gallon, for the week of May 25, at $5.523 per gallon, fell 7.3 cents compared to the week of May 18, which came in at $5.596, and was off 4.3 cents compared to the week of May 11, at $5.639. which eked out a $0.001-cent sequential gain. That followed a 28.9-cent cent sequential gain, for the week of May 4, when it came in at $5.640, which represented the largest sequential increase since the week of March 16, when it increased $0.21.

For the week of April 27, the national average decreased 5.2 cents, to $5.351, and for the week of April 20, it fell 20.5 cents, to $5.403, marking the highest weekly decline, since the week of December 22, 2008, when it fell 24.5 cents, and a 3.5-decline decline to $5.608, for the week of April 13.

Prior to the week of May 4, the highest average price in any week since came during the week of May 9, 2022, when it was at $5.623 per gallon. Prices continue to remain elevated, due to the launched joint strikes by the United States and Israel, in an initiative geared towards halting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

On an annual basis, the national average, for the week of June 1, is up $1.899. And the average price per barrel of WTI crude is trading at $91.92.

While the average price per gallon fell this week, it remains elevated, as has been the case going back to the beginning of the Iran conflict in late February.

The company explained that this platform, which is geared towards shippers, carriers, and 3PLs, is based on extensive work and collaboration with leading LTL carriers to develop robust scoring methodologies and algorithms to accurately measure shipper performance. That measure comes in the form of a FreightFacts Shipper Score, which the company said, “brings transparency and accountability to the LTL ecosystem, helping eliminate operational blind spots that affect freight rates and accessorial charges.”

Lance Healy, Co-Founder and CEO, at FreightFacts, told LM that the company’s primary focus is serving as what he called a data-driven scorecard on shippers’ performance, which, in turn, helps to bring transparency and accountability into the LTL ecosystem, in order to eliminated operational blind spots that could impact rates and pricing, as well as accessorial charges, too.

“This was not designed to rate LTL carriers,” said Healy. “It is the mirror piece of that. We are rating the [LTL] shippers and that is the truly unique part. The idea around it came from looking at what FICO scores do for banks. There is not a bank or a credit lending agency that exists that does not say, ‘we want to see how you performed in the past before we give you pricing or credit or whatever else.’ We can do the same thing in LTL. The point of it is to create that accountability on the shipper side that just raises all boats.”

As for what comprises the Shipper Score reports, FreightFacts said it offers visibility into 24 metrics, including: dwell time, appointment compliance, payment timing, accessorial frequency, and damage claims—adding that these metrics, in addition to other behaviors at shipper, vendor, and customer docks have direct impacts on LTL pricing, service levels, and overall network efficiency. What’s more, from a privacy perspective, the company explained that these reports are released only with the shipper’s authorization, with no shared personal product or pricing data. To participate, it said that shippers are not required to have systems integrations or software implementations, with FreightFacts leveraging operational data that is authorized by carriers.

With shippers now able to pre-register with FreightFacts, they can receive free reports for up to three of their locations, with the reports then taking the carriers’ operational data into various metrics shippers can use for various things, including: pre-qualifying vendors and customers; monitoring facility-level behaviors affecting their Shipper Scores; strengthening negotiating leverage with carriers; and benchmarking performance against peers and industry averages.

“The important part to remember is everything is initiated by the shipper, or the 3PL, whoever owns the account with the carrier,” said Healy. “It is really no different than a letter of authorization that says, ‘I want you to share some of my information with FreightFacts, so I can get my scores.’ When the shippers are able to do that, they can get visibility to their vendors, their customers, as well as who's affecting their ability to negotiate rates. How carriers and 3PLs also get to view that is now they can look around and say, ‘how is this customer performing with the rest of the industry?’ And for the carriers, they're able to get relative performance data for the first time at an account-specific level to see how they are performing at a specific customer location, as opposed to the rest of the industry, and find out, for example, why it is receiving higher dwell times than anyone else or taking 60 days to get paid.

It is really about transparency and the ability to have an industry-wide metric that lets you know what you can improve on, instead of getting communications from 15 different carriers to say, ‘it would be helpful if you did this or did that.’ Not all shippers really understand transportation, but everybody understands a score.”

FreightFacts also highlighted feature within its platform, entitled Freight Karma, which it said is a prescriptive coaching engine providing specific recommendations, like reducing dwell time and improving payment speed, in order to boost a Shipper Score and also cut down on transportation costs.

Healy explained that while the Shipper Score provides a detailed overview into performance metrics, Freight Karma provides insight into ways of improving things, with some incentive.

“Freight Karma is basically saying, ‘here is how you can get better,’” he said. “This gives recommendations to shippers at individual locations. As an example, it may tell a shipper if dwell time can be reduced by five minutes, the Shipper Score will increase by 30 points.”  

LM: Why are freight costs rising when shipping volumes aren't, and what does that mean for the remainder of 2026?

Velkov: I think the biggest misconception right now is that freight costs only rise when volumes surge. That’s not really what’s happening. Demand has improved, but unevenly. The bigger story is that the supply side of the market has become structurally tighter. Over the last few years, carriers have dealt with margin compression, higher insurance costs, elevated fuel, labor pressure, equipment inflation, and now a much stricter regulatory environment. You’re seeing increased scrutiny around non-domiciled carriers, English-language enforcement, ELD compliance, and safety oversight. The recent Supreme Court ruling effectively raises the standard around carrier vetting and operational oversight across the brokerage industry as well. All of that changes carrier behavior and reduces excess capacity in the system. So even though we’re not in a broad freight boom, the market is reacting much faster when disruption or seasonal pressure appears. The market today is much more fragile than it looks from the top-line shipment numbers. I think, for the rest of 2026, shippers should expect a more disciplined market where costs rise unevenly, routing guides become more volatile, and execution matters more than ever. The easy soft-market environment we had over the last couple of years is gone.

LM: What does the FedEx Freight spinoff mean in practice for companies that haven't reviewed their carrier relationships?

Velkov: From my perspective, the biggest implication is not the transaction itself, it’s what it says about where the LTL market is heading strategically. I think the industry is moving toward a much greater focus on network profitability, density, yield management, and capital discipline. I also think the broader takeaway is that the industry is rewarding operational quality and network efficiency over pure scale. Independent LTL carriers are going to be evaluated very heavily on margin performance and network efficiency, which naturally creates more disciplined behavior around pricing and freight selection. For shippers, that means carrier relationships become more strategic. It’s no longer just about rate. It’s about how your freight fits operationally into a carrier’s network, how consistent your volumes are, how efficient your facilities are, and how much friction your freight creates. I also think it reinforces a broader trend we’re seeing across transportation: carriers are becoming more selective. That doesn’t mean capacity disappears overnight, but it does mean the market becomes less forgiving toward inefficient freight and reactive procurement strategies.

LM: Why are freight-focused CFOs relying on total freight spend numbers missing where costs are actually accumulating?

Velkov: It is because total freight spend is too blunt of an instrument. It tells you what happened, but not why it happened. The real cost pressure today is usually hiding underneath the averages; detention, accessorials, routing guide failures, short lead-time shipments, service failures, and unplanned spot utilization. Those issues can quietly erode transportation efficiency even when overall freight spend looks relatively stable. What’s changed is that the market is no longer moving uniformly. Costs are accumulating lane-by-lane and shipment-by-shipment. One facility may be highly efficient while another is driving constant exceptions and premium freight. The companies doing this well are looking much deeper than top-line spend. They’re monitoring shipment-level profitability, tender acceptance, dwell time, carrier alignment, and execution consistency. That’s where the real operational story sits today.

LM: How are companies like BlueGrace managing shifts in tariffs, in terms of the volatility and uncertainty tariff shifts cause, as it relates to things like freight spend and procurement, sourcing, and capex?

Velkov: The biggest thing tariffs create is uncertainty around network design. And when companies become uncertain, they tend to make shorter-term operational decisions that can unintentionally increase cost across the supply chain. What we’re seeing now is companies reevaluating sourcing regions, inventory positioning, cross-border strategy, safety stock levels, warehousing footprints, and even manufacturing timing. Those are not just procurement decisions, they’re network decisions. From a managed logistics perspective, our role is to help customers understand the downstream transportation impact before they make those changes. If you shift sourcing from one region to another, that affects carrier density, lead times, drayage, cross-border exposure, warehousing strategy, and ultimately freight cost structure. One of the biggest risks for shippers right now is that if enough companies make sourcing or inventory changes simultaneously, capacity tightens much faster than historical models would suggest. So, the conversation becomes much more strategic than simply reacting to tariff headlines. We’re helping customers scenario-plan around flexibility, optionality, and network resiliency rather than trying to predict every policy move. The companies navigating this best are not overreacting to short-term changes, but they are building supply chains that can adapt faster as conditions evolve.

LM: Given the ongoing increases in diesel fuel, how are you working with shippers to help them on that front, i.e. for managing freight spend and expenses?

Velkov: Fuel exposes inefficiency faster than almost anything else in transportation. When diesel rises, the impact goes far beyond the fuel surcharge. Carriers become more selective around network efficiency, reload opportunities, dwell time, and asset utilization. Freight that creates friction inside the network becomes more expensive very quickly. So, our approach is not simply negotiating surcharge programs. It’s helping customers build more efficient transportation networks overall. That means improving routing guide alignment, reducing unnecessary mode conversions, optimizing facility flow, tightening appointment scheduling, reducing empty miles, and aligning freight with the right carrier networks. This is where managed logistics becomes especially valuable because the biggest savings opportunities usually sit between functions, not inside a single shipment. When supply chain, procurement, transportation, and finance operate from the same data and strategy, companies can reduce volatility and improve cost performance much more consistently, even in inflationary freight environments.

In a memo sent to employees on Tuesday, Postmaster General David Steiner announced immediate restrictions on nonessential spending, including hiring, travel, training, and more.

“As you are aware, we are currently experiencing a temporary cash-flow shortage that requires us to take decisive steps to manage our available resources responsibly,” Steiner wrote. “To protect core operations and ensure that we can continue meeting all essential obligations, we are implementing immediate restrictions on non-essential spending across all departments.”

The spending restrictions come as USPS faces ongoing financial challenges. Steiner told members of Congress earlier this year that the agency is expected to run out of cash in early 2027 if it continues paying its bills on time.

According to the memo, departments may be asked to provide summaries of cost-cutting measures and expected savings. The restrictions will remain in place until the agency's financial position improves.

“These actions, while challenging, are necessary to ensure we continue operating effectively and safeguarding the long-term health of our organization,” Steiner wrote.

Please click here to read the entire article. 

The report’s benchmark reading, the PMI, registered a reading of 54 (a reading above 50 indicates growth), topping April by 1.3%, and growing, at a faster rate, for the fifth consecutive month, following April’s 52.7. Which was preceded by a matching 52.7 in March, with January and February posted readings of 52.6 and 52.4, respectively, with January representing the first positive PMI reading since February 2025’s 50.0. ISM added that the overall economy grew, at a faster rate, for the 19^th consecutive month. This marks the highest monthly PMI reading since Mzay 2022, when it was at 55.9.   

The May PMI reading was 3.6% above the 12-month average of 50.4, with May marking the highest and December’s 47.9 marking the lowest for that period.

ISM reported that 16 manufacturing sectors expanded in May, including: Printing & Related Support Activities; Textile Mills; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Paper Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Plastics & Rubber Products; Primary Metals; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Computer & Electronic Products; Furniture & Related Products; Machinery; Transportation Equipment; Petroleum & Coal Products; Chemical Products; Fabricated Metal Products; and Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products. The lone contracting sector was Wood Products.

ISM cited the following key metrics for May:

• New Orders: 56.8, up 2.7%, growing, at a faster pace for the fifth consecutive month, with 14 sectors reporting growth;
• Production: 54.3, up 0.9%, growing, at a faster rate, for the seventh consecutive month, with 14 sectors reporting growth;
• Employment: 48.6, up 2.2%, contracting at a slower rate for the 32nd consecutive month and declining in 40 of the last 41 months, with nine sectors reporting growth;
• Supplier Deliveries: 60.6 (readings above 50 indicate slower deliveries), flat compared to April, with 14 sectors reporting slower deliveries;
• Inventories: 49.9, up 0.9 points, contracting at a slower rate for the 13th consecutive month, with nine sectors reporting higher inventories;
• Customers’ Inventories: 42.7, up 3.6%, remaining too low at a faster rate for the 20th consecutive month, with two sectors reporting higher inventories; and
• Prices: 82.1, down 2.5% off of April’s 84.6 (which marked the highest reading since April 2022, when it also reached 84.6), increasing, at a slower rate, for the 20^th consecutive month, with 16 sectors reporting higher prices

Economic conditions, tariffs, and the ongoing Iran conflict were among the main themes cited in panelists’ comments.

A Transportation Equipment panelist said that the impact of the Iran conflict is starting to directly and negatively impact cost of supply chain, noting that oil and related commodities are escalating in price.

“The current atmosphere is one of extreme uncertainty and concern for the future in terms of both price stability and longer-term supply continuity related to the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure,” said a Miscellaneous Manufacturing panelist. “We have a lot of negotiations in process related to requested price increases, some related to oil prices and some still fallout from the 2025 tariff/geopolitical climate.”

In an interview with LM, Susan Spence, Chair of ISM’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee said that the May report marks the first time since she stepped into her ISM role a year ago that each of the report’s metrics had positive readings.

“Looking at demand indicators, with the exception of Customers’ Inventories, which is also going up not in expansion territory, there was solid growth,” she said. “Companies are starting to order more so it makes sense that there is inventory replenishment. New Exports expanding [up 2.7% to 50.6], Backlog of Orders up five months in a row, and Production growing for seven months in a row are positive. When Production was up for two months straight, it was questioned, but then New Orders caught up with it.”

While Prices ebbed in May, they remain at a very elevated level, the report observed, driven largely by the Iran conflict, while tariffs did not receive as much attention in the report—which could be subject to change depending on what happens when the current 10% Section 122 tariffs expire in late January.

“What I hope does not happen is that the war ends, followed by a month of relief and then a new batch of tariffs,” said Spence. “If the Section 122’s had been what companies had to deal with from the beginning, it may have been easier to absorb, but some companies have gotten battered and paid very high tariffs of 50%, in some cases, while pricing continues to rise. It is not to say that the mid-terms are going to influence policy, but they could. But people have short memories. There could be moves that are going to be made to be friendly for the consumer with that in mind—which could help.”

