Multimodal freight interfaces
Multimodal freight interfaces are the nodes in the logistic chain where shipped goods are transferred between different modes of transport. Improving these interfaces will enable maximising the efficiency of operations; for example, accelerating the transfer of containers or the swapping of bodies between modes reduces the transit time associated with intermodal transport. Improving the interfaces can also help increase capacity, lower costs, increase reliability, employ the right mode for the right tasks and decrease the carbon footprint of freight transportation. Facilitating multimodality would remove bottlenecks on the use of less-carbon-intensive modes – rail, barges or sea – when they are better suited from an environmental, operational-capacity and economic perspective.
Multimodal interfaces have three basic components: physical, information and institutional. The physical facilities where cargo transfers take place are a critical element, without which there is no multimodality. Having terminals equipped, and with access to different modal networks, is a required condition of multimodality. Common examples of such terminals exist near ports where incoming/outgoing cargo on ships needs to be transferred from sea to land. Dry ports and inland terminals associated with ports are one of the areas where multimodality, including by rail, is more developed.
Another critical interface involves the exchange of all the information – business, regulatory and operational – required to manage the flow of goods, which does not necessarily need to be located at the physical terminals. Advances in ICT and the Internet of Things (IoT), single logistic windows and integrated data platforms can all contribute to more seamless interfaces.
Finally, institutional alignment is also required – between different agents and operators in the supply chain, but also at a higher inter-governmental level. This latter factor, namely the fragmented market and institutions jurisdictions, has been one of the main barriers to better multimodal interfaces.
Finally, synchromodality – co-ordinating the scheduling of different modal services to minimise delays – is a very relevant concept in order to foster multimodal solutions, and it requires the existence of strategically located multi-modal terminals.
Intermodal rail is of primary importance in supporting long-distance trade corridors and inland ports in North America. It accounts for close to 40% of all the ton-miles transported in the United States, while in Europe this share is around 9%.
After adopting a rail-oriented strategy to develop its hinterland, the Port of Barcelona increased, by a factor of six, the amount of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) moved by rail from/to the port. The improvement of port-side terminals and inland dry ports in Iberia were decisive for these results.
Operational improvements at terminals can also reduce CO2 emissions from handling cargo at the interfaces. These reductions can be as high as 50% of emissions.
From Basel, Switzerland, to the Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands, CO2 emissions from rail transport are eight times less than those from road transport (though this gap can change depending on several factors, e.g. train propulsion, electricity mix, train size and average load). Improved intermodal transfer is one of several factors promoting a modal shift to lower-carbon modes. For more data on CO2 emissions decreases resulting from multimodal and rail solutions, check the Enhanced & expanded Rail for freight measure on the TCAD.
The following costs for developing multi-model freight interfaces or elements thereof could be identified in the available literature:
- Upgrades to small dry ports: USD 5 million
- Upgrades to very large dry ports: up to USD 175-200 million, e.g. CSX North Baltimore Ohio or BNSF Memphis in the US (both are able to handle more than 500 000 containers per year)
- Improvements to port terminals and their access: 44 million (e.g. as experienced for the Port of Barcelona over a 10-year period)
Advanced ICT and IoT systems also have costs, for both the implementation and maintenance of these systems. They also require advanced skill sets and specialised teams. This has often been cited as a barrier preventing SMEs from adopting this type of solutions.
Multimodal freight interfaces can lead to increases in:
- Throughput capacity
- Returns on assets and working capital
- Reliability of operations
- Speed of operations
- Resilience of the supply chain
At the same time, they can reduce cargo lost to theft or damage, and lower total supply-chain costs.
Large terminals may generate an increase in cargo, leading to the possibility of increased truck hauling – thus increasing both noise and the emission of pollutants such as CO, NOx, SO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hydrocarbons that contribute to local air pollution. The noise and vibrations generated by the operation of freight vehicles and handling equipment (as well as the visual pollution of large container stacks) may also be a nuisance to locals living in the area.
ITF (2021) Transport Climate Action Directory – Multimodal freight interfaces
https://www.itf-oecd.org/policy/multimodal-freight-interfaces
Aditjandra, P.T et al. (2012) Investigating Freight Corridors Towards Low Carbon Economy: Evidence from the UK, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1161
ALICE (2015) Corridors, Hubs and Synchromodality, Alliance for Logistics Innovation through Collaboration in Europe, https://www.etp-logistics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/W26mayo-kopie.pdf
BMT GROUP LTD (coordinated), UIRR (2015) Final Report Summary - ECOHUBS (Environmentally Coherent measures and interventions to debottleneck HUBS of the multimodal network favoured by seamless flow of goods), https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314786/reporting
Hanaoka, S. and M. B. Regmi (2011) Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111211000148
Kaack, L.H. et al. (2018) Decarbonizing intraregional freight systems with a focus on modal shift, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad56c
Lättilä, L., V. Henttu and O. Hilmola (2013) Hinterland operations of sea ports do matter: Dry port usage effects on transportation costs and CO2 emissions, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554513000574
Meer, D. and C. Macharis (2014) Are additional intermodal terminals still desirable? An analysis for Belgium, https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/ejtir/article/view/3024/3214
Monios, J. and B. Lambert (2013) Intermodal freight corridor development in the United States, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Intermodal-freight-corridor-development-in-the-Monios-Lambert/cbc9c34a153c118cafda520006d937a6ee8d07af
Muñuzuri, J, et al. (2019) Using IoT data and applications to improve port-based intermodal supply chains, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.042
Notteboom, T. and J. Rodrigue (2009) Inland Terminals within North American and European Supply Chains, http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/250715.pdf
Port de Barcelona (2013) Rail strategy of the Port of Barcelona, http://www.cercleinfraestructures.cat/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/131120_Torrents_PortBcn.pdf
Santos, B.F. , S. Limbourg, and J. S. Carreira (2014) The Impact Of Transport Policies On Railroad Intermodal Freight Competitiveness – The Case Of Belgium, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.015
SGKV, IFEU (2001) Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption and CO Emissions of Road Transport and Combined Transport Road/Rail, https://www.iru.org/resources/iru-library/comparative-analysis-energy-consumption-and-co2-emissions-road-transport-and
Van den Berg, R. and P. W. De Langen (2011) Hinterland strategies of port authorities: A case study of the port of Barcelona, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885911000229
Printer-friendly version