sustainability

Article
Methodology for Determining the Location of
Intermodal Transport Terminals for the Development
of Sustainable Transport Systems: A Case Study
from Slovakia
Ján Ližbetin
Department of Transport and Logistics, Faculty of Technology, Institute of Technology and Business in České
Budějovice, 37001 České Budějovice, Czech Republic; lizbetin@mail.vstecb.cz; Tel.: +420-387-842-190




Received: 30 January 2019; Accepted: 20 February 2019; Published: 26 February 2019


Abstract: A high-quality infrastructure and technical base is a vital factor in the development of
intermodal transport in transport systems. Intermodal transport terminals are the most important
component of a combined transport infrastructure, providing an essential connection between
different modes of transport. This article deals with the issue of where to locate intermodal transport
terminals within a transport network. In reality, this decision comes down to the potential of a
particular location (e.g., an industrial park) and the critical role of private investors. These are mostly
subjective factors, whereby little or no consideration is given to objective criteria. Within this context,
it is extremely important that decisions are taken with regards to the development and construction
of public networks, and economically neutral intermodal transport terminals by independent subjects
are based on a non-discriminatory approach. In other words, it is essential that such terminals are
built in places that comply with the stated priorities of the transport policy of a specific state. In this
article, the author puts forward a method for determining the location of terminals that are based
on the optimisation of several influential factors. The specified methodology is applied to a case
study in Slovakia. The theoretical part of the article deals with the nature of the method to be applied.
The discussion part involves a case study concerning the (potential) location of intermodal transport
terminals in the Slovak Republic.

Keywords: intermodal transport; intermodal transport terminal; location; sustainability; case study

1. Introduction
The importance of the issue addressed is indisputable. The sustainability of a transport system in
any state or a unit (e.g., the EU) consists in a harmonized use of available transport infrastructures
capacities, the completion of several smaller shipments into a bigger one, and the transportation of
goods for longer distances using modes of transport with greater capacity. This objective is achievable
by operating intermodal transport chains. To ensure that intermodal transport is attractive and evolving,
it is necessary to build quality and available infrastructure. Intermodal transport terminals are the
most necessary element of transport infrastructure for intermodal transport. The terminal location and
capacity depend on their future use and intermodal transport development.
Intermodal transport terminals (ITTs) are one of the most essential components of combined
transport infrastructure, providing a vital connection between individual modes of transport. They
represent a systemic point, at which the mode of transport (rail, water, road) and the handling of
intermodal transport units (large containers, swap bodies, road semi-trailers, and transport units),
change [1].

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230; doi:10.3390/su11051230 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 2 of 17

Within the European context, in particular with regards to the situation in countries of the Visegrad
group, and in this case in the Slovak Republic (SR), one of the main reasons for the slower development
of combined transport is the existing number, condition, and technical facilities of the ITTs situated
nationwide [2]. With the exception of a new terminal in Žilina–Teplička, these terminals are basically
private trans-shipment points for container transport (onward transport of containers from seaports to
inland points) with non-discriminatory access to customers. In addition, the majority of the terminals
were built in the 1980s (i.e., before the official establishment of the SR) when their primary operations
corresponded to the original concept of progressive transport systems, namely the conveyance of
large twenty-foot containers. Furthermore, no economically neutral terminals focused on continental
transport systems (transport of swap bodies and road semi-trailers) have been constructed [3,4], which
is a highly restrictive factor in the development of a combined transport infrastructure in the SR.
In 2001, a nationwide combined transport development project [5] foresaw the need for the
construction of 13 ITTs, of which 5 should be of international importance. Assuming the SR covers an
area of 49,034 km2 , this equates to approximately one terminal per 3772 km2 , which is slightly more
than in Austria and almost twice the density in Germany [6].
The objective of the contribution is to propose a methodology of locating intermodal transport
terminals so that the existing transport infrastructure is effectively used and the potential of using
terminals is considered. The methodology also considers the complex coverage of the area. An accessible
and functioning intermodal transport terminal is a necessary condition for the development of a
sustainable intermodal transport system.
The proposed methodology offers an exact solution for terminals placement in the Slovak Republic,
taking into account the relevant factors that could affect the future use of the terminal. Of course, the
methodology is applicable to any state.

2. Literature Review
The European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related
Installations (AGTC) is the underlying document that defines combined transport in Europe [7]. Annex
II thereof contains a list of objectivess (terminals) in relation to the participating countries. Those listed
in the SR are historically linked to container trans-shipment points constructed by Czechoslovak
Railways. Annex IV sets out the technical and technological requirements for the listed terminals,
whereby one of the requirements is their economically neutrality, i.e., non-discriminatory access
of terminal operators to individual customers. Unfortunately, none of the operational terminals in
Slovakia currently fulfil this requirement.
The indisputable importance of intermodal transport for securing a sustainable transport system
is noted e.g., in the contribution [8]. The author points to the environmental advantages of intermodal
transport chains, the necessary cooperation between the individual modes of transport, and the
importance of intermodal transport terminals accessibility. Those are the factors most affecting the
sustainability and development of the transport system.
In the paper [9], the authors state that, confidence in intermodal transport has not yet been defined.
There are many different approaches to the concept of trust. However, the authors have integrated
them with the paradigm shift in light of the challenges of sustainability.
The issue of the ITTs and their location has been addressed by several authors [10–16]. An
interesting perspective on the location of a terminal is put forward by [10], whereby the most suitable
location is determined in relation to the various parties involved (investors, users, local administration
and inhabitants). Such parties often have conflicting goals and interests, which makes it necessary to
define a large number of criteria for the overall evaluation. As a result, the authors propose a new
hybrid Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) model that combines Fuzzy Delphi Methods in
order to support the decision making process. They add that the proposed model was developed in a
fuzzy environment (in order to overcome the ambiguities and conflicts in, and between, evaluation
criteria, sub criteria, and decision alternatives) and applied to the terminal located in Belgrade.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 3 of 17

Unfortunately, this approach neither solves the need for a comprehensive network of terminals
nationwide, nor does it ensure serviceability of an entire territory, but merely determines the need for
the terminal in the location of interest.
A specific methodology for locating ITTs in Croatia is discussed by [11]. The authors base their
findings on relevant qualitative criteria (indicators) for intermodal terminals: Flexibility, safety, reliability,
time, and availability. On the grounds of such indicators, and in accordance with European transport
policy, the authors further developed and evaluated the following localisation criteria: Legislative,
environmental, commodity flow, spatial, technical, technological, and organisational. These criteria were
subsequently sub-divided and evaluated, using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The results
show that the commodity flow criterion (followed by the spatial criterion) is the most influential when
it comes to selecting a particular end-point. The author therefore considers this criterion to be decisive,
but goes on to include other preferred evaluation criteria in his proposed model.
Although another paper, in [12], points out the significance of the application of mathematical
solutions to locational problems and examines several mathematical models, as defined in [13,14], it
does note their considerable complexity and the time-consuming nature thereof.
It is within this context that this article sets out a new programming model that generates quicker
results. However, it does not discuss the input data for the model, but only the calculation process itself.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Theoretical Basis for Developing a Mathematical Model for Determining the (Al)Location of ITTs
In the past, the strategies employed to determine the number and location of ITTs in the SR,
followed by the examples of other European countries, and were also influenced by factors, such
as their likely potential and their even geographical distribution across the SR [17]. However, such
decisions tended to be biased and based on subjective criteria, and not supported by exact methods,
for example, through the inclusion of optimisation criteria in the decision-making process. At present,
several mathematical and optimisation methods exist for determining the appropriate (optimal)
location of terminals on the basis of defined optimisation criteria [18,19].
The main issue of the location of intermodal transport terminals can generally be equated to
that of determining the location of service centres within a given network. It can be argued that
the total transport capacity for collections and deliveries by road in terms of intermodal transport
units is dependent on the number and location of ITTs. However, the optimisation criterion here is
to minimise the overall transport capacity for collections and deliveries (expressed in thousands of
tonne-kilometres, i.e., tkm). This implies that combined transport potential (expressed in thousands of
tonnes) must be taken into account. Consequently, putting forward a proposal for a specific method, to
determine the optimal number and location of terminals, is a complex task, which requires a number
of factors underlying the choice of terminal location to be simultaneously considered.
While developing a mathematical model for determining the location of ITTs, it is essential to
take into consideration the level of potential in their service areas. Existing terminals, trans-shipment
points and transport infrastructure must therefore be included in such an assessment, which implies
that terminals should be built in areas with good road and railway infrastructure links.
Within the context of this study, the location of the ITTs within the given transport network will
be determined on the basis of the road network, which is based on the need to minimise the costs of
collections and deliveries within the service areas under consideration. With respect to the extent and
solution of the task, as well as the required quality of the road infrastructure, the full length and breadth
of the road network is not taken into consideration. More specifically, this has been limited to 1st and
2nd class roads and important 3rd class roads that connect them. The actual network is represented by
a graph structure, whereby the final set of significant points are referred to as vertices and the final
set of lines joining (some of) those vertices, and which represent communication links, are referred
to as edges. The simplest graph structure is one generated with non-oriented edges (graph) [20].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 4 of 17

The vertices in this network are formed by road junctions, road endings or other important points,
particularly points (places), where possible transport potential can be found, or created, i.e., mostly
in the vicinity of large or major towns (cities), or directly inside them. Owing to these conditions,
essentially all district towns (on assuming the existence and/or possible future construction of potential
resources for combined transport) and some other towns (given their geographical location) are taken
into consideration.
Each vertex in the network is assigned a non-negative number (the so-called vertex weight) which
expresses the significance of the given vertex [21]. Each edge, which represents a road section, linking
two adjacent vertices, is also expressed as a non-negative number that indicates the length of the given
edge, i.e., the distance in kilometres between the two adjacent vertices.

3.2. Construction of Initial Matrix for Multi-Criteria Evaluation

The main purpose of the mathematical model, when taking a certain (final) number of (theoretically
appropriate) vertices into consideration, is to select those vertices that are most suitable for locating an
intermodal transport terminal. To be able to evaluate the vertices in relation to the above factors, which
influence the choice of location at a given vertex, and which should be considered while designing
the methodology, it would appear to be advantageous to use a group of multi-criteria evaluation
methods [22].
In general terms, multi-criteria evaluation methods can be used to compare and select any objects
(terminals), based on a number of indicators. Due to their ability to synthesise different indicators
(characteristics) into a quantitative composite indicator, such methods are particularly suitable for
analysing an object’s (née terminal’s) position in the market (in a network). Additionally, they allow
one to compare a set of objects based on their characteristic activities, and, at the same time, to
determine a location order for the analysed objects. Their selection is subsequently determined by the
location´s place in the order after taking all the characteristics into account [23].
The basis for multi-criteria evaluation is an initial matrix. In this case, the matrix consists of objects
and their characteristics, whereby the objects represent suitable places (vertices) for locating ITTs, and
the characteristics are expressed by technical and technological indicators. Correspondingly, indicators
of places (vertices) that may significantly affect the location of ITTs (i.e., general ITT location criteria)
are compared as well.
When constructing the initial matrix of objects, it is advisable to go through the following steps:

1. Select the objects to be included in the analysed set.

2. Select indicators that characterise the objects´ activities.
3. Determine the weights for each of the indicators.
4. Develop an initial matrix (see Table 1).

Table 1. Development of initial matrix of objects.

Object/Indicator X1 X2 ... Xm
1 X11 X12 ... X1m
2 X21 X22 ... X2m
... ... ... ... ...
N Xn1 Xn2 ... Xnm
weights of indicators P1 P2 ... Pm
Source: Author.

In Table 1:

Xij —is the value of the j-th indicator in the i-th object;
m—is the number of indicators;
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 5 of 17

n—is the number of evaluated objects;

pj —is the weight

The weight (pj ) may be:

• normalised (thereby fulfilling the requirement of 0 ≤ pj ≤ 1; j = 1, 2, . . . m; where p1 + p2 + . . . . . .

. . . + pm–1 + pm = 1); or
• differentiated (integers expressing the weights of the individual criteria).

As previously mentioned, the main objective of multi-criteria evaluation methods is to transform

and synthesise the values of various indicators into a single composite indicator (resulting characteristics),
thereby expressing the position of a particular individual object within the set of objects under
consideration. Due to the fact that none of the multi-criteria evaluation methods adequately capture
the specifics of the topic under research, it is appropriate to use a partially adjusted method of the
weighted sum of order, in combination with evaluations of the characteristics using normalised weights.
The overall level (significance) of a given vertex, i.e., suitability of an ITT location, is then expressed by
the composite indicator [24].
This indicator can be defined as a composite indicator, according to which a certain weight
(significance) is assigned. It is calculated as the sum of the product weights of individual criteria and
the selected criteria indicators:
m
Ki = ∑ p j ∗ sij (1)
j =1

where:

Ki —is the coefficient of the i-th vertex, i = 1, 2, . . . , n;

n—is the number of vertices in the network;
pj —is the normalised weights of individual criteria, ∑ pj = 1,
m—is the number of criteria;
sij —is the selected criteria indicator.

It should be noted that the aforementioned indicator expresses the significance of the vertex being
examined, which will have a major influence on the decision about the location of a terminal at the
given vertex. It is therefore relevant to select such characteristics (indicators) that best reflect the
specifics of the situation at the given vertex, i.e., to take into account all the factors that influence and
determine if an ITT should be located there [25].

3.3. Mathematical Model

The issue at hand is to find answers to two underlying questions: What is the optimal number
of terminals? Where should they be located? Simply, this represents a location-allocation dilemma.
Location-allocation dilemmas seek a response to two questions at the same time. How many terminals
in the network (allocation)? Where to place the terminals in the network (location)?
Methods and algorithms exist that seek to answer both these questions at the same time, for
example, the Branch and Bound Method, and methods that can only find either the optimal number of
terminals (Continuous Approximation Method) [26], or the optimal location of terminals when their
number is assigned (Iterative Method) [27]. Which method should be used depends on the accuracy of
the required solution, the availability of time, and the input data. Given the current nature of the issue
at hand, and the specified optimisation criterion, the Iterative Method would appear to be adequate
in this respect, as has been suggested by a number of other authors [28,29]. Although this method is
relatively simple, it provides basic information on the suitability of proposed ITT locations if their
number is specified.
The optimal number of terminals may also be obtained using the so-called “approximation”
method, i.e., by gradually increasing the number of terminals while solving an allocation task. Individual
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 6 of 17

variants are then compared, on the basis of the comprehensive coverage of the area under consideration,
and the size of the service area of each terminal. Within this context, the decisive criterion for
determining the number of terminals is the maximum distance that needs to be covered by road
transport for tax exemptions for motor vehicles (sometimes referred to as road tax) to be applied to
combined transport users. In the SR, this is legally embodied in the Motor Vehicle Tax Act No. 361/2014
Coll., which, for the purposes of defining combined transport refers to Act No. 514/2009 Coll., on Rail
Traffic, states that the maximum distance for collections and deliveries by road is 150 km. As a result,
the optimal number of terminals is conditioned by the comprehensive coverage of their relevant service
areas and the maximum distance by road between each terminal, i.e., 150 km.
The allocation task can be solved through the application of graph theory. From the mathematical
viewpoint, the minimum value for the criterion function should be found. The proposed solution for
the allocation task (relationships, algorithms) was developed according to [30–34], and is thoroughly
described in [35].
The criterion function for locating the intended terminal points within a particular network is
defined as follows: A certain k set of Dk terminal points (|Dk | = k) shall be viewed as the vertex
optimal location of the k terminal points within the G = (V, H) network provided that:

f ( Dk ) = min{ f ( Dk )} (2)
Dk

where:

Dk —is all k-element subsets of V vertices and:

f ( Dk ) = ∑ ∑ 2 ∗ d(d, u) ∗ w(u) (3)

d ∈ Dk u ∈ A ( d )

where:

Aˇ(d)—is the allocated service area of the d terminal point;

d(d,u)—is the operations of the u vertex from the d terminal point;
w(u)—is the weight of the u vertex (composite indicator).

The criterion functions were defined in order to express the amount of traffic involved in the
network operations (collections and deliveries by road). Return journeys to terminals are assumed to
take place along the same routes, in which case the terminals (terminal points) may be only placed at
vertices [36].
In terms of combinatorics, the task discussed here is of the Ck(p) type [31]. It is necessary to
determine a certain combination of the k-th class of p elements for which the criterion functions are
minimised. Using the well-known Hakimi algorithm [37,38], the optimisation process for locating
terminal points (intermodal transport terminals) within the given network can be solved by applying
an iterative algorithm. However, this algorithm assumes assigning a distance matrix, which requires
the determination of the minimum distances between all vertices and the generation of a network
distance matrix. In order to determine such distances, the shortest path routing algorithm can be used
in accordance with [39].
The iterative algorithm computation method using the Hakimi algorithm is shown schematically
in Appendix Figure A1.

4. Results
In the previous section, the process of developing the mathematical model for determining the
allocation of ITTs was theoretically described. Following from the theoretical basis, the proposed
model was applied to the existing conditions in the SR.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 7 of 17

4.1. Construction of Initial Matrix

The first step was to construct an initial matrix for determining the weights of the individual
vertices. The creation of the designated network, as well as the definition of the vertices and edges
were described above.
The particular indicators influencing the location of ITTs at given vertices and included in the
initial matrix were as follows.

4.1.1. Potential of Combined Transport

This indicator may be considered as decisive in terms of selecting suitable locations for ITTs.
The potential of combined transport consists in a potential amount of goods transported by combined
transport (containers, swap bodies, and road semi-trailers). This potential also represents the economic
potential of the area where the terminal is to be constructed. However, it is unrealistic to identify
combined transport potential for each particular vertex in the given network. In various statistics and
studies [5], this type of potential is sub-divided into individual regions, which implies that “regional
potential” must be appropriately subdivided between individual vertices (towns, cities) situated in
a single region. Furthermore, each vertex must be assigned a certain coefficient that expresses the
contributory level of potential to the region’s total potential, whereby the coefficients can be determined
according to several possible indicators. The most apposite indicator could be one that describes the
extent to which a given vertex (town, city) is involved in total production and regional production
(industry, agriculture, and transport). This is reflected in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [40] of that
vertex. Gross domestic product represents a relevant economic potential of the area analysed, having a
significant influence on the location and effective operation of terminals. However, for the case study
dealing with the location of intermodal transport terminals in Slovakia, this indicator cannot be used,
since there are no statistical data of the share of individual vertices (towns) on the region’s overall
gross domestic product. If there are such statistics available (when applying the methodology in other
state), this indicator is considered the most relevant.
Another indicator, which is not quite accurate (yet sufficiently quantifiable) is that of the
population of the given vertex. Theoretically, it may be assumed that vertices (towns, cities) with larger
populations will be more productive and will show higher consumption and demand for transport,
hence holding greater combined transport potential [41,42]. This suggests that each vertex (town, city)
should be assigned a certain coefficient based on a percentage of the region’s population, with the
total population being the sum of the populations of the vertices in the region. Such a coefficient can
subsequently be used to multiply the respective regional potential. The resulting coefficients as well as
the combined transport potential of each vertex are listed in Table A1.

4.1.2. Existing Terminals (Trans-Shipment Points) for Combined Transport

When determining the location of new ITTs, account must be taken of the existing terminals
and trans-shipment points, in particular public ITTs that have been built and included in the AGTC.
Similarly, the possible location of terminals on so-called “greenfield sites” should be disregarded.

4.1.3. Links to Railway Infrastructure

A basic pre-requisite for the location of ITTs is a good connection to the railway infrastructure. Not
all railway lines and stations were taken into consideration. The focus was on those already included
in the AGTC and those considered for inclusion [7].

4.1.4. Links to Road Infrastructure (Important Road Junctions)

In terms of combined transport and its transport systems, road transport performs a specific
“collection” function, i.e., the collection of the entire load in the service areas of the terminals and
the provision of sufficient potential for the creation of block (unit) trains [43]. It is therefore essential
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 8 of 17

for ITTs to be located at road junctions, within the service areas, whereby every aspect of terminal
operations should be sufficiently accessible to all end points.

4.2. Determination of Indicator Weights

The determination of the weights for the relevant indicator(s), as a means by which to express
their significance, is a relatively subjective matter. It should be noted that multi-criteria evaluation
methods tend to organise evaluated objects according to high-weight indicator values [44]. The first
indicator, i.e., the potential of combined transport, is the most important indicator affecting the choice
of terminal locations. It is therefore defined as the main (“central”) indicator, the one that the other
indicators only modify with their weights. Establishing the central indicator is also conditioned by the
fact that any vertex that has great potential, but that does not comply with the other selected indicators,
would be at a certain disadvantage. Furthermore, determining the weights of the other indicators
would be another problem because they are combinations of value and natural indicators [45].
In view of the above, it is appropriate for the central indicator, i.e., the potential of combined
transport (spot ), to be assigned a combined weight of (p1 ) = 1.
The other indicators subsequently modify the central indicator with their normalised weights:

• For trans-shipment points (stsp ) a weight of (p2 ) = 0.3;

• for links to railway infrastructure (srwi ) a weight of (p3 ) = 0.2;
• for links to road infrastructure (sroi ) a weight of (p4 ) = 0.5 (the most important in terms of shipments);

where Σpj = 1, for j = 2, 3, 4.

4.3. Construction of Initial Matrix and Development of Mathematical Model

Based on the above methodology, an initial matrix was constructed and the cumulative coefficients
for the individual vertices calculated (see Table A2). The initial matrix then served as a basis for
calculating the service areas of the individual ITTs, whereby the maximum distance of the vertices
and terminals by road was observed. The calculations were made using the algorithm described in
Section 3.2.

5. Discussion
When considering an option with five terminals, 80% of the total potential is located within their
service areas at a distance of up to 150 km (this also being the maximum distance for road transport in
terms of tax relief for motor vehicles). With six ITTs, there is 85% potential within the same distance,
with 7 terminals this stands at 95%, and with eight ITTs, all relevant vertex are located within 150 km
of the nearest terminal, as illustrated in Appendix Figure A2 below.
Using mathematical optimisation methods, it can be stated that the research results essentially
confirmed the original concept for terminal locations [5], and identified other possible areas for the
location of new ITTs. The towns of Trnava and Nitra hold great potential, with large industrial parks
(and a new terminal in Nitra) being built there.
In Central Slovakia, the construction of an intermodal transport terminal in Zvolen is being
considered after its location was confirmed under an allocation programme.
The location of the intermodal transport terminals should be decided by the state by means of the
Ministry of Transport. In terms of European directives (COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the development
of the Community’s railways 91/440/EEC), the intermodal transport terminals are a part of railway
transport infrastructure. Access to the infrastructure must be non-discriminatory. The construction
and development of the infrastructure is also the state competence.
The construction and operation of intermodal transport terminal networks can be ensured by
the private sector, which is fully responsible for deciding whether to build the terminal in a given
location, but is required to operate the terminal in terms of the aforementioned directive, that is, in a
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 9 of 17

non-discriminatory way, under economically neutral conditions. Of course, it is still about the network
of, so-called, public and open intermodal transport terminals.
The objective of the intermodal transport terminal operators is to build a quality transport
infrastructure in order to ensure the sustainable growth of transport system in the state, or its territory.
It would be possible to evaluate the above options from the economic standpoint as well, but this
would require a detailed analysis. Such an analysis would be complicated by the difficultly associated
with defining the operating costs of individual ITTs. This is because each of them would operate in
a different way, and is likely to show varying levels of performance or output. Despite this, it could
be argued that a larger number of ITTs would possibly generate greater demand for their services,
thereby increasing the total potential of combined transport. However, an economic evaluation was
not the objective of this study.
There are also non-economic effects that need to be taken into consideration when it comes to
the construction of new ITTs. Developed and high-quality transport infrastructure is a pre-requisite
for an increase in combined transport in relation to the total transport, irrespective of whether this
concerns import, export, or transit. This reduces the unfavourable effects of road freight transport,
emissions, accident rates, congestion on international corridors, thereby ensuring the sustainability of
the transport system.
Finally, locating ITTs must be carried out sensibly (with regards to the efficiency and use of each
terminal), whereby it is necessary to be able to respond flexibly to the ever-changing transport market.
Evidence of this approach is the creation of large industrial parks in a number of locations across
the SR, which form potential sources for combined transport as well (e.g. Nitra). Unfortunately, the
SR did not adequately respond to these sources in the past, which resulted in the establishment of
private (non-public) trans-shipment points for combined transport (Púchov, Sládkovičovo, Dunajská
Streda). The top priority of the transport policy of the SR should, therefore, be the construction and
modernisation of terminals in areas with such transport potential, so that future carriers can make full
use of the public terminals and their services. As a result, they would not be forced to build their own
non-public trans-shipment points that are not in accordance with the AGTC and would have access to
services based on non-discriminatory practice or a economically neutral approach.
This methodology is focused on locating intermodal transport terminals (hubs for intermodal
transport units between the individual modes of transport). Intermodal transport terminals are basic
(central) elements of logistic centres, and gateway terminals. The issue in locating public logistic centres
are thus closely related with the location of intermodal transport terminals. This practice shows that
the construction of an intermodal transport terminal is often followed by its extension by various
warehouses and distribution centres. The existence of a terminal (available transport infrastructure)
causes a synergistic effect in the form of further warehouses construction, thus extending the services
provided by the terminal by other logistic services. The methodology, however, is focused on the
substantial part of such centres—terminals, whose construction supports the development of sustainable
transport systems in the area. Intermodal transport terminals must be compatible with all transport
systems (which means being able to adapt to transhipment of sea containers, swap bodies, or intermodal
road semi-trailers).

6. Conclusions
In the past, the concept of placing terminals was not based on any exact methodology. In Slovakia,
for example, the concept of placing terminals was based on the example of terminals placing in Germany,
and no criteria and factors affecting the proper terminal location were taken into consideration. Some
current methodology for designing the concept of placing terminals are described in Chapter 2 of the
contribution; however, none of them is based on the factors that the proposed methodology includes.
The basic idea of the methodology (and its minimalist function) is to minimize the movement of road
vehicles on the road, when collecting and delivering consignment within the Terminal Catchment
Area. The reason is to minimize the negative effects of road freight transport in terms of external costs.
Moreover, a “bonus” for road hauliers, in the form of road tax relief, is considered.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 10 of 17

The characteristics of the proposed methodology thus include:

(a) Creating a graph structure consisting of a road network.

(b) Assigning importance weights to individual vertices (when taking into consideration the criteria
influencing the placement choice).
(c) Calculating the Terminal Catchment Area of the individual terminals when taking into consideration
the minimization of road vehicles journeys, as well as the kilometre distance of the terminal
150 km by road (for a possible road tax relief).

Such methodology has not been published and can, therefore, be described as a new/different
view of the methods for placing intermodal transport terminals.
The next step in the future should be solving the financial issue of the construction of
intermodal transport terminals. The construction could be supported, for example, by Operational
Program Transport.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1230/

s1, Figure S1: Iterative algorithm flowchart, Table S1: Determination of coefficients and potential of individual
vertices, Table S2: Initial matrix of objects.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank members of staff at the Ministry of Transport and Construction
of the Slovak Republic for the statistical data provided.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix Figure A1 contains an iterative algorithm flowchart. The algorithm was used to develop
a mathematical model for locating intermodal transport terminals.
Table A1 and Table S1 contains a table of the potential of individual vertices determined by
converting the potential of the respective region.

Table A1. Determination of coefficients and potential of individual vertices.

Vertex Potential of Region Population Potential of Vertex Coefficient

Bratislava 22,819 425,533 202,495,806 0.8874
Malacky 22,819 17,870 8,511,487 0.0373
Kúty 9134 4200 1,653,254 0.0181
Holíč 9134 11,560 4,557,866 0.0499
Skalica 9134 14,980 5,909,698 0.0647
Senica 9134 21,061 831,194 0.091
Pezinok 22,819 21,077 1,004,036 0.044
Senec 22,819 15,030 7,142,347 0.0313
Dunajská Streda 9134 23,518 928,0144 0.1016
Trnava 9134 69,488 27,420,268 0.3002
Galanta 9134 16,019 6,320,728 0.0692
Sered’ 9134 17,317 683,2232 0.0748
Hlohovec 9134 23,264 917,967 0.1005
Piešt’any 9134 30,066 1187,42 0.13
Nové Mesto nad Váhom 7546 20,976 6,089,622 0.0807
Myjava 7546 12,924 3,750,362 0.0497
Trenčín 7546 57,051 16,555,924 0.2194
Dubnica nad Váhom 7546 25,741 747,054 0.099
Ilava 7546 5412 1,569,568 0.0208
Púchov 7546 18,654 5,410,482 0.0717
Považská Bystrica 7546 42,490 12,330,164 0.1634
Bytča 8901 11,495 3,248,865 0.0365
Žilina 8901 85,278 24,112,809 0.2709
Kysucké Nové Mesto 8901 16,526 4,673,025 0.0525
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 11 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

Vertex Potential of Region Population Potential of Vertex Coefficient

Čadca 8901 26,443 747,684 0.084
Prievidza 7546 52,070 15,114,638 0.2003
Partizánske 7546 24,686 71,687 0.095
Topol’čany 8810 28,819 826,378 0.0938
Nitra 8810 86,138 2,468,562 0.2802
Šurany 8810 10,415 298,659 0.0339
Nové Zámky 8810 41,669 1,193,755 0.1355
Šal’a 8810 24,514 702,157 0.0797
Komárno 8810 36,804 1,054,557 0.1197
Hurbanovo 8810 8055 230,822 0.0262
Štúrovo 8810 11,410 326,851 0.0371
Levice 8810 36,476 1,044,866 0.1186
Šahy 7121 8059 1,737,524 0.0244
Vráble 8810 9501 272,229 0.0309
Zlaté Moravce 8810 13,646 391,164 0.0444
Žarnovica 7121 6543 1,409,958 0.0198
Žiar nad Hronom 7121 19,741 425,1237 0.0597
Banská Štiavnica 7121 10,873 2,342,809 0.0329
Hontianske Nemce 7121 1495 320,445 0.0045
Krupina 7121 7847 1,687,677 0.0237
Zvolen 7121 43,488 9,364,115 0.1315
Hronská Dúbrava 7121 391 85,452 0.0012
Banská Bystrica 7121 81,961 17,652,959 0.2479
Turčianske Teplice 8,680 6943 191,828 0.0221
Martin 8901 59,772 16,902,999 0.1899
Vrútky 8901 7242 204,723 0.023
Dolný Kubín 8901 19,855 5,616,531 0.0631
Kral’ovany 8901 472 133,515 0.0015
Námestovo 8901 8126 2,296,458 0.0258
Tvrdošín 8901 9464 2,679,201 0.0301
Ružomberok 8901 30,166 8,527,158 0.0958
Liptovský Mikuláš 8901 32,966 9,328,248 0.1048
Brezno 7121 22,573 4,863,643 0.0683
Detva 7121 15,024 3,232,934 0.0454
Lučenec 7121 28,146 6,059,971 0.0851
Vel’ký Krtíš 7121 13,988 3,012,183 0.0423
Slovenské Ďarmoty 7121 545 113,936 0.0016
Fil’akovo 7121 10,271 2,214,631 0.0311
Rimavská Sobota 7121 24,810 534,075 0.075
Poltár 7121 6035 1,303,143 0.0183
Hnúšt’a 7121 7560 1,630,709 0.0229
Tornal’a 7121 8022 1,730,403 0.0243
Rožňava 9372 19,130 4,573,536 0.0488
Revúca 7121 13,273 2,855,521 0.0401
Poprad 7451 55,680 11,966,306 0.1606
Spišská Nová Ves 9372 38,785 9,268,908 0.0989
Levoča 7451 14,511 3,121,969 0.0419
Spišský Štvrtok 9372 2273 543,576 0.0058
Kežmarok 7451 12,798 274,9419 0.0369
Stará Lubovňa 7451 16,398 3,524,323 0.0473
Sabinov 7451 12,328 2,652,556 0.0356
Bardejov 7451 33,402 7,182,764 0.0964
Svidník 7451 12,392 2,667,458 0.0358
Prešov 7451 92,147 1980,4758 0.2658
Spišské Podhradie 9372 3855 918,456 0.0098
Margecany 9372 2035 487,344 0.0052
Gelnica 9372 6243 1,490,148 0.0159
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 12 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

Vertex Potential of Region Population Potential of Vertex Coefficient

Moldava nad Bodvou 9372 9685 2,314,884 0.0247
Košice 9372 235,281 56,232 0.6
Trebišov 9372 22 765 543,576 0.058
Slovenské Nové Mesto 9372 1073 253,044 0.0027
Michalovce 9372 39,915 9,540,696 0.1018
Sobrance 9372 6317 149,952 0.016
Dobrá pri Č.n.T. 9372 395 9372 0.001
Vranov nad Topl’ou 7451 23,020 4,947,464 0.0664
Strážske 9372 4457 1,068,408 0.0114
Humenné 7451 35,043 7,532,961 0.1011
Snina 7451 21,390 4,597,267 0.0617
Medzilaborce 7451 6699 1,438,043 0.0193
Stropkov 7451 10,815 2,324,712 0.0312

Start

Select n nodes {v1, v2, v3,…,vn} = V.

Enter vij distance matrix for i,j = 1,2,..., n
and weights of nodes w(vi);
Select k terminal points {d1, d2,..., dk} = Dk ; Dk ε
V

Determine set of other nodes {o1, o2, o3,…,on-k} = O = V-Dk and

a set of unexplored nodes {n1, n2, n3,…,nn-k} = N = O.
Name nodes from N as unexplored; enter z = 0

Calculate initial cost function:

f (Dk) = Σ 2.vij.w(oj)

Enter z=0, name

Is the set of N + all nodes from
empty? the set of O as
unexplored
- nodes
Select an unexplored node of n ε N and N=O=V − Dk
gradually replac ki terminal points with
the n node,
z=0
Create sets of Dki = Dk - {ki}+ {n} for
i=1,2,...,k
-
+
Calculate new costs using f (Dki) = Σ 2.vij.w (oj) The set of Dk
and find minimum costs using fm (Dki) = min (f (Dki)) terminal points
for i=1,2,3,...,k generates the
optimal
locations of
Exclude the n - terminal points
node from the fm (Dki) < f (Dk)
in the network.
set of N; N = N
–n
Finish
+
Create a new set of terminal points using Dk = Dk - {ki} +
{n}, determine a set of other nodes using O = V – Dk and
exclude the n node from the set of N; N = N – n; enter z =
1

Figure A1. Iterative algorithm flowchart.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 13 of 17

Table A2 and Table S2 contains a table with the initial matrix of objects. The matrix contains
composite indicators for the individual vertices, according to which the weights of the individual
vertices are determined in the mathematical model.

Table A2. Initial matrix of objects.

Potential of Composite
Object C.T.T. Rw.N. Ro.N.
Combined Transport Indicator
Indicator Weights 0.3 0.2 0.5
Bratislava 202,495,806 1 1 1 404,991,612
Malacky 8,511,487 0 1 0 102,137,844
Kúty 1,653,254 0 1 1 2,479,881
Holíč 4,557,866 0 0 1 59,252,258
Skalica 5,909,698 0 0 0 5,909,698
Senica 831,194 0 0 1 10,805,522
Pezinok 1,004,036 0 1 0 12,048,432
Senec 7,142,347 0 1 1 107,135,205
Dunajská Streda 9,280,144 1 1 1 18,560,288
Trnava 27,420,268 0 1 1 41,130,402
Galanta 6,320,728 0 1 1 9,481,092
Sered’ 6,832,232 0 1 1 10,248,348
Hlohovec 917,967 0 1 0 11,015,604
Piešt’any 118,742 0 1 0 1,424,904
Nové Mesto nad Váhom 6,089,622 0 1 1 9,134,433
Myjava 3,750,362 0 0 1 48,754,706
Trenčín 16,555,924 0 1 0 198,671,088
Dubnica nad Váhom 747,054 0 1 1 1,120,581
Ilava 1,569,568 0 1 0 18,834,816
Púchov 5,410,482 0 1 1 8,115,723
Považská Bystrica 12,330,164 0 1 1 18,495,246
Bytča 3,248,865 0 1 1 48,732,975
Žilina 24,112,809 1 1 1 48,225,618
Kysucké Nové Mesto 4,673,025 0 1 0 560,763
Čadca 747,684 0 1 1 1,121,526
Prievidza 15,114,638 0 1 1 2,267,1957
Partizánske 71,687 0 1 0 860,244
Topol’čany 826,378 0 1 1 1,239,567
Nitra 2,468,562 0 1 1 4,937,124
Šurany 298,659 0 1 0 3,583,908
Nové Zámky 1,193,755 1 1 1 17,906,325
Šal’a 702,157 0 1 0 8,425,884
Komárno 1,054,557 0 1 1 15,818,355
Hurbanovo 230,822 0 1 0 2,769,864
Štúrovo 326,851 1 1 1 4,902,765
Levice 1,044,866 0 1 0 12,538,392
Šahy 1,737,524 0 1 1 2,606,286
Vráble 272,229 0 0 1 3,538,977
Zlaté Moravce 391,164 0 1 0 4,693,968
Žarnovica 1,409,958 0 1 1 2,114,937
Žiar nad Hronom 4,251,237 0 1 1 63,768,555
Banská Štiavnica 2,342,809 0 0 0 2,342,809
Hontianske Nemce 320,445 0 1 1 4,806,675
Krupina 1,687,677 0 1 0 20,252,124
Zvolen 9,364,115 0 1 1 140,461,725
Hronská Dúbrava 85,452 0 1 0 1,025,424
Banská Bystrica 17,652,959 0 1 1 264,794,385
Turčianske Teplice 191,828 0 0 0 191,828
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 14 of 17

Table A2. Cont.