Also, effective today, FedEx Freight is now listed as FDXF on the New York Stock Exchange, and has taken the place of American Airlines Group in the Dow Jones Transportation Average.

“The successful separation of FedEx Freight is a pivotal milestone, positioning two independent companies to lead their respective industries and create long-term value for their stockholders,” said Raj Subramaniam, FedEx president and chief executive officer. “Today’s spin-off positions FedEx Freight to build on its market-leading scale and a customer-focused culture, and advances the next chapter for FedEx as the industrial network that helps power the global economy.”

As previously reported by LM, in December 2024, the company’s Board of Directors, following a review of the role FedEx Freight, in its portfolio, elected to make a push to fully separate the unit into a new publicly-traded company. FedEx officials said at the time that this separation is expected to be completed within the next 18 months [from December 2024] and achieved in what the company called a tax-efficient manner for FedEx stockholders.

The development did not come as a surprise, considering that in its fiscal fourth quarter earnings announcement in June 2024, FedEx said it was “conducting an assessment of the role of FedEx Freight in the company’s portfolio structure and potential steps to further unlock sustainable shareholder value.”

FedEx Freight was created in in 2001, when FedEx Corp. acquired and merged the assets of American Freightways, Viking Freight and Watkins Motor Lines. It has since become the largest carrier in the LTL space. In 2024, it posted $9.1 billion in revenue to lead the market, according to figures compiled by SJ Consulting.

At its investor day in April, John Smith, FedEx Freight CEO, stressed how FedEx Freight is positioned to grow profitably as the leader in the North American LTL sector.

“We've always delivered for shareholders through FedEx, but now as an independent company, we are charting our own path, executing on our freight focused strategy to convert our strengths into high quality growth, enhanced profitability and expanded free cash flow,” said Smith. “We believe the spin will enable us to create significant value for our shareholders. Everything we do operationally and commercially supports these outcomes.”

Looking back at FedEx Freight’s origins, Smith observed that through its various acquisitions, it has established key national and regional lanes—including Viking Freight’s Western U.S. foothold, American Freightways’ regional network across the U.S., and Watkins Motor Lines’ long-haul network—which led to the 2011 creation on FedEx Freight’s Priority and Economic services running through a single network, with Priority serving 90% of the LTL market in three days or less from any of its locations and is 40% faster than its competitors, and Economy giving customers a more cost-effective, coupled with the same service levels as Priority. Smith noted that since then FedEx Freight has continued to invest into and expand its network, as well as rationalize it, to ensure it is in the right places where the freight is located.

“The footprint gives us the best locations, the best door capacity and the best transit times,” said Smith. “What you see today is the result of years of investment in scale, service and operational discipline. The foundation is a major reason we believe that FedEx Freight is positioned to continue to lead the industry. Going forward, building on this foundation, this year, we expect to generate $8.7 billion in revenue and approximately $1.1 billion in adjusted operating income, which translates into an operating margin of around 12%. These metrics demonstrate the high quality, profitable nature of our business. We operate from a position of strength. FedEx Freight is an established leader in the attractive LTL industry, firmly positioned to win today and into the future. We connect supply chains across North America transporting goods for companies of all sizes, industries and specialties, for manufacturers, distributors, industrials, retailers, e-commerce and beyond, our customers rely on us to move their goods quickly, efficiently and with superior service. The LTL industry has high barriers to entry to do what we do.”

Smith said some core focus areas for FedEx Freight include: optimizing its network, delivering a leading commercial offering, and advancing its technology capabilities, as well as delivering sustainable revenue growth driven by yield management and higher quality mix.

Addressing operations, FedEx Freight Chief Operating Officer Clint McCoy said that as FedEx freight integrated companies over the years, it ensured that it maintained the scale of their respective networks, while also evaluating service center concentration from its footprint. To that end, since 2003, McCoy said that FedEx Freight has consolidated 39 service centers, removed 1,000 doors, while adding nine new locations and 600 doors in strategic locations to expand its capabilities in the densest freight markets.

“The result is a network that is positioned where the freight is with unrivaled scale and proximity,” he said. “In a business where scale and proximity matter, we are positioned to absorb incremental volume with minimal additional capital investment, creating meaningful operating leverage through cycles. When you overlay where freight volumes are concentrated across North America, the strategic value of our network becomes clear. Our facilities and door capacity are located where the volumes are concentrated, allowing us to flex capacity efficiently maintain consistent service performance and capture profitable share as demand grows.”

On the sales side, McCoy said FedEx Freight has made strategic investments in building a dedicated LTL sales force, having hit its hiring target of 500 experienced LTL sales representative. As for pricing, he noted that FedEx Freight is committed to maintaining a rational pricing strategy, with a focus on generating high-quality revenue growth with an emphasis on yield. And he added that the company’s contracts are now structured more simply and cleanly, whereas, in the past, he described them as complicated.   

Addressing customer mix, McCoy said FedEx Freight is focused on a few key segments, including: small- and medium-sized businesses (SMB), citing the need for services consistency timeliness, and digital consistency; healthcare, which has a total addressable market at around $6 billion, with reliability and time-definitive solutions being mission-critical; the $1 billion grocery market, with the company’s temperature-controlled and liftgate capabilities able to flex to serve customers seamlessly within its existing network, with an expanded market presence driving increased weight per shipment; the data centers and energy viewed as a $2 billion market, demanding flexibility, urgency, and security.  

FedEx Freight’s pending spin-off comes at a time when many industry stakeholders maintain that LTL pricing, in some cases, has become irrational, according to Mike Regan, Chief Relationship Officer, at TranzAct Technologies.

“When you subtract out FedEx Freight and have it operating on a standalone basis, how does that impact its network, when it is no longer tied to Ground, in terms of plusses and minuses?” said Regan. “But in terms of where FedEx Freight wants to go, other LTL carriers are not as receptive. An LTL carrier CEO explained to me that if his company has trucks running at 27,000-to-28,000 pounds leaving a terminal, it is a good thing, with 22,000-to-23,000 pounds OK, because you are not losing money. But if trucks are running at 17,000-to-19,000 pounds, that is not a good picture.”

Regan observed that if a shipper is running in lanes where LTL carriers need freight, then the pricing will be very good, but if it is in freight lanes that are already well-established—and demand exceeds the supply—the pricing will not be as good.

Looking at the spin-off from a market perspective, Scooter Sayers, principal of Sayers Logistics, said that FedEx Freight is expecting generate business, based on its sales force investments, while also telegraphing to the market that it is going to be really zeroed in on revenue quality.

“What they're saying is, “We got a bunch of sales people. We want them to go get business,’ but they're going after the right business they think is going to be highly profitable to them. And if I'm a competitor. I'm saying, “You're not going to take my profitable business away from me.’ So, I think there is going to be some concern there, but not so much of a price war, but a customer war. How can I steal your customer without offering them a cheaper price? And that hurts you and helps me, because now I have better margin.”

The company said the investment includes network improvements and the creation of dedicated teams focused on serving automotive and industrial customers. UPS also announced it will launch a new time-definite air freight service between Mexico and the rest of North America beginning in August.

The expansion marks the first time UPS will offer its North American Air Freight service to and from Mexico. Customers will be able to choose one-, two-, or three-day delivery options for high-value and time-sensitive shipments.

The move comes as manufacturers continue to deal with supply chain disruptions, changing trade policies, and growing pressure to keep production lines running without interruption.

"Our automotive and industrial customers want an easy button for logistics," said Matt Guffey, UPS Chief Commercial and Strategy Officer. "They need reliability, visibility, and a partner that understands their supply chains – end to end, today and tomorrow. We have made strategic investments to build the team and the network that meets their needs unlike any other in the industry."

UPS said the new Mexico air freight service is designed to reduce border delays and provide better shipment tracking for customers moving parts and products across the region.

The company also discussed several recent network improvements aimed at manufacturers. Those include expanded next-day delivery coverage for businesses, more automation across its facilities, RFID tracking technology, and same-day delivery options through Roadie, a UPS company.

UPS said more than 67% of its facilities now use automation technology to improve package handling and visibility throughout its network. The company believes those investments will help manufacturers respond more quickly to changing market conditions while maintaining greater control over their supply chains.

"When we know what to expect from shipping, it helps us plan with confidence," added David MacNeil, Chief Executive Officer of WeatherTech. "That clarity allows us to stay focused on delivering a great experience for our customers.A

A UPS spokesperson told LM that while the company's goal is outstanding service for every customer, industrial and automotive manufacturing are complex businesses that depend on precision, speed and uptime.

"Even a minor delay can shut down a production line," said the spokesperson. "These industry segments benefit from the reliability, visibility and end-to-end solutions UPS offers."

In terms of planning and timing, the spokesperson noted that UPS has been planning this investment for more than a year. 

When asked what drove the need for UPS to expand its NAAF capabilitiues, the spokesperson noted that Mexico continues to be the U.S.’s largest trading partner for both imports and exports.

"The UPS North American Air Freight network already covers the U.S. and Canada, so it makes sense to add Mexico to cover all of North America with a seamless, guaranteed end-to-end air and ground freight solution," said the spokesperson. "Working with our customers, these investments help make manufacturer’s supply chains simpler, faster, and more predictable. With UPS, customers have one integrated solution from origin to destination, instead of stitching together a fragmented network of multiple providers. That improves reliability, visibility, and control of their shipments."

In an interview at the recent Gartner Supply Chain/Xpo Symposium in Orlando, Cicerchi said the market is increasingly being shaped by ongoing geopolitical disruption, shifting trade dynamics, and structural changes in transportation capacity, conditions that are forcing companies to rethink how they plan, operate, and invest in technology.

Volatility is reshaping global supply chains

“It creates complexity, urgency, and problems for different participants,” Cicerchi said, noting that these disruptions are forcing companies to make faster, more informed decisions about sourcing, routing, and transportation strategies.

In the U.S., those pressures are compounded by changes in the trucking market. Capacity is tightening, particularly as regulatory and labor dynamics reshape the available driver pool. “We’re certainly seeing truckload capacity leave the market, which ultimately is raising the rates,” Cicerchi said.

Please click here to read the complete article. 

U.S. rail carloads, at 230,831, rose 2.2% annually, topping the week ending May 16, at 230,497, and the week ending May 9, at 229,592.

AAR reported that six of the 10 carload commodities it tracks saw annual gains, including: grain, up 3,064 carloads, to 23,151; metallic ores and metals, up 1,933 carloads, to 23,420; and motor vehicles and parts, up 382 carloads, to 16,866. Commodity groups posting annual declines included: coal, down 733 carloads, to 55,526; miscellaneous carloads, down 281 carloads, to 10,245; and forest products, down 64 carloads, to 8,275.

Intermodal containers and trailers, at 292,743 units, saw an 11.5% annual gain, coming in ahead of the week’s ending May 16 and May 9, at 280,719, and 284,163, respectively.

Through the first 20 weeks of 2026, AAR reported that U.S. rail carloads, at 4,528,563, are up 3.3% annually, and intermodal units, at 5,555,553, were up 1.4% annually.

Officials for the organizations called this agreement “unprecedented” in their 25-year relationship. And they added that by strengthening this relationship benefits DHL eCommerce leverage what they called accelerating e-commerce trends, while expanding in the U.S. market, in the coming years, through both its domestic and international services.

Regarding the specifics of this new agreement, the organizations said that DHL eCommerce focuses on nationwide pickup and sortation across its 19 fully automated hubs and linehaul on its air and ground network prior to teaming up with the USPS for completion of the final mile for all deliveries. And it is able to leverage the USPS’s final-mile network that accesses more than 41,550 ZIP codes, as well as more than 170 million delivery points six days a week.

On a media call today, USPS Postmaster General and CEO David Steiner said this agreement is significant, in that it reflects exactly the type of future USPS needs to be building, rooted in trust, long-term relationships, and the smart usage of the Postal Services strengths, which he called unmatched, as it has made significant investments in recent years in people, technology, transportation, and processing ability.

“We are committed to the customers and the businesses we serve, which brings us to what, I believe, is our strongest asset, our last-mile network,” he said. “It's one of the great advantages of this institution, and this announcement shows how we can leverage that strength in ways that create more value for customers, supports growth, and makes us more responsive to the marketplace. It also shows that strong relationships, like the one we've enjoyed with DHL for over 25 years, are not static, they evolve, they deepen, and they create room for new ideas and better solutions over time.

That's good for the Postal Service, good for DHL e-Commerce, and good for the millions of customers and businesses who depend on reliable, efficient delivery. It's also good for the 1,000s of jobs that are supported by this work and by the broader ecosystem that grows around strong, durable commercial relationships like this one. So, today's announcement is not just about one contract, it's an example of the kind of Postal Service we're building—more collaborative, more capable, and better positioned for long-term success. We're absolutely thrilled to be moving in that direction alongside our friends and counterparts at DHL.”

From the perspective of DHL eCommerce, the business-to-consumer (B2C) parcel arm of DHL, its CEO Scott Ashbaugh explained a key driver for this agreement is that the USPS last-mile network is what he described as the most powerful in the United States, adding that in any domestic B2C parcel operation, the last mile segment is absolutely critical to success, with the company aiming to double its business by 2030.

“A company our size literally has every option at its disposal for last-mile,” he said. “We could build it ourselves or we could find someone who does it, or partner with a leader. But with careful consideration, we reaffirmed today that we will partner exclusively with USPS for the long-term to execute the last mile of our DHL e-commerce deliveries in the United States, of all conceivable options. USPS is without question the most effective. They are already at every American's doorstep six days a week, and at the end of the day, there is no more efficient model. So, DHL e-Commerce offers one of the most reliable, affordable, and sustainable B2C parcel delivery solutions in the market, [coupled with] the power of the USPS last-mile.”

In order to prepare the USPS for volume growth from agreements like the one announced today, USPS’s Steiner observed that what the USPS has tried to do is make a network that is available to every type of customer, with some customers wanting a full end-to-end network product, and others wanting middle-mile or last-mile delivery.

And with the USPS delivering to 170 million locations six days a week, he said the USPS is the best U.S.-based last-mile provider by default.

