Intermodal Freight Costs Are Climbing — and 2027 Is Still Far Away
If you are a shipper waiting for the next major contract cycle to lock in more favorable intermodal rates, you may already be behind. Across the freight industry, intermodal prices are rising well ahead of the anticipated 2027 contract negotiations, and the reasons why reveal a structural shift that shippers need to understand right now. Asset-based intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) are increasingly turning away lower-priced freight, and that decision is sending shippers deeper into their routing guides — and deeper into their budgets.
Understanding what is happening in today's intermodal market is not just an operational concern. It is a strategic imperative. Whether you manage a regional supply chain or oversee national freight procurement, the cost pressures building in the intermodal sector today will shape your logistics spend for years to come.
What Are Asset-Based IMCs and Why Do Their Decisions Matter?
Intermodal marketing companies serve as intermediaries between shippers and railroads, bundling rail capacity with drayage services to offer door-to-door intermodal solutions. Asset-based IMCs, in particular, own or control physical assets — trailers, containers, chassis, and sometimes drayage fleets — which gives them more control over their service offering but also greater sensitivity to pricing and margin pressures.
When freight rates fall below a threshold that makes business sense for these carriers, asset-based IMCs have the leverage to simply decline that business. Unlike non-asset brokers who can often find a way to match supply and demand at almost any price point, asset-based IMCs are protecting the return on physical equipment and long-term operational relationships. When they walk away from freight, shippers do not suddenly gain bargaining power. Instead, they lose a primary lane option and are forced to look elsewhere.
That "elsewhere" almost always costs more.
How Routing Guides Translate Into Higher Shipping Costs
Most shippers with significant freight volume maintain a routing guide — a prioritized list of carriers and pricing agreements for each lane. Primary carriers offer the best rates negotiated during the annual bid cycle. When a primary carrier cannot or will not accept a load, shippers move down the guide to secondary and tertiary options, which typically carry higher spot rates or less favorable contract terms.
As asset-based IMCs reject lower-priced intermodal freight, shippers find their primary options unavailable with increasing frequency. The cascade effect pushes volume toward carriers who may charge ten, twenty, or even thirty percent more per load. Multiply that across hundreds or thousands of annual shipments, and the budget impact becomes significant — all before a single 2027 contract is negotiated.
This is not a hypothetical risk. It is a pattern already playing out in the market, and shippers who have not adjusted their expectations or their procurement strategies are absorbing unexpected costs right now.
Why Prices Are Rising Before the Contract Cycle Even Opens
Freight markets are cyclical, but the timing of pricing shifts does not always align neatly with contract calendars. Several factors are converging to push intermodal costs upward ahead of schedule.
- Capacity discipline among asset-based carriers: After years of market volatility, many asset-based intermodal providers have become more deliberate about which freight they accept. Protecting yield on owned assets matters more than chasing volume at thin margins, especially when operating costs — including chassis maintenance, drayage labor, and rail fuel surcharges — remain elevated.
- Tightening rail capacity in key corridors: Railroad network fluidity has improved since the supply chain disruptions of 2021 and 2022, but capacity in high-demand lanes remains constrained. When rail partners limit available slots, IMCs become more selective about which customers and which rates fill those slots.
- Rising drayage costs: The first and last mile of any intermodal move depends on drayage — the truck that carries the container to and from the rail ramp. Driver shortages, fuel costs, and chassis availability have kept drayage expenses stubbornly high, compressing margins for IMCs and making low-rate freight economically unviable.
- Shipper demand recovery: As consumer spending and industrial output stabilize or grow in certain sectors, demand for intermodal capacity is recovering in some corridors. Any uptick in demand without a corresponding increase in available capacity accelerates price movement upward.
What Shippers Should Do Right Now
Waiting for 2027 contract talks to address today's pricing environment is not a viable strategy. Shippers who are proactive now will be in a far stronger negotiating position when those conversations eventually begin.
First, audit your routing guide performance on intermodal lanes. If your primary tender acceptance rates are declining, that is a direct signal that asset-based IMCs are deprioritizing your freight. Understanding where and how often you are falling to secondary carriers will quantify your current cost exposure and help you identify which lanes need immediate attention.
Second, engage your intermodal providers in direct conversations about rate sustainability. A shipper who acknowledges market realities and offers pricing that reflects current cost structures is more likely to secure reliable capacity than one who anchors to last year's contracted rates. Building goodwill and operational credibility with key IMC partners now can protect lane access when capacity tightens further.
Third, evaluate your modal mix. In some corridors, over-the-road truckload may currently offer competitive pricing relative to the effective all-in cost of intermodal when routing guide fallout is factored in. A thorough total-cost analysis may reveal that shifting some volume to truckload temporarily is actually the more economical choice until intermodal market conditions stabilize.
The Bigger Picture: Intermodal Market Dynamics Are Shifting
The intermodal freight market has long been positioned as a cost-effective alternative to truckload for longer-haul lanes, typically over 750 miles. That value proposition remains intact over the medium term, but it requires favorable conditions to deliver on its promise — adequate capacity, functioning rail networks, and willing IMC partners. When any of those elements comes under pressure, the cost advantage narrows or disappears entirely.
What the current situation illustrates is that shippers cannot treat intermodal contracts as a set-it-and-forget-it procurement exercise. The gap between contract cycles is not a period of pricing stability — it is a period of continuous market movement that can erode negotiated savings quickly if left unmanaged.
As 2027 approaches and formal contract talks eventually begin, the shippers who have actively managed their intermodal relationships and adjusted to evolving market conditions will be the ones who negotiate from a position of knowledge, credibility, and leverage. Those who have simply waited will be playing catch-up — and paying for it.