INTERMODALITY: WHEN THE COST IS NO LONGER BEING COMPETED ON THE ROAD, BUT IN COORDINATION

In logistics, transportation is often discussed as if it were simply a rate decision. In reality, the gap between a competitive operation and a vulnerable one is rarely defined by a few pesos per kilometer. It is defined by the ability to coordinate flows, reduce variability, and keep moving when cost structures shift. That is where intermodal transport stops being a “specialized option” and becomes a strategy.

Intermodal means combining two or more modes under one operating logic. In Mexico, the most common setup is truck plus rail, and in certain corridors maritime legs are also integrated. The goal is not only to move freight, but to move it more efficiently by using each mode where it performs best: trucking for first and last mile flexibility, and rail for long distance scale.

This matters more when structural costs remain elevated. Throughout 2025, Mexico’s average diesel price hovered around MXN 26 per liter, sustaining pressure on road freight economics and making any strategy that reduces truck kilometers more valuable, as long as service does not break.

‍

Why intermodal is becoming relevant again

Transport cost is not static. Fuel, tolls, and carrier availability shift, and capacity does not always follow demand growth. In that context, intermodal improves cost stability per unit over long routes, because rail delivers scale efficiencies that trucking struggles to match consistently.

Intermodal also absorbs volume during peak periods. In practice, the most expensive risk is often not paying slightly higher rates, but failing to secure capacity and then buying urgency: premium shipments, improvised routings, wider transit variability, and unplanned inventory in transit.

The rail system’s footprint supports this logic. Mexico’s rail network is strategic, and public information reports the Sistema Ferroviario Mexicano (SFM) at 28,864 km of track, with a major portion operated under concessions. The real challenge is connecting that backbone to daily execution: terminals, yards, drayage, and appointment windows.

‍

Intermodal in Mexico: distance and volume make the case

Rail competes best when distance and volume are present. Official indicators illustrate the scale: in 2024, rail freight recorded 132.686 million tons (annual) and 95.764 billion ton-kilometers, with an average distance close to 721 km.

For 2025, the same source reports (preliminary) January to September totals of 62.209 billion ton-kilometers and an average distance near 725 km. That distance profile makes intermodal structurally relevant for multiple sectors, provided planning discipline exists.

Cross-border flows reinforce the point: public rail information indicates that a large share of foreign trade rail freight moves through land borders, highlighting intermodal’s role as the connector between production regions, gateways, and consumption hubs.

‍

Where savings are created, and where they can disappear

Intermodal savings do not appear automatically. The financial benefit typically comes from lower cost per ton-kilometer on the long leg and fewer truck kilometers overall. But those gains can vanish if time and terminal coordination are not controlled. Intermodal rarely “fails on the rail”; it fails at the edges: missed appointments, container allocation issues, documentation delays, or extra dwell time.

A single additional day stopped is not only a demurrage issue. It also impacts working capital and triggers downstream costs: stockouts, delayed orders, and rescue decisions that are often more expensive than the original rate difference.

This is why intermodal is less a “rate” and more an “execution system.” When managed well, it can materially reduce cost versus all-highway long hauls and improve planning reliability. When managed poorly, it is paid back through delays, in-transit inventory, and reactive spending.

Market trend data reflects increasing relevance: intermodal transport in Mexico has been reported growing at roughly 2.5% per year between 2019 and 2025.

‍

What changes inside the warehouse

Intermodal adoption reshapes warehouse planning. It requires consolidation, earlier load building, weight and distribution discipline, and inventory synchronization with departure schedules. This pushes operational maturity: order cutoffs, wave planning, documentation readiness, and yard to dock coordination.

It also changes inventory dynamics. Without transit planning, in-transit freight becomes an “invisible warehouse,” tying up working capital and affecting availability. Efficient intermodal therefore depends on visibility: knowing what is moving, where it is, and when it will arrive.

Technology helps only if governance exists. A TMS (Transportation Management System) supports planning and monitoring; a WMS (Warehouse Management System) drives consolidation; and EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) reduces document friction across parties. The goal is not “having tools,” but operating under the same clock and the same data.

‍

Capacity, investment, and corridors

Intermodal is also being shaped by investment. CPKC (Canadian Pacific Kansas City), for example, has reinforced its intermodal and refrigerated focus in Mexico, with around US$240 million in announced investments for 2025 to strengthen services and infrastructure. This matters because intermodal becomes mainstream only when terminals, equipment, frequencies, and capacity support it.

‍

Intermodal wins on stability, not on pure speed

Intermodal is not for every product or every lane. It works best with stable volume, long distance, and strong planning discipline. But when those conditions exist, it becomes a way to protect logistics against cost and capacity volatility.

‍

In transport, competition is no longer only about speed, but about system design

In a market where cost pressure coexists with strict service expectations, advantage is built through coordination without losing control. Intermodal is not magic, it is method: windows, visibility, and execution discipline.

In logistics, stability is often the difference between delivering with margin or delivering with losses. And in 2025, that difference is increasingly decisive.

‍