Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation

Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation: The Case of Croatia
Author(s): Violeta Roso, Nikolina Brnjac and Borna Abramovic

Source: Transportation Journal , Vol. 54, No. 4 (Fall 2015), pp. 496-515
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/transportationj.54.4.0496
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/transportationj.54.4.0496?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Transportation Journal
This content downloaded from

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Industry Notes
Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation:

The Case of Croatia
Violeta Roso
Corresponding author
Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden
violeta.roso@chalmers.se
Nikolina Brnjac
University of Zagreb
Zagreb, Croatia
Borna Abramovic
University of Zagreb
Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
Determining a suitable location for an intermodal terminal is a critical
element of the terminal establishment process, a decision on which the
functionality of the entire intermodal freight distribution chain depends.
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the criteria used for deciding on
suitable locations for intermodal terminals in Croatia. First, quality indica-
tors of intermodal terminals were identified: flexibility, safety and security,
reliability, time, and accessibility. Based on these quality indicators, and in
compliance with the European traffic policy and efficient functioning of
intermodal transport, location criteria were formed and evaluated: legis-
lative, environmental, goods flows, spatial, technical-technological, and
organizational. Each criterion is divided further into subcriteria and evalu-
ated using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. The results of
the study show that the criterion of goods flows has the most significant
impact on the selection of the terminal location, followed by the spatial cri-
terion. A position that connects to the European traffic corridor network is
essential for a Croatian terminal’s success.
Transportation Journal, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2015

Copyright © 2015 The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
TJ 54.4_04_Industry Notes.indd 496 23/10/15 12:58 PM

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Industry Notes \ 497
Keywords
Intermodal terminal, quality indicators, location criteria, analytic hierar-
chy process, Croatia
Introduction
One of the main objectives of the European Commission’s transport policy
is the development of intermodal transport, since the same is often con-
sidered as a prospective means to alleviate the increasing pressure of road
freight transport and network congestion. However, the competitiveness
of intermodal transport has limiting factors, such as the cost of transship-
ment between transport modes, loss of time and reliability due to these
activities, an increased risk of damage, and loss of control over the ship-
ment that is transferred from operator to operator. Problems not only con-
cern the functioning of the terminal but implementation process as well;
the infrastructure, land use, the environment and regulations are the most
common factors that impede implementation of intermodal terminals
(Roso 2008). One way to tackle intermodal transport issues might be the
construction of new terminals or extending existing intermodal terminals,
with safer and faster freight transshipment, and reorganization of freight
flows in the terminal catchment area.
The role of terminals has increased significantly through the
implementation of intermodal technologies and, over time, terminals have
become increasingly technically and technologically complex systems. The
transportation strategy addresses several questions, such as: which locations
are suitable for new terminals, which type of network is most favorable,
how will they impact the freight flows in the network, and what will be the
attractiveness of the network in comparison to the freight flows. The critical
analysis of the features of the intermodal terminal’s network and logistics
distribution centers should result in the system reorganization concept, that
is, proposal of the methodology of planning and establishing intermodal ter-
minals and logistic distribution centers based on the existing system’s param-
eters, intermodal terminal location criteria, and network evaluation. One of
the most important strategic decisions when implementing an intermodal
terminal concerns its location, and it is essential for both governments and
investors to obtain a well-functioning terminal network. A strategic location
can facilitate transportation, handling, storage, and transshipment of goods
moving in international trade (Regmi and Hanaoka 2013). Many researchers
have covered the strategic or optimal location for intermodal freight facili-
ties from different perspectives, such as Arnold, Peeters, and Thomas (2004),
Macharis and Verbeke (1999), Pekin and Macharis (2007), Racunica and Wynter

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
498 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™
(2004), and Regmi and Hanaoka (2013). However, research on evaluation of the
criteria used for finding those locations is scarce. Furthermore, according to
Abramović, Lovrić, and Stupalo’s (2012) study, unsatisfactory infrastructure
and unsuitable locations of intermodal terminals are two significant transport
problems in Croatia. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to evaluate
criteria to determine suitable locations for intermodal terminals in Croatia.
To conduct the analysis, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method is
applied as an appropriate tool for multicriteria decision-making.
Inland Intermodal Terminals

Intermodal terminals, as important nodes in the transport network, have
gained substantial attention in transportation literature. Considerable
research has been conducted on how to improve the efficiency of road-
rail terminals and, consequently, improve the intermodal transport chain
as a whole (Ballis and Golias 2002, 2004; Kozan 2000; Nierat 1997; Roso,
Woxenius, and Lumsden 2009). Slack (1999), in his research on inland load
centers, shows the importance of the development for intermodal trans-
portation, as well as emphasizes the inland terminal/satellite terminal’s
role in reducing environmental effects, as does Roso (2007). Not only are
transport terminals of importance to the transportation research field,
but they are also at the very center of critical issues in economic, political,
urban, and other geographic subfields (Goetz and Rodrigue 1999).
Modeling container terminals is of importance for many applications,
such as planning and evaluating new facilities, determining the required
resources, improving the operational procedures of existing facilities, and
evaluating alternative equipment systems (Ballis and Abacoumkin 1995).
Many transportation-related models in the literature are used for finding
the optimal location of intermodal terminals, such as in Arnold, Peeters,
and Thomas (2004), Macharis and Verbeke (1999), Racunica and Wynter
(2004), and Regmi and Hanaoka (2013). Pekin and Macharis (2007) use a GIS-
based location analysis model for intermodal terminals, while Kayikci (2010)
applies a fuzzy AHP and artificial neural networks methods in the process
of decision-making to select the most appropriate location for an intermo-
dal freight center. In their survey on localization of freight consolidation
centers, Olsson and Woxenius (2014) investigate the potential to establish
those facilities from an urban transport perspective; whereas Portugal,
Morgado, and Lima (2011) use the AHP method to establish a procedure for
ranking locations that are candidates for cargo terminal facilities.
The basic problem of differentiating between “conventional” ter-
minals and the various types of large-scale intermodal logistics centers

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
is discussed by Höltgen (1995). Furthermore, the author tries to find a

unique definition for intermodal logistics centers, since the concept varies
from country to country. However, there is a common ground: it should
contribute to intermodal transport, promote regional economic activity,
and improve land use and local goods distribution. The author also dis-
cusses that the complexity of combined (intermodal) transport terminals
due to numerous areas of influence (figure 1) can create bottlenecks in the
freight flow. Even Woxenius (1997) discusses whether or not the terminals
are barriers for intermodality; despite their important role in transport
networks, terminals sometimes impede the development of intermodal
transport with additional transshipment costs at road-rail terminals, or
due to the shippers’ lack of freedom in choosing traffic modes once they
move their business to intermodal freight centers (15).
An ideal intermodal terminal is not a certain physical configuration
of pavement and tracks, but an organization of services integrated with a
physical plant that meets the business needs of a specific marketplace (Bask
et al. 2014; Zimmer 1996). These physical plants may take many forms, and
are influenced by many different factors such as the landscape, proximity
to the seaport or major industrial complex, location relative to the main rail
infrastructure, or distance from the country’s highway network. There is
no general agreement on how to measure terminal performance; however,
overall transit times and, more important, transit-time reliability, are often
cited as key mode choice decisions by customers (Ferreira and Sigut 1995).
According to the authors, there are three main performance areas,
including customer service, operational efficiency, and terminal produc-
tivity. Most performance measures used in terminal monitoring are partial
productivity indicators, with transit times and transit-time reliability being
Figure 1 Combined Transport Terminal Areas of Influence (Höltgen 1995)

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
the key issues (Ferreira and Sigut 1995). Therefore, customer turnaround
times and train departure times are critical indicators of terminal perfor-
mance. From the customers’ perspective, it is also important to be able to
track the shipment. Other terminal performance indicators relate to plant
and human resource productivity and operating costs per unit of output
handled (Ferreira and Sigut 1995). The performance criteria Bontekoning,
Macharis, and Trip (2004) use for evaluating the performance of freight ter-
minals include cost of load unit, train service and sojourn time, utilization
rate of equipment, additional capacity jump, percentage of delayed depar-
ture times, percentage of wrong destinations, and percentage of damaged
load units or rail wagons.
Geographical Coverage
Croatia is the only central European country that neighbors southeastern
Europe, and is also Pannonia-Danube and a Mediterranean country (Steiner
2007). Following its geographical position, Croatia is a country of multi-
directional routes such as the route between western and central Europe,
and the Black Sea region and southeastern Europe. Furthermore, equally
important are the routes from central Europe, the Pannonia and Baltic
regions, and eastern Europe toward the Mediterranean area (figure 2).
Thus, Croatia creates a bridge between western and central Europe with the
Black Sea, and Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea with the Mediterranean
Figure 2 Croatia in the Network of European Traffic Corridors (Steiner 2007)

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
(Steiner 2007). Highly important for Croatia are the links with Pan-European
corridors V, VII, and X, and the ports of the Adriatic Basin and the Sava and
Danube rivers. The Adriatic Sea is potentially the shortest and most cost-
effective route that connects Europe with the majority of countries in Asia
and Africa via the Suez Canal.
The North Adriatic ports where the Port of Rijeka is located are called a
multiport gateway region which consists of a broad hinterland that could
be reached by road, rail, or inland waterways and, as such, offers good
inland access to and from the ports, bringing them a certain competitive
advantage (Notteboom 2009). Unfortunately, due to poorly implemented
transport policies, Croatia has a very immature intermodal transport sys-
tem. It was developed without a clearly defined strategy and each mode of
traffic has been considered separately, resulting in heavy investment in
the road sector, while rail and inland waterways were left largely neglected
(Steiner 2007). Consequently, no proper network of intermodal terminals
exists, which should be the key nodes in this system. The main issues that
the terminals face are inadequate infrastructures, long waiting times caus-
ing delays, high terminal costs, and unexpected problems. Thus, termi-
nals are often congested for extended periods of time, resulting in a low
quality of services and price increases for customers (Abramović, Lovrić,
and Stupalo 2012). Recently, some actions were taken toward development
of intermodal transport, particularly the Port of Rijeka’s transport system
(Steiner 2007). Still, there is huge potential and need in terms of the devel-
opment of intermodal transport in Croatia.
Data Collection and AHP

Data was collected through face-to-face interviews during multiple site vis-
its and through video conferences, as well as by a questionnaire sent by e-mail
and conventional mail to relevant governmental institutions and actors of
the transport system in Croatia. A total of 20 respondents were included in
the study, such as the Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning; the
Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure—Department
for Road, Department for Rail and Department for Inland Waterways;
Croatian Railways Cargo; Croatian Railways Infrastructure; AGIT (inter-
modal logistics operator); RCA Rail Cargo Austria-Expressinterfracht
Croatia (intermodal logistics operator); KT Zagreb (terminal operator), Port
of Rijeka; Port of Ploče; Trast (logistics service provider); and CMA CGM
Croatia.
The AHP is a suitable method for solving complex problems that
contain several alternatives and decision-making criteria (Forman and

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Peniwati 1998; Harker and Vargas 1987). The AHP shows good practical
characteristics that are of crucial importance to decision-making on cer-
tain kinds of infrastructure implementations (Forman and Peniwati 1998).
The multicriteria decision-making model is based on the optimization
of the function of an objective on a set of possible solutions. The process
enables the decision-makers to set the priorities and make decisions for
the case when it is necessary to take into consideration both quantitative
and qualitative characteristics. The complex decision-making process is
reduced to a number of single comparisons between the set goals and crite-
ria, which allows full insight into the decision-making process in order to
select the best scenario (Yang and Lee 1997). Qualitative analysis is based on
the decision-maker’s assessments, experience, and intuition. A significant
feature of the AHP is to quantify decision-makers’ subjective judgments
by assigning corresponding numerical values based on the relative impor-
tance of factors under consideration (Yang and Lee 1997).
Intermodal Terminals’ Quality Performance Indicators

Croatian intermodal terminals have not been subjected to any specific,
independent quality audit, nor any control that would allow customers to
objectively consider their performances (Steiner 2007). The criteria and the
quality standards are lacking to a great extent. In order to increase the qual-
ity and efficiency of terminal services, it is necessary to define and identify
the criteria for the planning of intermodal terminals, as well as to define
the quality indicators and quality designation in accordance with European
evaluation system of the quality of terminals. The quality indicators
have been structured according to different aspects of quality (European
Commission 2000, 2005):
Reliability
Punctuality
Flexibility
Frequency of services
Accessibility
Capacity
Availability of professional human resources
Services with added value
Level of safety and security of intermodal transport
Services provided by intermodal terminals differ in their quality and

vary over time, thus affecting a change in price for the realized service.

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Continuous changes in quality and service price stipulate the possibility of

selection for the customers, and the need for the service providers to adapt
to the new situations, which require the existence of a dynamic quality sys-
tem. The establishment of a dynamic quality system insures advantages for
both the service providers and for the users. The service providers can opti-
mize the usage of their resources and the service users can select how much
they want to pay for the provided services for which the service providers
have to offer a guaranteed level of quality.
A terminal is a system whose functioning requires full integration into
the logistics chain in order to fulfill its function completely. The efficiency
and quality of service provided by the intermodal terminal requires an ade-
quate infrastructure, adequate connections with other transport modes,
motivated management, and qualified employees. The quality, efficiency,
and price of terminal services are factors that affect the terminal com-
petitiveness, together with the quality of its access and road/rail interface
(Roso 2008). The latter depends on the behavior of a large variety of actors,
such as terminal operators, freight forwarders, and/or transport operators
(Abramović, Lovrić, and Stupalo 2012; Roso 2008). The identification and
recognition of quality as a standard and, at the same time, a specific char-
acteristic of the provided service, contributes to better positioning of an
intermodal terminal on the market of terminal services, and the creation
of the important assumption of the terminal’s integration and competi-
tiveness in the national and international frames. Users’ satisfaction with
the provided service at the terminal is directly related to their needs and
requirements, and the perception of the service is the most important indi-
cator used for this measurement.
Criteria in Use for Determining the Location of the Intermodal Terminal

Based on the existing literature (e.g., Bontekoning, Macharis, and Trip
2004; Brnjac 2009; Brnjac and Ćavar 2009; Ferreira and Sigut 1995; and
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2002;), which
describes and evaluates the aspects of quality and productivity of termi-
nals, the necessary criteria to define the intermodal terminal’s network were
selected. In the selection of the criteria, several sources from actual studies
and the literature were analyzed, and a list of the criteria and their subcrite-
ria was created. Based on the critical analysis and the method of surveying
traffic experts (road, rail, water, and air traffic), the relevant criteria and
subcriteria were then selected. The recognized criteria include legislative,
environmental, goods flows, spatial, technical-technological, and organi-
zational. The legislative (table 1) and environmental criteria (table 2) are not

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
evaluated in parallel with the others, since they depend on the legislation of
individual states. Thus, it is first necessary to check whether certain loca-
tions meet the required legislative and environmental criteria to establish
intermodal terminals in these areas. The legislative criteria of the Republic
of Croatia include the following items: the Act on Physical Organization and
Construction (NN 76/07), physical planning strategy and program, physical
plans of the counties, city and districts, and the implementation documen-
tation (urban plan and detailed organization plan). The legislative criteria
attract flows or stipulate bans on land use for terminal development. The
environmental criteria include the Act on Environmental Protection (NN
110/07) and the environmental impact assessment, which includes two doc-
uments, the first being the strategic document of 2007, and the second the
classical assessment of environmental impact. The environmental criteria
significantly impact on the selection of the location for the intermodal ter-
minals, especially in the case of goods that can adversely affect the human
environment.
Goods flows (table 3), spatial (table 4), technical-technological (table 5),
and organizational criteria (table 6) are all further divided into relevant sub-
criteria, that is, structured into a two-level hierarchy. The organizational
criteria have been considered last, since they reflect the characteristics of
the system formed by the integration of all aspects of performance and
contain the system performances. The subcriteria of the organizational cri-
terion reflect the organization of the terminal defined by technical and tech-
nological criteria, which are used to realize the given system performances.
Table 1/Legislative Criteria

L1 Act on physical design and construction NN76/07
L2 Strategy of physical arrangement and program 1999
L3 Physical plan of the county and city
L4 Physical plan of single districts and city
L5 Urban physical plan (implementation document)
L6 Detailed physical plan (implementation document)
Table 2/Environmental Criteria

E1 Act on the Environment
E2 Assessment of impact on the environment (2 types)
1. Strategic (since 2007)
2. Classical assessment of impact on the environment

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
They are defined as quality indicators, terminal performance indicators,

and the development level of the logistics structures. The characteristics of
an efficient terminal are a location conditioned by freight flows, access to
road and rail traffic routes, accompanying service activities, and technical
equipment. The modifications of the existing terminals are reflected in
their technical, technological, and environmental possibilities. The identi-
fied criteria are applicable for modeling in the region: in the narrow sense
of the Republic of Croatia, and in a wider sense with slight modifications,
the legislative and environmental criteria to any region.
Table 3/Criteria of Goods Flows

RT1 Goods flows in the catchment area of the terminal
RT2 Future goods flows in the catchment area of the terminal
RT3 Possibility of getting a major status in the network
RT4 Power of the economic sector in the catchment area of the terminal
RT5 Flows that are created in the catchment area of the terminal
RT6 International freight flows that pass through the area of the terminal (tonnes per year)
RT7 Ratio of total flows rail / road
RT8 Free zones (SZ) in the catchment area of the terminal
RT9 Safety of planning (SZ) – planning (is it approved for implementation, and in compliance
with national and regional planning?)
RT10 Ownership status / availability (public or private, one or several owners)
Table 4/Spatial Criteria

Pk1 Distance from main industrial zones (km)
Pk2 Distance from river ports (km)
Pk3 Distance from seaports
Pk4 Distance from airports
Pk5 Distance from railway stations
Pk6 Distance from transport and rail companies
Pk7 Accessibility to municipal and commercial centers
Pk8 Distance from agricultural centers
Pk9 Possibility of expanding the area considering future requirements
Table 5/Technical and Technological Criteria

T1 Connection of the terminal with roads significant for international Terminal connections
traffic
T2 Connection of the terminal with roads significant for regional
traffic
(Continues)

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Table 5/ Technical and Technological Criteria (Continued )

T3 Connection of the terminal with roads significant for local traffic
T4 Connection of the terminal with railway lines significant for
international traffic
T5 Connection of the terminal with railway lines significant for
regional traffic
T6 Connection of the terminal with railway lines significant for local
traffic
T7 Connection with seaports
T8 Connection of the terminal with short sea shipping centers
T9 Connection with airports traffic hubs
Z1 Interoperability Rail network charac-
teristics
Z2 Number of tracks on rail terminals
Z3 Free profile for passage of rail vehicles
Z4 Maximum permitted mass of rail vehicles
Z5 Maximum longitudinal gradient of railway line
Z6 Designed maximum speed of trains
Z7 Minimal length of the main railway tracks at railway stations
I1 Categorization in compliance with European standards IW network charac-
teristics
I2 Level of designation of waterways
O1 Sufficiency of terminal capacities Equipment and activi-
ties at the terminal
O2 Development level of infrastructural network (electricity, water,
sewage . . .)
O3 Defined transshipping and warehouse activities
Table 6/Organizational Criteria

Q1 Time of freight turnover Quality indicators
Q2 Reliability
Q3 Availability
Q4 Flexibility
Q5 Safety and security
PO1 Terminal productivity Terminal performanc-
es indicators
PO2 Productivity of human power
PO3 Consumption of energy per transhipping unit
LS1 Frequency of bottleneck occurrence Development of logis-
tic structures
LS2 Presence of logistic operators
LS3 Support of development in the form of national strategic docu-
ments

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Analysis of the Criteria Evaluation

The results of the AHP application show that the criterion of goods flows has
been rated as the most important one, at 56.9 percent of our four main crite-
ria (figure 3). The criterion of goods flows represents the most reliable start-
ing point for the analysis and forecast of the transport of goods—demand on
a traffic route. Regarding the total volume of flows, their structure and orien-
tation have been imposed as imperative and represent the basis in defining
and selecting the locations of intermodal terminals. Huge goods flows meet
at intermodal terminals and pass across them. The goods are transshipped
at the terminals, and every part of these goods flows must be manipulated
at least once. All the activities and all the terminal subsystems are in the
function of the goods flows. Knowledge of the structure and characteristics
of flows that pass through the intermodal terminal is necessary for all the
activities of planning, management, control, and analysis of the system and
process at the terminal. The characteristics of the requirements of the goods
flows have been considered through the structure and characteristics of the
users and the flows they generate by the requirements of individual tech-
nologies of transport chains that are directed to intermodal terminals.
The next most important criterion is spatial with 28.2 percent
(figure 3). The physical selection of the location of the terminal is of utmost
importance. The terminals require a good location and connection to the
transport network (traffic corridors). The location of the intermodal termi-
nal has to be in accordance with the users’ needs—terminals and economic
systems in a narrower and wider area. It has to be at a location with a strong
economy—a logistics environment that will attract goods, transport flows,
and all the other accompanying activities.
Figure 3 Evaluation of Four Main Criteria: Goods Flows, Spatial, Technical-

Technological, and Organizational

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
The importance of the technical and technological criteria accounted for

10.3 percent (figure 3). These are divided into four subgroups (connection
of terminals, characteristics of railway connection, characteristics of the
network of sea paths, and equipment and activities at the terminal). The
connection of the terminal allows consideration of the advantages and
drawbacks of potential locations of intermodal terminals by means of
the connections of terminals with the roads, rail lines of regional/local/
European significance, and the ports and their infrastructure. The subcri-
terion of the railway network characteristic is structured as the number of
railway tracks at the terminal, free profile, greatest allowed mass, longitu-
dinal gradient, vehicle velocity, and length of the main tracks at the rail-
way stations. The free profile represents the end limitation of the space in
the cross-section in relation to the track axis. The velocity is the exclusive
responsibility of the railway, since it is the consequence of its technical
competence. Higher speed means better competitive competence of the
railway in the transport market since less time is spent on traveling. On
the other hand, for the railway, higher commercial speed means a shorter
time for railcar turnover, which also means higher productivity of railcars.
The number of tracks allows for more rational organization of trains at the
railway station. Apart from the number of tracks, their length is also very
important for the traffic of trains. Thus, regarding the track’s length, it is
also possible to organize crossing and overtaking. The relevant track gra-
dient for braking is the value of the longitudinal gradient, which is used
to determine the braking percentage, that is, the necessary braking mass
of the trains on a railway line, that is, the line section. The subcriterion of
waterway network characteristic is a categorization in compliance with the
European standards, since the Republic of Croatia has committed to con-
struct and organize waterways open for international navigation in com-
pliance with the stipulated standards according to navigability categories
from IV to Vb, as well as maintaining an adequate level of designation of
the waterways. The subcriterion of equipment and activity at the terminal
refers to the sufficiency of the terminal capacity, development level of the
terminal infrastructural network, and defined transshipment and ware-
house activities. The terminal capacity sufficiency stipulates its future
development and operation. The development of an infrastructural net-
work includes land areas for servicing the needs of the terminal, areas for
the supply and servicing installations, areas for commercial activities, as
well as areas for terminal industry.
The last criterion, regarding importance, is the organizational criterion,
with 4.6 percent (figure 3). It consists of the following subcriteria: quality
indicators, terminal performance indicators, and the development of the

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
logistics structures. The quality indicators of the intermodal terminal are

reflected through the time of goods turnover, reliability, availability, flex-
ibility, and safety and security. The terminal performance indicators are
reflected through terminal productivity, productivity of human resources,
and consumption of energy per transshipment unit. The development
of logistics structures consists of bottlenecks, logistics operators, and
national strategic documents. The presence of strong economic subjects
from the field of logistics, management, and information technologies
represents a successful development of the intermodal terminal as well as
quality and terminal performance indicators.
Regarding the goods-flows subcriteria (figure 4), the highest impor-
tance for determining the location has the goods flows in the catchment
area of the terminal with 19.7 percent, followed by the economic sector at
17.9 percent, stipulated by the development of the hinterland. The interna-
tional freight flows account for 16.1 percent, resulting from the current sit-
uation that has minor importance as well as potential future freight flows
and flows that are formed in the catchment area at 10.2 percent. The rest of
the subcriteria are of almost equal importance.
Analysis of the spatial criterion (figure 5) shows that the subcriterion
distance from the main industrial zones has the highest importance, with
18.1 percent. The next highest–ranked subcriteria are the distance from rail-
way stations with 17.4 percent and seaports with 16.4 percent. Criterion in
relation to future requirements for the development of intermodal terminals
is the possibility of expanding the area with 14 percent, and the distance
from transport and railway companies with 12 percent. The least important
Figure 4 Goods Flows Criteria

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
subcriterion, probably due to the insufficient development of intermodal

transport, is the distance from airports with 2.4 percent.
To facilitate evaluation of the technical and technological criteria, the
same has been divided into terminal connections, railway network char-
acteristics, inland waterway network characteristics, and equipment and
activities at the terminal. Their evaluation has resulted in the following
values: terminal connections as the most important subcriterion with as
much as 43.3 percent, railway network characteristics with 30.8 percent,
waterway network characteristics with 16.5 percent, and, as the last subcri-
terion, equipment and activities at the terminal with 9.4 percent (figure 6).
Terminal equipment as the technical and technological criterion rep-
resents the factor of the development of intermodal terminals of minor
importance, since greater intermodal terminal turnover generates higher
investments and specialization. Modern equipment of sufficient capacity
ensures a continuous flow of freight through the intermodal terminal, but
the terminal development depends primarily on the geo-traffic position of
the terminal (position of the terminal in relation to the traffic infrastructure).
Figure 7 shows the importance of different subcriteria belonging to the ter-
minal connections subdivision of the technical and technological criterion,
where the subcriterion, terminal connection by road significant for interna-
tional traffic, shows the highest importance, 21.9 percent.
Figure 5 Spatial Criteria

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
The organizational criterion is divided into terminal performance

indicators, quality indicators, and the development of logistics structures.
The study identified terminal performance indicators with 55.8 percent as
Figure 6 Technical and Technological Criteria Division into Four Subcriteria
Figure 7 Technical and Technological Criteria-Terminal Connections