Potential of Composite
Object C.T.T. Rw.N. Ro.N.
Combined Transport Indicator
Indicator Weights 0.3 0.2 0.5
Martin 16,902,999 0 1 1 253,544,985
Vrútky 204,723 0 1 0 2,456,676
Dolný Kubín 5,616,531 0 1 1 84,247,965
Kral’ovany 133,515 0 1 1 2,002,725
Námestovo 2,296,458 0 0 0 2,296,458
Tvrdošín 2,679,201 0 1 1 40,188,015
Ružomberok 8,527,158 1 1 1 17,054,316
Liptovský Mikuláš 9,328,248 0 1 0 111,938,976
Brezno 4,863,643 0 1 1 72,954,645
Detva 3,232,934 0 0 1 42,028,142
Lučenec 6,059,971 0 1 1 90,899,565
Vel’ký Krtíš 3,012,183 0 0 1 39,158,379
Slovenské Ďarmoty 113,936 0 0 0 113,936
Fil’akovo 2,214,631 0 1 0 26,575,572
Rimavská Sobota 534,075 0 0 1 6,942,975
Poltár 1,303,143 0 0 0 1,303,143
Hnúšt’a 1,630,709 0 0 1 21,199,217
Tornal’a 1,730,403 0 1 1 25,956,045
Rožňava 4,573,536 0 1 1 6,860,304
Revúca 2,855,521 0 0 0 2,855,521
Poprad 11,966,306 0 1 1 17,949,459
Spišská Nová Ves 9,268,908 0 1 1 13,903,362
Levoča 3,121,969 0 0 0 3,121,969
Spišský Štvrtok 543,576 0 0 0 543,576
Kežmarok 274,9419 0 0 0 2,749,419
Stará L’ubovňa 3,524,323 0 0 1 45,816,199
Sabinov 2,652,556 0 1 0 3,1830,672
Bardejov 7,182,764 0 0 1 93,375,932
Svidník 2,667,458 0 0 1 34,676,954
Prešov 19,804,758 0 1 1 29,707,137
Spišské Podhradie 918,456 0 0 1 11,939,928
Margecany 487,344 0 1 1 731,016
Gelnica 1,490,148 0 1 0 17,881,776
Moldava nad Bodvou 2,314,884 0 1 0 27,778,608
Košice 56,232 1 1 1 112,464
Trebišov 543,576 0 1 0 6,522,912
Slovenské Nové Mesto 253,044 0 1 0 3,036,528
Michalovce 9,540,696 0 1 1 14,311,044
Sobrance 149,952 0 0 0 149,952
Dobrá pri Č.n.T. 9,372 1 1 0 159,324
Vranov nad Topl’ou 4,947,464 0 0 1 64,317,032
Strážske 1,068,408 0 1 1 160,2612
Humenné 7,532,961 0 1 1 112,994,415
Snina 4,597,267 0 0 0 4,597,267
Medzilaborce 1,438,043 0 1 0 17,256,516
Stropkov 2,324,712 0 0 0 2,324,712
Explanatory notes: C.T.T.—Container Trans-shipment Terminal. Rw.N.—Railway Node. Ro.N.—Road Node.
 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

Appendix
Sustainability 2019, Figure A2 contains a proposed locations of intermodal transport terminals in the
11, 1230 15 of 17
Slovak Republic (SR). Source: Author.

Figure A2. Contains a proposed locations of intermodal transport terminals in the Slovak Republic
(SR). Source: Author.

References
1. Cerna, L.; Zitricky, V.; Danis, J. The Methodology of Selecting the Transport Mode for Companies on the
Slovak Transport Market. Open Eng. 2017, 7, 6–13. [CrossRef]
2. Jagelcak, J.; Kiktova, M.; Kubanova, J. Legislative Conditions for Intermodal Transport in Slovakia.
In Proceedings of the 18th International Scientific Conference on LOGI, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic,
19 October 2017; Stopka, O., Ed.; Article Number: 00020. EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2017; Volume 134.
[CrossRef]
3. Zahumenska, Z.; Gasparik, J. Supporting the connection the logistics centers to rail network. Procedia Eng.
2017, 192, 976–981. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 16 of 17

4. Jagelcak, J.; Zamecnik, J.; Kiktova, M. Potential for Intermodal Transport of Chemical Goods in Slovakia.
In Proceedings of the 18th International Scientific Conference on LOGI, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic,
19 October 2017; Stopka, O., Ed.; Article Number: 00021. EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2017; Volume 134.
[CrossRef]
5. Koncepcia rozvoja kombinovanej dopravy s výhl’adom do roku 2010. MDPaT SR. 2001. Available online:
http://www.intermodal.sk/koncepcia-rozvoja-kombinovanej-dopravy/601s (accessed on 25 February 2019).
6. Gasparik, J.; Abramovic, B.; Zitricky, V. Research on Dependences of Railway Infrastructure Capacity.
Teh. Vjesn. Tech. Gaz. 2018, 25, 1190–1195. [CrossRef]
7. European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations, (AGTC);
Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Swizerland, 1991.
8. Behrends, S. The significance of the urban context for the sustainability performance of intermodal road-rail
transport. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 54, 375–386. [CrossRef]
9. Szaruga, E.; Skapska, E.; Zaloga, E.; Matwiejczuk, W. Trust and Distress Prediction in Modal Shift Potential
of Long-Distance Road Freight in Containers: Modeling Approach in Transport Services for Sustainability.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2370. [CrossRef]
10. Zecevic, S.; Tadic, S.; Krstic, M. Intermodal Transport Terminal Location Selection Using a Novel Hybrid
MCDM Model. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 2017, 25, 853–876. [CrossRef]
11. Roso, V.; Brnjac, N.; Abramovic, B. Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation: The Case of
Croatia. Transp. J. 2015, 54, 496–515. [CrossRef]
12. Lin, C.C.; Chiang, Y.I.; Lin, S.W. Efficient model and heuristic for the intermodal terminal location problem.
Comput. Oper. Res. 2014, 51, 41–51. [CrossRef]
13. Arnold, P.; Peeters, D.; Thomas, I.; Marchand, H. Optimal location for intermodal transshipment facilities
between transportation networks. Can. Geogr.-Geogr. Can. 2001, 45, 427–436. [CrossRef]
14. Sorensen, K.; Vanovermeire, C.; Busschaert, S. Efficient metaheuristics to solve the intermodal terminal
location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2012, 39, 2079–2090. [CrossRef]
15. Macharis, C. A methodology to evaluate potential locations for intermodal barge terminals: A policy
decision support tool. In Advances in Spatial Science, Proceedings of the Conference on Transport Developments
and Innovations in an Evolving World, Helsinki, Finland, 17–20 May 2001; Beuthe, M., Himanen, V., Reggiani, A.,
Zamparini, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 211–234.
16. Bergqvist, R.; Tornberg, J. Evaluating locations for intermodal transport terminals. Transp. Plan. Technol.
2008, 31, 465–485. [CrossRef]
17. Madlenak, R.; Madlenakova, L. Comparison of Regional Postal Transportation Networks in Zilina Region.
In Transport Means, Proceedings of the 19th International Scientific Conference on Transport Means, Kaunas,
Lithuania 22–23 October 2015; Kaunas University of Technology: Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2015.
18. Lizbetinova, L.; Hitka, M.; Kleymenov, M. Motivational Preferences of Employees in Requirements of Czech
and Russian Transport and Logistics Enterprises. Nase More 2018, 65, 254–258. [CrossRef]
19. Bartuska, L.; Stopka, O.; Chovancova, M.; Lizbetin, J. Proposal of Optimizing the Transportation Flows of
Consignments in the Distribution Center. In Transport Means, Proceedings of the 20th International Scientific
Conference on Transport Means, Juodkrante, Lithuania, 5–7 October 2016; Kaunas University of Technology:
Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2016; pp. 107–111.
20. Kliestik, T. Optimization of Transport Routes Based on Graph Theory as a Part of Intelligent Transport Systems.
In Transport Means, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Transport Means, Kaunas, Lithuania, 24–25
October 2013; Kaunas University of Technology: Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2013; pp. 308–311.
21. Sabadka, D.; Molnar, V.; Fedorko, G.; Jachowicz, T. Optimization of Production Processes Using the
Yamazumi Method. Adv. Sci. Technol.-Res. J. 2017, 11, 175–182. [CrossRef]
22. Bukova, B.; Brumercikova, E.; Kondek, P. The Multi-Criteria Decision in the Allocation of Logistic Centers in
the EU. In Transport Means, Proceedings of the 20th International Scientific Conference on Transport Means, Juodkrante,
Lithuania, 5–7 October 2016; Kaunas University of Technology: Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2016; pp. 784–788.
23. Fronc, M. Teória grafov; VŠDS v Žiline: Žilina, Slovakia, 1993.
24. Torok, A. Comparative analysis between the theories of road transport safety and emission. Transport 2017,
32, 192–197. [CrossRef]
25. Sorensen, K.; Vanovermeire, C. Bi-objective optimization of the intermodal terminal location problem as a
policy-support tool. Comput. Ind. 2013, 64, 128–135. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230 17 of 17

