Six straight months of meaningful year over year declines was snapped in March with a modest 0.8% increase with inbound boxes at the 10 largest U.S. ports. Note, however, that with the Supreme Court ruling on February 20 that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal, a meaningful quantity of containers anticipating and reacting to that ruling is believed to have been unleashed. There is compelling actual data that not only supports this but allows the amount of front-loading to be defined with some precision. The numbers show an adjusted March with a decline that is in line with recent months.
Inbound In-depth
Actual March inbound volume translates into a 4.4% CAGR when compared to 2019 which is well above most recent CAGR’s. For instance, that is more than twice the 2.0% average for January and February. Only two months over the preceding 24 months were higher and the actual average CAGR over the two years was 3.1%. If that figure is used to define the front-loading, the proforma inbound volume for March is 8.4% lower, which equates to proforma volume being 7.6% below last year.
In another comparison, March actual volume was sequentially 12.5% higher than February, well above the 5.3% year ago sequential volume growth. If the 7.2% higher seasonal swing is used to define the front-loading, the proforma inbound volume for March is 6.0% below last year. The midpoint proforma decline between those two is 6.8%, which strikes me as a reasonable estimate for March when the non-recurring loads are excluded. That is broadly in line with the preceding six months where actual inbound volume was down by an average of 6.2%.
March’s actual 0.8% increase comes after February’s 5.7% decrease and January’s 5.2% decrease. The three-month trailing figures came in at a 3.4% decrease in March and below February’s 5.6% decrease. In the latest month, the West Coast ports had an actual decline of 2.8% while East/Gulf Coast ports were up 4.1%. March is the last month to have any latent effects from the Chinese New Year and the varying times that result in making the trailing three month figures more relevant during the first quarter. While the Chinese New Year was relatively weak this year, it was more than mitigated by volume strength in March driven by containers being shipped now that the IEEPA tariffs no longer applied. Despite the modest increase in March, when adjustments are made, we are now on course to have the longest monthly streak of U.S. inbound volume declines since container shipping began more than 50 years ago.
Outbound In-depth
Total outbound volume from the U.S. in March decreased 0.5%. In comparison, February was up 0.9% and January was up 3.3%. While outbound volume has shown an erratic pattern on a month-to-month basis for over a year, the broader trend has been fairly flat, evident by the 0.6% increase in trailing 12-month volume.
Global Perspective
The widening gap between volume trends in North America and the rest of the world continues. North America went from a 2.8 percentage point overperformer at the beginning of 2025 to a 12.6 percentage point underperformer in February, an extraordinary swing of 15.4 percentage points. That metric is down from 14.4 percentage points in December. Volume growth in all other regions remains robust and world trade is moving on. For instance, while North America inbound volume in February was up 4.8%, global volume grew 11.7%.
Worldwide container volume grew 11.7% year over year in February, some 17.4 percentage points or 1740 basis points better than the 5.7% inbound volume decline to the U.S. that same month. Another tangible indication of strength in other global markets is the February growth of imports in other major regions. Container imports to Africa (up 33.3%), Australia (up 23.1%), Europe (up 21.3%) and Mideast/India (up 19.7%) were all robust as U.S. volume sank. February outbound volume from the U.S., the direction that is most directly associated with jobs, at 2.5% was still well below the global average and more below major regions. For example, in that same month Asia outbound volume was up 18.8% and Africa outbound volume was up 10.7%. As the data shows, world container supply chains have already begun to adapt and reconfigure trading patterns faster than most thought while U.S. volume languishes and declines. The volume gains those regions have represent more growth and less inflation that the U.S. should have had.
The total value of goods in containers moving in and out of all U.S. ports, including the two dozen container ports outside of the Top 10 ports in March, was $190.1 billion. That is the equivalent of $2.281 trillion in annualized economic activity.
Whether it involves increases or decreases, material changes in what is a meaningful portion of the U.S. economy will have pronounced positive and negative effects across the economy. For example, a 15% reduction in overall container volume from this point on based on tariffs is possible. Such a decrease would translate directly into a $342 billion reduction in annual commerce for the U.S.
From being well ahead of the rest of world, the U.S. is now well behind the rest of the world.
Pricing
The CTS global pricing index, the definitive measure of overall sector pricing, has come out for February and was at 74, a 5.1% decrease from the 78 level in both January and December. The February index was 2.1% below the actual 4Q25 average of 75.3, 7.8% below the actual 3Q25 average of 80.3 and 8.3% below the actual 2Q25 average of 80.7. From its recent monthly peak level of 118 in July 2024 the global pricing index has generally been declining since then.
Note that the CTS global pricing index uses actual 2008 rates as the base set to 100 and they are not inflation adjusted. The CTS global pricing index level and trend is the most credible measure of sector pricing and the most relevant pricing index to use in any projection of industry results.
The latest readings on the SCFI index, the most closely followed spot index measure, augment overall pricing insight into the container sector. Pricing in most container lanes involving the U.S. shows trends similar to those in broader measures as the lanes are invariably linked in what is really a single pricing matrix. While there are credibility issues with the various spot pricing indices based on how they are determined and who provides input, they do provide information on the direction and trend of pricing. The SCFI began trending down last December and has generally been in a downtrend. However, in the last two months it has spike up as pricing has tightened related to the hostilities in the Middle East. The latest SCFI reading of 1887 on April 17 is 25.9% above the 1Q26 average of 1499, 33.4% above the 4Q25 average of 1415 and 27.4% above the 3Q25 average of 1481.
The following chart shows the average monthly level of both the CTS global pricing index and the SCFI over the last seven years benchmarked against the actual 4Q19 average level. As is readily apparent from looking at this chart, most contracts, which typically have one-year terms, did not reset at the then current spot rate when they were renewed. That speaks for itself in terms of highlighting differences other than timing between the CTS global pricing index and the SCFI. There has recently been more of an immediate linkage between the two measures and that is a result of more contracts now that have provisions where contract pricing is not fixed and can be adjusted due to changes in specific indices within the contract year.
Shifting Port Traffic
March’s overall inbound volume of 2,047,308 TEU’s was the highest in the last eight months. It was sequentially 12.5% above January, which was well above the 5.3% sequential increase last January. That 7.2% variance is broadly consistent with the earlier analysis seeking to quantify the front-loading effect in March and another factual indication of the underlying downtrend in the volume data. These sequential comparisons benefit from recency, but the varying number of days in most months injects a 3-10% volume variance and there are also seasonal differences as you go from one month to another. Both of these facts make direct seasonally unadjusted comparisons not particularly relevant.
The 68 months after the beginning of the pandemic effect on container volume began in August 2020 can be thought of as a new era in container shipping. That period first included volume gains from increased consumer spending, then decreases from the rebound of that and more recently underlying volume strength followed by the downtrends evidenced this year. We are now moving into another volatile period that will be overpowered by tariffs pushing volume down. March’s overall inbound volume was 3.5% above that 68-month average. East/Gulf Coast ports were 12.2% above their 68-month average while West Coast ports were 5.2% below their 68-month average.
The West Coast ports have outperformed the East/Gulf Coast ports in 21 of the last 32 months. Those 11 months that were the exceptions were a return to the period that saw a streak of 26 straight months where the East/Gulf Coast ports out-performed West Coast ports.
March showed a 6.9 percentage point coastal gap favoring East/Gulf Coast ports based on an 2.8% decrease at West Coast ports compared to the 4.1% increase at East/Gulf Coast ports. The March gap was in contrast with West Coast ports having a 6.1 percentage point February advantage but was below the East/Gulf Coast advantage of 14.7 percentage points in January.
Imports vs Exports
The 0.8% year over year increase in total inbound volume in March was a sharp contrast and a 10.2 percentage point swing from the year ago gain of 11.0% in March 2025. The actual trailing three-month inbound numbers showed total inbound volume in March decreasing 3.4%, the tenth straight negative reading of that metric in 29 months as the 19 months that came before were all positive readings. That metric has been in a downward trend since the beginning of 2025. The trailing six-month figure in March was down 5.0% compared to being down 6.2% in February. The trailing 12-month figure for March was down 3.2%, below the 2.5% decline in February and the 1.7% decline in January. That trailing annual metric has been in a consistent downtrend for 13 straight months.
Ports with the strongest March performance were New York (up 10.2%), Norfolk (up 10.0%) and Houston (up 7.5%). The ports with the weakest performance were Seattle/Tacoma (down 9.1%), Oakland (down 6.8%) and Savannah (down 6.7%). With its strong performance, New York moved into the top spot this month. This is however a temporary position and it will likely be back in its typical number three position after both Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Export boxes over-performed import boxes from mid-2022 to late 2023, but since then have shown erratic up and down moves that circle in to general flatness over the last year. Total outbound volume was down 0.5% in March. The latest month was a slippage compared to the 0.9% increase in February and the 3.3% gain in January. Twenty-four of the last 44 months have shown increases following 14 straight months of decreases. The trailing 12-month figure in March for total outbound volume showed an increase of 0.6% compared to an increase of 0.9% in February and 0.2% in January.
With March outbound volume down 0.5% and inbound volume up 0.8%, there was a 130-basis point directional gap in favor of inbound volume. That is a reversal of the two previous months where there was a directional gap in favor of outbound of 820-basis points in February and 860 basis points in January. March was a return at a much smaller level of the average 570 basis point gap by which inbound growth has exceeded outbound growth over the last 68 months.
With exports, only 26 of the last 73 months have shown year over year gains, with a 1.3% average monthly decline over the period. While total inbound loads this March were 35.2% above what they were seven years ago during March 2019 for a 4.4% CAGR, total outbound loads were 8.0% less resulting in a negative 1.2% CAGR. That 560-basis point difference in directional growth rates over a seven-year period is a noteworthy divergence in the overall performance of exports compared to imports over the same period. The March metric was above the 240-basis point difference in February as well as the 310-basis point difference in January.
Total inbound loads were 2.15 times outbound loads in March, below both the 2.24 ratio in February and the 2.51 ratio in January. The 2.15 times metric for the most recent month is the lowest measure since last March and a noteworthy decline from the trailing 12-month average of 2.36 times.
Ports with the strongest export volume performance in March were Los Angeles (up 7.4%), Norfolk (up 5.6%) and Oakland (up 2.4%). Ports with the weakest export performance were Savannah (down 6.0%), Houston (down 5.9%) and New York (down 2.9%).
Houston was in the top spot in export volume in March for the seventeenth straight month. In addition to leading in key growth measures, Houston is consistently the most balanced port with outbound boxes being almost as much as inbound boxes.
This is an excerpt of the McCown Container Volume Observer, which features an exhaustive deep dive into the facts and figures behind U.S. container shipping volumes, including analysis of monthly trends by port and by direction. The observations and data in the 25-page report include some 20 graphs and tables, providing timely container volume and pricing information. To subscribe to The McCown Report, visit The McCown Report site.
About the author: John D. McCown is an internationally recognized shipping expert with over four decades of experience in the sector. He currently serves as a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy, the think tank of the Navy League. McCown was the co-founder and former CEO of U.S. flag container carrier Trailer Bridge, Inc. He also focused on the shipping and transportation industries from an investment perspective as the transport sector head at a $20 billion hedge fund.
