Last Mile Logistics and Port Regionalization in Global Freight

MEDLOG 2011, Tangier, Morocco, March 31April 2, 2011

Last Mile Logistics and Port Regionalization in Global Freight Distribution Jean-Paul Rodrigue Associate Professor, Dept. of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA

Last Mile Logistics and Port Regionalization in Global Freight Distribution

1

• What are the differences between first mile and last mile logistics?

2

• How port regionalization supports last mile logistics?

3

• Does last mile logistics matters for transshipment hubs?

“All-Miles” Logistics: Global Maritime Freight Transport System

Container Terminal Portfolio of the four Main Global Terminal Operators, 2010 Top ten terminal operators: 65% of the world’s total container handlings

Supply Chains: Alternating First and Last Miles

Logistics Chain 1

Extraction

LC 2

Processing

Transport Chain 1

LC 3

Fabrication

TC 2

Logistics Chain 4

Assembly

TC 3

Distribution

TC 4

Retailing

TC 5

Containerization Growth Factors

Derived

Substitution

Incidental

Induced

Economic and income growth Globalization (outsourcing) Fragmentation of production and consumption

Functional and geographical diffusion New niches (commodities and cold chain) Capture of bulk and break-bulk markets

Trade imbalances Repositioning of empty containers

Transshipment (hub, relay and interlining)

The “Terminalization” of Logistics

Terminalization

BottleneckDerived

• • • •

Terminal as a constraint Rational use of facilities to maintain operational conditions Storage space, port call frequency, gate access Volume, frequency and scheduling changes

WarehousingDerived

• • • •

Terminal as a buffer Incorporating the terminal as a storage unit “Inventory in transit” with “inventory at terminal” Reduce warehousing requirements at distribution centers

The Complexities of Inland Logistics: The “Last Mile” in Freight Distribution Massification

Atomization Frequency Capacity

Shipping Network

1

Gateway 1

REGIONAL LOCAL

HINTERLAND

GLOBAL

Inventory in transit

Corridor

2

Segment

Inland Terminal 2

Distribution Center

Customer

“Last Mile”

Inventory at terminal

Pushing Atomization in the Hinterland and Massification in the Foreland

Inland Terminal

Hinterland-Based Regionalization

HINTERLAND

GATEWAY

Economies of scale Functional Integration

FORELAND Main Shipping Lane

INTERMEDIATE HUB

Foreland-Based Regionalization

The Governance Setting of Gateways and Corridors: Many Actors Supporting Functional Integration Maritime Freight Distribution

Transport Actors Maritime shipping companies (Private). Waterways and navigation channels (Public).

Gateways

Corridors and Hubs

Inland Freight Distribution

Terminal operators (Private). Port operations (Port Authority). Land ownership (Public and Private).

On-dock rail (Port Authority and terminal operators). Near-dock rail (Rail companies). Trucking and barging (Private). Roads and highways (Public). Rail lines (Rail companies; ownership or right-of-way).

Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics

Gateway

Inland Terminal

Distribution Customer Center

Import-Based Many Customers •Function of population density. •Geographical spread. •Incites transloading. •High priority (value, timeliness).

Repositioning Supplier

Export-Based Few Suppliers •Function of resource density. •Geographical concentration. •Lower priority. •Depends on repositioning opportunities.

American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2009 (in TEUs) Importers Whirlpool Nike Red Bull General Electric Jarden JC Penney Samsung Ikea Intl. Ashley Furniture Chiquita Heineken Philips LG Group Costco Wholsale Lowe's Sears Holding Dole Food Home Depot Target Wal-Mart

Exporters

60,900 72,300 74,000

76,700 77,100 79,000 81,100 90,800 90,900 116,700 118,100 127,200 149,300 166,100 195,000 216,300 225,500 278,900 441,800 684,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

Cellmark Group Genesis Resource… Meadwestvaco Sims Metal Management Delong Shintech Cedarwood-Young ExxonMobil JC Horizon Dupont Procter & Gamble Denison Intl. Potential Industries Cargill Dow Chemical Newport Ch Intl Weyerhaeuser International Paper Koch Industries America Chung Nam 0

51,300 54,800 58,100

60,700 65,100 66,900 68,800 70,700 72,400

74,300 78,000 86,900 90,000 90,300 103,000 110,900 112,500 120,100 120,600 259,000

200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000

Distribution based on RDCs

Distribution based on tiered system

Distribution based on two gateways

Distribution based on local DCs

World’s Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets, 2008

Factors behind Transshipment Substitution

Small ships instead of large ships (better asset utilization). Water instead of land (modal shift).

Network expansion

More links and wider coverage (more traffic and throughput). Intersection and relay (transit between long distance services).

Imposed

Lack of port infrastructure (capacity unavailable for large ships). Congestion (potential delays for large ships). High port costs (port call charges versus volume).

Cost trade off

Savings in ship cost vs. additional port handling (advantages of ‘offshore’ locations).

Level of service

Transit Time (varied; depend on the port pairs). Frequency (higher; more port calls). Reliability (less; more potential for delays).

Possible Options in the Development of a Transshipment Hub Pure Transshipment Hub • Location and costs advantages • Dependent on shipping companies and global terminal operators

Hinterland Gateway • Logistic zones and inland load centers

Foreland Gateway • Port-centric logistics zones • Gateway to a regional freight system

Governance Changes in Port Authorities: Competing over the Hinterland Conventional Port Authority • Planning and management of port area. • Provision of infrastructures. • Planning framework. • Enforcement of rules and regulations.

• Cargo handling. • Nautical services (pilotage, towage, dredging).

Expanded Port Authority

Port Elizabeth Intermodal Complex, New York

Main Advantages of Co-location: Multiplying Factors for the Last Mile Factor

Advantages

Real estate

Lower land acquisition costs. Higher acquisition capital. Joint land use planning.

Specialization

Transport company; terminal development and operations. Real estate promoter; logistic zone development and management.

Cargo interdependency

Respective customers. Joint marketing.

Drayage

Priority gate access. Shorter distances. More delivery trips. Higher reliability.

Asset utilization

Better usage level of containers and chassis. Chassis pools. Empty container depots.

Information technologies

Integration of terminal management systems with inventory management systems.

Conclusion: Transshipment Hubs at the Forefront of Last Mile Logistics

1 2 3

• Last mile logistics functionally and geographically complex • Terminalization increasingly part of last mile-logistics

• Development of hinterland and foreland-based regionalization • Reconciling massification and atomization in freight distribution

• Last mile logistics influence the development options of a transshipment hub.