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
the most important indicator in this category followed by quality indicators

with 32 percent, and the development of logistics structures accounting for
12.2 percent (see figure 8).
Terminal performances interweave with the terminal quality indica-
tors. Terminal performances and quality indicators depend on the volume
of traffic load and the variability of arrivals of the customers and transport
means. The demand for transport services depends on the development of all
transport modes, their integration in an integral whole, pricing of transport
modes, and the range and quality of services that are performed for poten-
tial customers. Fast, efficient, timely, and high-quality transport of freight
will contribute to the generation of added values and economic growth. In
determining the importance of the quality indicators, the highest importance
belongs to flexibility with 39 percent, safety and security with 25.5 percent,
reliability with 19.2 percent, time with 9.7 percent, and availability with
6.6 percent. The flexibility allows optimal flow of freight and productivity of a
certain terminal. The quality of services at terminals and the efficiency of the
Figure 8 Organizational Criteria Divided into Three Subcriteria
Figure 9 Organizational Criteria-Subcriteria on Terminal Performance Indicators

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
process, that is, input-output procedures, transshipping, warehousing, and

loading/unloading, significantly affect the quality and the costs of the whole
intermodal transport chain. Figure 9 shows the importance of the terminal
performance indicators subcriteria; the subcriterion of terminal productivity
is recognized as the most important with 58.4 percent.
Conclusion
The results of the research show that traffic characteristics have a significant
impact on the selection of terminal location. A good position and connection
to the European traffic corridor network is essential for a terminal’s
success in Croatia. Considered from the regional economic point of view,
an intermodal terminal on a traffic corridor has development priority.
Intermodal terminals of European significance ensure international access
to the entire European intermodal network of high performances.
Intermodal transport requires cooperation between different actors of
the system under the condition of different activities across the entire geo-
graphic region. Intermodal terminals and interface points are dependently
connected with different modes of transportation. The criteria for defining
the network of intermodal terminals and their efficiency in the processes, for
example, approach procedures, transshipment, warehousing, and loading/
unloading, have great impact on the quality and price of the entire process
of intermodal transport. The criteria of the goods flows and the spatial cri-
teria are crucial for the selection of the terminal location. Within the frames
of the organizational criterion, the quality of the intermodal system ser-
vice is reflected, and it is structured per the indicators of quality, terminal
performances and the development of logistics structures. The terminal
performance indicators have a great impact on the quality and price of trans-
port and on the entire service from the sender to the receiver. The prices of
transshipment at terminals usually do not cover all costs and, therefore, the
remaining difference in price is realized from the funds of the European
countries and very widely spread government funds. Thus, it is in the
interests of the European national governments that intermodal terminals
funded by the government successfully operate with high-quality services.
The main issues faced by Croatia’s intermodal terminals are inad-
equate terminal infrastructures and equipment, or unsuitable locations.
Consequently, there are issues related to long waiting times, reliability in the
preparation when loading units, access problems, damaging loading units,
and paperwork and communication problems between the engaged trans-
port companies. The analysis of the criteria and subcriteria and the imple-
mentation of modeling methods have determined the suppositions for the
construction of new or the extension of existing intermodal terminals.

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
References
Abramović, B., I. Lovrić, and V. Stupalo. 2012. “Analysis of Intermodal Terminals Service
Quality in the Republic of Croatia.” Promet—Traffic and Transportation 24 (3):
253–60.
Arnold, P., D. Peeters, and I. Thomas. 2004. “Modelling a Rail/Road Intermodal
Transportation System.” Transportation Research E 40:255–70.
Ballis, A., and C. Abacoumkin. 1995. “A Container Terminal Simulation Model with
Animation Capabilities.” Journal of Advanced Transportation 30 (1): 37–57.
Ballis, A., and J. Golias. 2002. “Comparative Evaluation of Existing and Innovative Rail-
Road Freight Transport Terminals.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 36 (7): 593–611.
———. 2004. “Towards the Improvement of a Combined Transport Chain Performance.”
European Journal of Operational Research 152:420–36.
Bask, A., V. Roso, D. Andersson, and E. Hämäläinen. 2014. “Development of Seaport-Dry
Port Dyads: Two Cases from Northern Europe.” Journal of Transport Geography
39:85–95.
Bontekoning, Y. M., C. Macharis, and J. Trip. 2004. “Is a New Applied Transportation
Research Field Emerging? A Review of Intermodal Rail-Truck Freight
Transport Literature.” Transportation Research: Part A 38:1–34.
Brnjac, N. 2009. “Identification of Relevant Criteria for Defining a Network of Intermodal
Terminals.” Doctoral diss., University of Zagreb.
Brnjac, N., and I. Ćavar. 2009. “Example of Positioning Intermodal Terminals on Inland
Waterways.” Promet—Traffic and Transportation 21 (6): 433–39.
European Commission. 2000. “IQ—Intermodal Quality Final Report for Publication.”
Transport RTD Programme of the 4th Framework Programme—Integrated
Transport Chain.
———. 2005. “Integrated Services in the Intermodal Chain (ISIC)” Final Report Task D:
Improving Quality of Intermodal Terminals.
Ferreira, L., and J. Sigut. 1995. “Measuring the Performance of Intermodal Freight
Terminals.” Transportation Planning and Technology 17 (3): 268–79.
Forman, E., and K. Peniwati. 1998. “Aggregating Individual Judgments and Priorities
with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” European Journal of Research 108:165–69.
Goetz, A. R., and J.-P. Rodrigue. 1999. “Transport Terminals: New Perspective.” Journal of
Transport Geography 7:237–40.
Harker, P. T., and L. G. Vargas. 1987. “The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s
Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Management Science 33 (1): 1,383–403.
Höltgen, D. 1995. “Terminals, Intermodal Logistics Centres and European Infrastructure
Policy.” Doctoral diss., European Centre for Infrastructure Studies.
Kayikci, Y. 2010. “A Conceptual Model for Intermodal Freight Logistics Centre Location
Decisions.” The Sixth International Conference on City Logistics, Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (6): 297–311.
Kozan, E. 2000. “Optimizing Container Transfers at Multimodal Terminals.” Mathematical
and Computer Modeling 31:235–43.

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC
Macharis, C., and A. Verbeke. 1999. “The Optimal Location of Intermodal Terminals.”
NECTAR Conference, Delft.
Nierat, P. 1997. “Market Area of Rail-Truck Terminals: Pertinence of the Spatial Theory.”
Transportation Research: Part A 31 (2): 109–27.
Notteboom, T. 2009. “Economic Analysis of the European Seaport System.” Report
Serving as Input of the Discussion on the TEN-T Policy. Antwerp, ITMMA—
University of Antwerp.
Olsson, J., and J. Woxenius. 2014. “Localisation of Freight Consolidation Centres Serving
Small Road Hauliers in a Wider Urban Area: Barriers for More Efficient Freight
Deliveries in Gothenburg.” Journal of Transport Geography 34:25–33.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. “Benchmarking
Intermodal Freight Transport.” Paris: OECD. http://www.internationaltrans-
portforum.org/pub/pdf/02BenchmarkingE.pdf.
Pekin, E., and C. Macharis. 2007. “A GIS-Based Location Analysis Model for Intermodal
Terminals.” Presented at the International Logistics and Supply Chain
Congress 2007, November 8–9, Istanbul, Turkey.
Portugal, L. da S., A. V. Morgado, and O. J. R. Lima. 2011. “Location of Cargo Terminals
in Metropolitan Areas of Developing Countries: The Brazilian Case.” Journal of
Racunica, I., and L. Wynter. 2004. “Optimal Location of Intermodal Freight Hubs.”
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39 (5): 453–77.
Regmi, M. B., and S. Hanaoka. 2013. “Location Analysis of Logistics Centers in Laos.”
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of
Supply Chain Management 16 (3): 227–42.
Roso, V. 2007. “Evaluation of the Dry Port Concept from an Environmental Perspective.”
Transportation Research Part D 12:523–27.
———. 2008. “Factors Influencing Implementation of a Dry Port.” International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38:782–98.
Roso, V., J. Woxenius, and K. Lumsden. 2009. “The Dry Port Concept: Connecting
Container Seaports with the Hinterland.” Journal of Transport Geography
17:338–45.
Slack, B. 1999. “Satellite Terminals: A Local Solution to Hub Congestion?” Journal of
Steiner, S. 2007. “Valorizacija Prometnog Sustava Hrvatske.” Research report. Hrvatska
akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Znanstveno vijeza promet.
Woxenius, J. 1997. “Terminals—A Barrier for Intermodality?” Nordic Transport Research
Conference on Intermodal Freight Transport, September 22–23, Ebeltolft,
Denmark.
Yang J., and H. Lee. 1997. “An AHP Decision Model for Facility Location Selection.”
Facilities 15 (9/10): 241–54.
Zimmer, N. R. 1996. “Designing Intermodal Terminals for Efficiency.” Transportation
Research Circular 459:99–109.

82.137.32.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2020 00:00:00 UTC

Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation: The Case of Croatia

Author(s): Violeta Roso, Nikolina Brnjac and Borna Abramovic

This content downloaded from