26. Rizzoli, A.E.; Fornara, N.; Gambardella, L.M. A simulation tool for combined rail/road transport in
intermodal terminals. Math. Comput. Simul. 2002, 59, 57–71. [CrossRef]
27. Skrinjar, J.P.; Rogic, K.; Stankovic, R. Location of urban logistic terminals as hub location problem.
Promet-Traffic Transp. 2012, 24, 433–440. [CrossRef]
28. Danek, J.; Teichmann, D. Uplatnění matematických metod v kombinované přepravě. Logistika 2003, 10, 26–28.
29. Tuzar, A.; Molková, T. Využití metod operačního výzkumu ke zvýšení kvality kombinované dopravy.
In Proceedings of the Conference EUROKOMBI 2002, Žilina, Slovakia, 12–13 June 2002.
30. Cerny, J.; Kluvanek, P. Zaklady Matematickej Teorie Dopravy, 1st ed.; VEDA: Bratislava, Slovenská Republika,
1991; pp. 149–156. ISBN 80-224-0099-8.
31. Fronc, M. Teória Grafov s Aplikáciami V Doprave; Alfa: Bratislava, Slovenská Republika, 1975.
32. Froncova, H.; Linda, B. Operačná Analýza, Návody na Cvičenia; Alfa: Bratislava, Slovenská Republika, 1988.
33. Stopka, O.; Kampf, R. Determining the most suitable layout of space for the loading units’ handling in the
maritime port. Transport 2018, 33, 280–290. [CrossRef]
34. Nemec, F.; Lorincova, S.; Hitka, M.; Turinska, L. The Storage Area Market in the Particular Territory. Nase More
2015, 62, 131–138. [CrossRef]
35. Lizbetin, J. Návrh systémových opatrení na rozvoj kombinovanej dopravy v Slovenskej republike. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Zilina, Zilina, Slovakia, December 2006.
36. Teye, C.; Bell, M.G.H.; Bliemer, M.C.J. Urban intermodal terminals: The entropy maximising facility location
problem. Transp. Res. Part B-Methodol. 2017, 100, 64–81. [CrossRef]
37. Lin, C.C.; Lin, S.W. Two-stage approach to the intermodal terminal location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2016,
67, 113–119. [CrossRef]
38. Dandotiya, R.; Banerjee, R.N.; Ghodrati, B.; Parida, A. Optimal pricing and terminal location for a rail-truck
intermodal service—A case study. Int. J. Logist.-Res. Appl. 2011, 14, 335–349. [CrossRef]
39. Hansut, L.; David, A.; Gasparik, J. The critical path method as the method for evaluation and identification of
the optimal container trade route between Asia and Slovakia. In Proceedings of the 17th International Scientific
Conference on Business Logistics in Modern Management, Osijek, Croatia, 12–13 October 2017; Dujak, D., Ed.;
2017; pp. 29–42. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/a/osi/bulimm/v17y2017p29-42.html (accessed on
19 February 2019).
40. Chen, X.; He, S.; Li, T.; Li, Y. A Simulation Platform for Combined Rail/Road Transport in Multiyards
Intermodal Terminals. J. Adv. Transp. 2018, 5812939. [CrossRef]
41. Dotoli, M.; Epicoco, N.; Falagario, M.; Cavone, G. A Timed Petri Nets Model for Performance Evaluation of
Intermodal Freight Transport Terminals. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2016, 13, 842–857. [CrossRef]
42. Wiegmans, B.W.; Nijkamp, P.; Masurel, E. Intermodal freight terminals: Marketing channels and transport
networks. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 1999, 58, 745–763.
43. Kuo, A.; Miller-Hooks, E.; Zhang, K.; Mahmassani, H. Train slot cooperation in multicarrier, international
rail-based intermodal freight transport. Transp. Res. Rec. 2008, 2043, 31–40. [CrossRef]
44. Pfliegl, R. Innovative application for dynamic navigational support and transport management on inland
waterways—Experience from a research project on the Danube river. In Transportation Research Record, Proceedings
of the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation-Research-Board, Washington, DC, USA, 7–11 January 2001; SAGE:
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2001; Volume 1763, pp. 85–89.
45. Babic, D.; Scukanec, A.; Rogic, K. Criteria of categorizing logistics and distribution centres. Promet-Traffic Transp.
2011, 23, 279–288.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).