Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 33–72 | Cite as

A model optimizing the port-hinterland logistics of containers: The case of the Campania region in Southern Italy

  • Fedele Iannone
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article presents an optimization model for the economic analysis and strategic planning of port-hinterland container logistics systems. The model was employed to investigate the inland multimodal distribution of import/export containers handled at the seaports located in the Campania region of Southern Italy. The loading units can transit through the regional off-dock intermodal and logistic facilities called ‘interports’, as well as through extra-regional locations which have a railway terminal, before reaching the final inland destinations or the seaports. The model mainly aims at highlighting and measuring possible advantages arising both from shifting the seaport exit/entry of containers to regional interports, and from employing intermodal solutions for inland distribution. The programming problem minimizes the sum of all container-related generalized logistic costs throughout the entire multimodal port-hinterland network. The logistic costs include transportation costs (by road and railway), terminal handling and storage costs, customs control costs, in-transit inventory holding costs and container leasing costs. A numerical prototype has been formulated and solved using a high-level programming language for large-scale mathematical optimization problems. The results demonstrate how the competitiveness of the regional container seaport cluster can be boosted by an interport-based extended gateway system with adequate customs facilities and improved railway connections.

Keywords

port-hinterland container logistics interport customs extended gateway total generalized logistic cost mathematical programming 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute for Service Industry Research (IRAT, Naples), which is part of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR). An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2010 IAME Conference in Lisbon. An extended version was also previously submitted to the 2010 ITF/OECD Young Researcher Award on the theme ‘Transport and Innovation’, and was included in the final short list of best papers. The author is grateful to Professor Sten Thore (IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin) for his contribution to the definition of the interport model and also to four anonymous referees for suggestions for improving this manuscript. The content of the article reflects the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of information presented herein.

