In theory, multimodal transportation is an elegant system in which cargo moves easily from ships and trains to trucks, with each mode playing to its strengths and enabling seamless cargo flow. However, reality paints a different picture. Forwarders and logisticians across the world, be they in Hamburg or Shanghai, will often speak about how challenging the whole ordeal can be. Despite millions of euros (or dollars) in investments in infrastructure and technology at ports and by carriers, weak links emerge, causing congestion and complexity, making the system, as a whole, challenging. 

In this article, we discuss how trucking serves as the “critical link” at port interfaces and the barriers that impede the efficient transport of cargo. Although ports and terminals implement many systems to make last-mile processing smooth, there is a list of “glitches” that forwarders and truckers must reckon with, understand why, and at what point the cargo movement halts so as to avoid any idle time and demurrage.

Drayage Bottlenecks

Drayage, or short-haul trucking, occupies a unique position within supply chains. These short hauls usually connect ports and terminals to warehouses and distribution centers. Often, the efficiency of drayage depends on the type of move that the driver performs. There are many ways in which drivers can move containers. The driver either performs dual transactions, that is, drops one container and picks another one (returning an empty and picking a loaded one), or performs dray-offs by shuttling containers from a congested port to a nearby staging yard, right off the port area. This allows importers to pick up containers from a less crowded area, resulting in shorter turn times and flexible hours.

(Trucks at Port)

But the drayage processes are not so simple globally. In Europe, many national regulations exist within a single market. For example, a container moving from Rotterdam to Germany may experience different cabotage rules, working time directives, and emission standards. In 2020, the EU mobility package was adopted to harmonize these varying regulations; however, its implementation across member states has not been properly coordinated. Drivers especially face challenges, including wage imbalances, capacity constraints, and sometimes even changing geography. For instance, a Dutch truck will have to comply with German wage requirements, or Eastern European drivers moving cargo to the west might face load restrictions, or there are sometimes bottlenecks at ports like Hamburg due to a narrow corridor leading to the port.

While Europe faces regulatory challenges, Asian ports, which handle five times as much cargo as European ports, also face their own set of troubles. These high volumes that are regularly handled through state-of-the-art AI-driven yard management systems and automation still rely on traditional short-haul trucking, which tends to be rather emission-intensive, that is, using diesel fuel. Green corridor requirements are affecting drayage in Asia to meet emission standards in urban areas, especially during business hours. This has driven rapid fleet upgrades or the partitioning of fleets into premium (compliant with standards) and restricted (non-compliant) vehicles, thereby creating capacity constraints. Many large Asian ports, especially the Port of Busan, like their European counterparts, also face geographical challenges. Since the port is so large and complicated by geography, terminals are spread across multiple locations, and often containers need to be moved between them. Drivers at the port spend a significant amount of time shuttling between the different port complexes rather than actually hauling cargo to the final destination.

Truck Turn Times and Appointment Systems

Truck turn times, or the time it takes for a truck to complete a transaction, are critical factors to consider when it comes to productivity and efficiency. Ports install robust Truck Appointment System (TAS) that are generally designed to reduce gate activity and time, increase alignment of moving trucks, and reduce overall congestion. However, the TAS systems widely differ in practice from port to port.  

(Trucks ready for Cargo)

Most successful TASs are characterized by transparency, financial incentives, and operational integration. Some ports have implemented reciprocal accountability, which penalizes no-shows and thereby establishes a standard for terminal performance. Through outreach strategies, many ports have also incorporated feedback to optimize their system designs. Predictive analysis and AI models incorporated into the systems have also improved the ability to adjust appointment availability. For example, during large-vessel unloading or rail operations, bottlenecks can cause delays; predictive AI forecasts congestion and automatically schedules appointments, thereby proactively mitigating delays. Other technological developments include real-time data integration, which provides real-time visibility into container status, reducing “dry runs” and improving driver productivity and terminal fluidity.

Despite a functioning TAS, bottlenecks can still occur due to slowing crane productivity or crane availability. Lack of punctuality or no-shows, especially on short notice,  can also cause missed slots that cannot be quickly reallocated, leaving terminal resources underused. The other problem that is often overlooked is that the appointment system provides the ticket to enter, but does not guarantee that the container has been pre-staged and is ready for loading. Many other factors, such as lack of operational coordination, traffic on corridors, and vessel schedule reliability, also hinder the smooth functioning of TAS.

Chassis Shortages and Pooling Systems

The shortage of chassis is often not a lack of physical units, but an issue of circulation and inefficiencies. Usually, there are restrictions or contractual obligations that require the use of specific chassis for different containers, forcing drivers to spend hours searching for the right equipment. In a study conducted by the Maritime Transport Research and Education Center at the University of Arkansas, researchers found that drivers spent 30% of their time searching for compatible chassis, even when dozens of other physically compatible units were readily available in the same yard. Many chassis have also been inactive due to maintenance backlogs.

(Container Terminal)

Pooling systems have generally worked to assign equipment more efficiently, and the industry uses a variety of pooling models, such as cooperative, gray, market, and neutral pools. The pooling system allows drivers to use any chassis in the pool regardless of which company owns the lease. The driver makes the choice, and billing occurs on the back end. Although chassis pooling seemed like an elegant solution, there remains certain friction. In some cases, carriers might force truckers to use a specific exclusive Intermodal Equipment Provider (IEP), which is often considered an unreasonable practice. Pooling systems are also rife with billing and data inaccuracies, causing nightmares for trucking companies. Pools have also been known to slack off on maintenance jobs, causing safety concerns for drivers using the chassis, who report road repairs due to malfunctioning brakes or burst tire tubes. Registering a problem with a bad chassis is itself a time-consuming endeavor for drivers on a schedule, who would rather deal with a defective chassis and take risks.

In actuality, truckers and drivers often face not just one of these glitches but a compounded set; thus, understanding the dynamics of the last mile is not optional but a necessity that directly impacts earnings, liabilities, and safety standards. The last mile, the last operation, remains a complex step in the supply chain not only because it is time-sensitive and risk-prone, but also because it involves a patchwork of entities that communicate and rely on one another to get the job done.