The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics
Background. Modern logistics is impossible without the construction and development of intermodal logistics hubs, the effectiveness of which largely depends on the level of digitalisation and the quality of operational coordination, which are key factors in their competitiveness. Purpose. This study...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Автори: | , |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Англійська |
| Опубліковано: |
Dr. Viktor Koval
2026
|
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | https://ees-journal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/340 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Economics Ecology Socium |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Репозитарії
Economics Ecology Socium| _version_ | 1869472213634121728 |
|---|---|
| author | Angelova, Miglena Tranakieva, Kremena |
| author_facet | Angelova, Miglena Tranakieva, Kremena |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "Miglena Angelova",
"institution": "University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria"
},
{
"author": "Kremena Tranakieva",
"institution": "Technical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria"
}
] |
| author_sort | Angelova, Miglena |
| baseUrl_str | https://ees-journal.com/index.php/journal/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2026-06-30T15:36:44Z |
| description | Background. Modern logistics is impossible without the construction and development of intermodal logistics hubs, the effectiveness of which largely depends on the level of digitalisation and the quality of operational coordination, which are key factors in their competitiveness.
Purpose. This study aims to analyse the role and importance of modern intermodal logistics terminals in achieving efficiency in the integration of transport networks and to evaluate the impact of digitalisation and organisational coordination on the efficiency of intermodality in Bulgaria.
Findings. The analysis revealed average terminal efficiency, primarily due to insufficient coordination among supply chain participants and increased cargo idle time. Infrastructure limitations are less critical than partial digitalisation and the lack of comprehensive digital solutions. The overall efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria is rated as average, with 47% of respondents rating it only as “satisfactory”. Weak coordination between operators (66% of participants) and insufficient digital integration were cited as key issues. The latter point is supported by the fact that 69% of specialists rated the current level of digitalisation as average or low, and 63% consider its improvement a key development priority. The lack of coordination and digital solutions directly correlates with operational losses, as cargo dwell times reach 3-6 hours; however, with better organisation, this can be reduced to 1-3 hours. According to 82% of respondents, these delays lead to increased logistics costs. The results confirm that the development of digitalisation is the foundation for improved coordination and operational efficiency, making it a key factor in optimisation.
Implications. Digital integration is emerging as a strategically more important factor in the current development of intermodal terminals, and skilled integrated information management, especially against the backdrop of the country's strategic geographical location, will lead to rapid opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of intermodal terminals. Standardisation of electronic customer relationship management (e-CRM) documents and the use of full automation capabilities, including optical character recognition (OCR), radio-frequency identification (RFID), and terminal operating system (TOS) integration, are also recommended for future studies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.61954/2616-7107/2026.10.2-1 |
| first_indexed | 2026-07-01T01:00:35Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
1
Research Article
UDC 656.1: 004.8
JEL: R41, L91, M15
THE IMPACT OF DIGITALISATION AND
OPERATIONAL COORDINATION ON
TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY IN INTERMODAL
LOGISTICS
Miglena Angelova *
University of National and World
Economy,
Sofia, Bulgaria
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4460-133X
Kremena Tranakieva
Technical University of Sofia,
Sofia, Bulgaria
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-0849-0091
*Corresponding author
E-mail: m.angelova@unwe.bg
Background. Modern logistics is impossible without
the construction and development of intermodal logistics
hubs, the effectiveness of which largely depends on the level
of digitalisation and the quality of operational coordination,
which are key factors in their competitiveness.
Purpose. This study aims to analyse the role and
importance of modern intermodal logistics terminals in
achieving efficiency in the integration of transport networks
and to evaluate the impact of digitalisation and organisational
coordination on the efficiency of intermodality in Bulgaria.
Findings. The analysis revealed average terminal
efficiency, primarily due to insufficient coordination among
supply chain participants and increased cargo idle time.
Infrastructure limitations are less critical than partial
digitalisation and the lack of comprehensive digital solutions.
The overall efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria is
rated as average, with 47% of respondents rating it only as
“satisfactory”. Weak coordination between operators (66% of
participants) and insufficient digital integration were cited as
key issues. The latter point is supported by the fact that 69%
of specialists rated the current level of digitalisation as
average or low, and 63% consider its improvement a key
development priority. The lack of coordination and digital
solutions directly correlates with operational losses, as cargo
dwell times reach 3-6 hours; however, with better
organisation, this can be reduced to 1-3 hours. According to
82% of respondents, these delays lead to increased logistics
costs. The results confirm that the development of
digitalisation is the foundation for improved coordination and
operational efficiency, making it a key factor in optimisation.
Implications. Digital integration is emerging as a
strategically more important factor in the current
development of intermodal terminals, and skilled integrated
information management, especially against the backdrop of
the country's strategic geographical location, will lead to
rapid opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of
intermodal terminals. Standardisation of electronic customer
relationship management (e-CRM) documents and the use of
full automation capabilities, including optical character
recognition (OCR), radio-frequency identification (RFID),
and terminal operating system (TOS) integration, are also
recommended for future studies.
Keywords: Digitalisation, Intermodal Terminals,
Logistics Hubs, Supply Chain, Transport Infrastructure.
Received: 14/11/2025
Revised: 27/03/2026
Accepted: 20/04/2026
Published: 30/06/2026
DOI: 10.61954/2616-7107/2026.10.2-1
© Economics Ecology Socium, 2026
CC BY-NC 4.0 license
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
2
1. Introduction.
Modern logistics is impossible without the
construction and development of Intermodal
Logistics Hubs, which are designed to ensure
fast, efficient, cost-effective and sustainable
transfer of goods between different modes of
transport. In this regard, they are a key link in the
interaction between rail, road, water, and air
transport, allowing for the development of
reliable international trade in general.
For certain regions and countries, it is
decisive for the economy due to the economic
benefit of passing cargo flows through them.
Strategic transport corridors, such as TEN-T,
determine access to international markets and,
consequently, the competitiveness of national
and regional economies. In this regard,
intermodal logistics hubs are of decisive
importance. For example, in the Danube region
and the Balkans, the development of intermodal
logistics hubs serves as both a condition for
effective connectivity with the rest of Europe and
a bridgehead for transferring cargo flows from
and to Asia and the Middle East. Finally, well-
established intermodal logistics connections
enable the balancing of cargo flows.
However, the construction of effective
intermodal logistics hubs is associated with
overcoming several diverse challenges
(infrastructural compatibility, digitalisation,
inconsistency in regulatory regimes, various
environmental requirements, etc.). The
successful overcoming of these inherently
diverse challenges determines the economic
viability of operating intermodal logistics hubs.
To overcome the aforementioned challenges, it is
necessary to employ diverse efforts, including
finding investments, implementing transparent
procedures, and intensifying cooperation
between state authorities and various operators
and forwarders. The economic results of
operating an intermodal logistics hub are a key
criterion for evaluating its effectiveness.
However, more important than the direct benefits
are the development opportunities that the region
receives by attracting new cargo flows and
ensuring sustainable and competitive transport.
This study aims to investigate and analyse
the efficiency of Bulgarian intermodal terminals
and their place, role, and integration in European
and global freight transport.
2. Literature Review.
The development of intermodal logistics
hubs is inevitably considered in terms of the
challenges that need to be overcome in their
construction and operation. Various perspectives
exist on this topic (Hoffelner et al., 2024). The
primary challenges are related to infrastructure
design and compliance with various constraints.
Caris et al. (2008) examine the main challenges
in the planning and development process of
intermodal transport, including the role of
terminal location, possible infrastructure
constraints and overall intermodal network
planning.
Witte et al. (2012) investigated problems
related to infrastructure bottlenecks in the
European transport network. This study aimed to
examine the influence of the locations of
intermodal logistics hubs and their respective
capacities on freight transport. In this regard,
Tadić et al. (2019) developed a robust
methodology for planning and developing
intermodal terminals, including location
selection, cargo capacity options, specific
infrastructure features that meet stakeholder
requirements, and the principles of sustainable
development, which is an essential aspect in the
preparation and planning of an infrastructure
project today.
Khaslavskaya and Roso (2020) conducted
an extensive study on infrastructure connectivity,
spatial positioning, railway infrastructure
constraints, investment barriers, and spatial land-
use conflicts. Rodrigues et al. (2021) presented
the negative impact and consequences of
underdeveloped network infrastructure, as well
as the lack of sufficient clarity in the regulatory
framework and constraints regarding
connectivity with existing transport corridors.
Wilmsmeier et al. (2011) demonstrated the
importance of infrastructure and policies in
shaping the development of European corridors,
which, in turn, influence the location of
intermodal logistics hubs. Lee (2015) examines
the role of the urban environment in the
planning, construction, and development of
intermodal terminals. Zain et al. (2022) explored
this aspect of intermodal terminal construction.
The requirements of logistics processes must not
be ignored in the design process (Anguelov &
Kenova, 2018; Popov et al., 2019).
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
3
Information and communication
technologies have profoundly impacted the
planning, design, and overall development of
modern intermodal logistics hubs. Various
political and project documents, such as those of
the European Commission (2024), have also
influenced the design.
Overcoming various technological
challenges is crucial for the effectiveness of
intermodal logistics hubs (ILHs). Kine et al.
(2022) present a comprehensive overview of the
applied technologies (IoT, sensors, platforms,
and automation) from the perspective of their
potential applications in the subject area. In this
context, the capabilities of geographic
information systems (Tsonkov & Kostev, 2023)
and artificial intelligence (Ilieva et al., 2019;
Vural et al., 2020) are crucial tools that can
significantly contribute to the optimisation and
coordination of intermodal transport processes.
Several studies have focused on the
specific applications of information and
communication systems. For example, Hervás-
Peralta et al. (2019) conducted a thorough
investigation into the specific functionalities of
terminal operating systems, focusing on seaports
and dry ports. Study has precisely identified the
modules that are critical for terminal operational
efficiency, capacity, and reducing congestion and
emissions.
Zajac et al. (2025) analysed the
opportunities for implementing and utilising
digital tools among SMEs in Central and Eastern
Europe within the transport, logistics, and
forwarding sectors. The main barriers to the low
level of digitalisation in planning are a lack of
sufficient information, organisational inertia, and
prioritisation of financial costs by enterprises
with limited capacity.
On the other hand, Dimitrov and Gigov
(2022) conducted a study that shows the potential
of digitalisation and, more specifically, the use of
the capabilities of technologies such as
blockchain, which can lead to an overall
improvement in logistics processes and, as a
result, a positive impact and creation of added
value in supply chains at a global level.
Turi and Boglut (2024) examined regional
specificities in terms of operational prerequisites,
such as connectivity, intermodal terminal
infrastructure, and cost efficiency.
Raza et al. (2023) focus their attention
specifically on the digitalisation of maritime
logistics. They identified levels of digital
maturity, believing that despite the available
technological progress, digital transformation,
especially in shipping, is lagging for several
reasons, among which conservative
organisational models and structural barriers
stand out.
Simultaneously, Giusti et al. (2019)
expressed the reasoned opinion that
technological challenges at the systemic level are
crucial. Alaei et al. (2024) present interesting
results from a survey of logistics company
representatives. They highlighted the role and
importance of information systems and real-time
data acquisition.
Varese et al. (2022) analyse dry ports from
the perspective of environmental sustainability.
They study various environmental aspects, such
as emissions, noise, development, connection
with SDGs, and the lack of standardised
assessment tools. The authors conclude that
despite the growing importance of dry ports as a
green practice in transport and trade, their
environmental aspects are still relatively poorly
studied, and propose a new conceptual
framework for assessing the environmental
dimensions of dry ports.
Environmental and energy aspects of the
modern economy are significant manifestations.
From this perspective, effective resource
management, achieving energy efficiency, and
proper management of energy logistics centres
are of utmost priority for achieving a sustainable
economic model. Yadollahi et al. (2024) focused
on the effective management of energy logistics
hubs, ensuring the proper use of raw materials to
achieve higher results, lower costs, and personnel
protection.
Lättilä et al. (2013) used a simulation
model to analyse how the use of dry ports linked
to seaports by rail can reduce CO₂ emissions and
transport costs compared to direct road transport.
It has been mathematically proven that an
optimum function can be achieved. Their results
showed the impact and potential of different
energy scenarios. Simultaneously, they provide
considerable clarity on the potential of dry ports
for more sustainable transportation and
alleviating pressure on seaports.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
4
Emissions, transport time, and costs can
be reduced by using the most appropriate
intermodal chain for a given scenario. In this
regard, Beškovnik and Golnar (2020) examined
different routes in Central Europe. In the same
context, López-Acevedo et al. (2024) showed
that even for short distances, an adequately
designed intermodal connection can
significantly reduce emissions.
Goodarzi et al. (2024) developed a
stochastic optimisation model that can increase
the sustainability and environmental efficiency
of intermodal freight transport networks. This
analysis show that even with minimal
investments in preparedness and consolidation,
it has the capacity to lead to significant cost
reductions and increased sustainability of the
transportation system. Mata-Lima et al. (2019)
and Karaś (2024) focused attention on the
environmental aspects related to the expansion
and development of intermodal terminals,
logistics connections, and the overall transport
network. At this point, it would not be an
exaggeration to state that efficient logistics is a
vital component of overall sustainable
economic development in the region.
Currently, the development of national,
union, and regional economies relies heavily on
effective logistics as a fundamental factor for
achieving sustainable development. However,
transport networks have a strong impact on the
environment. This leads to the conclusion that
the development and optimisation of their use,
through the introduction of new technologies,
can significantly mitigate the consequences of
such an impact. However, it is hoped that the
effect will be synergistic and encompass social
and economic dimensions. Krachunov et al.
(2021) examine in depth the main barriers to the
development of transport and logistics systems
in Bulgaria. Their analysis primarily focused on
the significance of these systems within the
UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The
study developed by Petrov and Tsonkov (2023)
confirmed these considerations.
The planning, construction, and
development of intermodal terminals and
comprehensive logistics hubs have a significant
impact on other crucial aspects, such as
ensuring security and addressing challenges
related to staff training (Stoykov, 2018).
3. Methodology.
This study aims to analyse the role and
importance of modern intermodal logistics
terminals in achieving efficiency in the
integration of global, regional, and local
transport networks. At the same time, through
the study’s methodology, the impact of the level
of digitalisation and organisational coordination
on the efficiency of intermodality in Bulgaria
will be assessed and analysed. The study
focuses on intermodal logistics terminals and
logistics hubs in Bulgaria. The subject of the
study is the processes of transhipment,
coordination, information exchange, and the use
of digital technologies within these terminals.
According to reports from the UNCTAD
and the International Transport Forum, several
thousand intermodals and container terminals
operate globally, forming the backbone of
international freight flows.
Bulgaria currently has five main
intermodal terminals, which are located at
strategically important logistical connections:
Sofia (from the perspective of the capital and
largest city) and a connection with Western
Europe; Plovdiv, a south-central region, which
provides the connection between the interior of
the country and international transport
corridors, including a connection between
Central Europe, the Balkans, Turkey, and the
Middle East; the intermodal terminal in Ruse,
which provides Bulgaria's connection with
Central and Northern Europe; and the
intermodal terminals in Burgas and Varna,
which provide a connection to the Black Sea
region, the Caucasus, Turkey, and the Middle
East.
All operating intermodal terminals in
Bulgaria are integrated into core and extended
TEN-T networks. However, some operate with
limited capacity and could benefit from
significant efficiency improvements.
According to the Integrated Transport Strategy
of Bulgaria until 2030 (Ministry of Transport
and Communications of the Republic of
Bulgaria, 2017), the terminals in Plovdiv and
Ruse play a leading role in the development of
combined transport. Detailed technical
parameters and analyses of their zones of
influence have been developed to this end.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
5
Strategic analyses indicate a growing role
for containerised and combined freight transport
in Bulgaria, particularly on the Orient/East
Mediterranean and Rhine–Danube routes.
Container traffic forecasts have been prepared
for the intermodal terminal in Ruse, which
anticipates a sustainable increase in container
volume in the medium and long terms, in line
with the development of international freight
flows and TEN-T corridors. These trends
confirm the role of intermodal terminals as
logistics hubs in increasing freight turnover.
The strategy identifies combined transport
as a priority area for development, although the
share of intermodal transport in the country’s
total freight turnover remains relatively limited.
In the aforementioned document, intermodal
transport is considered a strategic priority aimed
at increasing the share of rail transport, thereby
reducing the load on road infrastructure and
enhancing freight chain efficiency.
The planned measures and investments
until 2030 aim to gradually increase the
volumes of intermodal transport, in line with
European policies for sustainable transport.
According to the National Plan for the
Development of Combined Transport in the
Republic of Bulgaria until 2030 (Ministry of
Transport and Communications of the Republic
of Bulgaria, 2022), a limited number of rail-road
intermodal terminals are operating, with the
main active facilities located in Plovdiv, Stara
Zagora, and Burgas, and a small terminal for
cross-docking operations at the Sofia railway
junction (Voluyak station).
The intermodal terminal in Plovdiv has a
capacity of 57,600 TEU per year and is the only
terminal with a published price list and
conditions for non-discriminatory access
(National Railway Infrastructure Company,
2017; Terminali AD, 2025). At the same time,
there is a lack of adequate territorial coverage of
Northern and South-Western Bulgaria, with
approximately two-thirds of the population and
a significant part of the production capacities
not being effectively served by the existing
intermodal terminals, which limits the
development of combined transport at the
national level. To achieve the objectives of the
study, a combined methodological approach is
applied.
3.1. Desk Research and Documentary
Analysis.
The aim is to establish a theoretical
framework and outline the context in which the
development of intermodal transport occurs:
Research publications and studies
related to the role of intermodal terminals in the
modern transport map
The primary regulatory documents, as
well as reports on the development of transport
infrastructure, were studied.
Basic statistical data related to transport
operators and national, European, and global
institutions in the field of intermodal transport
were studied and analysed.
3.2. Survey Component.
A direct survey was conducted among
specialists in logistics, forwarding, and
transport. Structurally, it contains 15 questions
distributed in the following thematic blocks:
Respondent profile – professional
experience, field of activity, education.
Use of intermodal terminals.
Assessment of the effectiveness and
digitalisation of intermodal terminals.
Problems and opportunities for
development.
The sample was selected because of the
participants’ specific professional competence.
Given the method of conducting the survey,
which involves on-site direct surveying through
a pre-prepared questionnaire filled out by
interviewers based on the answers learned from
respondents, the number of respondents is
relatively limited (32).
3.3. Semi-Structured Interviews.
Short interviews were conducted with
specialists directly involved in transport and
terminal operations (dispatchers, forwarders,
and terminal operators). The interviews aimed
to supplement the survey data with qualitative
observations and professional assessments. In
this way, seven specialists were interviewed,
each interview lasting 10-15 minutes. The
following accepted methods were employed to
process and interpret the empirical data:
descriptive statistical analysis, comparative
analysis of assessments across respondents.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
6
Substantive analysis of open questions
and interviews was conducted, including the
identification of main themes and recurring
issues. The following limitations include sample
size and targeted nature; differences in
professional experience among respondents; and
incompleteness of publicly available operational
data on intermodal transport and connections.
Table 1 systematises the research
hypotheses, the corresponding conceptual
categories, the questionnaire questions, and the
testing methods used. A clearly traceable logical
sequence between the theoretical framework,
empirical tools, and analytical methods is
ensured, allowing the hypotheses to be
systematically verified. The methodology of this
study encompasses several approaches,
including documentary analysis, surveys, and
semi-structured interviews.
Thus, this study aims to analyse the
structural characteristics of intermodal logistics
terminals in Bulgaria in more depth.
The proposed methodology provides a
sufficiently reliable basis for collecting
information and analysing existing practices,
from which the main challenges facing
intermodal terminals in Bulgaria can be
identified. The chosen combination of
quantitative (survey) and qualitative (semi-
structured interviews) methods can provide
valuable insights into the current level of
digitalisation, the challenges of achieving high
digital efficiency, and possible development
solutions from this perspective.
Table 1. Operationalisation of Research Hypotheses.
Hypothesis Element Description
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Higher
operational efficiency can be
achieved through digitalisation in
intermodal terminals, primarily
through reduced cargo dwell time,
faster processing, and improved
traceability.
Concept
Digitalisation:
Building comprehensive information solutions
– Terminal Operation Software (TOS), which
includes modules covering basic terminal
operations – planning, execution, control,
traceability, integration and operations analysis.
Efficiency: reduced downtime, reduced
possibility of errors, faster processing,
consistency and traceability.
Survey questions
Digitalisation assessment.
Processing time.
Overall efficiency assessment.
Indicators for the
H1
Digitalisation rating (scale 1–5).
Efficiency rating (scale 1–5).
Self-reported average dwell time.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The degree of
coordination and interaction
between individual transport
operators (road, rail, and sea/river)
directly impacts the quality and
reliability of intermodal transport
services within national and
regional logistics networks.
Concept
Coordination: scheduling, communication
between companies, exchange of documents,
and synchronisation between rail/road/sea
operators.
Survey questions Coordination assessment; most common
problems; suggestions for improvement.
Indicators for the
H2
Coordination rating (scale 1–5).
Frequency of mentioned problems, such as
“poor communication” or “inconsistency”.
Recommendations for improvement.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The limitations
of the infrastructure and
organisational processes of
intermodal terminals in Bulgaria
are a significant factor hindering
the full development of intermodal
transport, despite the country’s
existing geostrategic potential.
Concept
Constraints: terminal capacity, rail connections,
cranes, warehouse facilities, administrative
procedures.
Survey questions
Most common problems.
Most needed improvements.
Regions with potential.
Indicators for the
H3
Frequency of choosing “insufficient
infrastructure” / “lack of automation”.
Preferred development solutions.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
7
4. Results.
4.1. Profile of the Respondents (Part A).
The survey was conducted from January
to March 2025. It involved 32 respondents
employed in key units of the logistics chain,
including forwarding (34%), road transport
(25%), rail transport (13%), and terminal/port
activities (19%).
The respondents who participated in the
quantitative study were pre-selected based on
their direct experience in working with
intermodal terminals and specific logistics
operations.
A majority of respondents (78%) reported
performing specific activities related to
intermodal terminals and operations on a daily
or weekly basis. The respondents’ answers show
that, most often in the country, intermodality is
used primarily in the form of a combination of
road and rail (56%) and road and sea (44%).
The data provided is clear about the role
of intermodal terminals in the modern logistics
chain and the importance of the connections
they provide at the national, regional, and
international levels. Detailed information on the
respondents participating in the quantitative
study is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Profile of the Respondents.
Question 1: What industry do you work in?
Industry Number %
Freight forwarding/ 3PL 11 34
Road transport (international/
domestic)
8 25
Rail transport/ Operators 4 13
Port/ terminal operators 6 19
Other (logistics software, consulting
etc.)
3 9
Total 32 Respondents 100%
Question 2: How many years of experience do you have in the sector?
Experience Number %
Under 1 year 2 6
1 – 3 years 9 28
4 – 7 years 13 41
Over 7 years 8 25
Total 32 Respondents 100%
Question 3: How often do you work with intermodal terminals?
Frequency Number %
Daily 10 31
Weekly 15 47
Rarely (in specific project/ campaigns) 7 22
Never 0 0
Total 32 Respondents 100%
Question 4: Which modes of transport do you usually combine?
(multiple choice → total may be > 32)
Combination of transport Frequency of
choice
% of
respondents
Road + Rail 18 56
Road + Sea 14 44
Rail + Sea 9 28
River + Road 4 13
Other 2 6
Question 5. Which intermodal terminals do you use most often?
(open question → summarised categories)
Terminal Number of mentions
Plovdiv Intermodal Terminal 14
Varna Port 10
Burgas Port 7
Ruse (River + Rail) 5
Sofia Dry Port + Rail 4
Other/ Sporadic 3
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
8
Based on the profile data presented, the
sample included respondents, who were
professionally competent, a prerequisite for the
high reliability of their answers. The
respondents had over 3 years of professional
experience, and the majority reported daily or
weekly contact with operations at intermodal
terminals. These data guarantee the expertise of
the participants and assess the effectiveness of
intermodal terminals, related to several very
critical aspects: on the one hand, the level of
digitalisation itself, and on the other hand, the
quality of the information exchange process,
which should guarantee reliable coordination
between individual operators, as well as an
overall view related to the main specific
challenges that stand out in the development of
intermodal transport in Bulgaria.
At this stage, all hypotheses were tested
by comparing assessments, identifying
problems, and proposing solutions.
4.2. Functioning Assessment (Part B).
Almost half of the respondents (47%)
gave an efficiency rating of “3” on a five-point
scale, with 25% rating it “4” and only 6% rating
it “5”. This indicates that the terminals are
operating at a satisfactory, albeit far from
optimal, level. The fact that 22% of the
responses had low ratings (1 and 2) may also
suggest the presence of severe difficulties. This
suggests that significant improvements are
necessary at the systemic level, encompassing
the entire management, both at the operational
organisation level and in the provision of
resources (Table 3).
Table 3. Assessment of the Effectiveness and Digitalisation of Intermodal Terminals.
Question 6: Rate the efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria
(1 = very low, 5 = very high)
Assessment Number %
1 1 3
2 6 19
3 15 47
4 8 25
5 2 6
Total 32 100%
Question 7: Rate the level of coordination between different
transport operators (1–5)
1 2 6
2 10 31
3 14 44
4 5 16
5 1 3
Total 32 100%
Question 8. How do you assess the level of digitalisation
(information systems, tracking)? (1–5)
1 1 3
2 9 28
3 13 41
4 7 22
5 2 6
Total 32 100%
Question 9. The average processing/delay time for a truck or
container is?
Time interval Number %
Under 1 hour 3 9
1 – 3 hours 16 50
3 – 6 hours 10 31
Over 6 hours 2 6
Cannot estimate 1 3
Total 32 100
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
9
Regarding the coordination between
operators of different modes of transport (road,
rail, sea/river), the results are definitely focused
on medium and low ratings. A total of 44% of
respondents rated coordination with a “3”, and
31% with a “2”. Suppose coordination is rated
as a medium to low priority. This means that
various forms of communication and
interaction, including the processes of
coordinating transport schedules and
exchanging documents between the various
participants in the logistics chain, are not
performed at a sufficiently high level. This, in
turn, leads to additional time delays, which are
the basis for the creation of further transport
problems, including inadequate relationships
between the various stakeholders involved in
the logistics transport process. This result
directly confirms Hypothesis 2, which posits
that the level of coordination significantly
impacts the quality and reliability of intermodal
services.
In turn, the level of digitalisation is rated
as being medium. 41% of respondents rated it
“3”, and 28% rated it “2”. This result suggests
that digital systems are available for managing
and tracking shipments and providing basic data
exchange capabilities. It is worth noting that this
relatively unsatisfactory assessment is an
indicator of insufficient quality, and in some
cases, a possible direct lack of integration
between the individual systems, which would
otherwise provide sufficiently reliable data
exchange and a higher degree of automation.
We can say with a high degree of certainty that
this result is indicative of the simultaneous use
of separate systems, which, however, are
characterised by a relatively low degree of
connectivity between them (for example, TOS
systems, Excel spreadsheets, and separate GPS
platforms). It is natural that with such an
adopted way of working, this will inevitably
lead to severe difficulties related to the
continuous exchange of data. This result
confirms Hypothesis 1, which posits that
digitalisation is a priority factor for improving
efficiency and reducing cargo dwell time. The
specific results of these characteristics can be
analysed using the dwell time indicator. Half of
the respondents (50%) reported an average
dwell time of 1 to 3 hours.
This result is a relatively normal time
required for intermodal processing. However, it
should be noted that 31% of respondents
indicated a more extended time range of 3–6 h
for downtime. This result is indicative of the
problems that can be identified in terms of
congestion, delays, or insufficient capacity. This
result should be commented on, especially
considering that only 9% of respondents
reported downtime of less than 1 hour. This is a
clear indicator that there are bottlenecks that can
be addressed to improve efficiency. These
results indicate the presence of visible and
significant differences in the operational speed.
This means that improving infrastructure and
better process management would have a
tangible effect. These data and analyses confirm
Hypothesis 3, which relates to the impact of
infrastructure constraints.
As a summary of everything analysed so
far, we can conclude that intermodal logistics
terminals in Bulgaria operate at an average level
of efficiency, which means that their full
capacity is not currently being sufficiently
utilised. The main challenges in this direction
are related to the insufficient degree of
coordination between operators, incomplete or
partial digital integration of processes, and
lengthy interruptions in cargo handling. These
problem areas are currently critical points, but at
the same time, they clearly highlight potential
opportunities for improvement, which should be
further analysed in Part B of the study.
The observed distribution of ratings shows
that perceptions of terminal efficiency are
significantly related to the level of digitalisation
and the quality of coordination between
operators. Respondents who rated digitalisation
higher tended to give higher ratings of
efficiency, suggesting a trend towards
optimising logistics processes, where more
comprehensive information systems and cargo
flow tracking are implemented. Simultaneously,
lower coordination ratings correspond to longer
dwell times and difficulties in coordinating
operations among road, rail, and sea transport.
These results do not establish a formal statistical
relationship, but clearly outline a pattern in the
participants’ professional observations, which is
essential for interpreting the hypotheses, as
shown in Table 4.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
10
Table 4. Descriptive Correlation of Digitalisation, Operational Coordination, and Intermodal
Terminal Efficiency.
Respondent group
according to
digitalisation score
Average
efficiency score
Average
coordination score
Comments / Interpretation
Score 1 – 2 (low level of
digitalisation)
2.3 2.2
“Systems are not integrated”,
“Many paper documents are used”
Score 3 (medium level
of digitalisation)
3.0 2.8
“Processes are functional, but there
are delays in information
exchange”
Score 4 – 5 (high level
of digitalisation)
3.8 3.4
“Follow-up is easier”, “Fewer
errors and faster processing”
Table 4 clearly shows that a higher
digitalisation score is associated with higher
efficiency and coordination. The distribution of
the mean scores shows a clear trend:
respondents who rated digitalisation as low (1–
2) also reported lower efficiency (approximately
2.3) and weaker coordination (approximately
2.2). With average scores (3) and efficiency (3),
the process is functional but not optimised. With
high scores for digitalisation (4–5), efficiency
increased to approximately 3.8 and coordination
to approximately 3.4, indicating better
coordination, reduced downtime, and faster
processing. These data indicate that
digitalisation should be perceived as a means to
increase the efficiency of processes in
intermodal terminals; namely, it is a necessary
factor for achieving efficiency, especially given
the ongoing development of ICT, including in
combination with AI. Better coordination
between individual transport operators has been
achieved in these terminals, where more
integrated information systems, including TOS,
electronic waybills, and GPS tracking, are in
place. This better coordination is also expressed
in improved cargo processing time. This, in
turn, categorically confirms Hypothesis 1. Table
5 clearly shows that low coordination between
transport operators is associated with longer
terminal dwell times.
Table 5. Descriptive Correlation between Operational Coordination and Terminal Downtime.
Respondent Group
by Coordination
Score
Most Frequently
Reported
Downtime
Average
Downtime
Range
Typical Operational Scenario
Score 1–2 (low
coordination)
3–6 hours Medium–high
Frequent delays, waiting for train sets,
issues with document transfer, lack of
operator synchronisation
Score 3 (medium
coordination)
1–3 hours Moderate
Functional processes with occasional
delays during terminal loading
Score 4–5 (high
coordination)
Under 1 hour – 1–3
hours
Low
Efficient communication, fast
turnaround, clear planning, effective
information exchange
Respondents who considered the level of
coordination to be low and rated it with a score
between 1 and 2 cited significant delays and
downtime between 3 and 6 hours as the main
reason. This, in turn, can be considered an
indicator of the following important elements
and possible bottlenecks:
Lack of a sufficiently good level of
coordination related to the synchronisation of rail
and road transport schedules.
Insufficient quality of document flow,
which also leads to delays.
Lack of clearly defined communication
channels and direct connections between
operators.
Lack of good planning related to the use
of terminal equipment and its capacity.
When assessing the coordination level (3),
the downtime was significantly reduced, falling
within the 1-3 hours range.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
11
Such downtime is within the acceptable
operational level but cannot be considered
optimal. With high coordination (4–5), the
dwell time is less than one hour or in the range
of 1–3 hours, which implies:
Pre-planned unloading/loading slots.
Clear communication between
participants in the logistics chain.
Effective exchange of documents and
data.
These results outline a clear relationship
between the coordination level and the time
goods spend in the intermodal terminal. The
better the coordination is developed and the
more effective it is, the less time goods spend in
the terminals.
This observation, in fact, makes clear the
dependence of operational efficiency on the
interaction and cooperation among the different
transport operators, as well as on the intermodal
operator itself. This judgment reveals the
potential and content of the overall coordination
mechanism for the significant reduction of the
time spent by goods (including, among other
things, standardised communication protocols,
digital data exchange and responsible planning).
This, in turn, will lead to the overall
optimisation of the intermodal processes. This
result directly supports Hypothesis 2.
The systematised results of the study show
that the efficiency of intermodal logistics
terminals in Bulgaria is directly related to the
level of digitalisation and the degree of
coordination between individual transport
operators.
Conversely, insufficient coordination and
fragmented use of digital systems result in
delays, higher operating costs, and lower overall
efficiency of the logistics chains. These trends
highlight the serious challenges and provide a
clear idea of the barriers that stand in the way of
the full development of intermodality in
Bulgaria. The next part of the analysis focuses
on identifying the main problems and potential
directions for optimisation and achieving
sustainable development in the operation and
functioning of intermodal terminals.
4.3. Problems and Opportunities for
Development.
Figure 1 clearly shows that the
respondents perceive coordination between
transport operators as the most significant
challenge for intermodal terminals. At most, 21
respondents (66% of the sample) indicated that
weak coordination was a serious and significant
problem. T
he dimensions of the more generally
formulated problem can be complex, but mainly
reflect numerous unpleasant situations related to
schedule discrepancies, unnecessary waiting
times during cargo transfer, and delays in
communication between different types of
operators, including rail, road, and port. The
problem outlined is closely associated with the
extended dwell time observed in the preceding
section of this study. In fact, the result of weak
coordination is categorically one of the most
serious barriers to the operational efficiency of
intermodal terminals.
Fig. 1. Responses to the Question “What Are the Most Common Problems You Observe?
(Multiple Answers Possible)”.
21
18
17
13
9
7
0 5 10 15 20 25
Insufficient coordination between transport
operators
Delays in loading and servicing
Lack of integrated digital systems
Limited terminal capacity / equipment
Administrative and customs procedures
Insufficient railway infrastructure
Economics E
Volume 10
The
lack of suf
the indust
systems is
good leve
presence o
of a single
data in re
duplication
increased
again conf
digitalisati
achieving
terminals.
The t
terminal
equipment
especially
terminals w
it is interes
infrastructu
as a secon
through i
planning. T
particularly
believe th
organisatio
to the co
coordinatio
of digitalis
intermodal
economic
(Fig. 2).
Ecology Soci
Issue 2 (202
second mo
fficiently in
try. The u
not a suffic
el of effic
f the follow
e platform th
eal time, du
n of work,
probability
firms Hypo
on is a sig
the eff
third proble
capacity,
and sto
evident du
with compl
sting that re
ure as a pr
ndary one th
improved
The data o
y indicativ
hat the curr
on increases
onclusion t
on, resulting
sation in th
l terminal,
impact on
Fig.2. Resp
ium
26)
st common
ntegrated dig
use of sep
cient conditi
ciency, esp
wing hinderi
hrough whi
uplication o
, manual o
y of errors.
thesis 1, w
nificant pri
ficiency o
em identifie
includin
rage facil
uring busy
lex cargo fl
espondents
rimary prob
hat can be
organisation
n the impa
ve: 82% o
rent state
s logistics c
that the im
g from the
he services
can have a
operators
ponses to th
38%
13%
n problem is
gital system
parate trac
ion to achie
pecially in
ing factors:
ich to excha
of informa
operations,
. This ana
which states
iority factor
of interm
ed is the lim
ng proces
ities. This
periods an
lows. Howe
do not cons
blem, but ra
better mana
n and di
act on costs
of particip
of the pro
costs. This l
mprovement
enhanced l
provided at
a direct pos
and custom
he Question
6%
12
s the
ms in
cking
eve a
the
lack
ange
tion,
and
lysis
that
r for
modal
mited
ssing
s is
nd at
ever,
sider
ather
aged
igital
s are
pants
ocess
leads
t of
level
t the
itive
mers
part
that
inte
cost
coor
narr
cont
reso
shou
exte
labo
the v
dow
plan
pena
inte
base
conn
Sim
indi
sign
unfo
isola
envi
freig
exch
othe
the
from
logi
n “How Do
43%
The data
ticularly tel
t the curren
rmodal term
ts. This mea
rdination l
rowly as m
trast, they
onance and
uld also b
ended down
our costs an
vehicles.
Simultan
wntime can
nning, and
alties for l
rmodality, t
ed on mini
nectivity b
multaneously
icated th
nificantly, w
ortunately,
ated cases.
This m
ironment w
ght flow an
hanging inf
er words, th
physical in
m how it is
istics netwo
oes This Aff
a on the
ling: 82% o
nt state of p
minals leads
ans that prob
level shoul
merely oper
have a
d direct fin
be borne
ntimes inev
nd increase
neously, a
also reflect
sometimes
ate deliveri
this is critic
imising cos
between th
y, more tha
hat costs
which led t
delays shou
odel is c
with no centr
nd a commo
formation b
he costs do
frastructure
managed a
ork.
fect Logisti
Signi
costs
Mod
costs
No s
e-ISSN
ISSN-L
impact on
of responde
process orga
s to increas
blems that o
ld not be
ational diff
much mo
nancial dim
in mind
vitably lead
ed downtim
significant
t poorly on
the delay c
ies. In the
cal because
sts through
he transpo
an 40% of r
were
o the concl
uld not be
characterist
ralised man
on digital p
between op
not stem s
e but, to a la
and integrat
ics Costs?”
ificantly incre
s
derately increa
s
ignificant imp
2786-8958
2616-7107
n costs is
ents believe
anisation in
ed logistics
occur at the
interpreted
ficulties. In
ore serious
mensions. It
that more
d to higher
me costs of
t delay in
n additional
can lead to
context of
its logic is
h optimised
ort modes.
respondents
increasing
lusion that,
considered
tic of an
nagement of
platform for
perators. In
solely from
arge extent,
ted into the
”.
eases
ases
pact
s
e
n
s
e
d
n
s
t
e
r
f
n
l
o
f
s
d
.
s
g
,
d
n
f
r
n
m
,
e
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
13
These findings lead to a more general
conclusion that improving coordination and
digitalisation can have a direct economic
impact. This economic impact is expressed not
only for transport operators (lower operating
costs and shorter delivery cycles) but also for
customers (higher predictability, shorter lead
times, and lower final logistics costs). This
supports the understanding, shared by the
authors of this article, that intermodal terminals
should be perceived as network management
units, the efficiency of which results in the
entire supply chain. In this sense, considering
intermodal terminals solely as infrastructure
objects is extremely limiting and inconsistent
with their current complex functionality and
status quo.
The results of question 12 (Fig. 3) clearly
show that respondents consider digitalisation
and integration of information systems as the
most important priority for improvement (63%).
This suggests that specialists view information
flow as the key regulator of operational
efficiency in intermodal terminals.
The presence of working but disconnected
systems leads to delays, data duplication, and
manual document processing, which in turn
directly affects downtime and overall costs.
Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed:
digitalisation is a fundamental factor in
increasing the efficiency and transparency of
processes.
In second place in terms of importance
(56%), respondents indicated the need to
improve coordination between operators. This
result consistently appeared in Part B, where
coordination received medium-to-low ratings. It
is essential to emphasise that coordination is not
only communication, but also a process of
synchronising schedules, capacities, and
information events between road, rail, and
maritime transport.
All that has been said so far leads to the
conclusion that poor coordination inevitably
results in longer waiting and dwell times for
goods in intermodal terminals. Therefore, these
observations and results confirm Hypothesis 2,
which posits that the level of coordination and
interaction among individual transport operators
directly affects the quality of intermodal
transport services.
Simultaneously, 47% of respondents
reported the need to expand infrastructure
modernisation, and another 38% reported the
need to improve railway infrastructure. Their
positioning as secondary constraints to effective
development shows the priority of
understanding and achieving efficiency.
Although improving and expanding transport
infrastructure is fundamental, it comes only
after efforts to better manage the existing
infrastructure. That is, the possibility of
expanding and improving infrastructure does
not exclude the problems of poor coordination,
which would inevitably arise at some point,
even after large-scale infrastructure
improvements. That is, the participants in the
study give significant priority to better
coordination and connectivity between
individual transport operators rather than
infrastructure investments, which are also
characterised by low coordination. This
conclusion confirms Hypothesis 3, which
identifies limitations in the available
infrastructure and the overall organisational
process for managing intermodal terminals as
the most important challenges to the effective
development of terminals.
To obtain greater depth and scope, the
quantitative study was supplemented with
qualitative data to provide a more expert
assessment of the critical points outlined in the
management and development of intermodal
terminals in Bulgaria. Seven semi-structured
interviews were conducted with proven
professionals whose main activities were the
management and operation of intermodal
terminals. The interviews lasted 10-15 minutes,
with questions sent in advance so that the
interviewees could prepare. Supplementary
questions were asked during the interview to
further clarify the expert's point of view.
Primary information on personal professional
observations, opinions, assessments, and
suggestions that the classic questionnaire could
not cover was collected and analysed.
The responses received were analysed
through thematic (content) analysis, with an
emphasis on recurring ideas and arguments
related to the potential, problems, and
opportunities for the development of intermodal
terminals in Bulgaria.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
14
Fig. 3. Responses to the Question “Which Improvements Are Most Important? (Multiple
Choices)”.
Question 1: In your personal opinion, is
there potential for growth of intermodal
transport in Bulgaria? Give your reasons.
The answers to the first question reveal a
widely held belief that Bulgaria has significant
potential for developing intermodal transport.
Most interviewees cited the country's
geostrategic location (serving as a crossroads
between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East) as
the primary argument, along with the presence of
major trans-European corridors. The fact that
there are opportunities to finance the construction
of trans-European corridors with community
funds is also not without attention. Most
interviewees also responded to the opportunity to
redirect freight flows from road to rail transport,
citing the benefits of reduced costs and smaller
environmental footprints. Some experts
emphasise that there is potential, but it remains
unused to its full capacity for many reasons,
mainly due to weak organisation and
insufficiently developed infrastructure. This
observation leads to the conclusion that the
growth in the development of intermodal
terminals currently depends mainly on improving
the management and coordination mechanisms in
the terminals. If this is drastically improved, the
demand should also increase significantly.
Question 2: Which city or region do you
think has the greatest potential for the
development of an intermodal logistics hub?
Why?
The expert survey revealed several leading
regions, including Plovdiv, Varna, Ruse, and
Sofia. It should also be noted that there are
significant differences between the above-
mentioned cities/regions in several aspects:
geographical location, existing terminal
infrastructure and its current capacity, and
opportunities to improve transport connectivity
and intermodality. At the same time, they all
have access to main transport corridors, are
included in the comprehensive TEN-T network,
and offer different opportunities to combine the
movement of goods across different modes of
transport.
1. Plovdiv (mentioned by most
interviewees).
Respondents specifically emphasised that
Plovdiv has several strong aspects that could
make it a leading intermodal logistics hub. First,
its geographical location is in the interior of the
country, which is part of the Orient – East Med
Corridor, connecting Central Europe, the
Balkans, Turkey, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The second is the presence of a well-developed
industrial zone (Trakia Industrial and Economic
Zone). The presence of a large number of
manufacturing and distribution companies in the
region should not be ignored, as this is a
prerequisite for increased interest in an
intermodal terminal. This creates a natural cargo
formation, a key factor in sustainable intermodal
terminals.
20
18
15
12
9
0 5 10 15 20 25
Increasing digitalisation and integration of information
systems
Improving coordination between operators (common
schedules, platforms)
Expanding/modernising terminal infrastructure
Improving railway infrastructure
Optimising administrative procedures
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
15
Good accessibility to the Trakia motorway
and the Plovdiv railway junction was also noted,
enabling the effective distribution of flows across
the country. Plovdiv is perceived as a logistics
hub of intra-national importance, with potential
for expansion into a regional distribution centre.
2. Varna and Burgas (port axes).
Interviewees emphasised that Black Sea
ports are entry and exit points for international
cargo flows, especially to Asia and the Black Sea
region. Varna is seen as more suitable for the
development of intermodality due to:
The presence of rail connectivity in the
immediate vicinity of the terminal.
The possibility of working with
containerised cargo.
The possibility of developing a “Sea +
Rail + Road” triage.
Varna has the potential for global
connectivity, but organisation and
synchronisation remain challenges.
3. Ruse (gateway to the Danube and
Central Europe).
Some respondents highlight Ruse because
of: river transport, rail and road; positioning on
the North-South corridor; the potential for
creating a distribution centre in the Balkans and
Central Europe. Ruse is a strategic “border” hub,
but its capacity is sensitive to seasonality and
infrastructure maintenance.
4. Sofia (dry terminal).
Some experts note that Sofia is a natural
terminal/ distribution hub. However, it is not
optimal for the primary processing of cargo
flows, as cargo is received after distribution has
already occurred. Sofia functions more as a
secondary hub than as a primary intermodal
centre. The responses indicate that the potential
for developing intermodal transport in Bulgaria is
not concentrated in a single city, but rather
distributed across a network. The logic of the
expert opinions is as follows:
Plovdiv functions as domestic national
hub, oriented towards distribution and industry.
Varna serves as international entry/exit
corridor.
Ruse acts as transit and cross-border
connection with Northern and Central Europe.
Sofia operates as distribution logistic
center with supporting functions.
This leads to the conclusion that the model
for developing intermodal terminals should be
decentralised, thereby excluding a single, larger
terminal serving the entire country.
Question 3: What do you think would lead
to the greatest improvement in the functioning
of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria?
The answers of the interviewed specialists
outline a clearly expressed and shared
understanding, which, on the one hand, reveals
coherence and, on the other hand, multi-lay
redness across the various aspects of improving
efficiency.
First, the view emerges that the qualitative
improvement of services provided by intermodal
terminals depends mainly on more effective
process organisation, as well as on higher levels
of cooperation and coordination among
individual transport operators. Investments in
infrastructure are also perceived as an
opportunity, but only if they are accompanied by
improved management of the processes provided
within intermodal terminals.
According to specialists, one of the most
logical and at the same time feasible solutions to
the outlined problem is the introduction of a
comprehensive solution through a single digital
platform. The objective is to provide, in real
time, the information available to all operators,
that is, all interested organisations that perform
operations within the logistics intermodal
transport centres.
According to the opinion of a large part of
the interviewees, at present, it is often necessary
to duplicate information; some of the information
is also on paper, and schedules have to be
updated manually, which is a prerequisite for
making errors, as a result of which the time of the
cargo's stay increases. Simultaneously, this
creates tension among all participating operators,
which can be easily avoided by introducing a
centralised, unified platform that monitors cargo
movement across all modes of transport and
intermodal terminals in real time. Therefore,
specialists have pointed out that full digital
integration, rather than merely the presence of
separate systems, would have the greatest
immediate effect.
A second leading group of proposals
focuses on enhancing communication and
coordination among operators.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
16
According to the interviewees, in many
cases, no clearly defined “coordination centre”
or role manages cargo flows and maintains up-
to-date schedules between modes. When a
shipment is delayed or equipment is temporarily
unavailable, the “domino” effect spreads
throughout the chain. Some interviewees
directly stated that improving coordination
could reduce downtime, even without any
physical investment.
The third area is improving operational
planning and capacity management. Some
respondents emphasised that terminals often
“react” to load rather than anticipate it. The
introduction of cargo flow forecasting, advanced
booking of terminal time slots, and dynamic
equipment planning is considered a key
mechanism for optimisation. The interviewed
specialists agreed that the most significant
improvement was not primarily related to
infrastructure but rather to its management. The
focus of development should be as follows:
Integrated digital systems.
Clear coordination channels.
Preventive operational planning.
The efficiency of intermodal terminals
starts not with the cranes, but with the data.
Question 4: What are the most common
communication problems between the different
actors in the intermodal process?
The answers from the interviewed
specialists indicate that communication problems
in intermodal transport are not due to a lack of
contact between the actors, but rather to a lack of
a clear structure and coordination mechanism.
Most respondents share that communication is
often carried out “point to point” (e.g., terminal
↔ carrier, or freight forwarder ↔ customer),
rather than being centralised and transparent for
all parties involved in the process.
This way of structuring the communication
process logically leads to the loss of some
information, data fragmentation, and different
versions of problem situations arising from the
different perspectives of the parties involved.
One of the problems outlined by the interviewed
specialists was the lack of coherence or
discrepancy in the schedules, affecting three key
parties: the railway operators; the road carriers;
and the teams at the terminals.
The lack of automated notifications to all
parties in the chain leads to delays that are
automatically transferred to the next operators in
the logistics chain. Some of the interviewees
described this as a major synchronisation
problem, as everyone waits for someone else to
confirm before taking action in turn.
Another common problem identified is the
need to duplicate information on various
documents, especially those related to customs
and forwarding. Some of the interviewees shared
that, very often, to continue the movement of
goods, they were forced to send the same data
through multiple channels, such as by phone, via
various internal systems, and Excel spreadsheets.
This undoubtedly increases the likelihood of
errors and the accumulation of time delays, as
well as unnecessary tension between responsible
institutions and transport operators. This problem
remains particularly pronounced in international
cargo transport, which requires complex logistics
and multiple parties along the transport chain.
Finally, a significant number of
interviewees explained that they were forced to
use “personal contacts” to resolve a problematic
situation, which was directly related to the lack
of a sufficiently transparent information system
that could be traced in real time by all interested
parties. This informal knowledge is practical in
the short term, but cannot be scaled and becomes
risky as volumes increase or staff change. The
concern is not a lack of communication, but
rather the absence of a standard system that
enables structured, synchronised, and shared
communication among all parties. Therefore, for
improvement, “more communication” is not
enough; an institutionalised coordination unit or
a digital solution is needed that unites the
participants around the same information flow.
This result directly supports Hypothesis 2, which
posits that coordination is a key factor in the
effectiveness of intermodal services.
Question 5: What technological or digital
solutions do you think would have the greatest
impact on reducing downtime?
The experts’ responses outline a consistent
trend as the need is not for more technology, but
for integrated and interconnected digital systems
that enable shared visibility and coordination in
real-time.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
17
Most interviewees stressed that currently,
the individual actors – terminal operators, rail
carriers, transport companies, and freight
forwarders – use different software solutions
that “do not talk to each other”.
This, in turn, requires additional effort,
such as manual data entry, re-entering records
multiple times across different software systems
used by different operators, and constant phone
confirmations to synchronise the operators'
actions. According to the interviewees, a
possible solution is to use a single digital
platform or portal to overcome current
inconveniences and problems. At the same time,
this platform would provide transparency and
traceability regarding:
Schedules for rail and road transport.
Currently available resources at the
terminal and planned ones.
Current data on the status and location
of containers.
Information on ongoing and completed
administrative procedures related to the required
documentation and customs procedures.
Such specialised software, in addition to
guaranteeing full traceability and transparency
for all interested and responsible organisations
(including ensuring everyone sees the same data
in real time), would allow for much more
accurate planning, including revisions to
individual slots, notifications when data are
updated, and changes to the schedule. All of the
above would enable a better and more
coordinated response to unexpected situations,
including delays.
Some of the interviewees believed that
switching to standardised electronic documents,
including electronic consignment notes (e-
CMR), would improve service, including faster
document flow. Some specialists go even
further. They cited foreign intermodal terminals
where RFID and automated container
recognition enable cargo document processing
without delays at entry/exit: HHLA Container
Terminal Altenwerder (Hamburg, Germany),
DP World London Gateway, Euromax Terminal
Rotterdam Cargo, and Beamer Terminal Calais
(France). Along with the practice in Europe, the
use of such technology in Bulgarian intermodal
terminals would significantly reduce errors and
optimise cargo processing.
These results directly confirm Hypothesis
1, which posits that digitalisation is one of the
most important factors in increasing intermodal
terminal efficiency.
Question 6: Give an example of a
successfully functioning intermodal terminal
(from Bulgaria or abroad). What do you think
distinguishes it and makes it effective?
Most of the answers to this question,
given by professionals, focus on the European
experience in building and managing intermodal
hubs, which are known and appreciated for their
exceptionally high levels of automation and
comprehensive digitalisation. The examples
mentioned are related to the intermodal
terminals in Rotterdam, Duisburg, Budapest,
and Constanta, and, in the Bulgarian context,
the intermodal terminal in Plovdiv (as a step in a
positive direction, but not yet with a fully
operational business model).
According to most interviewed specialists,
the common aspect of a successful terminal is,
first of all, centralised coordination and, as a
result, a clear distribution of roles among the
participating organisations. According to a
generalised understanding, a successful terminal
is not only a place where various cargoes are
processed. The professionals’ view is more
related to the much more important role of the
intermodal terminal as a coordination centre,
through which the entire logistics transport is
managed in real time. This should lead to good
planning by all participating organisations,
including improved capacity utilisation of the
intermodal terminal itself. This would also
minimise downtime and improve
synchronisation and trust between operators.
An important characteristic of successful
hubs is the presence of an integrated
information system that provides all operators
with a single operational picture in real time. As
has already been emphasised several times, this
will lead to better coherence in actions, avoiding
errors and the duplication of information
required for entry into several parallel systems,
as well as unnecessary checks, manual entry,
and verbal reconciliation of the data. According
to many interviewees, if the system works
successfully, it will allow information to
“travel” faster than cargo, enabling logistics
planning before the physical movement.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
18
The next main element that deserves to be
highlighted is the automated handling of cargo,
which includes various components: the use of
automatic cranes, container recognition systems
(OCR/RFID), and advanced time-slot booking.
According to the interviewees, automation
significantly reduces reliance on the human
factor while simultaneously making processes
more predictable, transparent, and clear. An
additional significant aspect is the reduction of
administrative burden and the potential for the
emergence of corrupt practices.
The analysis of interviews with seven
professionals in the field of intermodal transport
and intermodal terminals yields a relatively
uniform general perspective on development.
This is related to the geographical location and
the existing international transport corridors.
However, digital development and increased
automation in cargo management would lead to
significant improvements in the quality of
intermodal services.
Almost all interviews emphasise that the
most significant improvement with a tangible
effect is related to digital integration, not just
the introduction of software. The creation of a
single information and coordination platform
that would provide data to all interested
organisations in real time is undoubtedly a
necessary and inevitable step. The lack of
sufficient coordination and synchronisation, as
evidenced by poor communication between the
different operators, the accumulation of tension,
and mutual accusations in the event of a
problematic situation, has the potential to be
perceived as the main barrier to achieving the
efficiency of the intermodal terminal.
The responses indicate that successful
examples from abroad are distinguished not by
the scale of the infrastructure, but by the
organisation and digital management of flows,
which make processes predictable and
controllable. This means that the path to
development in Bulgaria is achievable and not
associated with significant capital investments,
but rather with targeted changes in
management, coordination, and information
exchange. Interviews revealed that intermodal
efficiency entails increased connectivity,
transparency, and a unified logistical
framework among operators.
5. Discussion.
The results of the analysis indicate that the
efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria is
insufficient and is not solely due to the lack of
basic infrastructure. Along with improving
infrastructure, equally serious work should be
done on the organisational and operational
factors determining the efficiency of business
processes and operations performed in the
terminals. It is important to note that the
existing terminals are already integrated into the
TEN-T network, as well as that there is a clear
strategic and political vision for their long-term
development, including ways to secure
financing for infrastructure modernisation
(approved and effective strategic documents and
implementation of projects under operational
programs financed by European funds).
At the same time, however, the lowest
values of estimated efficiency are attributed to
the lack of good coordination between the
various participants and the duration of cargo
detention. This result leads to the justified
conclusion that the performance of intermodal
terminals depends not only on the built
infrastructure (as a basic condition) but also on
the quality of the processes performed.
This reflects the quality of interactions
among various operators, carriers, and logistics
intermediaries. In this sense, digitalisation is
recognised as a key factor that can lead to an
increase in the efficiency of operations and
processes performed at terminals. The results
clearly show that a higher level of digitalisation
and digital integration of systems leads to better
coordination and a shorter time required for
cargo processing. This, in turn, provides a clear
indication of the possibilities for enhancing
operational efficiency. The specificity of digital
tools enables real-time exchange of information.
This, in turn, leads to increased transparency in
the logistics chain and a reduction in uncertainty
during the planning and implementation of
transport operations. It should also be noted that
digitalisation is an essential, yet insufficient,
condition for improving efficiency.
Digitalisation must be consistently
implemented, inclusive, and accepted in the
daily work of all participants involved in
various intermodal operations.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
19
Coordination among stakeholders is
crucial to achieving high efficiency at
intermodal terminals. The observed
relationship between low levels of coordination
and longer delays in cargo movement
highlights the importance of coordination
capabilities and the full utilisation of
management mechanisms and integrated
operational processes.
This result underlines the conclusions
drawn in the specialised literature, which
focuses on the capabilities of network
management, coordination efforts, and
institutional coherence in intermodal systems.
The insufficient coordination among various
stakeholders and all participants in intermodal
transport can neutralise its main advantages,
even with modern, relevant infrastructure and
potential technological solutions.
From a practical perspective, the study's
results highlight the need for a more holistic
approach to the development of intermodal
transport, particularly at intermodal terminals.
In this sense, investments aimed at expanding
terminal infrastructure and capacity are a
fundamental element, but they cannot lead to
significant improvements in efficiency.
A much more complex approach should
be taken, and infrastructure projects and efforts
to expand, modernise, and develop terminals
must be combined with measures to improve
coordination and digital integrity. For logistics
operators, this may require implementing
shared digital platforms, harmonised data
exchange standards, and joint planning
practices. From a public policy perspective, the
results support national and European
strategies that emphasise digitalisation,
interoperability, and coordination among actors
as essential tools for promoting intermodal
transport and achieving a modal shift towards
more sustainable freight transport.
6. Conclusions.
The level of development and overall
operation of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria.
Overall, the data indicate an average level of
terminal efficiency, which, according to the
respondents, is attributed to poor coordination
among the various participants responsible for
the chain, resulting in longer cargo dwell time.
Infrastructural constraints are also
important, but they remain relatively in the
background, overshadowed by the partial
implementation of digitalisation and the lack
of comprehensive digital solutions. Proper and
skilful integrated information management,
especially given the country’s strategic
geographic location, will lead to rapid
improvement in the overall efficiency of
intermodal terminals.
In the course of the study, the initially
developed hypotheses were confirmed,
namely, a higher level of digitalisation will
increase the efficiency of intermodal terminals
in the country; more skilful coordination
between the various stakeholders will lead to
shorter goods dwell times at the terminals; and
the main limitations to the full development of
intermodal terminals are related to the quality
of infrastructure and the lack of sufficient
organisational and managerial capacity.
The main limitations of this study are the
small sample size (32 respondents) and the
purposive sampling used to recruit participants
(i.e., lack of randomness). Simultaneously, the
limitation is also related to the territorial scope
(the data refer only to Bulgaria). Digital
integration is emerging as more strategically
important for the current development of
intermodal terminals than traditional
infrastructure.
A single digital system/platform is
recommended to improve information
exchange, coordination among participants in
the logistics process, and integration among
operators. Standardisation of e-CRM
documents and the use of full automation
capabilities (OCR, RFID, and TOS
integration) are also recommended.
The following recommendations can be
addressed to managers of intermodal terminals
to improve their efficiency significantly. First,
introduce a single digital data exchange
platform. This platform provides all available
information related to reservations, schedules,
additional specific documents, and cargo
status.
Second, to standardise operational
procedures (clear time slots, rules for reception
and dispatch), necessary accompanying
documents, and complete document flow.
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
20
Subsequently, it is beneficial to consider
a coordinator responsible for synchronising the
activities between the different railway
operators, carriers, and forwarders. Active
dwell time management should also be
introduced, which should include the analysis
of the so-called bottlenecks, continuous
monitoring, and tracking of KPIs.
Finally, it is necessary to allocate time
and resources to train staff and partners
involved in intermodal processes to work with
digital systems and coordination protocols.
Conflict of Interest Statement.
The authors declare that there is no
conflict of interest.
Funding Disclosure.
The research was funded by the Research
and Development sector of the Technical
University of Sofia, project “Research on the
analysis and evaluation of designing and
developing intermodal logistics connections in
the context of the Green Deal”, contract №
252PD0017-15.
REFERENCES
Alaei, S., Mommens, K., Durán-Micco, J., & Macharis, C. (2024). Evaluating Logistics Companies’
Readiness towards Adopting Synchromodality in the Flanders Region. Sustainability, 16(11),
4834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114834
Anguelov, K., & Kenova, R. (2018). Research and evaluation of factors and sub-factors that affect
the timeliness and reliability of deliveries and their importance for the efficiency of the
logistic processes. In 2018 International Conference on High Technology for Sustainable
Development (HiTech) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HiTech.2018.8566513
Beškovnik, B., & Golnar, M. (2020). Evaluating the environmental impact of complex intermodal
transport chains. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 19(7), 1131–1141.
https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2020.107
Caris, A., Macharis, C., & Janssens, G. K. (2008). Planning Problems in Intermodal Freight
Transport: Accomplishments and Prospects. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(3),
277–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802086397
Dimitrov, I., & Gigov, R. (2022). Increasing the supply chain competitiveness of Bulgarian
companies by applying blockchain technology. In 2022 V International Conference on High
Technology for Sustainable Development (HiTech) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HiTech56937.2022.10145534
European Commission. (2024). Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/infrastructure-and-investment/trans-european-
transport-network-ten-t_en
Giusti, R., Manerba, D., Bruno, G., & Tadei, R. (2019). Synchromodal logistics: An overview of
critical success factors, enabling technologies, and open research issues. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 129, 92–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.07.009
Goodarzi, A. H., Jabbarzadeh, A., Fahimnia, B., & Paquet, M. (2024). Evaluating the sustainability
and resilience of an intermodal transport network leveraging consolidation strategies.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 188, 103616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103616
Hervás-Peralta, M., Poveda-Reyes, S., Molero, G. D., Santarremigia, F. E., & Pastor-Ferrando, J.-P.
(2019). Improving the Performance of Dry and Maritime Ports by Increasing Knowledge
about the Most Relevant Functionalities of the Terminal Operating System
(TOS). Sustainability, 11(6), 1648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061648
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
21
Hoffelner, M., Woschank, M., & Jöbstl, L. (2024). Sustainable aspects of intermodal transport: A
systematic literature review on the current state. In F. Concli, L. Maccioni, R. Vidoni, & D. T.
Matt (Eds.), Latest advancements in mechanical engineering (ISIEA 2024; Lecture Notes in
Networks and Systems, Vol. 1125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70465-9_16
Ilieva, R., Anguelov, K., & Nikolov, Y. (2019). Mathematical algorithms for artificial intelligence.
In V. Pasheva, N. Popivanov, & G. Venkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th International
Conference on Application of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics (AMEE’19). AIP
Conference Proceedings, 2172, Article 110015. AIP Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5133618
Karaś, A. (2024). The role of intermodal transport in the decarbonization of seaports. European
Research Studies, XXVII(2), 1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/3873
Khaslavskaya, A., & Roso, V. (2020). Dry ports: research outcomes, trends, and future
implications. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 22(2), 265–292.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00152-9
Kine, H. Z., Gebresenbet, G., Tavasszy, L., & Ljungberg, D. (2022). Digitalization and Automation
in Intermodal Freight Transport and Their Potential Application for Low-Income Countries.
Future Transportation, 2(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2010003
Krachunov, H. A., Ovcharova, S., & Maruniak, E. O. (2021). Logistic potential for ensuring
sustainable development of Bulgaria and Western Balkans. Ukrainian Geographical Journal,
2021(4), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2021.04.039
Lättilä, L., Henttu, V., & Hilmola, O.-P. (2013). Hinterland operations of sea ports do matter: Dry
port usage effects on transportation costs and CO₂ emissions. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 55, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.007
Lee, E. (2015). Spatial analysis for an intermodal terminal to support agricultural logistics: A case
study in the upper great plains. Management Research Review, 38(3), 299–319.
https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-06-2013-0131
López-Acevedo, F. J., Herrero, M. J., Escavy Fernández, J. I., & González Bravo, J. (2024).
Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions in the Transport of Aggregates by Switching from
Road-Only Transport to an Intermodal Rail/Road System. Sustainability, 16(22), 9871.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229871
Mata-Lima, H., Galuzzi Silva, M. C., Emilien, M., Silveira, A. P., Sacht, H. M., Vettorazzi, E., &
Morgado-Dias, F. (2019). Identifying and ranking environmental aspects of a dry port in Foz
do Iguaçu city, Paraná‐Brazil. Environmental Quality Management, 29(1), 57–62.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21652
Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria. (2022). National plan for
the development of combined transport in the Republic of Bulgaria until 2030.
https://www.mtc.government.bg/bg/category/170/nacionalen-plan-za-razvitie-na-
kombiniraniya-transport-v-republika-bulgariya-do-2030-g-0
Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria. (2017). Integrated transport
strategy for the period until 2030 (Decision No. 336/23 June 2017).
https://www.mtc.government.bg/en/category/42/integrated-transport-strategy-period-until-
2030
National Railway Infrastructure Company. (2017). Official Public documents and reports on the
Construction of an intermodal terminal in the South Central Planning Region in Bulgaria.
https://www.rail-infra.bg/bg/167
Petrov, K., & Tsonkov, N. (2023). Development of Bulgarian Black Sea municipalities in the
context of European integration. European Integration Studies, 1(17), 83–97.
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.17.34275
Economics Ecology Socium e-ISSN 2786-8958
Volume 10 Issue 2 (2026) ISSN-L 2616-7107
22
Popov, G., Anguelov, K., Angelova, M., & Popova, A. (2019). Mathematical approach for
determining the optimal size of a logistic unit in case of high transport risk. In Proceedings of
the 45th International Conference on Application of Mathematics in Engineering and
Economics (AMEE’19): AIP Conference Proceedings, 2172(1), 110018.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5133621
Raza, Z., Woxenius, J., Vural, C. A., & Lind, M. (2023). Digital transformation of maritime
logistics: Exploring trends in the liner shipping segment. Computers in Industry, 145, 103811.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103811
Rodrigues, T. de A., Mota, C. M. de M., Ojiako, U., & Dweiri, F. (2021). Assessing the objectives
of dry ports: main issues, challenges and opportunities in Brazil. International Journal of
Logistics Management, 32(1), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-10-2020-0386
Stoykov, S. (2018). Scientific knowledge – source of a competitive advantage in security. In 2018
International Conference on High Technology for Sustainable Development (HiTECH 2018).
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HiTech.2018.8566548
Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Roso, V., & Brnjac, N. (2019). Planning an intermodal terminal for the
sustainable transport networks. Sustainability, 11(15), 4102.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154102
Terminali AD. (2025), Intermodal Terminal in Plovdiv. http://terminali.bg
Tsonkov, N., & Kostev, R. (2023). GIS-based model for the assessment of the smart sustainable
development of the municipalities of Northeast Bulgaria. International Journal on Information
Technologies and Security, 15(4), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.59035/mbly5833
Turi, A., & Boglut, G.-I. (2024). Intermodal transportation challenges in eastern Europe: Case study
of Romania. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 18(1),
2018–2031. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2024-0171
Varese, E., Bux, C., Amicarelli, V., & Lombardi, M. (2022). Assessing Dry Ports’ Environmental
Sustainability. Environments, 9(9), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9090117
Vural, C., Roso, V., Halldórsson, Á., Ståhle, G., & Yaruta, M. (2020). Can digitalization mitigate
barriers to intermodal transport? An exploratory study. Research in Transportation Business
& Management, 37(100525), 100525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100525
Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., & Lambert, B. (2011). The directional development of intermodal
freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1379–
1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.010
Witte, P. A., Wiegmans, B. W., van Oort, F. G., & Spit, T. J. M. (2012). Chokepoints in corridors:
Perspectives on bottlenecks in the European transport network. Research in Transportation
Business & Management, 5, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.10.001
Yadollahi, Z., Gharibi, R., Dashti, R., & Torabi Jahromi, A. (2024). Optimal energy management of
energy hub: A reinforcement learning approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 102, 105179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105179
Zain, R. M., Salleh, N. H. M., Zaideen, I. M. M., Menhat, M. N. S., & Jeevan, J. (2022). Dry ports:
Redefining the concept of seaport-city integrations. Transportation Engineering, 8, 100112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.treng.2022.100112
Zajac, M., Rožić, T., Swieboda-Kutera, J., & Starčević, M. (2025). Digital Planning Tools in
Intermodal Transport: Evidence from Poland. Logistics, 9(3), 94.
https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics9030094
|
| id | oai:ojs2.www.ees-journal.com:article-340 |
| institution | Economics Ecology Socium |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-07-01T01:00:35Z |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Dr. Viktor Koval |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | ees-journalcom/24/97e3634580ce866a58986ea0228abd24.pdf |
| spelling | oai:ojs2.www.ees-journal.com:article-3402026-06-30T15:36:44Z The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics Angelova, Miglena Tranakieva, Kremena Digitalisation, Intermodal Terminals, Logistics Hubs, Supply Chain, Transport Infrastructure. Digitalisation, Intermodal Terminals, Logistics Hubs, Supply Chain, Transport Infrastructure. Background. Modern logistics is impossible without the construction and development of intermodal logistics hubs, the effectiveness of which largely depends on the level of digitalisation and the quality of operational coordination, which are key factors in their competitiveness. Purpose. This study aims to analyse the role and importance of modern intermodal logistics terminals in achieving efficiency in the integration of transport networks and to evaluate the impact of digitalisation and organisational coordination on the efficiency of intermodality in Bulgaria. Findings. The analysis revealed average terminal efficiency, primarily due to insufficient coordination among supply chain participants and increased cargo idle time. Infrastructure limitations are less critical than partial digitalisation and the lack of comprehensive digital solutions. The overall efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria is rated as average, with 47% of respondents rating it only as “satisfactory”. Weak coordination between operators (66% of participants) and insufficient digital integration were cited as key issues. The latter point is supported by the fact that 69% of specialists rated the current level of digitalisation as average or low, and 63% consider its improvement a key development priority. The lack of coordination and digital solutions directly correlates with operational losses, as cargo dwell times reach 3-6 hours; however, with better organisation, this can be reduced to 1-3 hours. According to 82% of respondents, these delays lead to increased logistics costs. The results confirm that the development of digitalisation is the foundation for improved coordination and operational efficiency, making it a key factor in optimisation. Implications. Digital integration is emerging as a strategically more important factor in the current development of intermodal terminals, and skilled integrated information management, especially against the backdrop of the country's strategic geographical location, will lead to rapid opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of intermodal terminals. Standardisation of electronic customer relationship management (e-CRM) documents and the use of full automation capabilities, including optical character recognition (OCR), radio-frequency identification (RFID), and terminal operating system (TOS) integration, are also recommended for future studies. Background. Modern logistics is impossible without the construction and development of intermodal logistics hubs, the effectiveness of which largely depends on the level of digitalisation and the quality of operational coordination, which are key factors in their competitiveness. Purpose. This study aims to analyse the role and importance of modern intermodal logistics terminals in achieving efficiency in the integration of transport networks and to evaluate the impact of digitalisation and organisational coordination on the efficiency of intermodality in Bulgaria. Findings. The analysis revealed average terminal efficiency, primarily due to insufficient coordination among supply chain participants and increased cargo idle time. Infrastructure limitations are less critical than partial digitalisation and the lack of comprehensive digital solutions. The overall efficiency of intermodal terminals in Bulgaria is rated as average, with 47% of respondents rating it only as “satisfactory”. Weak coordination between operators (66% of participants) and insufficient digital integration were cited as key issues. The latter point is supported by the fact that 69% of specialists rated the current level of digitalisation as average or low, and 63% consider its improvement a key development priority. The lack of coordination and digital solutions directly correlates with operational losses, as cargo dwell times reach 3-6 hours; however, with better organisation, this can be reduced to 1-3 hours. According to 82% of respondents, these delays lead to increased logistics costs. The results confirm that the development of digitalisation is the foundation for improved coordination and operational efficiency, making it a key factor in optimisation. Implications. Digital integration is emerging as a strategically more important factor in the current development of intermodal terminals, and skilled integrated information management, especially against the backdrop of the country's strategic geographical location, will lead to rapid opportunities to improve the overall efficiency of intermodal terminals. Standardisation of electronic customer relationship management (e-CRM) documents and the use of full automation capabilities, including optical character recognition (OCR), radio-frequency identification (RFID), and terminal operating system (TOS) integration, are also recommended for future studies. Dr. Viktor Koval 2026-06-30 Article Article Peer-reviewed Article application/pdf https://ees-journal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/340 10.61954/2616-7107/2026.10.2-1 Economics Ecology Socium; Vol. 10 No. 2 (2026): Economics Ecology Socium; 1-22 Економіка Екологія Соціум; Том 10 № 2 (2026): Economics Ecology Socium; 1-22 2616-7107 2616-7107 10.61954/2616-7107/2026.10.2 en https://ees-journal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/340/292 Copyright (c) 2026 Economics Ecology Socium https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
| spellingShingle | Digitalisation Intermodal Terminals Logistics Hubs Supply Chain Transport Infrastructure. Angelova, Miglena Tranakieva, Kremena The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title | The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title_full | The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title_fullStr | The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title_short | The Impact of Digitalisation and Operational Coordination on Transport Efficiency in Intermodal Logistics |
| title_sort | impact of digitalisation and operational coordination on transport efficiency in intermodal logistics |
| topic | Digitalisation Intermodal Terminals Logistics Hubs Supply Chain Transport Infrastructure. |
| topic_facet | Digitalisation Intermodal Terminals Logistics Hubs Supply Chain Transport Infrastructure. Digitalisation Intermodal Terminals Logistics Hubs Supply Chain Transport Infrastructure. |
| url | https://ees-journal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/340 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT angelovamiglena theimpactofdigitalisationandoperationalcoordinationontransportefficiencyinintermodallogistics AT tranakievakremena theimpactofdigitalisationandoperationalcoordinationontransportefficiencyinintermodallogistics AT angelovamiglena impactofdigitalisationandoperationalcoordinationontransportefficiencyinintermodallogistics AT tranakievakremena impactofdigitalisationandoperationalcoordinationontransportefficiencyinintermodallogistics |