“For us this is a matter of meeting the customers where they are and meeting the customers' needs,” said Steiner. “DHL is obviously one of the great logistics companies in the world, but DHL doesn't want to spend the massive amounts of capital that they would need to spend to build out a last-mile network in the United States, so we have a total win-win. We've invested that capital, so we've already got that last-mile capability. What you have is a combination of the world's greatest logistics company on the front end and the world's greatest postal service on the back end.”

When asked how this agreement differs from the previous one between the two organizations, DHL eCommerce’s Ashbaugh said that the major difference is the duration of this new agreement, while declining to disclose a specific length.

“For the first time, we have a multi-year agreement, and that allows us more predictability and gives confidence to our clients that over the long term they're in a good place with us with our solution,” he said. “It is about the duration of the agreement and what that does in our ability to extend longer-term agreements with our clients and have them feel comfortable to shift their volume from wherever they may be into the DHL and USPS networks.”

When asked what makes this agreement exclusive to DHL eCommerce, Ashbaugh noted that it is not necessarily exclusive to DHL eCommerce, it is more that DHL eCommerce is “pledging exclusivity” to the USPS.

“In this contract, with the relationship we have built with USPS over a long period of time and the trust that is there, we feel comfortable giving 100% of our packages that are domestic USPS deliveries for DHL eCommerce for the last-mile,” he said. “When we say exclusivity, we mean just in terms of volumes we have in our network and how they are delivered, going to the USPS.”

An industry observer explained that this agreement speaks to the fact that the USPS and DHL eCommerce need each other.

“That is the signal they are giving, and they are going to continue to partner going forward, even though the USPS ‘Delivery for America Plan’ is about going direct to large B2C shippers,” said Robert Persuit, senior director of business development, at ShipMatrix. “This [agreement] allows DHL eCommerce to go to its shippers and say it is going to be business as usual. There was a contract coming up, but there was uncertainty as to whether DHL eCommerce itself would be available in the future. The $10 billion number is not necessarily the most important part; the most important part is that they are going to continue to do business and that they need each other.”

Persuit also noted that the USPS is not going to be able to enact its desire to go direct B2C until they concentrate on just the packages that go into the mailbox, because it does not have the ability to do that, which speaks to the need for this agreement.

“The USPS needs DHL eCommerce because that is base volume it would not have, and DHL eCommerce needs USPS because it has not built out any infrastructure for U.S. last-mile delivery. It is about helping e-commerce sales and their shippers and keeping that volume with the USPS, which is what this is all about.”  

Paul Yaussy, head of parcel contract intelligence, at Loop, called this announcement a smart play for both parties, with USPS having an unmatched last-mile footprint that no private carrier can replicate economically, and DHL eCommerce knows it.

"Locking in that relationship long-term lets both companies plan with confidence and it reinforces the Postal Service's value proposition at a moment when its financial future is under real scrutiny," said Yaussy. "This deal signals that USPS is doubling down on its role as the backbone of last-mile delivery for major carriers rather than trying to compete with them directly. A $10B-plus, multi-year exclusive agreement gives DHL eCommerce the certainty it needs to win longer-term contracts with its own retail clients and it gives USPS a reliable volume anchor at a time when it urgently needs revenue stability. Expect other consolidators to reassess their last-mile strategies in light of this." 

The STB said that this decision holds the merger process in abeyance, or temporary suspension, which includes an environmental review of the transaction and ordered the railroads to submit supplemental information by no later than July 27.

This is the most recent development in the application process, for this proposed $85 billion, which began in July 2025. When the merger agreement was initially announced, the rail carriers said it would create the nation’s first transcontinental railroad—which will connect more than 50,000 route miles across 43 states from the East Coast to the West Coast and connect around 100 ports as well, and compete more effectively with long-haul trucking, saying the deal would convert an estimated 2 million truckloads of freight from road to rail annually.

The initial merger application was filed with the STB in December and was subsequently rejected by the STB in January, with STB saying the original application was incomplete, due to it lacking certain information required by its regulations. It said, at the time, that as per its regulations regarding information that must be in a merger application, it requires: full system impact analyses that include market share projections for the entity to be created by the transaction; and the entire merger agreement, including the submission of any contract or other written instrument that pertains to the transaction, with applicants required to submit “full system” impact analyses that include actual and projected market shares of certain revenues and traffic volumes demonstrating, among other things, the impacts of the transaction on competition.

That was followed by a revised application, which was sent on April 30, with the STB having considered public comments on the completeness of the revised application.

Highlights of the amended merger application cited by UP and NS include:

• A transcontinental railroad will create a stronger alternative to long-haul trucking, removing an estimated 2.1 million truckloads off the road annually. Giving shippers an attractive new option will make the entire supply chain more competitive, putting downward pressure on truck and rail prices;
• Manifest and bulk customers will save on inventory and equipment costs with the combined railroad’s faster, more reliable service;
• Shifting freight from higher-cost trucks to lower-cost rail is projected to save shippers an estimated $3.5 billion annually, helping lower costs across the supply chain;
• The merger will enhance competition by providing customers with access to seamless coast-to-coast rail service for the first time. For the limited group who will not directly benefit from a more competitive single-line option, Committed Gateway Pricing will allow more customers to share in the merger’s benefits; and
• The combined network is projected to drive growth that will require approximately 1,200 net new union jobs by the merger’s third year. This growth is in addition to an unprecedented jobs-for-life guarantee – every union employee with a job at the time of the merger will continue to have one.

They also noted that the application’s analysis is the first in rail merger history to use 100% actual traffic data provided by all six North American Class I railroads, making it what they called the most thorough assessment of market and operational impacts ever. 

“Today, the Board finds that Applicants have provided sufficient information to satisfy the completeness requirements for a major merger application,” stated the STB. “Given the fairly narrow procedural question of completeness, issues raised by commenters do not warrant rejecting the revised application.

However, the Board finds that there are several aspects of the revised application that are unclear or underdeveloped and require supplementation at this stage of the proceeding so that the Board may have the information necessary to thoroughly evaluate—and the public has an adequate opportunity to comment on—whether the transaction is in the public interest.  As a result, today’s decision holds the proceedings, including the environmental review, in abeyance, pending Applicants’ submission and the Board’s review of the supplemental information.  Abeyance of the procedural schedule does not affect discovery.  In a future decision, the Board will establish an appropriate procedural schedule for the remainder of the proceeding.”

STB explained that its current major merger rules—which establish a modernized framework with new requirements addressing competitive enhancement, benefit estimate integrity, service assurance and potential downstream effects—also broadened its public interest inquiry, as well as underscore the importance of evaluating a merger’s impacts on short line railroads, ports, communities, and other stakeholders, relying on a safe, efficient, and competitive rail network.

What’s more, STB noted it will not initiate a procedural schedule, saying that moving forward with that process prior to key information being “fully developed and presented would require the Board and commenting parties to assess and respond to complex aspects of the proposed merger without the clarity and detail necessary to evaluate how the proposed merger aligns with the current regulatory framework.”

STB also said that this decision requires UP and NS to submit supplemental information related to the following: Enhanced Competition; Access for 2-to-1 and 3-to-2 shippers; Public Benefits: Diversion Analysis; Service Assurance Plan; Issues Involving Gateways and Car Supply; Market Share Projections; Downstream Merger Impacts; Passenger Rail; and Workpapers.

Paul Tonsager, CEO & Founder, Integrated Multi-Modal Solutions, LLC, told LM that the STB accepting the application is actually the least important part of the decision issued today, explaining that the STB itself calls completeness a narrow procedural question, with the filing being good enough to keep, with Board having accepted the application being the least important thing in the decision.

“The real story is the abeyance,” said Tonsager. “The Board did not reject the application and did not set a schedule to review it. It kept the application and put the clock in its pocket. Until UP and NS supplement nine areas by July 27 and the Board signs off, there is no merits schedule and no environmental review. The proceeding is frozen.

Here is why that matters more than any single objection. Time is the threat to this deal, not any one issue the opponents are raising. The Board did not have to find a fatal flaw. It just has to keep the calendar open. Discovery keeps running, so UP and NS keep working, but working is not the same as advancing. They are running plays without getting a first down.  Therefore, I believe the chance of approval is only 45–55%.” 

What’s more, he said the wait is not neutral, in that the applicants carry the cost of an $85 billion deal sitting in limbo, the opposition uses the same months to organize, and competitors keep taking real freight in real time.

“Everybody waits. Nobody waits equally,” he said.

Offering advice to shippers, he said it would be wise to not plan around an early close, given that the original timeline pointed at the first half of 2027, with this decision quietly walking away from that, adding that there is no firm date the Board is working toward now, meaning the safe planning assumption is later and open-ended.

“On the substance, the sharpest tell is a small one,” he said. “The Board asked for the applicants' workpapers as a standalone item. In plain terms, the Board is saying it could not reproduce UP and NS's own numbers from what they filed. That is a pointed thing for a regulator to put in writing about a benefits case. For the record, I support the logic of this combination. That is exactly why this matters. A strong case does not get a pass on its weak spots, and the Board just told everyone where they are, then took away the clock the applicants needed.”

In a joint statement, UP and NS applauded the STB’s decision to accept their merger application, and said it is an important step toward a reinvigorated, more competitive U.S. railroad industry, while also acknowledging the STB’s request for additional information on their amended merger application, reiterating their commitment to work constructively with the STB.

UP CEO Jim Vena said that the companies are confident that the merger will deliver more reliable and lower-cost transportation options for American businesses.

“We submitted a comprehensive, data-driven application backed by a detailed plan for seamless integration,” said Vena. “We look forward to the opportunity to show the facts and demonstrate the benefits for our customers, employees and America.”

And NS CEO Mark George said that the time is right for a more competitive U.S. rail network that reduces costs for American shippers and consumers, noting that the added detail strengthened the companies’ analysis and enhanced integration planning in the amended application.

“We have more confidence than ever in the value this proposal will deliver for all stakeholders and look forward to a full and transparent review,” he said.

Addressing how the next steps require a merits-based review in which the STB’s procedures recognize it may request additional information, UP and NS highlighted how for a previous Class I merger transaction, STB paused the procedural schedule after acceptance to obtain supplemental information about the transaction before later approving the merger.

“Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern will continue working closely with the STB to provide the requested information and further strengthen the record,” they said. “Under the governing statute, the STB has 12 months from the date it publishes its acceptance to complete its evidentiary proceedings, providing a clear and defined path forward regardless of the timing of individual steps.”

The Office of the USTR said that on May 28 and May 29, Deputy United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jeff Goettman will lead a U.S. delegation to Mexico City for the first bilateral negotiating round with Mexico, which will feature negotiations on economic security and rules of origin for key industrial goods. It added that on June 16-17, the U.S. and Mexico will hold a second negotiating round in Washington, D.C., that will include discussions on agriculture and a level playing field, followed by a third negotiating round in Mexico City on July 20.

“The negotiations will focus on ensuring that the USMCA benefits U.S. manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, workers, service suppliers, and businesses of all sizes, including small and medium-sized enterprises,” according to the Office of the USTR.

The USMCA agreement went into effect on January 29, 2020, during President Trump’s first term in the White House, replacing its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

USMCA, in various ways, is based on many of the same rules, procedures, and products as NAFTA, which took effect in 1994. Analysts say that it includes stronger environmental and labor regulations and incentivizes domestic production of cars and trucks. It is also the first free trade agreement to include intellectual property protections, which are especially timely given the current trade wars triggered by the alleged theft of American intellectual property by China and other nations.

Former United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said at the time that USMCA marked a significant improvement over NAFTA through its objectives to create more manufacturing jobs, protect America’s competitive advantage in technology and innovation, secure greater market access for American businesses, farmers, and ranchers, and, critically, change the stale politics of trade by creating bipartisan consensus around a new model that works better for all Americans.

Regarding Mexico, Mexican imports to the U.S. that qualify under USMCA rules of origin are exempt and able to enter the U.S. duty-free, while imports not covered under USMCA are subject to a 25% tariff. In a March 2025 letter to Claudia Sheinbaum, president of Mexico, Trump stated that the United States imposed tariffs on Mexico, the largest U.S. trading partner, to address the nation’s fentanyl crisis, which he said was caused in part by Mexico’s failure to stop the cartels.

In addition to the 25% tariff on goods that do not qualify under USMCA origin rules, tariffs currently imposed by the U.S. on Mexico include a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum; a 25% tariff on autos and auto parts that do not meet USMCA content or labor thresholds; and a 20% fentanyl tariff on non-originating goods.

As previously reported, last September the Office of the USTR announced there would be a public consultation process in advance of the July 1, 2026, joint review of USMCA. According to the USTR, the consultation process is required by law, and the focus of solicited public comments includes, but is not limited to:

• Any aspect of the operation or implementation of the USMCA;
• Any issues of compliance with the Agreement;
• Recommendations for specific actions that USTR should propose ahead of the Joint Review;
• Factors affecting the investment climate in North America and in the territories of each party, as well as the effectiveness of the USMCA in promoting investment that strengthens U.S. competitiveness, productivity, and technological leadership; and
• Strategies for strengthening North American economic security and competitiveness, including collaborative work under the Competitiveness Committee and cooperation on issues related to non-market policies and practices of other countries

Pete Mento, Director of Global Trade Management Services at Baker Tilly, told LM that, regarding the pending July 1 USMCA review, each nation is going to be very aggressive, knowing that each has some sort of leverage.

“What’s been super fascinating to me is that Mexico and Canada appear to be working together, collaborating, and doing what they can to try to negotiate from a position of strength together,” he said. “The Mexico that we have today in 2026 is not the Mexico that was negotiating with us in 1991 and 1992 for NAFTA. It is one of the most important exporting manufacturing countries in the world and has become a nation of first resort for many countries, especially China, looking for inexpensive skilled labor to take advantage of the West. So, I think the negotiations are going to be pretty vigorous—that’s a good word for it—between the three countries, and the U.S. has already said, ‘We have absolutely no problem walking away from this agreement completely and negotiating bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico.’

So think about, particularly in automotive manufacturing, how much business crosses those two borders in this sort of tri-national trade system, where a component is made in one country, sent to another country for additional manufacturing, and then sent to a third for final assembly before being shipped to all three for consumption. Having that taken away could be detrimental to so many supply chains that have been built around the notion that all three nations are open for trade with each other.”

