Contributions of Women to Multimodal Transportation Systems

  • Heather NachtmannEmail author
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)


Multimodal transportation systems are critical infrastructure components that are essential to promoting and preserving economic health and general societal welfare. These assets facilitate efficient movement of people, goods, and services, and their operations are highly interconnected with numerous other infrastructure systems including communications, emergency response, energy, water supply, agricultural production, and manufacturing. Having 17 years of experience working within the multimodal transportation community, I am continually impressed with the female academics and practitioners who are working to improve our multimodal transportation system. This chapter will focus on major contributions I and other women have made in multimodal transportation research and the impacts these women have had on my career.


  1. Atman CJ, Nair I, Nachtmann H (1994) Do engineers and humanities majors perceive STS issues differently? In: American Society for Engineering Education annual conference proceedings, June 1994Google Scholar
  2. Atman CJ, Chimka JR, Bursic KM, Nachtmann H (1999) A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Des Stud 20(2):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baroud H, Ramirez-Marquez JE, Barker K, Rocco CM (2014a) Stochastic measures of network resilience: applications to waterway commodity flows. Risk Anal 34:1317–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baroud H, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2014b) Importance measures for inland waterway network resilience. Transport Res E-Log 62:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delgado Hidalgo L, Nachtmann H, Tong J (2015) Analytic hierarchy approach to inland waterway cargo prioritization and terminal allocation. In: American Society for Engineering Management conference proceedings, October 2015Google Scholar
  6. Egbue O, Long S, Samaranayake VA (2017) Mass deployment of sustainable transportation: evaluation of factors that influence electric vehicle adoption. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19(7):1927–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrokhvar L (2016) Strategic planning models and approaches to improve distribution planning in the industrial gas industry. Dissertation, Virginia TechGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2010) Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans: comprehensive preparedness guide. Report FEMA CPG 101 V2, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Maritime Commission, Bureau of Trade Analysis (2015) U.S. container port congestion & related international supply chain issues: causes, consequences & challengesGoogle Scholar
  10. Gedik R, Rainwater C, Nachtmann H, Pohl E (2016) Analysis of a parallel machine scheduling problem with sequence dependent setup times and job availability intervals. Eur J Oper Res 251(2):640–650MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hernandez S, Tok A, Ritchie SG (2016) Multiple-classifier systems for truck body classification at WIM sites with inductive signature data. Transport Res C Emerg Technol 68:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirac E, Milburn AB, Wardell CL (2015) The traveling salesman problem with imperfect information with application in disaster relief tour planning. IIE Trans 47(8):783–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li Z, Rossetti MD, Nachtmann H (2003) WebShipCost—an intermodal transportation web-based application. In: Proceedings of the 2003 industrial engineering research conference, May 2003Google Scholar
  15. Li Z, Nachtmann H, Rossetti MD (2004) WebShipCost—quantifying risk in intermodal transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2004 industrial engineering research conference, May 2004Google Scholar
  16. Li Z, Rossetti MD, Nachtmann H (2006) WebShipCost—risk analysis with a geographical information system. In: Proceedings of the 2006 industrial engineering research conference, May 2006Google Scholar
  17. Long S, Grasmann S (2012) Strategic decision model for evaluating inland freight hub locations. Res Transp Bus Manag 5:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Madadi M, Holmer R, Zhang S, Nachtmann H (2016) Dynamic decision modeling for inland waterway disruptions. In: Proceedings of the 2016 industrial and systems engineering research conferenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Nachtmann H (2002) Economic evaluation of the impact of waterways on the state of Arkansas. In: Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center final reportGoogle Scholar
  20. Nachtmann H, Mitchell KN (2012) Systems optimization within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ navigation program. In: Proceedings of the 2012 industrial engineering research conference, May 2012Google Scholar
  21. Nachtmann H, Needy KL (2001) Fuzzy activity based costing: a methodology for handling uncertainty in activity based costing systems. Eng Econ 46(4):245–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nachtmann H, Needy KL (2003) Methods for handling uncertainty in activity based costing. Eng Econ 48(3):259–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nachtmann H, Pohl EA (2011) The inland waterway transportation systems’ role in response and recovery. J Homel SecurGoogle Scholar
  24. Nachtmann H, Pohl EA (2013a) Emergency medical services via waterways. Risk Manage 15(4):225–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nachtmann H, Pohl EA (2013b) Transportation readiness assessment and valuation for emergency logistics. Int J Emerg Manag 9(1):18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nachtmann H, Pohl EA, Farrokhvar L (2012) Decision support for inland waterways emergency response. Eng Manag J 24(4):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nachtmann H, Mitchell KN, Rainwater CE, Gedik R, Pohl EA (2014) Optimal dredge fleet scheduling with environmental work windows. Transp Res Rec 2426:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nachtmann H, Boudham O, Oztanriseven F (2015) Regional economic impact study of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. In: Arkansas Department of Transportation final reportGoogle Scholar
  29. Nurre SG, Cavdaroglu B, Mitchell JE, Sharkey TC, Wallace WA (2012) Restoring infrastructure systems: an integrated network design and scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 223(3):794–806MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nurre SG, Bent R, Pan F, Sharkey TC (2014) Managing operations of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) exchange stations for use with a smart grid. Energy Policy 67:364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oztanriseven F, Nachtmann H (2017) Economic impact analysis of inland waterway disruption response. Eng Econ 62(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oztanriseven F, Nachtmann H (2018) Modeling dynamic behavior of navigable inland waterways. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  33. Oztanriseven F, Perez-Lespier L, Long S, Nachtmann H (2014) A review of system dynamics in maritime transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 industrial engineering research conference, May–June 2014Google Scholar
  34. Pérez-Lespier L (2013) Examining the efficiency of multimodal transportation systems: a systems dynamics approach. Thesis, Missouri University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  35. Rangarajan K, Long S, Tobias A, Keister M (2013) The role of stakeholder engagement in the development of sustainable rail infrastructure systems. Res Transp Bus Manag 7:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, ColumbuszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Stich B (2014) Intermodal transportation disruption and reroute simulation framework. Transp Res Rec 2410:150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stich B, Griffith K (2014) Ending transportation neglect in America. Public Works Manag Policy 19(4):328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tong J, Nachtmann H (2013) Multi-attribute decision model for cargo prioritization within inland waterway transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 industrial engineering research conference, May–June 2013Google Scholar
  40. Tong J, Nachtmann H (2017) Cargo prioritization and terminal allocation problem for inland waterway disruptions. Marit Econ Log 19(3):403–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tong J, Nachtmann H, Pohl EA (2015) Value-focused assessment of cargo value decreasing rate. Eng Manag J 27(2):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Hannibal locks and dam: causes and consequences of lock closures 21 October to 16 November 2005.
  43. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2018) Navigation. Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (2017) Waterborne commerce of the United States calendar year—2016: part 5, national summaries. CEIWR-WCUS-16-5Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Department of Transportation (2017) Beyond Traffic 2045Google Scholar
  46. Zhu S, Levinson DM (2012) Disruptions to transportation networks: a review. In: Network reliability in practice. Springer, New York, p 5–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations