THE GEOGRAPHY OF TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
In many places around the world bimodal and trimodal inland terminals have become an intrinsic part of the transport system, particularly in regions having a high reliance on trade. Transport development is gradually shifting inland after a phase that focused on the development of port terminals and maritime shipping networks. There are many reasons behind this growing attention. The complexity of modern freight distribution, the increased focus on intermodal and co-modal transport solutions and capacity issues appear to be the main drivers. While trucking tends to be sufficient in the initial phase of the development of inland freight distribution systems, at some level of activity, diminishing returns such as congestion, energy consumption and empty movements become strong incentives to consider the setting of inland terminals as the next step in regional freight planning. Also the massification of flows in networks, through a concentration of cargo on a limited set of ports of call and associated trunk lines to the hinterland, have created the right condition for nodes to appear along and at the end of these trunk lines.
The evolution of inland freight distribution can be seen as a cycle in the ongoing developments of containerization and intermodal transportation. The geographical characteristics linked with modal availability and capacity of regional inland access have an important role to play in shaping this development. As maritime shipping networks and port terminal activities become better integrated, particularly through the symbiotic relationship between maritime shipping and port operations, the focus shifted on inland transportation and the inland terminal as a fundamental component of this strategy. Thus, after a phase that relied on the development of port terminals and maritime shipping networks, the integration of maritime and inland freight distribution systems has favored the setting of inland ports.
Inland port. A rail or a barge terminal that is linked to a maritime terminal with regular inland transport services. An inland port has a level of integration with the maritime terminal and supports a more efficient access to the inland market both for inbound and outbound traffic. This implies an array of related logistical activities linked with the terminal, such as distribution centers, depots for containers and chassis, warehouses and logistical service providers.
Using the term "port" to define an inland terminal is subject to debate since the inland location can effectively be a port if a barge service is concerned, but fundamentally cannot be considered a port if it involves a rail terminal. Sometimes, the term "dry port" is used to underline this nuance. Thus, there seems to be no consensus on the terminology. The reason for this lies in the multiple shapes, functions and network positions these nodes can have. However, since the inland terminal is essentially an extension of some port activities inland, the term inland port has gained acceptance. A similar issue applies with the inclusion of airport terminals, mainly the freight component, as an element of an inland port. A whole array of transport terminal infrastructures are therefore often presented as an inland port. Regardless of the terminology used, three fundamental characteristics are related to an inland node:
Each inland port remains the outcome of the considerations of a transport geography pertaining to modal availability and efficiency, market function and intensity as well as the regulatory framework and governance. Their emergence underlines some deficiency in conventional inland freight distribution that needs to be mitigated. This mitigation includes:
The geographical characteristics linked with modal availability and capacity of regional inland access have an important role to play in shaping the emergence and development of inland ports. Each inland market has its own potential requiring different transport services. Thus, there is no single strategy for an inland port in terms of modal preferences as the regional effect remains fundamental. In developed countries, namely North America and Europe, which tended to be at the receiving end of many containerized supply chains, a number of inland ports have been developed with a focus on inbound logistics.
The setting of global supply chains and the strategy of Pacific Asian countries around the export-oriented paradigm have been powerful forces shaping contemporary freight distribution. Indirectly, this has forced players in the freight transport industry (shipping companies, terminal operators, logistics providers) to examine supply chains as a whole and to identify legs where capacity and reliability were an issue. Once maritime shipping networks and port terminal activities have been better integrated, particularly through the symbiotic relationship between maritime shipping and port operations, inland transportation became the obvious focus and the inland terminal a fundamental component of this strategy. This initially took place in developed countries, namely North America and Europe, which tended to be at the receiving end of many containerized supply chains. The focus has also shifted to considering inland terminals for the early stages of global supply chains (outbound logistics), namely in countries having a marked export-oriented function.
A functional and added value hierarchy has emerged for inland terminals. In many instances, freight transport terminals fit within a hierarchy with a functionally integrated inland transport system of gateways and their corridors, where they service three major functions:
These functions are not exclusive, implying that inland terminals can service several functions at once. There is no single model for an inland port. For inbound or outbound freight flows, the inland terminal is the first tier of a functional hierarchy that defines its fundamental (activities it directly service) and extended (activities in indirectly service) hinterlands. Considering the potential mix of the functions of inland ports, five major criteria insure that they fulfill efficiently their role as an interface between global and regional freight distribution systems:
Inland terminals have evolved from simple intermodal locations to their incorporation within logistical clusters. Inland terminals (particularly rail) have always been present since they are locations from which specific market coverage is achieved. Containerization has impacted this coverage through the selection of terminals that were servicing a wider market area. This spatial change also came with a functional change as intermodal terminals began to experience a specialization of roles based on their geographical location but also their ‘location’ within supply chains.
It can thus be seen that the functional specialization on inland terminals has been linked with cluster formation of logistical activities. Inland terminals in many cases have witnessed a clustering of logistics sites in the vicinity, leading to a process of logistics polarization and the creation of logistic zones. They have become excellent locations for consolidating a range of ancillary activities and logistics companies. In the last fifteen years, the dynamics in logistics networks have created the right conditions for a large-scale development of such logistics zones, particularly in Europe. The range of functions of inland logistics zones is wide ranging from simple cargo consolidation to advanced logistics services. Many inland locations not only have assumed a significant number of traditional cargo handling functions and services, but also have attracted many related services, such as distribution centers, shipping agents, trucking companies, forwarders, container repair facilities and packing firms.
The concept of logistics zones in the hinterland is now well-advanced in Europe. In the late 1960s and 1970s, logistics zones appeared in France, Italy and Germany, by following the concept of extended inland intermodal terminals. In the 1980s and 1990s, the number of such zones multiplied. Logistics zones are usually created within the framework of regional development policies as joint initiatives by firms, intermodal operators, regional and local authorities, the central government and or the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Logistics zones comprising intermodal terminals and logistics sites are often referred to as freight villages.
In North America, the emergence of planned logistics zones came later as governments rarely placed much attention on these activities, outside zoning regulations at the municipal level. The general availability of land and the private nature of rail operations involved a freight distribution industry that was self-regulated in its locational choices. Cluster formation was mainly a ‘natural’ process strongly conditioned by national and regional market accessibility. A variety of private real estate promoters, often in partnership with local or state governments, built logistics or industrial parks on an ad hoc basis where land was available, inexpensive and in proximity to a major highway. This led to three major forms of North American logistics cluster dynamics:
Regional issues, namely how inland ports interact with their regional markets, remain fundamental as it defines their modal characteristics, their regulatory framework and their commercial opportunities. Depending on the geographical setting and the structure, governance and ownership of inland transport systems, inland terminals have different levels of development and integration with port terminals. Three regions are particularly revealing:
The prospects for inland terminals remain positive with large continental markets like North America and Europe relying on a network of satellite terminals and load centers as a fundamental structure to support hinterland freight movements. This entailed the emergence of extended gates and with them extended forms of supply chain management in which inland terminals play an active role. As congestion increases, inland terminals will be even more important in maintaining efficient commodity chains. It can also be expected that resources will play a greater role within containerized trade with inland terminals, again underlining unique regional characteristics. This implies a set of repositioning strategies where inland terminals play a fundamental role either to improve the efficiency of this repositioning, by providing better cargo rotation opportunities, or by acting as an agent that can help promote containerized exports. Inland ports will take part of the ongoing intermodal integration between ports and their hinterland through long distance rail and barge corridors. They are likely to be more important elements within supply chains, particularly through their role of buffer where containerized consignments can be cheaply stored, waiting to be forwarded to their final destinations.
Like several stages in intermodal transport development, such as in port infrastructure, there is a potential of overinvestment, duplication and redundancy as many inland locations would like to claim a stake in global value chains. This appears to be the case in Western Europe where an abundance of inland terminals, particularly within the Rhine / Scheldt delta, is indicative of an over competitive environment and the waste of resources it implies. In North America, because of a different ownership and governance structure, the setting of an inland port, at least the intermodal terminal component, is mostly in the hands of rail operators. Each decision thus takes place with much more consideration being placed on market potential as well as the overall impact on their network structure. The decision of a rail company to build a new terminal or to expand existing facilities commonly marks the moment where regional stakeholders, from real estate developers to logistics service providers, readjust their strategies. In some instances, local governments will come with inland port strategies adjusting to existing commercial decisions in the hope to create multiplying effects.
![]()
Some Terms Used to Define Inland Nodes
![]()
Modal Shift and Freight Diversion

Added Value Functions Performed Around Freight Terminals
![]()
Inland Terminals as Foreign Trade Zones
![]()
Freight Terminal Hierarchy and Added Value
![]()
Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland
![]()
Functional Integration of Freight Distribution Clusters
![]()
Hinterland Setting and Major Economic Regions

Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine Delta
![]()
Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium
![]()
Main North American Trade Corridors and Metropolitan Freight Centers
![]()
Ownership of North American Intermodal Rail Terminals
(Detailed
PDF Map)

CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Center, Kansas City