The FMC announced that it has reached a compromise with Maersk, resolving allegations that the shipping company violated the Shipping Act by how it assessed detention charges.

According to the agency, Maersk assessed detention charges against third parties that had not agreed to be bound by the terms of its shipping contracts, bills of lading, or tariffs.

Detention fees are charges that may be assessed when containers are held beyond a specified period. The fees became a major issue during the pandemic's supply chain disruptions, as congestion and delays left containers at ports and terminals longer than expected.

Please click here to read the complete article. 

The national average price per gallon, for the week of May 25, at $5.523 per gallon, fell 7.3 cents compared to the week of May 18, which came in at $5.596, and was off 4.3 cents compared to the week of May 11, at $5.639. which eked out a $0.001-cent sequential gain. That followed a 28.9-cent cent sequential gain, for the week of May 4, when it came in at $5.640, which represented the largest sequential increase since the week of March 16, when it increased $0.21.

For the week of April 27, the national average decreased 5.2 cents, to $5.351, and for the week of April 20, it fell 20.5 cents, to $5.403, marking the highest weekly decline, since the week of December 22, 2008, when it fell 24.5 cents, and a 3.5-decline decline to $5.608, for the week of April 13.

Prior to the week of May 4, the highest average price in any week since came during the week of May 9, 2022, when it was at $5.623 per gallon. Prices continue to remain elevated, due to the launched joint strikes by the United States and Israel, in an initiative geared towards halting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

On an annual basis, this week’s national diesel average is up $2.060 cents annually. WTI crude is currently trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at $107.56 per barrel, up from $101.58 a week ago at this time.

On an annual basis, this week’s national diesel average is up $2.036 annually, below the $2.060 annual increase a week ago. WTI crude is currently trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at $89.82, down from $107.56 a week ago at this time.  

Various reports observed that the price of oil decreased, due to temporary cease fire between the U.S. and Iran.

Reuters reported that WTI crude has fallen over the last week mainly because traders have started pricing in a lower risk of supply disruption from the Middle East, adding that the biggest driver has been growing optimism around U.S.–Iran negotiations and the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz, which moves around 20% of global oil supply, could reopen more fully. Since Hormuz handles a huge share of global oil exports, even small signs of de-escalation can quickly remove the “geopolitical risk premium” embedded in oil prices, it added, while also noting that markets reacted sharply to reports of a draft framework agreement tied to reopening the shipping route.

In this webinar, we’ll explore the shift from traditional, reactive transportation management to a new model of intelligent, real-time execution. Learn how leading organizations are embedding AI directly into workflows to sense disruptions, automate decisions, and coordinate actions across transportation, warehouse, and order management systems.

We’ll cover:

• Why visibility is no longer enough—and what replaces it
• How AI transforms execution from a system of record to a system of action
• Real-world examples of reducing delays, improving service, and lowering costs
• A practical path to modernizing TMS without disruption

The letter, which was sent to STB Chair Patrick Fuchs, Vice Chair Deborah Schultz, Member Richard Kloster, and Member Michelle Hedlund, explained that the missing information and underdeveloped proposals in the application “run contrary” to the STB’s rules for mergers. 

“The Applicants [UP and NS] have filed seven amendments to the application so far, impeding our offices’ ability to conduct a thorough review of this transaction,” the attorney generals said in the letter. “Attorneys general across the country have warned that this merger could reduce competitive options for shippers—ultimately increasing costs for businesses and raising prices for consumers. [K]ey information on core issues remains missing. The Board should not find the application complete—and begin full merits review—before UP and NS provide that information. 

The state attorney generals cited various examples of the information missing in the application, including: 

• Market Shares, with UP and NS projections showing they will control 50% of U.S. Class I freight rail traffic, with the companies own projected market shares higher for specific commodities and corridors, with projected future shares not easily accessible or interpretable, adding that the application should disclose future projected market shares in a clear, understandable way;
• Downstream Consolidation, with STB rules requiring that major merger applications analyze and describe the effects of further industry consolidation and recognize the possibility that other railroads might attempt to merge to compete with a combined UP and NS, while UP and NS “offer no specific analysis of what an industry dominated by a goliath transcontinental railroad would look like—or how shippers and our citizens would be impacted—despite reports that UP’s and NS’s leadership discussed exactly such scenarios when they evaluated the transaction internally; and 
• Control of Important Jointly Owned Industry Assets, explaining that absent a divestiture or other remedy, a combined UP/NS would control key industry assets that are jointly owned and shared by major railroads, including the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company (KCT), the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (TRRA) and railcar pooling company TTX, with the application failing to specify what UP/NS will do to prevent the combined company from having the ability to control these entities or manipulate their operations to benefit the combined company at the expense of other railroads

In concluding the letter, the state attorney generals, for the six states, said that their respective offices plan to review the proposed merger application to fulfill their role in protecting the interests of their citizens, adding that they request the STB to reject the application as incomplete. 

As previously reported by LM, following a January rejection of the merger application by the STB submitted by UP, an amended application was sent to the STB on April 30. 

in its January decision, the STB said the application was incomplete because it “does not contain certain information required by the Board’s regulations,” adding that its decision was “based solely on the incompleteness of the December 19 application and should not be read as an indication of how the Board might ultimately assess any future revised application.” Which was followed by the STB saying it received the amended application and comments on its completeness were due by Friday, May 8, at noon ET, with applicants able file replies to those comments by May 12 at 5 p.m. ET.

Industry stakeholders have indicated that the is expected to rule by May 30 on whether to accept or reject the revised merger application.  When the amended merger application was submitted on April 30, UP and NS said that the analysis in the updated application is the first in rail merger history to use 100% actual traffic data provided by all six North American Class I railroads, rather than the sample data available from the STB – making it the most thorough assessment of market and operational impacts ever.

And they added that the merger will make rail “significantly more competitive with long-haul trucking,” taking approximately 2.1 million trucks off the road. They added that moving freight from higher-cost trucks to low-cost rail will save shippers an estimated $3.5 billion annually, calling it savings that are expected to flow through to consumer prices, making American goods more affordable, with shippers also expected to save on inventory and equipment costs with the combined railroad’s faster, more reliable service.

But competing Class I railroads did not see it that way, as noted in comments filed with the STB.

CN said in its filing to the STB that the amended application is still lacking required information that regulators and stakeholders need in order to fully assess what it called the competitive and operational impacts of the proposed merger. To that end, it added that the amended application addresses only one of the three “independent deficiencies” identified by the STB in January—providing the complete merger agreement—when the initial application was rejected, while failing to address the other two deficiencies regarding meaningful competitive enhancements, which CN said does not meet the STB’s requirement for Class I mergers to enhance competition and meet the public interest standard.

As for CPKC, Keith Creel, the company’s president and CEO, aligned with CN in his assessment of the amended merger application, explaining that it does not change the underlying reality that this mega-merger is unnecessary, while also falling short of the high benchmarks established in the STB’s updated 2001 major merger rules.

“A combined UP-NS could place nearly 50 percent of U.S. freight rail traffic in the hands of a single company that already has a troubled history, some of it very recent, of abusing market power to the detriment of American businesses and workers,” stated Creel. “None of this serves the public interest. None of this serves the interests of shippers. All of it puts our supply chains and economy at needless risk.
“On Friday, May 8, 2026, CPKC filed comments addressing the completeness of the revised application. In those comments, we explain why it does not appear that UP and NS have met the specific STB requirements to submit a detailed market impact analysis based on their projected future shares of rail traffic flows for key commodities and corridors. This has left us asking: Did UP overlook this specific instruction from the STB? If not, does UP have something to hide? One thing is certain: This is emblematic of UP continuing to have its own interpretation of rules and STB orders, and of how those apply to UP.”

Paul Tonsager, founder of IMS Advisory, told LM that securing support for the merger will depend on UP and NS demonstrating that it is the right move.
He said the issue is not only about combining resources to create shareholder value, but also about increasing competition and delivering customer benefits.

“The STB, which will ultimately decide on this, takes the process very seriously,” he said. “The three-month period between the initial rejection and now coincides with upcoming midterm elections, and depending on the outcome, the conversation could shift. I previously estimated a 60–40 chance of the merger being approved, but now I see it as closer to 50–50. Part of that has to do with the application itself. Speed is not everything here—delays can invite negative press and additional scrutiny. In that sense, they may be slightly behind the eight ball after having to resubmit.”
 

April imports, at roughly 2.635 million TEU (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) saw a 5.2% annual decline that was paced by materials and capital goods, with the firm noting those respective declines may see a reversal, based on recent gains in U.S. new manufacturing orders. April’s annual decline was higher than a 0.4% annual decrease in March.

The firm cited the following metrics for April U.S.-bound import activity, including:

• Metals down 12.9% annually;
• Capital goods down 28.9% annually;
• Consumer durables down 6.5% annually; and
• Auto parts down 16.4% annually

“Heading into the rest of the year, the peak season shipments for consumer goods starts to pick up in toward a peak in August through October,” noted Chris Rogers, S&P Global Market Intelligence research director. “A key complication comes from the conflict in the Middle East, particularly with regards to metals and petrochemicals used in packaging where shortages are already locked in. Direct imports from the Middle East already fell by 28.5% year-over-year while the continued surge in shipping from ASEAN could reverse as the materials shortages bite.”

Addressing consumer goods imports, the firm explained that the prospect of increased tariffs on consumer goods likely led to the continued growth in imports for the segment.

To that end, it said that most consumer durables are subject Section 122 duties at a 10% rate and are likely to see higher tariffs upon the completion of the Section 301 reviews on manufacturing capacity and labor costs—that are likely to apply before the current duties expire in late July.

As importers endeavor to ship into the U.S. prior to the Section 122’s expiration, the firm said that heading into June, peak season shipments for consumer goods, including apparel, are expected to increase, in advance of what it called the major winter sales season for North America and Europe. It said that on a historical basis the end result has been in the form of peak shipments arriving in the August to October period, with goods having exiting Asian factories from late June and beyond.

Prologis defines the IBI as a survey of customer sentiment focused on customer activity in warehousing. 

The April IBI Activity Index reading came in at 58.6, which the report said reflects increased warehouse activity, remaining in the 55-to-60 category, while trailing January’s 59.1 reading, its highest level since November 2024.

Prologis explained that warehouse activity has seen continued expansion in 2026, and is “holding firm in growth territory,” amid ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, with the market benefitting from what it called sustained underlying demand, paced by advanced manufacturers and a rebound in retail and services activity. What’s more, it noted that the logistics real estate market is now entering a critical inflection point, with logistics space demand gaining strength in tandem with new supply slowing to its lowest level in a decade—with this imbalance expected to tighten vacancy levels and increase competition for prime and well-located assets through the balance of the year.

Looking at some key metrics, the IBI Industrial Business Indicator noted the following:

• logistics absorption space is improving and expected to approach 200 million square-feet (MSF), topping 2025, while below normal absorption levels, with 2026 new deliveries pegged to come in at the lowest level in a decade, at around 190 MSF;
• an evolving customer mix, with e-commerce and essential goods companies growing footprints in key consumption-oriented locations; 
• gains in manufacturing output over the past six months;
• shifting pricing power across most U.S. markets, as rent growth turned positive in the first quarter for the first time since 2023, coupled with construction activity slowing to 1.7% of stock, trailing the 2.5% pre-pandemic average and also putting upward pressure on rents as fewer buildings come online

When asked if the IBI Activity Index has the potential to remain at, or around, its current level going forward, Melinda McLaughlin, Senior Vice President and Global Head of Research at Prologis, told LM it is somewhat unclear.

“No one has a crystal ball. However, several demand drivers suggest the IBI Activity Index could remain near current levels,” she said. “Inventories remain low, which could prompt restocking activity through the year. At the same time, leasing activity has accelerated in recent quarters, and vacancy appears to be at or near peak levels, suggesting the market may be nearing an inflection point.”

As for what steps occupiers and lessors can take to secure space amid tightening supply, McLaughlin said that for companies looking to secure logistics space amid tightening supply, speed is key.

The reason for that, she said, is that in most U.S. markets, speculative space under construction is at low levels and vacancies are declining, making high-quality logistics space more limited. And combined with rents that are either increasing or positioned to inflect, occupiers that act with urgency are likely to be better positioned.

And as availability starts to shrink, she noted that the sooner companies act to start securing space, the better.

“Availability varies by market, building size and building type,” said McLaughlin. “In the most constrained markets and for larger-format facilities, availabilities are already falling well below historical norms, with several pockets at six months of supply or less.”

With rent growth now turning positive, coupled with a declining construction pipeline, McLaughin said that under Prologis’s base case the market is entering the very early stages of a new rent growth cycle, with the caveat that the timing and magnitude will vary significantly by location and building type.

“With vacancies beginning to decline, demand strengthening and new supply running well below historical norms, we expect positive but mild aggregate rent growth in 2026, following the rent reset of the past two and a half years,” she said. “We are also monitoring upward pressure on construction costs, which could create upside risk to our expectations.”

The survey, which runs through May 31, is open to nonprofits, government agencies, logistics providers, and businesses. Its goal is to better understand how organizations are working together and where gaps remain, especially as many groups face uncertainty about government funding.

“Our fourth annual survey will serve as a critical temperature check for the disaster relief ecosystem,” said Kathy Fulton. “At a time when many members of the U.S. disaster response community are facing uncertainty about whether they’ll receive continued government funding (and how they’ll fill gaps if they don’t), it’s more important than ever to get a firm grasp of how cross-sector logistics collaboration is happening and how it can be improved.”

The survey builds on findings from previous years, which showed that many disaster-focused organizations are still operating in a reactive mode. Limited funding and ongoing challenges around cost, speed, and availability continue to make it harder to deliver aid quickly and efficiently.

ALAN says those insights have already shaped its recent work. That includes expanding its nonprofit logistics education programs and launching new “Logistics Ready” initiatives aimed at improving preparedness before disasters hit.

Launched in 2023, the annual survey is part of a largereffort to improve how aid is distributed before, during, and after disasters. It also examines what motivates private-sector companies to contribute funding, services, and logistical support to relief efforts.

By gathering input from across the supply chain, ALAN hopes to identify ways to improve coordination and make disaster response more effective, especially at a time when resources are tight and demand is growing.

“These and other annual survey insights have dramatically shaped ALAN’s latest work – including the creation of many new resilience activities, an expansion of our non-profit logistics education initiatives and the launch of our Logistics Ready programs,” Fulton added.  

The House T&I Committee said that this legislation, “emphasizes moving people, goods, and freight safely and efficiently across the country,” adding that it, provides the largest ever investment in America’s bridges, focuses on proven surface transportation infrastructure programs, provides passenger rail investments and reforms, improves rail safety, ensures that transportation projects and programs are more efficient, encourages innovation, provides the first ever autonomous commercial motor vehicle framework, and injects the Highway Trust Fund with its first stream of new revenue in more than three decades.

“The purpose of the BUILD America 250 Act is right there in its name. We are celebrating the 250^th anniversary of our nation and the infrastructure that has helped form it, and this bill is about building the infrastructure we need for America’s future,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO). “This bill makes historic investments in our bridges and other critical infrastructure, reduces costs and delays in building, ensures states have the resources and flexibility they need, bolsters the Highway Trust Fund, fosters innovation, and provides a framework for safely integrating autonomous commercial motor vehicles onto our highways. I want to thank all the Committee Members on both sides of the aisle for the longs hours of debate they put in today on this vital legislation. I look forward to moving this bill on the House floor in the near future, and to working with the Senate to pass a final bill before the current law expires on September 30^th.”

The legislation is comprised of various freight-focused initiatives, including nationally significant multimodal freight and highway projects; bridge programs; railway-highway grade crossings; National highway freight and high priority corridor program; Reauthorizing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act; and a study on establishment of federal infrastructure bank, among others.

Feedback to the BUILD America 250 Act was mixed, to various degrees.

Anne Reinke President & CEO of the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) said IANA is encouraged to see the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advance a surface transportation reauthorization proposal and appreciates its focus on critical freight challenges, including cargo theft and truck parking.

“IANA is concerned that without dedicated funding from key discretionary grant programs that support intermodal infrastructure, including programs such as MEGA, INFRA, and other discretionary grant programs, freight mobility and supply chain reliability may suffer,” she said. “The pandemic made clear that resilient supply chains require sustained investment across the full freight network. As Congress continues its work, IANA looks forward to working with lawmakers to preserve and strengthen the funding needed to keep freight moving efficiently in support of the American economy.”

Feedback from Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ian Jefferies was direct, in terms of the freight rail-focused sections of the legislation.

“Freight railroads have been clear from the beginning of the surface transportation reauthorization process: rail policy provisions should be targeted, justified by data, and tied to clearly demonstrated operational or safety needs,” said Jefferies. “Unfortunately, some provisions advanced today fail that test. Rather than focusing narrowly on evidence-based reforms connected to the actual causes of incidents like East Palestine, the package includes a wide range of extraneous mandates under the veil of safety that will only increase costs throughout the freight network and broader supply chain with no proven safety benefit—ultimately harming rail customers, manufacturers, energy producers, farmers and American consumers already facing significant affordability pressures. That’s precisely why so many rail customer groups expressed concern about these very provisions.”

The top AAR executive added that this markup is the first step in what will be a long legislative process, and freight railroads will continue working constructively with lawmakers to support policies that strengthen safety, promote innovation, and preserve an efficient and competitive freight transportation system.

“At a time when Congress is simultaneously greenlighting autonomous transportation technologies in other sectors, efforts to include rail policies that lock yesterday’s operating models into federal law are nothing more than hypocrisy,” he said.

From the perspective of the manufacturing sector, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) described the BUILD America 250 Act as a down payment on future U.S. growth.

Erin Streeter, NAM Executive Vice President called it a thoughtful bill that recognizes the urgent infrastructure and permitting challenges facing manufacturers and the broader economy.

“Manufacturers depend on reliable roads, bridges, ports and rail infrastructure to move goods efficiently, strengthen supply chains and drive economic growth,” said Streeter. “When America’s infrastructure moves, America’s economy moves with it. Today, highway congestion and bottlenecked ports cost manufacturers nearly $40 billion annually, while freight delays drain 65 million hours of efficiency each year—driving up costs, slowing shipments and weakening competitiveness. And that’s before accounting for America’s broken permitting system, which costs manufacturers nearly $8 billion annually.

“Manufacturers asked Congress to begin the work toward developing long-term solutions for Highway Trust Fund solvency; invest in our mass transit, rail, aviation, maritime and water infrastructure; and pass comprehensive permitting reform—all with an eye toward keeping workers and the traveling public safe. The BUILD America Act answers that call and advances meaningful progress on these priorities.”

Trucking groups issued positive support for the legislation.

American Trucking Associations (ATA) President & CEO Chris Spear said that his organization’s focus throughout this process has been to ensure that the final bill promotes a safe, efficient transportation system that is befitting the world’s greatest nation, noting that this legislation fulfills that goal.

“All Americans have experienced the consequences of underinvestment in infrastructure,” said Spear. “Traffic bottlenecks and record-high congestion cost the economy more than $109 billion, contributing directly to rising concerns about affordability.  Expanding capacity and eliminating inefficiency will lower costs for consumers as well as spur the creation of new jobs. The robust funding for roads and bridges as well as dedicated funding for truck parking will support our essential work and the supply chain.  For the first time in decades, this bill would establish a new source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund by requiring contributions from electric vehicles.  Additionally, ATA welcomes the integration of commonsense policies that will enhance safety standards and promote strong driver qualifications.”

And the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) said it commends the House T&I Committee for passing the legislation, which it described as the most pro-trucker highway bill in recent memory.

“OOIDA’s advocacy played a critical role in securing several priorities in this bipartisan effort including a $750 million investment in truck parking, guaranteed restroom access for truckers at shipping facilities, and a ban on predatory leasing schemes,” said OOIDA President Todd Spencer. “Truck drivers are happy to see lawmakers recognize their essential role in our economy and we encourage the bill’s swift passage both on the floor and in the Senate.”

Randy Mullett, principal of Mullett Strategies and executive director of Americans for Modern Transportation, told LM that more than 20 years ago, the Surface Transportation Bill was more commonly known as the highway bill.

“It’s really refreshing to me to see the focus of BUILD America 250 is on highways……go figure!” he said. “The refocus on the traditional core mission of moving people and products efficiently and safely is most welcome. The adjustment of funding (and revenues sources) between highways, rail, transit, active transportation, and community programs reflect current needs and use trends rather than trying to bend reality with policy wishes.”

The four companies named in the indictment are China International Marine Containers (CIMC), Shanghai Universal Logistics Equipment, also known as Dong Fang International Containers, CXIC Group Containers, and Singamas Container Holdings. Prosecutors said the alleged conspiracy ran from as early as November 2019 through at least January 2024.

According to the DOJ, the companies and co-conspirators involved in the alleged scheme represented roughly 95% of global production of standard dry shipping containers, the steel containers used to move goods around the world. Prosecutors allege the companies coordinated efforts to reduce supply as demand surged during the pandemic.

Please click here to read the complete article. 

There are signs that may be changing. Trucking profitability in the first quarter—usually the slowest 13 weeks of the calendar—has started to turn in the carriers’ favor, for the first time in about three years.

Satish Jindel, principal of SJ Consulting, agreed. But he said the driving force behind the capacity rationalization was the federal government’s crackdown on non-domiciled holders of Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDL) by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

“It’s a combination of factors but the overall economy is not that strong,” Jindel told LM. “Rates have increased with fuel surcharges. Shippers are having to pay more and they are looking for cheaper ways to ship.”

That is leading to a modal downshift from the truckload (TL) to less-than-truckload (LTL), which industry executives have started to notice as well.

Shelley Simpson, president of J.B. Hunt, said during a recent earnings call that most shippers understand there “continues to be a shift in industry capacity that is impacting the truckload market, and this is a structural change.”

“Customers have not seen a capacity-led cycle change with the exception of when the industry implemented ELDs (electronic logging devices) or experienced a constrained market since 2022,” Simpson added. “What we are seeing is a freight market that has fundamentally less slack than it did in prior cycles.”

“Today, most customers understand there has been and continues to be a shift in industry capacity that is impacting the truckload market, and this is a structural change,” Spencer Frazier, J.B. Hunt’s executive vice president of sales and marketing, said on that same earnings call.

ArcBest Corp., parent of ABF Freight System, the nation’s seventh-largest LTL carrier, beat analysts’ first quarter expectations. Perhaps more importantly, ArcBest Corp. management has indicated that its second quarter began with earnings possibly “well above implied consensus,” according to analyst Jason Seidl of TD Cowen.

At ArcBest, its asset-based transportation unit (mainly ABF) continues to capitalize on what Cowen calls “a tightening truckload (TL) market, driving tonnage outperformance.

Trucking industry sources are suggesting that less-than-truckload (LTL) volumes “should continue to build while contract pricing renewals were the best since 2022. ArcBest’s asset-light division also is seeing “a steep change in run-rate profitability given rapid market inflection,” according to Cowen’s analysis.

LTL contract renewals at ArcBest came in 6.3% higher, its strongest renewal rate since the third quarter of 2022 when the nation was recovering from the Covid outbreak.

Revenue per container weight (rev/CWT) “should trend higher from here in the near term,” according to the Cowen analysis.

“Higher weight shipments produce an optical rev/CWT headwind, but ArcBest is also optimistic on the core LTL volume pipeline,” Cowen said in a report to investors. That should balance its overall freight mix even given the high fuel surcharges and other factors.

ABF posted an operating ratio (OR) of 97.3%. That beat most analysts’ expectations despite harsh winter weather in the first quarter.

Overall pricing trends, robust pricing increases and fuel surcharge tailwinds are expected to drive sequential operating ratio improvement of between 400 and 500 basis points, outperforming seasonality improvements in the second quarter, according to Cowen. 

LTL market leader Old Dominion Freight Line, the nation’s second-largest LTL company with $5.4 billion revenue last year, also is seeing good signs in the market.

“The retail side of the sector has probably been driving more of the volume performance at this point, and we’re looking for the industrial to start contributing as well,” ODFL Chief Financial Officer Adam Satterfield said on a recent earnings call.

Another factor in the LTL pricing equation is the official spinoff of FedEx Freight from parent FedEx Corp. on June 1. FedEx Freight, which has about 140,000 customers, receives about one-sixth of its revenue of $8.8 billion from its top 25 customers. It is the nation’s largest LTL carrier.

Although it would never admit it, the newly spun-off FedEx Freight could to compete mightily on price when it becomes a stand-alone operation on June 1.

“We’re not hauling freight for practice,” John Smith, incoming president and CEO of FedEx Freight said during its investor day presentation on April 8. “We’re here to make money and grow profitably.”

FedEx Freight certainly has the size to expand further. It already operates 365 terminals covering 26,000 terminal doors with 30,000 trucks and 17,000 trailers. FedEx Freight, along with Saia and a few other large LTL operators, was among the most aggressive buyers of terminals operated by defunct Yellow Corp., which ceased operations Aug. 1, 2023.

Rail carloads, at 230,497, eked out a 0.6% annual gain, topping the week ending May 9, at 229,592, and trailing the week ending May 2, at 235,049.

AAR reported that seven of the 10 carload commodity groups it tracks saw annual volume gains, including: grain, up 2,066 carloads, to 23,173; metallic ores and metals, up 1,044 carloads, to 22,450; and petroleum and petroleum products, up 1,004 carloads, to 11,278. Commodity groups posting annual declines included: coal, down 3,667 carloads, to 55,302; miscellaneous carloads, down 634 carloads, to 9,658; and nonmetallic minerals, down 136 carloads, to 32,515.

Intermodal containers and trailers, at 280,719 units posted a 7.3% annual gain, trailing the weeks ending May 9 and May 2, at 284,163, and 283,724, respectively.

Through the first 19 weeks of 2026, AAR observed that U.S. rail carloads, at 4,297,732, are up 3.4% annually, and intermodal containers and trailers, at 5,262,810 unitsm are up 0.9%, for the same period.

Total April volume, at 1,568,662 units, fell 0.6% annually, coming in below March’s 1,606,602 units, which was 2.3% below February’s 2.7% annual gain, and January’s 5.9% increase. September and August were up 2.4% and 1.6%, respectively, which were preceded by July’s 4.4% annual gain, which saw higher volumes due to the pulling-forward of goods being imported during the previous pause on the White House’s reciprocal tariffs.

As was the case in March, ISO, or international, containers were the lone segment to see an annual decline in April, down 6.4% annually, to 762,874. Trailers, at 38,085, increased 1.9% annually, and domestic containers, at 767,703, rose 8.6% annually. And all domestic equipment, which is comprised of trailers and domestic containers, at 805,788, posted an 8.2% annual gain.

Through the first four months of 2026, IANA reported that total volume, at 6,106,740 units, is off 0.1% annually. Domestic containers, at 2,957,463, are up 5.1% annually, and trailers, at 152,139, are down 2.1% annually. All domestic equipment, at 3,109,602, are up 4.8% annually. ISO containers fell 4.7%, to 2,997,138.

Earlier this month, the IANA issued its inaugural North America Intermodal Volume Index (IVI), which it described as a measure of industry activity that provides a “most likely” estimate of current market conditions.

The April IVI reading was projected to come in at 103.1, which it said was below March’s 104.0, (the most recent month for which ETSO numbers are available, which was up 2.3% annually), while topping the 2017-to-2019 average, of 100.  

What’s more, IANA observed that three consecutive months above the baseline suggests the same in June, which would translate into a full second quarter of growth if current economic conditions hold. And it added that the IVI pegs May to come in at 106.2. The March result of 104.0 (the most recent month for which ETSO numbers are available) was up 2.3 percent year-over-year.

“The April IVI is on par with what we would expect as later spring volumes pick up,” said Andrew Sibold, IANA’s Director of Economics. “We are excited to unveil this monthly ‘pulse check’ on the health of North American intermodal freight which, in a single number, indicates whether the market is expanding, flat or contracting relative to its underlying trend.”

In a previous interview with LM, Sibold, IANA Director said that, in regards to the potential trajectory of 2026 intermodal volumes, he estimated that total volumes could be up around 1.25% annually.

At the outset of the year, he said the biggest wildcard was tariffs, with a fair amount being overturned by the United States Supreme Court in February, but subsequently re-implemented through a different method by the White House.