References

  1. Amici della Terra and Ferrovie dello Stato. (2005) The Environmental and Social Costs of Transport in Italy – Fifth Report. October, Rome, Italy, http://www.amicidellaterra.it/adt/images/stories/File/downloads/pdf/Studi/V%20Rappporto%20in%20inglese.zip, accessed 16 June 2010.
  2. Aponte, D., Iannone, F. and Papola, A. (2009) A schedule-based methodology proposal for sea motorways feasibility evaluation. In: N.H.M. Wilson and A. Nuzzolo (eds.) Schedule-Based Modeling of Transportation Networks: Theory and Applications, Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, Vol. 46. New York: Springer, pp. 251–266.Google Scholar
  3. Ashar, A. (2004) Long-term development trends of US ports. Paper presented at the 7th Marine Transportation System Research & Technology Coordination Conference – ‘Securing the Future Vitality of the Marine Transportation System (MTS) Through Cooperative Research’; 16–17 November, Washington, DC, USA. Washington: The National Academy of Sciences Building, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/Conferences/MTS/4C%20AsharPaper.pdf, accessed 2 February 2009.
  4. BPR. (1964) Traffic Assignment Manual. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Urban Planning Division.Google Scholar
  5. Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A. and Raman, R. (1998) GAMS: A User's Guide. Washington, DC: GAMS Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. China Intermodal Transport Services to the Interior Project – ITSIP. (2003) Inland Container Depot (ICD) Operation Manual, August.Google Scholar
  7. Crainic, T.G. and Kim, K.H. (2007) Intermodal transportation. In: C. Barnhart and G. Laporte (eds.) Transportation, Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 14. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 467–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullinane, K.P.B., Ping, J. and Wang, T.-F. (2002) A multi-objective programming approach to the optimization of China's international container transport network. International Journal of Transport Economics 29 (2): 181–199.Google Scholar
  9. Deidda, L., Di Francesco, M., Olivo, A. and Zuddas, P. (2008) Implementing the street-turn strategy by an optimization model. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (5): 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EU. (2009) Commission gives green light to Italian state aid for a new combined freight transport service. IP/09/935. 17 June, Bruxelles, Belgium, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/transport/newsletter/archive_en.htm, accessed 18 June 2009.
  11. Farrell, S. (2009) Factors influencing port efficiency, A case study of Dar es Salaam. IAME 2009 Conference Proceedings, 24–26 June, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, R. (2007) International trade, transportation corridors, and inland ports: Opportunities for Canada. Paper presented at the ‘Canada's Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative – International Conference’; May, Vancouver, Canada. Vancouver: Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  13. Hausman, H.W., Lee, H.L. and Subramanian, U. (2005) Global Logistics Indicators, Supply Chain Metrics and Bilateral Trade Patterns. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3773.Google Scholar
  14. Hayuth, Y. (1980) Inland container terminal – Function and rationale. Maritime Policy and Management 7 (4): 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heaver, T.D. (1992) The role of customs administration in the structure and efficiency of international logistics: An international comparison. International Journal of Logistics Management 3 (1): 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huynh, N. (2008) Analysis of container dwell time on marine terminal throughput and rehandling productivity. Journal of International Logistics and Trade 6 (2): 69–89.Google Scholar
  17. Iannone, F. and Thore, S. (2010) An economic logistics model for the multimodal inland distribution of maritime containers. International Journal of Transport Economics 37 (3): 281–326.Google Scholar
  18. Iannone, F., Thore, S. and Forte, E. (2007) Inland container logistics and interports. Goals and features of an ongoing applied research. In: G. Borruso, E. Forte and E. Musso (eds.) (2009) Economia dei Trasporti e Logistica Economica: Ricerca per l’Innovazione e Politiche di Governance. Naples, Italy: Giordano Editore, pp. 385–414.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, H.-J., Chang, Y.-T., Lee, P.T.-W., Shin, S.-H. and Kim, M.-J. (2008) Optimizing the transportation of international container cargoes in Korea. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (1): 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leitner, S.J. and Harrison, R. (2001) The Identification and Classification of Inland Ports. Austin, Texas, USA: Center for Transportation Research (CTR), Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin. Research Report no. 0-4083-1.Google Scholar
  21. Luo, M. and Grigalunas, T. (2003) A spatial-economic multimodal transportation simulation model for US coastal container ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5 (2): 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maibach, M. et al (2008) Handbook on Estimation of External Costs in the Transport Sector. Report produced within the study Internalisation measures and policies for all external cost of transport (IMPACT), Version 1.1, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Merckx, F. (2006) The impact of dwell times on container terminal capacity. In: T. Notteboom (ed.) Ports are More Than Piers. Antwerp, Belgium: De Lloyd, pp. 399–422.Google Scholar
  24. Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005) Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 32 (3): 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rahimi, M., Asef-Vaziri, A. and Harrison, R. (2008) An inland port location-allocation model for a regional intermodal goods movement system. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (4): 362–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rodrigue, J.-P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A. and Gouvernal, E. (2010) Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (4): 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodrigue, J.-P. and Notteboom, T. (2009) The terminalization of supply chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy and Management 36 (2): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roso, V. (2007) Evaluation of the dry port concept from an environmental perspective: A note. Transportation Research Part D 12 (7): 523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roso, V. (2010) A review of dry ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 12 (2): 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roso, V., Woxenius, J. and Lumsden, K. (2009) The dry port concept: Connecting seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5): 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheffi, Y. (1985) Urban Transportation Networks: Equilibrium Analysis with Mathematical Programming Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, G.L. and Thore, S. (1992) Computational Economics: Economic Modeling with Optimization Software. San Francisco, CA: The Scientific Press.Google Scholar
  33. Thore, S. (1991) Economic Logistics: The Optimization of Spatial and Sectoral Resource, Production and Distribution Systems. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  34. Thore, S. (2007) Some thoughts on the past and the future of economic logistics. In: G. Borruso, E. Forte and E. Musso (eds.) (2009) Economia dei Trasporti e Logistica Economica: Ricerca per l’Innovazione e Politiche di Governance. Naples, Italy: Giordano Editore, pp. 24–26.Google Scholar
  35. Tioga Group. (2006) Inland Port Feasibility Study – Task 1 and 2 Draft Report. August, Los Angeles, USA: Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles. Project no. 06-023.Google Scholar
  36. UNCTAD. (1991) Handbook on the Management and Operation of Dry Ports. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar
  37. UNESCAP. (ed.) (2009) Development of dry ports. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific 78. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  38. Van der Horst, M.J. and De Langen, P.W. (2008) Coordination in hinterland transport chains: A major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Duin, R. and Van Ham, H. (1998) A Three-Stage Modeling Approach for the Design and Organization of Intermodal Transport Services, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part 4, 11–14 October, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Visser, J., Konings, R., Pielage, B.-J. and Wiegmans, B. (2007) A new hinterland transport concept for the port of Rotterdam: Organizational and/or technological challenges? Paper presented at the 48th Transportation Research Forum; 15–17 March, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Wilson, N. (2009) Examining the effect of certain customs and administrative procedures on trade. In: OECD (eds.) Overcoming Border Bottlenecks. The Costs and Benefits of Trade Facilitation. Paris, France: OECD Trade Policy Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fedele Iannone
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Service Industry Research (IRAT), Italian National Research Council (CNR)NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations