Hinterland Transportation in Container Supply Chains

  • Yann Bouchery
  • Stefano Fazi
  • Jan C. FransooEmail author
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 220)


The increase in traded container volumes worldwide puts pressure on the hinterland road network, leading congestion and emission problems. This leads to a requirement to develop intermodal transportation systems. In this chapter, we analyze the most important features of such container transportation systems for the hinterland supply chain. At the network design level, we review the current state of the art and we identify avenues for future research. Among others, we highlight that the coordination of container shipments across the container supply chain is a particularly relevant issue as hinterland networks involve several actors. At the operational level, we characterize the most important factors influencing the trade-off between intermodal transportation and truck-only deliveries. In addition, we provide a case study of coordination at an intermodal barge terminal in the Netherlands. We highlight that the exchange of information is the key enabler for efficient hinterland intermodal transportation and we show that a better information system can be of crucial importance.


Supply Chain Empty Container Terminal Operator Export Container Intermodal Transportation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research was partly financed by Dinalog, the Dutch Institute for Advanced Logistics.


  1. Alumur, S., & Kara, B. Y. (2008). Network hub location problems: The state of the art. European Journal of Operational Research, 190, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alumur, S. A., Kara, B. Y., & Karasan, O. E. (2012a). Multimodal hub location and hub network design. Omega, 40, 927–939.Google Scholar
  3. Alumur, S. A., Yaman, H., & Kara, B. Y. (2012b). Hierarchical multimodal hub location problem with time-definite deliveries. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48, 1107–1120.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, P., Peeters, D., & Thomas, I. (2004). Modelling a rail/road intermodal transportation system. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldacci, R., Battarra, M., & Vigo, D. (2008). Routing a heterogeneous feet of vehicles. In B. Golden, S. Raghavan, & E. Wasil (Eds.), The vehicle routing problem: Latest advances and new challenges (Chap. 1, pp. 3–27). Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berbeglia, G., Cordeau, J.-F., Gribkovskaia, I., & Laporte, G. (2007). Static pickup and delivery problems: A classification scheme and survey. Top, 15, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierwirth, C., & Meisel, F. (2010). A survey of berth allocation and quay crane scheduling problems in container terminals. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(3), 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenfeld, D. E., Burns, L. D., Diltz, J. D., & Daganzo, C. F. (1985). Analyzing trade-offs between transportation, inventory and production costs on freight networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 19, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bontekoning, Y., Macharis, C., & Trip, J. (2004). Is a new applied transportation research field emerging?––A review of intermodal rail–truck freight transport literature. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouchery, Y., & Fransoo, J. C. (2014). Intermodal hinterland network design with multiple actors. BETA Working paper 449, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. F. (1990). Freight consolidation and routing with transportation economies of scale. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 24, 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. F. (1993). Continuous and discrete demand hub location problems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 27, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. F., & O’Kelly, M. E. (2012). Twenty-five years of hub location research. Transportation Science, 46, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caris, A., Macharis, C., & Janssens, G. K. (2011). Network analysis of container barge transport in the port of Antwerp by means of simulation. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christiansen, M., Fagerholt, K., & Ronen, D. (2004). Ship routing and scheduling: Status and perspectives. Transportation Science, 38, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craig, A. J., Blanco, E. E., & Sheffi, Y. (2013). Estimating the CO2 intensity of intermodal freight transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crainic, T. G., & Kim, K. H. (2007). Intermodal transportation. In: C. Barnhart and G. Laporte, Transportation. Volume 14 of handbooks in operations research and management science (pp. 467–537), Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  18. Crainic, T. G., Gendreau, M., & Dejax, P. (1993). Dynamic and stochastic models for the allocation of empty containers. Operations Research, 41, 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Da Graça Costa, M., Captivo, M. E., & Clímaco, J. (2008). Capacitated single allocation hub location problem—A bi-criteria approach. Computers & Operations Research, 35, 3671–3695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daganzo, C. F. (1987). The break-bulk role of terminals in many-to-many logistic networks. Operations Research, 35, 543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farahani, R. Z., Hekmatfar, M., Arabani, A. B., & Nikbakhsh, E. (2013). Hub location problems: A review of models, classification, solution techniques, and applications. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 64, 1096–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fazi, S. (2014). Mode selection, routing and scheduling for inland container transport, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Fransoo, J. C., & Lee, C.-Y. (2013). The critical role of ocean container transport in global supply chain performance. Production and Operations Management, 22, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fransoo, J. C., De Langen, P. W., & Van Rooy, B. (2013). Business models and network design in hinterland transport. In J. H. Bookbinder (Ed.), Handbook of global logistics, international series in operations research & Management Science, (Vol. 181, Part 5, Chap. 15, pp. 367–389), Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Fremont, A., & Franc, P. (2010). Hinterland transportation in Europe: Combined transport versus road transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groothedde, B., Ruijgrok, C., & Tavasszy, L. (2005). Towards collaborative, intermodal hub networks: A case study in the fast moving consumer goods market. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 41, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hakimi, S. L. (1964). Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute centers and medians of a graph. Operations Research, 12, 450–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hakimi, S. L. (1965). Optimum distribution of switching centers in a communication network and some related graph theoretic problems. Operations Research, 13, 462–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, R. W. (1987a). Direct versus terminal freight routing on a network with concave costs. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 21, 287–298.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, R. W. (1987b). Comparison of strategies for routing shipments through transportation terminals. Transportation Research Part A: General, 21, 421–429.Google Scholar