“I do think freight will continue to grow, just due to the pickup in industrial activity, but that is somewhat fragile and subject to various headwinds and tailwinds, too,” said Sibold.

As for the possibility of intermodal gaining market share from trucking, as trucking is seeing some attrition in capacity related to federal government actions regarding non-domiciled CDL holders, Sibold said that there is an opportunity for some share shift in 2026.

The reason for that, he said, is that trucking continues to face headwinds, with rates still low, as well as the U.S.-Iran situation significantly driving-up fuel prices.

“There are some variables at play, and some of them have a lot of upside potential for intermodal,” he said. “If there is any type of uptick in demand or consumption, I think intermodal is pretty well-positioned to handle whatever volume spikes are coming its way.”  

As for the current impact of the Iran conflict in intermodal performance, he explained that the situation requires a watchful eye, as capacity and demand tighten in trucking, intermodal stands to increase its overall share. 

“The only potential hiccup would be if the shift to intermodal were to swamp capacity, but this is unlikely in the near term, since all of our efficiency metrics show the network operating very efficiently,” he said.

The SCI is a key logistics metric showing freight market health for shippers, combining factors like rates, capacity, and fuel; positive scores mean good conditions (more carrier supply), while negative scores signal tight capacity and tougher times for shippers, with readings near zero indicating neutrality, often fluctuating due to economic shifts and events like fuel price changes or new regulations. Recent readings have seen volatility, with shifts towards more challenging conditions as capacity tightens or improves, reflecting an evolving market where shippers need to monitor trends closely for rate changes and potential bottlenecks, according to FTR.

For March, the most recent month for which SCI data is available, the SCI came in at -18.9, following February’s -11.9. This marks the lowest SCI reading since March 2022, when it was at -23.1.

The firm noted that in addition to rising fuel costs, capacity utilization and freight rates were also negative factors contributing to the SCI reading.

“Only once in the SCI data, which dates to 2000, did the index suggest more unfavorable overall conditions for shippers than in March. Exactly four years earlier, the fuel component was not quite as negative, but freight rates and utilization were notably more unfavorable. However, in March 2022, rates and utilization were beginning to move in a favorable direction while today those factors are rising challenges. We expect market conditions to stabilize over the next quarter or so, but they don’t look favorable for shippers over the two-year forecast horizon.”

The report, The Rise of the Tariff-Optimized Supply Chain: Inside the New Rules of Global Trade, analyzed more than one million U.S. customs entries and found that many companies have moved from short-term reactions to longer-term changes in how they operate.

Infios says companies initially responded with quick fixes, including changing routes and experimenting with different shipping methods. Some of those moves have now become part of bigger supply chain plans.

"This research highlights how global trade patterns are evolving and where companies are adjusting routes, transportation methods, and execution strategies in response," said Ed Auriemma, CEO at Infios. "Organizations that recognize those shifts early and respond quickly will be best positioned to deliver execution without interruption."

Please click here to read the complete report. 

As noted in the LM online news section, the United States Department of Transportation this week rolled out its 2026 National Freight Strategic Plan, a multi-year roadmap for improving the freight that moves more than 54 million tons of goods worth more than $68 billion each day.

The plan focuses on the country’s nearly 7-million-mile freight network and lays out six goals for the next five years: safety, efficiency, security, resiliency, innovation, and workforce development. DOT says the plan is meant to guide federal freight policy, investment, and partnerships with state and private-sector groups.

The plan calls for reducing freight bottlenecks, improving supply chain visibility, streamlining federal project reviews, and helping states and regions plan more effectively across the transportation network.

And DOT said that the strategy includes support for advanced freight technologies and digital freight data standards, as well as research focused on areas that could have the greatest impact. Workforce priorities include creating stronger paths into freight careers and improving working conditions. The plan also calls for better workforce data to help companies understand hiring needs and labor trends.

This plan serves as a follow-up to the DOT’s 2020 National Freight Strategic Plan (NFSP), which was released during the first Trump administration. Which DOT, at the time, said was a first of its kind and focused on bolstering the nation’s economic competetiveness through long-term investments in infrastructure, the workforce, and other key parts of the national freight system.

Industry stakeholders were largely supportive of the 2020 plan, calling it a serious effort to understand and put a framework in place to better understand freight and put emphasis on programs and data that will allow DOT and the U.S. to make better investment decisions—adding that continuing to highlight the importance of freight will only help to make the U.S. freight system more effective and help U.S. consumers, manufacturers, farmers, etc. compete internationally and continue to have low logistics costs, fast transit times, and many options.

Another transportation infrastructure-related initiative released this week came from the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure with new legislation for a bipartisan five-year surface transportation authorization, investing in the nation’s roads, bridges, transit, rail transportation, and highway and motor carrier safety programs.

Entitled “BUILD America 250 Act—Building Unrivaled Infrastructure and Long-term Development for America’s 250^th Act—the House T&I Committee said that this legislation, “emphasizes moving people, goods, and freight safely and efficiently across the country,” adding that it, “provides the largest ever investment in America’s bridges, focuses on proven surface transportation infrastructure programs, provides passenger rail investments and reforms, improves rail safety, ensures that transportation projects and programs are more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides the first ever autonomous commercial motor vehicle framework.”

Some of the key freight-focused initiatives in the BUILD America 250 Act include:

• Nationally significant multimodal freight and highway projects;
• National Highway performance program;
• Bridge programs;
• Railway-highway grade crossings;
• Surface transportation block program;
• National highway freight and high priority corridor program;
• Surface transportation accelerator grant program;
• Surface transportation project delivery program;
• Study on effectiveness of discretionary grant programs and also for formula grant programs;
• Reauthorizing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act;
• Study on establishment of federal infrastructure bank;
• Consolidation and enforcement of highway safety programs;
• Improvements to motor carrier enforcement training and support grant program;
• Amendments to commercial motor vehicle operators grant program;
• Broker qualifications;
• Cabotage study;
• Predatory commercial motor vehicle lease-purchase agreement programs oversight;
• Extension of apprenticeship pilot program;
• Electronic logging device certification;
• Safety performance history screening and DataQs improvement;
• Drug and alcohol clearinghouse fees;
• Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Reform;
• Commercial motor vehicle workforce development;
• National motor vehicle per-mile user fee pilot;
• Autonomous vehicle accessibility study;
• National multimodal freight policy, National freight strategic plan, and National multimodal freight network;
• State freight plans and state freight advisory committees;
• Freight logistics optimization works program;
• Advisory committee on cargo theft and freight fraud;
• Authorizing annual funding for the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) safety operations and research programs;
• Consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements;
• Mandating that the Secretary require all Class I freight railroad carriers to install inward- and outward-facing cameras in controlling locomotive cabs within two years of issuing new regulations; and
• Establishing a Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C³RS) and requires the participation of all Class I freight railroads

The Washington, D.C.-based Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors (CAGTC) issued a statement on the BUILD America 250 Act.

“The Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors thanks Chairman Sam Graves, Ranking Member Rick Larsen, and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their bipartisan efforts to develop a five-year surface transportation authorization proposal,” said CAGTC Executive Director Elaine Nessle. “While the bill makes important progress in several areas—including identifying the first new revenue contribution to the Highway Trust Fund in 30 years—it fails in its commitment to freight infrastructure investment. For decades, the nation’s freight assets were overlooked in federal surface transportation programs. The progress achieved through the last two infrastructure laws to prioritize investment in supply chain infrastructure would be significantly weakened under this proposal.

Dedicated federal freight investment is essential. Programs such as the Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight & Highway Projects Program (INFRA), National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program (Mega), Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, and Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP) strengthen the infrastructure that connects communities to commerce, supports economic growth, and enhances America’s global competitiveness. Further, INFRA must continue to receive dependable and long-term funding from the Highway Trust Fund as it has since its creation over a decade ago. We urge Congress to build on the momentum of recent years and continue making these critical investments in the next surface transportation reauthorization law.”

American Trucking Associations President & CEO Chris Spear praised the legislation, calling it visionary.

“Since last January, ATA has testified multiple times on Capitol Hill and met with key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to lay the groundwork for the surface transportation bill.  We are pleased to see that many of the trucking industry’s priorities have been included in the base text. The highway bill has always been a bipartisan product, and it is encouraging to see Republicans and Democrats coming together prior to the September 30th deadline to expand truck parking, enforce safety rules, and take additional steps that will strengthen our industry.  ATA is committed to being a constructive partner throughout the legislative process and will continue to work with Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen to build a 21st century supply chain that can meet our economy’s needs over the long term.”  

While often under-looked at times, the need for sound freight policy is imperative, regardless of one’s political affiliation. As former DOT Secretary Ray LaHood once told Newsroom Notes there is no such thing as a Republican Road or Democratic bridge. In other words, we are all in this together, especially when it comes to safety on our roads and railways, as well as moving freight safely, effectively, and efficiently.

The DAT Truckload Volume Index reflects the change in the number of loads with a pickup date during that month, with the actual index number normalized each month to accommodate any new data sources without distortion, with a baseline of 100 equal to the number of loads moved in January 2015. It measures dry van, refrigerated (reefer), and flatbed trucks moved by truckload carriers.

The April Van TVI, at 251, fell 3% compared to March and was up 2% annually, reported DAT. And the Reefer TVI, at 183, was off 9% sequentially and up 1% annually. The Flatbed TVI, at 306, saw a 3% increase over March and a matching 3% annual gain.

DAT’s data highlighted the following takeaways for truckload volumes, and rates, for the month of April, including:

• the national average spot van rate was up $0.15 sequentially and $0.71, to $2.67 per mile;
• the national average spot reefer rate was up $0.14 sequentially and up $0.83 annually, to $3.11 per mile;
• the national average flatbed rate increased $0.37 sequentially and $0.94 annually, to $3.46 per mile;
• linehaul rates, which exclude fuel, saw modest gains, with van linehaul up $0.05 to $1.96 per mile, reefer up $0.04 to $2.4 per mile, and flatbed up $0.25 to $2.61 per mile (with flatbed the only segment to see a large enough gain to suggest what DAT called a meaningful rise in demand);
• per-mile surcharges reached their highest levels since July 2022, with Van at $0.71, up from $0.61 in March, Reefer, at $0.77, up from $0.67 in March, and Flatbed, at $0.85, up from $0.73 in March;
• national average contract rates saw April gains while trailing spot market rates across most equipment types, with Van at $2.85 per mile, up $0.13 sequentially, Reefer at $3.22 per mile up $0.12, and Flatbed at $3.71 per mile, up $0.28

“Fuel was the story in April,” said Dean Croke, principal industry analyst at DAT, in a statement. “Linehaul rates barely moved in van and reefer, and the volume of loads moved fell across the board. Small carriers continue to exit the market under sustained cost pressure. That’s not what a demand-based truckload freight recovery looks like. In a typical freight upcycle, strong demand for truckload services pushes spot rates above contract rates. What we’re seeing now is different. Spreads are tightening because there are simply fewer trucks available relative to demand, while much of the recent rate increase is being absorbed by fuel costs instead of improving carrier margins.”

In an interview with LM, Croke explained that while fuel prices have risen 33% since the beginning of the Iran conflict and remains significantly elevated, the average price per gallon of diesel has not gone much above $5.80 per gallon on the OTR retail site based on the 900 Pilot truck stops.

And he added that fuel has kind of stabilized and potentially not head up much higher, given where crude oil prices are, saying it is priced in, given the fuel-related activity in recent weeks, with global oil inventories down around 102 million barrels, due to the Iran conflict and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The inventory drawdown is happening, and the longer it goes on, the more it becomes a bigger issue,” said Croke. “It does not mean we will run out of oil. I still don’t know where it is going to go, and I am surprised it has gone on this long. But the net of it is that carriers in the spot market have not been crushed like they normally would.”

For comparison, Croke pointed to 2022, when the average price per gallon of diesel was in the $5.80 range, but truckload rates were declining at that time, making diesel prices in 2022 and existential event—whereas now, four years later, with the same level of diesel prices, it is not an existential event, because spot rates are at record-high levels and providing a cushion.

To that end, Croke observed that the larger contract carriers are likely making more money, because their miles-per-gallon rate is higher than what is being put into their fuel surcharge. He said a carrier told him its fleet is running at nine miles per gallon, with a fuel peg (the baseline price of fuel at which a fuel surcharge is neutral) at 6.5 miles-per-gallon—and getting paid for a lot of diesel not being used.

“If you go to the other extreme in the spot market, where carriers are paying on an all-in load rate, I would say they are getting hurt, because they are not getting the full adjustment in their rates for the rise in fuel because demand is flat,” he said. “It is not like ‘if diesel is this high, surely rates will see a commensurate gain.’ That is not how it works because it is not a 1:1 pass through in the spot market from the broker. Brokers are getting the fuel surcharge at, say, around $0.80, with maybe half of that going through to the carrier, because it is a function of supply and demand. That said, the supply side is decelerating faster than rates are rising, which is why there were record-high rates last week during Road Check Week.”

Road Check Week’s record came in the form of sequential spot rate gains, with reefer and dry van up $0.30 and $0.22, respectively.

Croke explained that is essentially the net effect, calling it painful for shippers, and adding that, normally, diesel, at this level, would surely be forcing capacity out of the market.

“But that is not necessarily what is forcing capacity out of the market,” he said. “It is the regulatory and enforcement activity that is forcing capacity out at an accelerating rate, which is the real story. I have heard from brokers that are refusing to load drivers with non-domiciled CDLs/immigrant drivers in Ohio yesterday. When you get to that market force level, that is a pretty big deal. We have seen it on the southern border for six months now, with carriers not wanting to go there, and capacity is tight and rates are up.

This is a pivotal time in our industry, and I don’t think the full effect of it has hit home yet because this is a slow burn. This is a slow-motion removal of capacity that is sort of happening before our eyes. This is the first time I have ever seen a regulatory—not a market-driven—freight cycle. Demand is relatively flat. It will be a different story when demand comes back.”

As for how different the story could be, Croke said it could be permanent, as not only is this a structural impact on capacity, it is regulatory and permanent, because these drivers are not coming back. What’s more, Croke made the point that the market has lost its elasticity, because there will not be a surge of capacity coming back, as that door to entry has narrowed, due to regulatory actions.

Market factors, like the added costs of 2027 trucks with the EPA implementing rules reducing nitrogen oxide limits by more than 80% and expanding emissions warranties by up to 650,000 miles, as well as steel and aluminum tariff costs, will lead to carriers having pricing power, with the caveat it is costing more for them to run their trucks.

“The same debate last year was with demand soft shippers gave carriers an eye roll and carrier rates dropped until they got where shippers think they needed to be,” he said. “Carriers were dropping their rates for multiple years to hold on, but over the last six weeks that has changed, where new rates coming into routing guides based on previous RFPs are starting to climb, while bring choppy. Which is what Bob Costello [American Trucking Associations Chief Economist] was talking about for a long time, but there is definite inflection in this market now, with a little bit of spring volume hitting and suddenly the capacity being tightened, because a lot of that marginal flex capacity that was sitting around could absorb that higher demand pushed out.”

And it must be profitable as the problem keeps getting worse.

The American Trucking Associations (ATA) recently joined a broad coalition of freight, retail and manufacturing officials to pressure the Justice Department to implement congressionally mandated measures to counter what it called a sharp rise in cargo theft and organized retail crime.

Cargo theft is becoming “increasingly prevalent and high-tech,” according to the ATA. Congress passed an appropriations bill in January with a provision that directed DOJ to begin the process of establishing a unified, federal response to cargo theft.

There’s little question about the need. Cargo theft is being staged by increasingly sophisticated tactics and global crime groups. Estimates vary so widely that one law enforcement official called them meaningless because enforcement is so lax and criminal activity is so pervasive.

For example, Verisk CargoNet on its website describes itself as a New Jersey-based group founded to prevent cargo theft and increase recovery rates through secure and controlled information sharing among theft victims. It lists truckload carriers Schneider and Landstar among its members.

It recently reported that cargo thefts increased 7.4% from the prior year to 596 incidents, up from 555, across North America. However, overall supply chain crime activity declined 5.3% to 767 total events. That also marked a 12.2% decrease from the fourth quarter. Estimated losses were virtually unchanged from a year earlier at $131.58 million, despite the 12.2% decline in incidents last year.

But early returns are not all that promising. The Justice Department has already missed the first deadline set by the new law.

Whatever the deadline, there’s no question of need. As a result, several industry groups are calling for accountability and adherence to statutory language.

In a letter sent to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, two dozen organizations, including ATA, urged DOJ to swiftly deploy new resources to close enforcement gaps, improve coordination, and deter criminal enterprises from exploiting the U.S. supply chain.

“Cargo theft and [organized retail crime] have escalated dramatically in recent years, affecting freight rail, trucking, retailers, and the broader U.S. economy. These crimes are not isolated or opportunistic, but are increasingly conducted by organized, sophisticated criminal networks operating across state and national borders,” the stakeholders wrote. 

“Through the resale of stolen goods and related monetization schemes, these criminal rings often engage in broader illicit activities, including drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorism,” the letter continued.

The continued rise in cargo theft and gift card fraud presents a “growing threat” to workers, consumers, the movement of essential goods and the broader American economy, 

According to the recently passed Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which was enacted this spring, the law specified that DOJ must:

•  Submit a report within 90 days that identifies U.S. Attorneys' Offices with the highest rates of crime involving cargo theft and directs those offices to assign at least one additional attorney to these cases.
•  Provide a briefing within 120 days on plans to establish regional task forces to investigate and refer cargo theft cases for prosecution.

The coalition’s letter underscores DOJ’s failure to meet the initial reporting deadline and urges the department to comply with Congress’ timeline by delivering the required report and briefing without further delay.

ATA is leading the efforts to halt or curb to proliferating cargo theft.  ATA recently endorsed the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, which would help law enforcement target organized crime rings by enhancing legal frameworks; improving enforcement capabilities; and fostering coordination among federal, state, and local agencies.  The legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously and could reach the full House this summer.

“Trucking is the lifeblood of our economy, but prolific incidents of cargo theft are undermining our essential role,” ATA President & CEO Chris Spear told the House Judiciary Subcommittee. 

"Brazen thieves are “acting with de facto impunity,” Spear said, adding they are robbing the industry to the tune of $18 million per day, according to estimates by American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI).

“The increased costs—from replacing stolen products to shouldering higher insurance premiums to investing in stronger security measures—are mounting,” Spear told Congress.

  ATRI supplied the following numbers:

•   Cargo theft costs motor carriers between $1.83 billion and $6.56 billion annually in direct and indirect costs;
•   The average loss per cargo theft incident is $29,108 for motor carriers and $95,351 for logistics service providers (LSPs);4
•   The estimated daily cost of cargo theft to the trucking industry is more than $18 million;
•   73.5% of cargo stolen from motor carriers is never recovered, and only 2% of motor carrier cargo theft incidents result in full recovery;
•   65.3% of motor carriers surveyed experienced cargo theft in 2023 and 100% of LSPs surveyed had cargo stolen in 2023.

These added expenses are putting “tremendous pressure” on motor carriers, putting jobs and small businesses at risk, carriers say.

“The bottom line is that cargo theft is not a victimless crime,” Spear said. “It’s not just the manufacturers, motor carriers, and logistic service providers that are hurt. The American public is harmed because the goods that people are trying to buy are either not on the shelves or are priced higher than normal.”

The plan focuses on the country’s nearly 7-million-mile freight network and lays out six goals for the next five years: safety, efficiency, security, resiliency, innovation, and workforce development. DOT says the plan is meant to guide federal freight policy, investment, and partnerships with state and private-sector groups.

“From the earliest days of our country, our growth relied on our ability to efficiently move equipment and supplies,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean  Duffy said. “It’s not just about moving goods–it’s about securing our energy supply chains, protecting our industries from cargo theft, and stocking shelves for American families. We are moving at the Speed of Trump to usher in the Golden Age of Transportation and a modern freight network is essential for our success.”

Please click here to read the complete article. 

ATA reported that its April Seasonally Adjusted (SA) For-Hire Truck Tonnage Index reading, aT 117.8 (2015=100) matched March’s reading, which was upwardly revised from 117.0) and was up 3.5% annually, below the 3.7% annual gain seen in March.

ATA reported that its March Seasonally Adjusted (SA) For-Hire Truck Tonnage Index reading, at 117.8 (2015=100) topped February’s 116.6, while posting a 3% annual gain, marking its highest annual gain going back to October 2022. And, for the first quarter, SA for-hire tonnage posted a 2.1% annual gain. For calendar year 2025, the SA For-Hire Truck Tonnage Index came in flat when compared to the 2025 average.  

Through the first four months of 2026, ATA reported that SA tonnage was up 2.6% annually, whereas 2024 came in flat compared to 2024.

The ATA’s not seasonally adjusted (SA) For-Hire Truck Tonnage Index, which represents the change in tonnage actually hauled by fleets before any seasonal adjustment and the metric ATA says fleets should benchmark their levels with, came in at 116.8 in April, trailing March’s 120.9 reading by 3.4%.

ATA said that these indices “are dominated by contract freight, as opposed to traditional spot market freight.”

ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said that April’s flat SA reading is viewed as more impressive, when taking into account that it saw a cumulative 4.7% increase, going back to the end of 2025, while not decreasing, so far, in 2016.

“The index is back to levels last seen during the fall of 2022,” said Costello.

Locus said that the integration of Nexera’s proprietary NeuraGrasp end-effector technology into the its physical AI platform significantly expands the company’s autonomous mobile manipulation capabilities and broadens what Locus Array can handle across end-to-end fulfillment workflows.

Per the announcement, Nexera Robotics will be wholly owned and operated as part of Locus Robotics. The full Nexera team and leadership will join Locus Robotics to accelerate integration of NeuraGrasp into the Locus Array platform and roadmap. Locus Robotics said that the acquisition strengthens its intellectual property position in mobile manipulation and adds deep AI-driven manipulation and end-effector expertise to the company’s engineering organization.

Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.

Please click here to read the complete article. 

The national average price per gallon, for the week of May 18, came in at $5.596, down 4.3 cents compared to the week of May 11, at $5.639, which eked out a $0.001-cent sequential gain. That followed a 28.9-cent cent sequential gain, for the week of May 4, when it came in at $5.640, which represented the largest sequential increase since the week of March 16, when it increased $0.21.

For the week of April 27, the national average decreased 5.2 cents, to $5.351, and for the week of April 20, it fell 20.5 cents, to $5.403, marking the highest weekly decline, since the week of December 22, 2008, when it fell 24.5 cents, and a 3.5-decline decline to $5.608, for the week of April 13.

Prior to the week of May 4, the highest average price in any week since came during the week of May 9, 2022, when it was at $5.623 per gallon. Prices continue to remain elevated, due to the launched joint strikes by the United States and Israel, in an initiative geared towards halting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

On an annual basis, this week’s national diesel average is up $2.060 cents annually. WTI crude is currently trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at $107.56 per barrel, up from $101.58 a week ago at this time.

Going back to the beginning of the Iran conflict, the national average price per gallon of diesel gasoline has increased by roughly $1.60, with the average price per barrel of WTI crude up around $30 over that same period.

The company said that 98% of all fresh produce imported from Mexico enters the U.S. through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, with 55% going through Texas, making this border-adjacent logistics infrastructure increasingly critical for retailers and hospitality businesses focused on speed, freshness, and reliability.

“Cross-border supply chains demand speed, precision, and a tight focus on each customer’s needs,” said Robinson Fresh president Jose Rossignoli. “This South Texas facility brings those capabilities together in one place, helping customers reduce dwell time, control costs, and get products to market faster. It’s one more example of how we’re offering produce shippers one integrated bundle of scale, technology, human expertise and tailored solutions.”

This new facility is located in Pharr, Texas, which is in the Rio Grande Valley, and is strategically positioned near the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge, which the company said is the most important U.S.-Mexico bridge crossing for perishables, and is also in close proximity to the Anzaldus International bridge and other local bridges and is in close proximity to U.S. Highway 281, McAllen International Airport, nearby railroad and also the ports of Brownsville and Mexico-based Matamoros.

Key aspects of the new facility cited by C.H. Robinson include:

• 69 dock doors;
• Multiple temperature zones and value-added services;
• Certified to Global Food Safety Initiative standards and USDA Organic requirements;
• Faster customs clearance and reduced border dwell times;
• Immediate cooling, ripening, quality control, and repacking capabilities; and
• Optimized consolidation and cross-border operations

In the Q&A below, Rossignoli provided a detailed overview of C.H. Robinson’s South Texas-based logistics center.  

LM: What drove the need for Robinson Fresh to open this new South Texas facility? How long had it been planned or in the works?

Rossignoli: The need was driven by one very clear reality: cross‑border supply chains for fresh produce are moving faster, growing more complex and becoming less forgiving of delays.

Robinson Fresh has had a distribution facility in South Texas for almost two decades. But with volumes from Mexico increasing consistently, we wanted to add additional capacity for growth for our customers, and we wanted to be closer to the border to speed up operations.

This facility is the result of years of planning, network modeling, customer conversations, and land and infrastructure evaluation. As we listened to growers, importers and retailers, we knew they wanted infrastructure purpose‑built for perishables, not adapted after the fact. And we’re now five minutes away from the border instead of forty, which helps us speed up business significantly.

LM: What are the main benefits of this new facility for shipper customers? What does it provide that was needed or missing?

Rossignoli: For shippers, the biggest benefit is control right at the border: control over time, quality, and different transportation options, with direct access to C.H. Robinson’s nationwide temperature-controlled network.

This facility allows us to inspect, cool, ripen, repack, label, and consolidate produce immediately as it crosses into the United States. That shortens dwell times, preserves freshness, and gives customers far more flexibility in how inventory is treated and allocated once it’s northbound.

LM: How did the company previously serve customers in the South Texas region before this facility came online?

Rossignoli: This new facility replaces an older one and underscores our commitment to the region. No jobs were lost in the changeover. We now have a larger footprint and we’re much closer to the border – just a few miles away from the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge, which is the most important border crossing for produce. We also have readily available access to rail, air, and port facilities in the area.

LM: What are the main competitive advantages of this facility for Robinson Fresh?

Rossignoli: The advantage starts with location. Being positioned near the most important border crossing for produce, with access to highways, rail, air, and nearby ports, gives us unparalleled network access. But location alone isn’t enough.

Where Robinson Fresh truly differentiates is in integration. This facility is tightly connected to the largest temperature‑controlled transportation network in the United States, supported by advanced technology, data‑driven routing, and experienced produce teams who understand both the agricultural and retail sides of the market.

We’re also seeing broader cross‑border trends: a greater variety of produce coming from Mexico year‑round, tighter customer-service expectations, and increased scrutiny around food safety and traceability. This facility was designed with those requirements in mind, meeting GFSI and USDA Organic standards and enabling fast, compliant handling at scale.

As a result, this new logistics center doesn’t just move freight, it strengthens the entire supply chain, from growers and importers to retailers and consumers. That’s the standard we hold ourselves to, and it’s why investments like this matter.

During the Gartner Supply Chain Symposium/Xpo in Orlando last week, Vice President Peter Larsen discussed what led to the decision, how customers pushed Amazon in this direction, and why the company believes delivery speed and reliability can directly drive business growth. Larsen, who has been with Amazon for nearly 20 years, also explained how Amazon plans to scale the new offering and what companies can expect from the service.

SC247: What changed internally that made Amazon decide to open its supply chain network to outside companies?

Larsen: A couple of things. One was the fact that our Amazon supply chain capabilities had already been opened up to sellers a number of years ago. That went great. Those sellers began asking us to use it for their off-Amazon volume.

Once that started happening and got to scale, it became a pretty obvious next step. We're already doing off-Amazon volume. It looks like it's filling a need, so let's go ahead and open it up to non-sellers as well. Customers were asking for it.

The second thing is that when you build things for internal teams, you sometimes make decisions based on assumptions about who your customers are. We had to spend some time detaching there. A lot of our services assumed you were an Amazon seller and had an Amazon seller ID.

If you didn't have an Amazon seller ID, our systems didn't really know what to do with it. We had to detach that a little bit.

And finally, there were some aspects of our services that we had to work on externalizing. For example, bulk distribution, which is a pretty core part of any 3PL, is something we didn't really have until this year.

Please click here to read the complete article. 

Entitled EchoParcel, the company said this offering utilizes both Echo’s scale and its carrier network, in order to provide various shipper benefits, including favorable rates and enterprise-level transportation management value-adds like more efficient execution and improved cost control, as well as expanding its access to what it called a broad network of parcel carriers to include FedEx via the EchoShip platform, alongside less-than-truckload (LTL), partial/volume LTL, and truckload (TL), which provides shippers with the ability to manage and optimize shipments across modes with a single point of entry.

"EchoParcel is a natural extension of our strategy to deliver more value through our technology and network," said Doug Waggoner, Chief Executive Officer at Echo. "By adding parcel to EchoShip, we're enabling our clients to take a more integrated approach to transportation, improving decision making, service, and cost performance across their entire network."

Frank Hurst, Executive Vice President of Operations at Echo, provided LM with a detailed overview of EchoParcel in the Q&A below.

LM: What drove the need for Echo to roll out EchoParcel? How long had it been in the works?

Hurst: EchoParcel is a natural extension of our long-standing multimodal strategy. As supply chains have grown more complex, shippers are increasingly looking for a single partner that can manage transportation holistically rather than across disconnected solutions. Historically, parcel has often been managed separately, creating inefficiencies and limiting visibility across the broader network. EchoParcel was developed to address that gap by bringing parcel into the same unified platform, EchoShip, that our clients already use for LTL, partial, and truckload.

This has been a multi-year effort across our product, operations, and carrier teams, culminating in a solution that fully integrates parcel into a multimodal transportation strategy.

LM: How did Echo previously support customers in this area prior to EchoParcel?

Hurst: Prior to EchoParcel, customers relied on EchoShip as a central access point for LTL, partial/volume, and truckload, while parcel was typically managed independently, either through direct carrier relationships or third-party providers. While our multimodal experts have long advised clients on network design and provided parcel-related insights through analytics and reporting, we did not previously offer the ability to execute parcel shipments directly within our platform. EchoParcel completes that experience by enabling full parcel management within EchoShip.

LM: What are the main benefits for shipper customers?

Hurst: Cost optimization: Competitive parcel pricing paired with ongoing audit and analytics to reduce spend leakage.

Operational efficiency: A single platform and account team managing parcel alongside LTL and truckload.

End-to-end visibility and control: Unified reporting and insights across all transportation modes.

Network optimization: The ability to dynamically evaluate and shift shipments between parcel, LTL, and partial based on cost and service requirements.

Importantly, this goes beyond rate access. EchoParcel provides a fully managed solution that combines technology, execution, and advisory support.

LM: Can you provide a basic example of how a customer uses EchoParcel?

Hurst: A typical mid-market shipper may already be using Echo for LTL and truckload while managing parcel through a separate carrier or system. With EchoParcel, that same client can now quote, book, and tender parcel shipments directly within EchoShip alongside their other modes. Their Echo account team can then analyze shipment patterns across all modes, identifying opportunities to optimize, such as shifting certain parcel shipments to LTL or partial where more cost-effective, or vice versa.

The result is a more efficient transportation network, improved cost control, and a single, unified view of performance across the entire operation.

LM: How would you describe the partnership structure supporting EchoParcel?

Hurst: We value our carrier partners in all modes that we work with and are always looking for ways to expand those relationships. EchoParcel’s backbone is carrier relationships that provide reliable service and a competitive pricing foundation, combined with Echo’s technology platform and multimodal expertise.

Echo brings the integration layer, through EchoShip, as well as the account management, analytics, and optimization capabilities that enable customers to manage parcel as part of a broader transportation strategy.

Company officials said that this campus will replace its current 40,000 square-foot service center, which is located at 4020 McCollum Court, as the company heralds its 44^th year of operations in Bullitt County, having initially set up shop there in 1982, when it opened its first local business there.

The new campus, Averitt said, will host the company’s entire regional operation, in the form of a single, integrated campus meshing each of its service units, including: less-than-truckload (LTL), truckload, dedicated, distribution and fulfillment and integrated services. What’s more, Averitt noted that it plans to hire 64 associates over the next four years, while retaining 182 associates currently employed at its existing Louisville-based location.

Key aspects of the new campus, which is expected to be completed by 2028, cited by Averitt, include:

• a two-story, 10,000-square-foot regional office with training and collaboration space;
• a 50,000-square-foot, 100-door cross-dock, expandable to 160 doors;
• a warehouse totaling more than 286,000 square feet of distribution and fulfillment space; and
• parking for more than 300 trailers, plus fleet maintenance, fueling, and driver support facilities to elevate the day-to-day experience of its drivers

Averitt President and Chief Operating Officer Barry Blakely told LM that Averitt moves through its 55th year of service, the company is more focused than ever on the future.

“One of the ways we are preparing for that future is by investing in our facility infrastructure,” said Blakely. “This investment is about more than expanding our physical footprint. It’s about enhancing the value we deliver to our customers. Our new Louisville campus will enable us to provide faster, more flexible, and more efficient service while strengthening our ability to support growing freight demand across Kentucky and throughout the South. In addition, the new parking, maintenance, fueling, and driver support facilities are designed to enhance the day-to-day experience of our drivers and associates.

The Averitt executive also noted that this new campus is strategically designed to improve the speed, efficiency, and reliability of the company’s logistics operations, allowing it to better serve customers across a wide range of industries.

"From reducing transit times and increasing capacity to expanding integrated distribution and fulfillment capabilities, every aspect of the campus is focused on helping our customers operate more efficiently and achieve their business goals,” he said.

From a customer perspective, Blakely said that Averitt currently serves and will continue to serve thousands of customers across Northern Kentucky from this campus.

Many freight transportation and logistics executives and analysts consider the Cass Freight Index to be the most accurate barometer of freight volumes and market conditions, with many analysts noting that the Cass Freight Index sometimes leads the American Trucking Associations (ATA) tonnage index at turning points, which lends to the value of the Cass Freight Index.

What’s more, the Cass Transportation Index accurately measure changes in North American freight activity and costs based on $37 billion in paid freight expenses for the Cass customer base of hundreds of large shippers. 

The April shipments reading, at 1.011, fell 4.4% annually, in line with March’s 4.5% annual decline, and were up 0.4% sequentially (its third straight sequential increase) and up 0.6% on a month-to-month seasonally-adjusted (SA) basis. One a two-year stacked-change basis, April shipments were off 7.9%.

Tim Denoyer, the report’s author and ACT Research vice president and senior analyst, observed that the 0.6% month-to-month seasonally-adjusted (SA) increase serves as an encouraging signal for a potential second-half recovery.

“LTL tonnage trends are improving for some fleets, which bodes well for continued improvement in shipment trends in the coming months,” wrote Denoyer. “’Tightness in the dry van TL market is starting to radiate to other modes, so far mainly reefer and flatbed TL, but eventually this tightness will drive demand in LTL and intermodal as well. The normal seasonal trend would put the shipments component of the Cass Freight Index down just 1% annually in May.”

April expenditures, at 3.382, increased 3.5% annually, down from March’s 4.2% gain, while rising 4.8% on a two-year stacked change basis and 2.6% sequentially. On a month-to-month SA basis, April shipments rose 1.2%.

Denoyer noted that following a record 21% surge in 2021 and a 23% gain in 2022, the expenditures component of the Cass Freight Index saw a 19% increase in 2023, followed by an 11% increase in 2024, and a 0.5% decrease in 2025.

Those bright spots include things like improving freight volumes, carrier rate gains (driven largely by reduced capacity rather than rising demand), and an industrial economy regaining its footing on the heels of an extensive downturn, in addition to other factors. Collectively, these things are helping drive up various key metrics by which logistics and supply chain operational performance are viewed and measured, which were highlighted in the new edition of the Logistics Manager’s Index, which was released earlier this month.

The monthly LMI is a joint project among researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, and also receives support by Council of Supply Management Professionals (CSCMP). CSCMP. The LMI is written by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.

The report’s authors explained that the LMI score, or reading, is based on eight “unique components” within the logistics sector, including: inventory levels and costs, warehousing capacity, utilization and prices and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices.

The April LMI reading came in at 69.9 (a reading above 50 indicates growth is occurring), marking a 4.2% gain over March’s 65.7, turning in its fastest expansion rate going back to March 2022’s 76.2, with the report explaining that this growth is being driven by continued expansion in the freight market. Not surprisingly, a key metric driving up the April LMI reading was a 5.6% gain in prices, to 95.0, its second-fastest rate of expansion for any metric in the nearly 10-year history of the LMI.

“We have not seen transportation prices grow this quickly in the nearly 10-years of the LMI,” noted Dr. Dale Rogers in the report. “Because the Logistics Managers Index allows us to see the future a little bit as products rolls through the supply chain towards the consumer, we would have to guess that we will see a fair amount to inflation in GDP in two or three months. The LMI team has speculated for about a year that we would see the real impact of the tariffs sometime during Summer 2026, but accompanied by the Iran War the impacts of two inflationary events could be substantial. We hope this is just temporary, but we are starting to see some warning signs about the economy as we head for the back end of the year.”

And while transportation prices are up, transportation capacity dimmed in April, coming in at 28.4, down 10.9% from March levels, with the 66.6% difference between the two metrics marking the largest on record, for the LMI.

Collectively, the report explained that the LMI has never previously become simultaneously tighter or more expensive.

“Freight markets were already on a strong upward trajectory coming into 2026,” the LMI stated. “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and subsequent increase in fuel costs have supercharged these movements. While this is good news for carriers in the near-term, it remains unclear what the long-term effects will be.”

Looking at other metrics, the LMI noted that with Inventory Costs (down 1.5% to 74.7) and Warehousing Prices (up 5.3% to 72.7) topping 70.0, it is viewed as the threshold for what it called significant expansion. What’s more when aggregating those two metrics, along with Transportation Prices, it points to upward movements in logistics costs at a total of 242.4, for its fastest rate of expansion since March 2022 and a 46.8% jump from December’s 195.7—with previous aggregate cosrs readings above 240.0 viewed as what the LMI called “strongly significantly predictive of future supply-induced inflation.”

As for inventories, the LMI reported that Inventory Levels rose 1.5%, to 56.3, and Inventory Costs fell 1.5%, to 74.7, with the LMI pointing out that the reason freight markets remain resilient is partially because low inventories indicate that companies need to keep goods moving. And with Inventory Levels rising over April, it supports industry reportage that inventories are heading up, with firms consolidating shipments in order to avoid transportation surcharges.

It goes without saying that these are interesting, perhaps even extraordinary, times in freight transportation, supply chain, and logistics, with the LMI’s data and analysis, as usual, helping to put it into clear perspective. Given the myriad unknowns these days, whether it be what happens with gas prices, inflation, rates, tariffs, and many other factors, it helps to have the sharp context the LMI provides for all industry stakeholders. At a time when things are far from linear in our space, it helps to have data like this to get a better sense of where things are and also where they may be going.

The stay is short-term procedural order that essentially preserves the status quo, as the appeals court decides whether a longer stay pending appeal should be granted. In the interim, the White House will continue to collect the 10% Section 122 tariffs for the time being, with the CIT ruling being temporarily frozen during appellate review.  

The White House implemented the Section 122 tariffs following a late-February decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled against the legality of President Trump’s implementation of global reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by a 6-3 margin.

As reported by LM, soon after the court’s ruling, the White House announced a new global tariff taking effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on February 24, in the form of a 150-day, 10% temporary import duty on most goods entering the United States under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address what the Administration described as serious international payment imbalances and a growing U.S. balance-of-payments deficit.

In its 2-1 decision last week, the CIT said that the tariffs are not lawful because Section 122 does not authorize tariffs under the economic conditions cited by the White House. To that end, it explained that a trade deficit does not equate to what it called a large and serious balance-of-payments deficit, which is required by Section 122, with Section 122 used for narrow emergency situations that involve international payment crises or threats to the dollar—not routine trade imbalances.

It added that the way in which the White House interprets the tariffs would essentially provide the President with open-ended authority to impose broad tariffs without meaningful Congressional limits, with the ruling noting that Section 122 tariffs are supposed to be temporary, limited, and tied to specific monetary or balance-of-payments emergencies.

While the CIT ruled against the Section 122 tariffs, this ruling only applies to two companies—Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun!—as well as the State of Washington.

“This ruling is not surprising—Section 122 is clearly aimed at balance-of-payments situations and is not intended to be a general tariff authority to support worldwide special tariffs,” said Greg Husisian, partner and litigation attorney with Foley & Lardner LLP. “This ruling has a high chance of being upheld on appeal. The real question is with regard to the scope of relief, which only gives relief to certain plaintiffs. We likely will see a rush to the courthouse, like we saw with the IEEPA tariffs, because major importers will want to lock in their right to refunds, particularly as we get closer to liquidation for entries that are subject to the Section 122 tariffs.”

Pete Mento, director of global trade services at Baker Tilly, wrote in a LinkedIn post that the CIT appears increasingly uninterested in turning every old trade statute into a universal tariff bazooka.

“And here’s the part importers really care about: Estimates suggest the Section 122 tariffs were expected to generate roughly $30–50 billion during their short 150-day lifespan,” wrote Mento. “That is a staggering amount of money tied to a tariff program that now has a very uncertain future. Of course, this is almost certainly headed for appeal. Nothing in trade law is ever simple. We can’t just have one tariff crisis at a time in America anymore. We apparently collect them like Marvel movies. But this ruling matters for several reasons: First, it continues the judiciary’s growing skepticism toward broad executive tariff authority after the Learning Resources IEEPA decision. Second, it raises another massive potential refund and reliquidation issue for importers already drowning in CAPE submissions, protests, offsets, and reconciliation problems. Third, it sends a very clear signal that courts may require administrations to stay within the actual statutory framework Congress wrote instead of creatively ‘vibing’ their way through emergency tariff powers.”

In related news, the Office of the United States Trade Representative held hearings last week regarding its Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974 related to what it called structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors.

When it scheduled these hearings in March, not long after the United States Supreme Court ruled against the legality of the implementation of the White House’s IEEPA tariffs in late February, USTR explained that these investigations will determine whether those acts, policies, and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. It said that the economies subject to the Section 301 investigations are China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.