  31. Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Current, J. (2007). A Lagrangian relaxation-based heuristic for the vehicle routing with full container load. European Journal of Operational Research, 176(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ishfaq, R., & Sox, C. R. (2010). Intermodal logistics: The interplay of financial, operational and service issues. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46, 926–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarzemskis, A., & Vasiliauskas, A. V. (2010). Research on dry port concept as intermodal node. Transport, 22, 207–213.Google Scholar
  34. Jeong, S.-J., Lee, C.-G., & Bookbinder, J. H. (2007). The European freight railway system as a hub-and-spoke network. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 523–536.Google Scholar
  35. Jourquin, B., Beuthe, M., & Demilie, L. D. (1999). Freight bundling network models: Methodology and application. Transportation Planning and Technology, 23, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karlaftis, M. G., Kepaptsoglou, K., & Sambracos, E. (2009). Containership routing with time deadlines and simultaneous deliveries and pick-ups. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 210–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Khor, Y. S., Dohlie, K. A., Konovessis, D., & Xiao, Q. (2013). Optimum speed analysis for large containerships. Journal of Ship Production and Design, 29(3), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim, K. H. (2005). Models and methods for operations in port container terminals. In A. Langevin & D. Riopel (Eds.), Logistics systems: Design and optimization (pp. 213–243). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Konings, J. W. (1996). Integrated centres for the transshipment, storage, collection and distribution of goods. A survey of the possibilities for a high-quality intermodal transport concept. Transport Policy, 3, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Konings, R., Kreutzberger, E., & Maras, V. (2013). Major considerations in developing a hub-and-spoke network to improve the cost performance of container barge transport in the hinterland: The case of the port of Rotterdam. Journal of Transport Geography, 29, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Langevin, A., Mbaraga, P., & Campbell, J. F. (1996). Continuous approximation models in freight distribution: An overview. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 30, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liao, C.-H., Tseng, P.-H., & Lu, C.-S. (2009). Comparing carbon dioxide emissions of trucking and intermodal container transport in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D, 14, 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Limbourg, S., & Jourquin, B. (2009). Optimal rail-road container terminal locations on the European network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45, 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin, C.-C., & Lee, S.-C. (2010). The competition game on hub network design. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44, 618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lüer-Villagra, A., & Marianov, V. (2013). A competitive hub location and pricing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 231, 734–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., & Fynes, B. (2008). Port-centric logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management, 19, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meng, Q., & Wang, X. (2011). Intermodal hub-and-spoke network design: Incorporating multiple stakeholders and multi-type containers. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45, 724–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Notteboom, T. (2004). Container shipping and ports: An overview. Review of Network Economics, 3, 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Notteboom, T. (2007). Inland waterway transport of containerized cargo: From infancy to a fully-fledged transport mode. Journal of Maritime Research, 4, 63–80.Google Scholar
  50. Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2009a). The future of containerization: Perspectives from maritime and inland freight distribution. Geo Journal, 74, 7–22.Google Scholar
  52. O’Kelly, M. E. (1986a). The location of interacting hub facilities. Transportation Science, 20, 92–106.Google Scholar
  53. O’Kelly, M. E. (1986b). Activity levels at hub facilities in interacting networks. Geographical Analysis, 18, 343–356.Google Scholar
  54. O’Kelly, M., & Bryan, D. (1998). Hub location with flow economies of scale. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 32, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parola, F., & Sciomachen, A. (2005). Intermodal container flows in a port system network: Analysis of possible growths via simulation models. International Journal of Production Economics, 97, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Racunica, I., & Wynter, L. (2005). Optimal location of intermodal freight hubs. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39, 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ronen, D. (1993). Ship scheduling: The last decade. European Journal of Operational Research, 71, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roso, V. (2007). Evaluation of the dry port concept from an environmental perspective: A note. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roso, V., Woxenius, J., & Lumsden, K. (2009). The dry port concept: Connnecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rutten, B. C. M. (1998). The design of a terminal network for intermodal transport. Transport Logistics, 1, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skorin-Kapov, D. (1998). Hub network games. Networks, 31, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Skorin-Kapov, D., & Skorin-Kapov, J. (2005). Threshold based discounting networks: The cost allocation provided by the nucleolus. European Journal of Operational Research, 166, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smilowitz, K. R., & Daganzo, C. F. (2007). Continuum approximation techniques for the design of integrated package distribution systems. Networks, 50, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stahlbock, R., & Voss, S. (2008). Operations research at container terminals: A literature update. OR Spectrum, 30, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. SteadieSeifi, M., Dellaert, N. P., Nuijten, W., Van Woensel, T., Raoufi, R. (2014). Multimodal freight transportation planning: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Toth, P., & Vigo, D. (2001). The Vehicle Routing Problem. Philadelphia: Siam.Google Scholar
  67. Van den Berg, R., De Langen, P. W., & Rúa Costa, C. (2012). The role of port authorities in new intermodal service development; The case of Barcelona Port Authority. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 5, 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Schijndel, W.-J., & Dinwoodie, J. (2000). Congestion and multimodal transport: A survey of cargo transport operators in the Netherlands. Transport Policy, 7, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Veenstra, A., Zuidwijk, R., & van Asperen, E. (2012). The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 14, 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vis, I. F. A., & De Koster, R. (2003). Transhipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wardrop, J. G. (1952). Road paper: Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. ICE Proceedings: Engineering Divisions, 1, 325–362.Google Scholar
  72. Yaman, H. (2009). The hierarchical hub median problem with single assignment. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 43, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zuidwijk, R. A., & Veenstra, A. W. (2014). The value of information in container transport. Transportation Science (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations