MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT IN VIETNAM IN
\nRELATIONSHIP WITH ASEAN COUNTRIES
\nA CASE STUDY OF ROUTES THAILAND \u2013
\nCAMBODIA \u2013 VIETNAM
\nAND LAOS \u2013 SINGAPORE<\/p>\n
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/p>\n
ABSTRACT
\n\uf09c\uf07b\uf09d
\nTitle of Dissertation: Multimodal transport in Vietnam in the relationship with ASEAN
\ncountries.
\nDegree: MSc.
\nEach country has its own resources, which that country can take advantage of to create
\nits own strategy. The conditions to develop multimodal transport are one of the factors to
\ndevelop the economy. There are some countries that have many chances to develop
\ndoor-to-door services with modern port systems as well as infrastructure, but there are
\nsome land-locked countries which have difficulty to exporting and importing cargoes to
\nand from other countries. This leads to a requirement for transit cargo in a third country
\nand creates the demand to combine many modes of transport to save time and cost as
\nwell as take the advantages of their own country.
\nThe objective of this research is to analyze the strong points and drawbacks of Vietnam
\nin developing multimodal transport with neighboring countries in the ASEAN region.
\nBesides the cooperation, the competition among ASEAN countries is also emphasized.
\nThe main objective of this research is to find the best combination of modes to transport
\ncargoes within the ASEAN region, especially transport to and from Vietnam and the
\npossibility that Vietnam can be chosen as a hub port for the ASEAN region in the future.
\nThe research is based on the minimum of total costs, total transit time and total transit
\ntime variability principle to find the best link between the countries. The research took
\ntwo routes Laos \u2013 Singapore and Thailand \u2013 Cambodia \u2013 Vietnam as examples by using
\nv
\nsuitable methods to find the best solution for shippers and multimodal transport
\noperators when choosing suitable means of transport to ship cargoes from their origins to
\ntheir destinations.
\nThe concluding chapter examines the results of the zero-one goal program, and gives
\nsome suggestions about potential routes in the future.
\nKeywords: multimodal transport, Vietnam, cooperation, ASEAN countries, model.
\nvi
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS
\n\uf09c\uf07b\uf09d
\nContents
\nDECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………ii
\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………….iii
\nABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv
\nTABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………..vi
\nLIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………….ix
\nLIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………………..xi
\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………xii
\nCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………..1
\n1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
\n1.2 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
\n1.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
\n1.4 Structure of research ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
\nCHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………………………….7
\n2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
\n2.2 Model applied to solve multimodal transport mode choice problem …………………. 9
\n2.2.1 Deciding main factors influencing the mode choice determination of
\nsuppliers and shippers…………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
\n2.2.2 Model used to solve multimodal transport choice……………………………………. 11
\nCHAPTER 3: MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM IN VIETNAM…………………16
\n3.1 Introducing the Vietnamese multimodal transport system……………………………… 16
\n3.1.1 Legal documents and legislation concerning multimodal transport in
\nVietnam 16
\n3.1.2 Introducing Vietnamese multimodal transport operation enterprises………. 18
\nvii
\n3.2 Multimodal transport infrastructure and multimodal transport operation
\nsituation of Vietnamese enterprises………………………………………………………………………….. 21
\n3.2.1 The real situation of transport infrastructure (each modes of transport:
\nroad, rail, sea, inland water way and air) in Vietnam as a link of multimodal transport
\n21
\n3.2.2 The strengths and weaknesses of multimodal transport business of
\nVietnamese enterprises………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
\n3.2.3 Comment on multimodal transport business in Vietnam…………………………. 34
\n3.3 Development strategy for multimodal transport system in Vietnam according to
\nport development planning and Sustainable Development of Transport System
\n(VITRANSS2) of Prime Minister (Prime Minister, 2009)……………………………………………. 34
\n3.3.1 The goals and trend to develop multimodal transport system in Vietnam
\nfrom now to the year 2020 ……………………………………………………………………………………. 34
\n3.3.2 Strategy in developing transportation in Vietnam…………………………………… 36
\n3.4 Suggesting methods to achieve those goals …………………………………………………….. 38
\n3.4.1 Government has given some methods to support transportation……………… 38
\n3.4.2 Creating more capital to develop transport infrastructure……………………… 39
\n3.4.3 Developing transport industry policies …………………………………………………… 40
\n3.4.4 International integration and competition policies………………………………….. 40
\n3.4.5 Organization innovation, administration reform policy…………………………… 40
\n3.4.6 Applying new technology and science policy …………………………………………… 41
\n3.4.7 Resources development………………………………………………………………………….. 41
\nCHAPTER 4: ASEAN AND THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM OF
\nASEAN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
\n4.1 Trading and transportation system of ASEAN………………………………………………. 42
\n4.1.1 ASEAN trading……………………………………………………………………………………… 42
\n4.1.2 Transport system between member countries…………………………………………. 46
\n4.2 Transportation cooperation among ASEAN countries……………………………………. 51
\n4.2.1 Giving reasons and the need for transport cooperation among ASEAN
\ncountries51
\nviii
\n4.2.2 Legal basis and programmes to develop the multimodal transport system of
\nASEAN 52
\n4.2.3 Road and rail transport…………………………………………………………………………. 54
\n4.2.4 Sea transport and ports…………………………………………………………………………. 56
\n4.2.5 Air transport and related services………………………………………………………….. 58
\n4.3 The results reached after cooperation in multimodal transport………………………. 59
\nCHAPTER 5: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
\nSYSTEM OF VIETNAM WITH THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM OF
\nASEAN COUNTRIES………………………………………………………………………………………..67
\n5.1 Transportation and logistics service of ASEAN countries………………………………. 67
\n5.1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
\n5.1.2 Some main ports in ASEAN countries. …………………………………………………… 69
\n5.2 Intermodal transport optimization model ……………………………………………………… 72
\n5.2.1 Choosing deviation variable factors and weighting each factor ……………….. 72
\n5.2.2 Weighting main factors………………………………………………………………………….. 80
\n5.2.3 Scenario when applying zero-one goal programming model combining with
\ninteger liner programming …………………………………………………………………………………… 83
\n5.2.4 Cases of choosing modes and routes to transport cargoes………………………… 85
\n5.4 Route number 1: from Laos to Singapore via Bangkok \u2013 Thailand or Quy Nhon \u2013
\nVietnam………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
\n5.5 The case of transport cargoes in route Vietnam \u2013 Cambodia \u2013 Thailand ………… 99
\nCHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………..107
\n6.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 107
\n6.2 Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………………… 112
\nReferences……………………………………………………………………………………………………….114
\nAppendix 1 \u2013 Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………………….119
\nAppendix 2 \u2013 ASEAN highway network map…………………………………………………..123
\nix
\nLIST OF TABLES
\n\uf09c\uf07b\uf09d
\nTable 4.1: Important events of ASEAN……………………………………………………………….. 44
\nTable 4.2: Population, GDP per capita and share of total ASEAN trade (2009)………… 45
\nTable 4.3: ASEAN trade by region (2009)…………………………………………………………… 51
\nTable 4.4: Throughput comparison of main ports in the ASEAN (2008 to 2010) in
\nmillion TEUs……………………………………………………………………………………. 60
\nTable 4.5: Cargo flow to\/from China-South East Asia (in TEU)…………………………….. 61
\nTable 4.6: EU\u2019s trade balance with ASEAN ………………………………………………………… 62
\nTable 4.7: ASEAN trade with North East Asia (2007-2009) ………………………………….. 63
\nTable 4.8: ASEAN trade with US (2007-2009)…………………………………………………….. 64
\nTable 4.9: UNCTAD liner shipping connectivity index 2008-2010 ………………………… 65
\nTable 5.1: Comparison of Major Transport Modes……………………………………………….. 68
\nTable 5.2: Logistics Infrastructure of Countries in ASEAN …………………………………… 69
\nTable 5.3: Country level costs of trading across border (USD)……………………………….. 72
\nTable 5.4: the result that shippers, logistics provides ranked the carrier performance… 77
\nTable 5.5: Ranking service related factors …………………………………………………………… 79
\nTable 5.6: Total distance and time from Bangkok to Ha Noi (Vietnam) ………………….. 88
\nTable 5.7: Freight, cost and custom clearance charge when three countries across
\nborder of each other ………………………………………………………………………….. 88
\nTable 5.8: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Quy Nhon \u2013
\nSingapore (Road \u2013 Sea)……………………………………………………………………… 90
\nTable 5.9: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nQuy Nhon \u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013 Sea) …………………………………………………… 91
\nTable 5.10: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Bangkok \u2013
\nSingapore…………………………………………………………………………………………. 91
\nTable 5.11: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nx
\nBangkok \u2013 Singapore…………………………………………………………………….92
\nTable 5.12: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Laem
\nChabang \u2013 Singapore…………………………………………………………………..92
\nTable 5.13: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nLaem Chabang \u2013 Singapore ……………………………………………………………93
\nTable 5.14: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Lat Krabang \u2013
\nPort Klang ……………………………………………………………………………………93
\nTable 5.15: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nLat Krabang \u2013 Port Klang………………………………………………………………94
\nTable 5.16: Cost, transit time and transit time variable of routes Vientiane \u2013
\nSingapore ………………………………………………………………………………….94
\nTable 5.17: Normalized cost, transit time and transit time variable of routes
\nVientiane – Singapore …………………………………………………………………95
\nTable 5.18: Comparing four routes from Vientiane to Singapore …………………………97
\nTable 5.19: Some shipping lines are operating in the route PhnomPenh \u2013 HCMC …99
\nTable 5.20: Ocean freight, cost, transport time and total time from Bangkok to
\nVietnam …………………………………………………………………………………….99
\nTable 5.21: Cost, transit time and transit time variability of some routes between
\nBangkok and HCMC …………………………………………………………………100
\nTable 5.22: Normalized cost, transit time and transit time variable …………………….101
\nTable 5.23: Comparing routes between Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City…………….103
\nTable 6.1: Intra ASEAN Export …………………………………………………………………….110
\nTable 6.2: Intra ASEAN Import …………………………………………………………………….110
\nTable 6.3: The relationship between mode and cargo, distance and service …………113
\nxi
\nLIST OF FIGURES
\n\uf09c\uf07b\uf09d
\nFigure 1.1: Number of containers transported in the world from 1990 to 2010…………… 2
\nFigure 2.1: Five components of multimodal transport ……………………………………………. 8
\nFigure 3.1: Proposed regulatory Framework for multimodal transport…………………….. 20
\nFigure 4.1: Map of countries in ASEAN ……………………………………………………………… 43
\nFigure 4.2: Organizational Structure of the ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan (ASTP). 47
\nFigure 4.3: ASEAN Infrastructure quality …………………………………………………………… 48
\nFigure 4.4: ASEAN port network system ……………………………………………………………. 50
\nFigure 4.5: Singapore-Kunming Rail Link …………………………………………………………… 55
\nFigure 4.6: Container shipping services in South East Asia……………………………………. 57
\nFigure 4.7: ASEAN trade with EU (2007-2009)…………………………………………………… 62
\nFigure 5.1: Analytic Hierarchy Process applying multimodal transport …………………… 78
\nFigure 5.2: Route Vietnam \u2013 Laos \u2013 Thailand………………………………………………………. 87
\nFigure 5.3: Route from Ho Chi Minh City to Phnom Penh by inland waterway ……… 105
\nxii
\nLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
\n\uf09c\uf07b\uf09d
\nADB Asian Development Bank
\nAEC Asian Economic Community
\nAFAS Asian Framework Agreement of Service
\nAFTA Asian Free Trade Area
\nAHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
\nAHP-ITP Analytic Hierarchy Process \u2013 Integer Linear
\nProgram
\nAHP-LP Analytic Hierarchy Process \u2013 Linear Program
\nAHP-GP Analytic Hierarchy Process \u2013 Goal Program
\nAHP-MILP Analytic Hierarchy Process \u2013 Mixed Integer Linear
\nProgram
\nAHP-PGP Analytic Hierarchy Process \u2013 Pre-emptive Goal
\nProgram
\nAIMO ASEAN Integration Monitoring Office
\nASEAN The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\nATAP ASEAN Transport Action Plan
\nATM ASEAN Transport Minister
\nB\/L Bill of Lading
\nBOT Biuld \u2013 Operate \u2013 Transfer
\nBT Build \u2013 Transfer
\nBTO Build- Transfer \u2013 Operate
\nCAAV Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam
\nCEPT Common Effective Preferential Tariff
\nCOTAC Cooperation in Transport and Communication
\nDWT Dead weight tonnage
\nxiii
\nEDI Electronic Data Interchange
\nEDIFAC Electronic Data Interchange for Administration,
\nCommerce
\nand Transport
\nESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
\nPacific
\nGDP Gross Domestic Product
\nHCMC Ho Chi Minh City
\nICD Inland Clearance Depot
\nIFC International Finance Corporation
\nISO International Standard Organization
\nIT Information Technology
\nKART Kerry Asia Road Transport
\nMAUT Multi-attribute utility theory
\nMCDM Multiple criteria decision making
\nMICT Manila International Container Terminal
\nMIS Management Information System
\nMOT Ministry of Transport
\nMPI Ministry of Planning
\nMTO Multimodal Transport Operator
\nODA Official Development Bank
\nPPP Public Private Partnership
\nPTP Port of Tanjung Pelapas
\nSIDA Swedish International Development Agency
\nSKRL Singapore \u2013 Kunming Rail Link
\nSOE State Owned Enterprise
\nSP Stated Preference
\nSSS Single Stop Service
\nxiv
\nSTOM Senior Transport Officials Meeting
\nSWS Single Window Service
\nTACA Trans Atlantic Conference Agreement
\nTEUs Twenty Feet Equivalent Unit
\nTHC Terminal Handling Charge
\nTIR Transport International Routier
\nUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and
\nDevelopment
\nUSA United States of America
\nVICONSHIP Vietnam Container Shipping Line
\nVINAMARINE Vietnam Maritime Administration
\nVOSA Vietnam Ocean Shipping Agency
\nVR Vietnam Railway Corporation
\nVRA Vietnam Railway Authority
\nWMU World Maritime University
\nWTO World Trade Organization
\nZOGP Zero-one Goal Progam
\n1
\nCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
\n1.1 Background
\nContainerization was born in the 1950s and has grown consistently since then leading to
\nthe modern concept of multimodal transport that includes the cargo delivery systems
\n\u201cport to port\u201d, \u201cContainer Yard to Container Yard\u201d and \u201cdoor to door\u201d.
\nContainerization was born as a prerequisite for multimodal transport to develop.
\nMultimodal Transport can be viewed as \u201cthe chain that interconnects different links or
\nmodes of transport – air, sea, and land into one complete process that ensures an efficient
\nand cost-effective door-to-door movement of goods under the responsibility of a single
\ntransport operator, known as a Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) and on one
\ntransport document\u201d. (Al-Muhaisen, 2005)
\nAt first, multimodal transport developed in Western Europe, America and Canada and
\nAsia after that. In the 1960s and 1970s multimodal transport did not have any chance to
\ndevelop because of limitations in technological conditions, organization and especially
\nin regulation among countries and regions. However, in the 1980s when the United
\nNations Convention on the International Multimodal Transport of Goods was adopted,
\nthere were more and more actors joining in: national Multimodal Transport Operators,
\ntrain stations, port authorities, institutes and insurance companies. From that time, there
\nwere many conferences and workshops about the development of multimodal transport.
\nIn recent years, Asia has had many chances to promote multimodal transport, for
\nexample in the export and import of containers among countries. The trade between Asia
\n2
\nand Europe and North of America is the major premise to the development of demand in
\nmultimodal transport. Asian countries are intensifying building infrastructure serving
\nmultimodal transport such as: TransAsian railway line creating a combined sea \u2013 rail
\ntransport system to transport cargo intra-Asia and between Asia and Europe.
\nIn 2010, the number of containers transported is estimated to has been more than 150
\nmillion TEUs compared to only 29 million TEUs in 1990.
\nFigure 1.1: Number of container transported in the world from 1990 to 2010
\nSource: Drewry Shipping Consultants, Container Market Review and Forecast 2006\/07
\nand 2008\/09; and Clarkson Research Services, Container Intelligence Monthly,
\nSeptember 2010.
\nMultimodal transport is more and more popular with the support from the development
\nof technology leading to competition among companies and among countries in general,
\nforcing multimodal transport companies to use some useful tools to create their own
\ncomparative advantage, such as outsourcing, benchmarking and quality management.
\n3
\nThe ultimate goal is to \u201cdeliver greater value to customers or create compatible value at
\na lower cost, or do both\u201d (Al-Muhaisen, 2005).
\nNowadays, multimodal transport forms are variable:
\n\uf0b7 Sea\/air between Far-East and Europe, Europe and North America.
\n\uf0b7 Road\/air: trucks are used at the beginning and the end of the process mainly for
\nconsolidation and gathering cargo at airports and after that cargo will be
\ntransported over a long distance trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic or
\nintercontinental.
\n\uf0b7 Rail\/road: this form is used commonly in America and Europe because of its
\nflexibility, safety and speedy.
\n\uf0b7 Rail\/road\/inland water way\/ sea.
\n\uf0b7 Land bridges: the land route is supposed to be the bridge to connect two oceans
\nwith the purpose of reducing cost and time.
\n\uf0b7 Mini-bridge: usually used on the routes between America and Far-East, America \u2013
\nEurope, America \u2013 Australia. In this form, a through Bill of Lading is used from
\nthe port of loading to port of discharging, after that cargoes are shifted into train
\nwagons and carried to another port in the same country.
\n\uf0b7 Micro bridge: the same as mini-bridge form, but the difference is that the
\ndestination is industrial centres.
\n\uf0b7 Piggy-back: is the combination of road and rail, where containers are transported
\nby rail from one terminal to another and when coming to the destination they are
\nplaced on trailers and transported by roads.
\n\uf0b7 Sea-rail: is the innovation in multimodal transport, where containers are placed in
\nthe wagons and rail systems are connected with each other through sea transport.
\n4
\n1.2 Objectives
\nThe objectives of this dissertation are:
\n– To analyze the strong points and drawbacks of multimodal transport in Vietnam
\nand the ability to cooperate with other countries in ASEAN region.
\n– To review the methods used for solving multimodal transport problems in
\nchoosing suitable modes to minimize cost and time.
\n– To apply one of these methods to some cases with specific figures, solve
\nproblems and give a conclusion.
\n– To give some suggestions to improve multimodal transport in Vietnam and
\nother ASEAN countries.
\n1.3 Methodology
\nThe author has used various methods in this research and conducted it in four steps:
\nStep 1: By acquiring knowledge and collecting information \u2013 in order to identify the
\ntopic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service), useful knowledge from books, lectures, articles and field trips have provided a
\nbasic overview of transport in general and through presentations, seminars and
\ndiscussion with professors and friends, the author has had a tendency to focus on the
\ntopic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) related to multimodal transport.
\nStep 2: By making a literature review \u2013 there are many methods in solving multimodal
\ntransport choice of modes. The author has used some of these methods as a tool to find a
\nsuitable way to transport cargo at the minimum cost and while spending the least time.
\nThis step expresses the understanding of the author about the topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) selected.
\nStep 3: Using questionnaires and applying a model \u2013 at first, zero \u2013 one goal program
\nmodeling was chosen to find the best way to transport cargoes in two cases. After that,
\nquestionnaires were collected from logistics providers, forwarders, shipping lines and
\nshippers to decide which factors affect the choice of modes of shippers or multimodal
\n5
\ntransport operators. When there were sufficient factors gathered, an analytic hierarchy
\nprocess was applied to calculate the weight of each factor.
\nStep 4: Using solver program in Microsoft Excel to get the result \u2013 data was collected
\nbased on many sources and previous research. The result coming out was used for
\nsupporting to the model that was selected. From this result, the author could analyze
\nwhy Vietnam had not been chosen as a transshipment port for some countries in the
\nASEAN region.
\n1.4 Structure of research
\nThe study is divided into 6 chapters as follow:
\nChapter 1: Introduction \u2013 this chapter gives an overview and objectives of the research,
\nbesides, the structure and methodology applied for this research are also mentioned.
\nChapter 2: Literature review \u2013 this chapter focuses on previous research of other authors
\ninvolving in multimodal transport developing countries and models applied to choose
\nmodes in transport cargoes from origins to destinations.
\nChapter 3: Multimodal transport system in Vietnam \u2013 this chapter analyzes the strong
\npoints and drawbacks of multimodal transport in Vietnam (infrastructure, legal basis,
\nand so on). After that the author judges the opportunity for the development of
\nmultimodal transport as well as a hub port in Vietnam in the future.
\nChapter 4: Multimodal transport system in ASEAN \u2013 the cooperation in multimodal
\ntransport of ASEAN countries is mentioned in this chapter, how the legal framework on
\nmultimodal transport affects ASEAN countries. The competition among ASEAN
\ncountries in terms of multimodal transport is also given.
\n6
\nChapter 5: The relationship of the multimodal transport system of Vietnam with the
\nmultimodal transport system of ASEAN countries. Case studies of Laos and ThailandCambodia-Vietnam route \u2013 this chapter uses actual figures as the input for applying a
\nmodel to solve the problem of multimodal transport in choosing modes. Based on the
\nresults the author analyzes the strong points as well as the weak points of each route that
\nis chosen and is not chosen. Moreover, the author analyzes the opportunities for other
\nroutes in the future.
\nChapter 6: Conclusion \u2013 the complete work is summarized in this chapter. Although it
\nstill has many limitations, the author suggests some possible trends to research in the
\nfuture to improve and develop this topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) more.
\n7
\nCHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
\n2.1 Introduction
\nThe important changes in the world liner shipping began 50 years ago when container
\nvessels replaced the conventional liner vessels. The intermodal transport system was set
\nup depending on the transportation of containers from door to door. (ISL, 1991)
\nContainerization covered both inland and ocean transport and the advantages of
\ncontainers are reducing of handling time and the convenience for development of
\nintermodal and transmodal operations.
\nMultimodal transport was born as a prerequisite for the development of logistics service.
\nIt also means that shippers or logistics providers want to find suitable modes to transport
\ncargoes to save costs, but still assure the quality of the service provided.
\nMultimodal transport is defined as a system in which only one Multimodal Transport
\nOperator (MTO) is responsible for transport activities. In a research of D\u2019Este (1996), he
\ngave a theory with five components of multimodal transport that the MTO managed and
\nco-ordinated in door to door services. (D’Este, 1996)
\n8
\nFigure 2.1: Five components of multimodal transport
\nSource: An event-based approach to modeling intermodal freight systems, D\u2019Este (1996)
\nIn Europe, multimodal transport has developed for a long time. It began with traditional
\nmultimodal transport service, including inland transport to the port, cargo handling at
\nboth ends, sea transport and inland transport at destination. Then, multimodal transport
\ndeveloped in Europe when a liner shipping conference was set up named the Trans
\nAtlantic Conference Agreement (TACA) which introduced a new definition about
\n\u201cmultimodal transport hub and spoke system\u201d. This new model was based on the rail
\ntransfer for inland transport instead of road transport. In addition, the research of
\nRawindaran VNP Nair, Bernard M Gardner & Ruth Banomyong, mentioned that TACA
\nbelieved the collective price fixing for the trunk leg of multimodal transport service
\nbrings benefit, not only to the trade but also to customers. The development of
\nmultimodal transport in Europe could be reached when members of TACA verified with
\nthe European Commission and followed the European competition rules. (Rawindaran
\nVNP. Nair, Bernard M Gardner & Ruth Banomyong, 2011)
\n9
\n2.2 Model applied to solve multimodal transport mode choice problem
\nMultimodal mode choice depends on many factors and many studies have mentioned
\nthose factors in different view. In order to solve this problem, there are three steps and
\nmany models can be used in each step. The first step is finding the main factors affecting
\nthe shippers\u2019, forwarders\u2019, multimodal transport operator\u2019s or logistics supplier\u2019s
\ndecision.
\nEach country has its own infrastructure and conditions to develop multimodal transport
\nin different ways. Questionnaires are a good method to collect different ideas about this.
\nThe second step is making a decision on which factor will be the main factor and to
\nidentify the weight for each. AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) is the most used choice
\nfor factor analysis. The last step is choosing a route with different modes. There are
\nmany methods used by many authors, and in this dissertation the zero-one goal program
\nmodeling was used to choose suitable routes for cargo.
\n2.2.1 Deciding main factors influencing the mode choice determination of
\nsuppliers and shippers
\nWeighing the main factors based on AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process):
\nIn 1980, Saaty developed the AHP model to apply for multiple criteria decision making
\n(MCDM). The application of AHP is more and more popular, and it is also easy to
\nintegrate with other models to quantify and qualify factors. There are about 35 articles
\nintegrating AHP with mathematical techniques, for example: AHP \u2013 LP (Linear
\nprogram), AHP \u2013 ILP (Integer Linear Program), AHP \u2013 MILP (Mixed integer linear
\nprogram) and AHP \u2013 GP (Goal Program). (Ho, 2007)
\n10
\nThe study of carrier selection was researched a long time ago. McGinnis (1977, 1978
\nand 1979) and other authors in the early years gave the criteria based on countable things
\nlike costs and time. However, the uncountable things like security of product,
\nrelationship or reputation of carriers are not mentioned much. And these researches from
\nthis period did not weight the salience of each criterion.
\nMs Brook (1990) had conducted a study on \u201cOcean carrier selection criteria in a new
\nenvironment\u201d. In this research she mentioned the selection criteria, which are important
\nto shippers and also the performances that carriers compared on those criteria using the
\nAnalytic Hierarchy Process. Each shipper was required to evaluate the performance of
\neach of the carrier alternatives available and weight each criteria factor. In this study, Ms
\nBrook confirmed the importance of \u201csalient criteria\u201d to develop strategies to attract and
\nmeet the requirement of global market, for example: cost of services, frequency of
\nsailings, transit time, on-time pick-up and delivery and so on.
\nLiberatore, Matthew J, Miller, Tan (1995) had a research on \u201cA decision support
\napproach for transport carrier and mode selection\u201d saying that there are many methods
\nrelated to multi-criteria choice for example: multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT),
\nscoring models, goal programming and AHP. The authors also gave the advantages and
\ndisadvantages of each method. It was said that goal programming was used most
\npopularly in spite of this method being limited to the scalable criteria and with factors
\nthat can be quantitative such as average transit time or late transshipment.
\nSaaty had given the \u201ceigenvector method\u201d to calculate the weights of each factor based
\non a pairwise comparison matrix. Bagchi (1989) illustrated Saaty\u2019s method to solve the
\ncarrier selection problem in which he gave an example to evaluate criteria as follows:
\nrates, customer service, claims handling, equipment available for flexible schedules and
\nfinancial stability. After that there were some more authors applying the AHP method
\n11
\nlike Banai (2000) and Dantas et al. (2001) to connect with a geographic information
\nsystem in transit oriented development and find out the suitable location for a terminal.
\nIn 2008 Meethom and Kengpol are the two authors who had a study finding out the
\nweight of criteria for Thailand Quality Award based on AHP, Weiss and Rao used the
\ntool for designing for large scale systems, Wang et al. with pairwise comparison of
\nartificial neutral networks or Zahedi with the decision support systems
\nIn a research of Cullinane and Toy (1999) about identifying influential attributes in
\nfreight route\/mode choice decision in which they applied the Stated Perference (SP)
\ntechnique in freight route\/mode choice to find out which factors affect the decisions.
\nBesides, this study also used systematic, quantitative analysis by simple methodology,
\nsuch as question and hypotheses, sample analysis, category construction, system of
\nenumeration and units of analysis to set up the most important factors influencing the
\nmode choice decision. The result that they got from those above methods includes the
\nfive ranked category: cost, speed, transit time reliability, characteristics of the goods and
\nservice. (Kevin Cullinane and Neal Toy, 1999)
\nTuna (1999) on the other hand measured the expectations of shippers, freight forwarders
\nand logistics providers who are the customers of Izmir Port. He found that shippers
\nreally want to have accurate B\/L production, safe and without damaged cargoes. (Okan
\nTuna and Mustafa Silan, 1999)
\n2.2.2 Model used to solve multimodal transport choice
\nIn 1955, the Goal Programming was used firstly by Charnes, Cooper and Fergusion,
\nthey explained it as a technique that helps people to find the optimal goal but require the
\nordinal and cardinal information for multiple objective decision-making.
\nIn choosing routes for multimodal transport modes, there are a lot of surveys using
\ndifferent methods to find the most suitable way to transport cargo from the origin to
\n12
\ndestination. Banomyong (2001), Bookbinder et al. (1998), Min (1991) and Chang (2008)
\nhad some researches on quantitative criteria with the purpose of minimizing cost as well
\nas time.
\nAthakorn Kengpol, Sopida Tuamee and Markku Tuominen (2004) had a study named
\n\u201cDesign of a decision support system on selection of multimodal transportation with
\nenvironmental consideration between Thailand and Vietnam\u201d, which also has a goal of
\nminimizing cost and time, but related to minimum risk and limiting the effect on
\nenvironment.
\nJing and Wang (2004) measured and quantified the transportations\u2019 reliability,
\ninfrastructure and degree of public participation. They also gave the goals for
\ntransportation: mobility, accessibility, safety, environmental and public involvement.
\n(Mingzhou Jin and Haiyuan Wang , 2004). Capelle (1994) showed the potential goals
\nand performance indicators in his research including mobility, finance, environment,
\neconomics, safety and others. (Capelle, 1994)
\nThe framework of a transportation system and problem of Mr. Paul Battaglia had given a
\nsummary that used four components: the objective, the decision variables, the
\nconstraints and the parameters. He stated that the goal is not only the minimum cost but
\nalso multiple goals and this model gave the chance to know the various connections
\nbetween technology and integration at multiple levels. (Battaglia, 2007)
\nIn terms of decision variables, many authors gave their ideas about them, for example
\nBragdon and Berkowitz (1999) who emphasized that a transport system which operated
\neffectively and efficiently is contributing to the standard of life, makes people and
\nsociety healthier, more economical and more secured. Boardman (2005) applied the
\nmethod using least cost paths such as traditional costs and transfer costs.
\n13
\nIn a research of Mr. Chang (2007) about \u201cBest routes selection in international
\nintermodal networks\u201d, he mentioned three main characteristics of problems: shippers
\nhave different targets so the goals should be multiple objectives, existing mode
\nschedules and delivery times have to be included in the model as constraints and total
\nweight transported by different modes are not the same, so the author suggested that the
\ncalculation of cost in related to economy of scale. (Chang, 2007)
\nHowever, another research of Barnhart and Ratliff (1993) had a study on finding the
\ngood route with low cost when cargoes were transported in trailers. Both of them used
\nthe method to research without depending on the three main characteristics that Chang
\nmentioned.
\nThe research of Mr. Min (1991) based on a chance-constrained goal programming model
\nin which he identified four main key factors of international intermodalism: cost factors,
\nservice factors, risk factors and international factors. These factors affected directly on
\nmodal choice, selection of port and foreign trade. The purpose of this research was
\napplying the model which is cost-minimization, delay of shipment minimization, intransit inventory minimization and Just-in-time requirement satisfaction. He concluded
\nthat the mode\u2019s speed affected the choice of mode rather than the rate of freight or the
\nvariable delivery time and he also improved that the priority of goals had much greater
\neffect on the choice of mode than the change of the para-metric factors \u2013 cost, time and
\nvariability. (MIN, 1990)
\nZero-one Goal Programming (ZOGP)
\nGoal programming was discovered by Charnes et al. in 1955 and it was developed in
\n1960\u2019s by Ijiri. After that the book about Goal programming was applied in many
\naspects, especially for making a plan such as in agriculture or accounting. (M. Tamiz,
\nD.F.Jones and El-Darzi, 1995)
\n14
\nAs Srinivasan and Thompson studied in their research involved in choosing a best mode
\nthat met the requirements of minimizing the cost and minimizing the transport time.
\nThere was a method using the operator theory of parametric programming that was
\nsuggested in this research to find the optimal routes as well as optimal modes of
\ntransportation. (Srinivasan, V. & Thompson, G.L., 1977)
\nIn a research of Selcuk Percin, he integrated the analytic hierarchy process and multiobjective goal programming to solve the problem and select the best carriers with
\nminimum defects rate, minimum late delivery, minimum cost and suppliers\u2019 scores and
\nafter \u2013 sales service levels. He confirmed that the integrated AHP-PGP (Analytic
\nHierarchy Process \u2013 Pre-emptive Goal Programming) model is very necessary for
\nenterprises to select suppliers. (Percin, 2006)
\nIn research of Kengpol, Meethom and Tuominen about the support system in
\nmultimodal transportation routes in the Mekong sub-region countries, the authors used
\nthe AHP method to weigh three factors cost, time and risk, combined with the ZOGP
\nmethod to find the optimal transportation cost, routing time and risk of route. This
\nmethod had an advantage, which is that the optimal multimodal transportation route and
\nneeded significant weight can be given by users as they want. (Athakorn Kengpol,
\nWarapij Meethom, Markku Tuominen, 2011)
\nRecently, Ms Yang (2009) had a Masters research titled \u201cIntermodal Transportation in
\nMajor Asian Ports\u201d applying the mixed integer linear programming and solver 2007
\nsoftware to solve the problem of choosing modes to transport cargoes from China to
\nIndia. The goal of the research\u2019s model is reducing cost, transport time and transport
\ntime reliability. The significance of this research was the quantitative analysis of the
\ncompetitiveness of routes as well as suggesting improvements for people who do
\nbusiness in this aspect. She mentioned in her research that she found the optimal choice
\n15
\nfor carriers, shippers and improved the constraint for government and policy makers
\nalso. (Xuejing, 2009)
\nIn another research of Bookbinder and Fox (1998) with the aim of optimizing routings
\nfor intermodal transport containers from Canada to Mexico, they analyzed the
\ncomparative advantage of each route between five origins in Canada and three
\ndestinations in Mexico based on cost and transport time. After that they evaluated the
\ncompetitive route options taking the inventory cost, total cost and analyzing the
\ncompetitiveness of trucking in order to suggest the potential of expanding intermodal
\nservices. (James H. Bookbinder and Neil S. Fox, 1998)
\n16
\nCHAPTER 3: MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM IN VIETNAM
\nThe development of trade not only within the country but also between countries all over
\nthe world has led to door to door services becoming more and more popular. Multimodal
\ntransport is one of the most significant tools to help multimodal transport operators
\nprovide door to door service.
\nWhile multimodal transport in the world developed from the 1950s with the
\nestablishment of containerization. In Vietnam, multimodal transport is still in the first
\nstage because the government has not invested enough money to improve the
\ninfrastructure serving for multimodal transport and enterprises are not good enough to
\ntake a risk with multimodal transport service.
\nTherefore, in this chapter the author wants to introduce the multimodal transport system
\nin Vietnam and give some comments about the advantages and disadvantages for the
\nfuture development of this system.
\n3.1 Introducing the Vietnamese multimodal transport system
\n3.1.1 Legal documents and legislation concerning multimodal transport in Vietnam
\nIn order to develop any business, the legal basis is very important. It requires
\ngovernment to identify the condition of each country to establish a legal system that is
\nsuitable with the country\u2019s real situation. If the legal system is good, enterprises will
\nhave a chance to have a fairer and healthier competition.
\n17
\nThe legal basis in Vietnam on multimodal transport firstly introduced was the decree
\n125\/2003 ND-CP about multimodal transport, and circular 10\/2004\/TT-BGTVT for
\nintroduction of the above decree.
\nIn addition, Vietnam has issued circular 125\/2004\/TT-BTC introducing customs
\nprocedures for international multimodal transport and a condition about multimodal
\ntransport contracts in clause 119 of the Vietnamese Maritime Code. All aspects
\ninvolving sea, inland waterways, rail, road and air are regulated by Codes such as the
\nVietnamese Maritime Code, Road Transport Law, Inland Waterway Law, Rail Transport
\nLaw and Civil Aviation Law.
\nHowever of the above laws, the Vietnamese Maritime Code is the only one mentioning
\n\u201cinternational multimodal transport\u201d, but the main content of this Code only prescribes
\nthe relationship and liability limitation of multimodal operators and shippers.
\nFurthermore, decree number 125\/2003\/ND-CP expresses the open minded policy and
\nintegration between countries: both Vietnamese and foreigners can join in multimodal
\ntransport business.
\nIn terms of finance, foreign services providers must have professional liability insurance
\nin multimodal transport or a bank guarantee to cover the liability of the multimodal
\ntransport entrepreneur for loss and damage, slow delivery and other risks, having
\nminimum assets of 80.000 SDR or an equivalent guarantee.
\nHowever, this decree still has some shortcomings and inadequacies, especially the
\nprocedure to apply for a \u201cmultimodal transport license\u201d (for Vietnamese enterprises) and
\n\u201cinvestment license in multimodal transport aspect\u201d (for foreign enterprises). There are
\nmany opinions agreeing that this decree has discriminatory treatment and is not
\ncompatible with \u201cforeign investment law\u201d in Vietnam because the ASEAN countries
\nsigned the framework on multimodal transport within ASEAN, and other countries have
\n18
\nsigned bilateral agreements with Vietnam regarding multimodal transport and for
\nproviding multimodal transport services in Vietnam. They just need to show a
\n\u201cmultimodal transport business registration certificate\u201d issued in accordance with the
\ncountry\u2019s jurisdiction and the legal representative in Vietnam, which is the transport
\nenterprise or Vietnamese transport agent.
\nCircular number 10\/2004\/TT-BGTVT prescribes that 100% foreign equity and joint
\nventure companies are allowed to provide multimodal transport services. Therefore
\nVietnamese law has not yet allowed branches and representative offices to provide
\nmultimodal transport services.
\nIn addition, there is Circular number 08\/2004\/TTLT-BTM-BTC-BGTVT issued by three
\nministries, Commerce, Finance and Transport, guiding container transshipment service
\nimplementation at Vietnamese ports. This circular is suited to market demand and meets
\nthe expectations of enterprises who want to deliver multimodal transport services. The
\ncircular applies to ports, organizations and individuals. Any enterprise, organization or
\nindividual with sufficient conditions are allowed to register to do business involving
\ncontainer transshipment at ports without asking permission.
\n3.1.2 Introducing Vietnamese multimodal transport operation enterprises
\nVietnamese enterprises only registered their business according to decree number
\n10\/2001\/ND-CP (19-March-2000) of the Government concerning marine services
\nbusinesses, including agencies, brokering, provisioning, tallying, towage, repairing,
\ncleaning and handling cargo. These types of services employ about sixty seven thousand
\npeople on an annual basis.
\nBut during this period, only two enterprises registered for multimodal transport services,
\neleven enterprises registered for logistics services and four enterprises implemented
\ncontainer transshipment at ports such as Ben Nghe, Hai Phong, Sai Gon and New port.
\n19
\nIn general, the multimodal transport system in Vietnam at this time was very poor and
\nshowed many drawbacks, for example under-quality infrastructure, there was no legal
\nbasis concerning multimodal transport, enterprises were not confident to serve
\nmultimodal transport services.
\nAfter decree number 125\/2003\/ND-CP entered into force, container transshipment
\nservices were regulated by circular number 08\/LB TC-TM-GTVT, dated December 17th
\n,
\n2003 of the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport and
\nwere guided on how to transit containers at Vietnamese ports. Only four state enterprises
\nparticipated in this business.
\nThis was the first period of establishing and developing container transshipment services
\nat ports. There were many shipping lines demanding this service, but the demand was
\nnot met at that time, because they were unable to supply this service before this circular
\nwas established.
\nBeing aware of that problem, multimodal transport service was regulated by the
\nGovernment Decree number 125\/2003\/ND-CP, dated October 29th, 2003. In practice,
\nthis business was not provided by many enterprises. The slow development of these
\ntypes of business was partly due to the shortage of future vision, and partly because they
\nhad not adapted to the requirements of market economy concerning container
\ntransshipment services and multimodal transport. On the other hand, since the
\ngovernment had not completed a uniform legal framework of special legislation related
\nto transport, it was very difficult for enterprises to provide these services.
\n20
\nNational Laws Establishing Governing Enabling Environment
\nFigure 3.1: Proposed regulatory Framework for multimodal transport
\nSource: Vietnam multimodal transport regulatory review, 2006
\nModal Laws
\nVietnam Civil Code 2005
\nCompetition Law 2005
\nCommon Investment Law 2005
\nUnified Enterprise Law 2005
\nCommercial Law 2005
\nBusiness licensing for logistics service
\nproviders
\nCustoms Law 2005
\nImplementing regulations for logistics services should reference licensing
\nand liability provisions of modal laws
\nVietnam
\nMaritime
\nCode
\n2005
\nVietnam Road
\nTransport Law 2001
\n(proposed to be
\nrevised)
\nVietnam Inland
\nWaterway
\nTransport
\nLaw 2004
\nVietnam Railways
\nLaw
\n2005
\nVietnam Civil
\nAviation
\nLaw 2005
\nImplementing regulations should reference new Decree
\non Multimodal Transport for multimodal licensing and
\nliability matters
\nASEAN Framework
\nAgreement on International
\nMultimodal Transport
\nGMS Framework
\nAgreement on CrossBorder Transport
\nNew Decree on
\nMultimodal
\nTransport
\nBilateral Border Transport
\nAgreements with Laos, China and
\nCambodia
\nLaws with implementing
\nregulations yet to be issued
\nLaws\/regulations referring to
\nMTOs or equivalent
\n21
\nThe figure above shows the combination of many different Codes involved in transport
\nsuch as Maritime Code, Road Transport Law, Inland Waterway, Railways and Civil
\nAviation law as references to implement regulations on Multimodal transport. It is
\ncomplicated to connect these laws with each other, and it needs to sub-sector law be
\nimproved to be suitable with multimodal transport and enhance the role and
\nresponsibility of involved person needs to be enhanced effectively to implement
\nmultimodal transport in general and each link of door to door service in particular.
\n3.2 Multimodal transport infrastructure and multimodal transport operation
\nsituation of Vietnamese enterprises
\n3.2.1 The real situation of transport infrastructure (each modes of transport:
\nroad, rail, sea, inland water way and air) in Vietnam as a link of multimodal
\ntransport
\nRoad transport it is said that road transport is the flexible mode of transport because
\nloading and unloading is possible at any destination. However, in Vietnam the
\ninfrastructure for road transport is poor. Although the government has made an effort to
\nimprove the quality and capacity of the road system, the cost of using road increases
\nremarkably due to delays and changes in delivery schedules happening frequently. There
\nis a lack of high quality services and a lack of connection between policy and
\nimplementation. The Government has to enforce some other restrictions on speed and
\noperating time, for example a container truck cannot enter into Ho Chi Minh City from
\n6a.m. to 21p.m. according to decision number 121\/2007\/Q\u0110-UBND dated Dec 19th,
\n2007 of Ho Chi Minh city\u2019s People committee.
\nMoreover, Vietnam has a total road network of 223,290 km; about 17,300 km are
\nnational roads and about one quarter of the whole network has two lanes or more. After
\nthe Project Management Unit eighteen scandal in which the Projects Management
\nCommittee had misused USD 1.8 million, sponsored by the World Bank, Japan and
\n22
\nsome European countries to develop the transport network in Vietnam, by betting on
\nfootball matches, the Vietnam Express Corporation was established with the purpose of
\ndeveloping the transnational connection and multimodal transport financed by three
\nalternatives: 100% finance from the Government, local Build \u2013 Operate \u2013 Transfer and
\nforeign Public Private Partnership arrangements.
\nBesides the problem of PMU 18, the Government has taken many experiences and tried
\nto do their job better to recover what happened in 2006. Therefore, in 2010 the $400
\nmillion project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) of the 56km Cau Gie \u2013 Ninh Binh expressway was implemented. The
\nNoi Bai \u2013 Lao Cai highway mostly depends on Asian Development Bank (ADB) loans
\nand the Ho Chi Minh \u2013 Long Thanh \u2013 Dau Giay expressway project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) was supported by
\nloans from ODA (Official Development Helpance) and ADB. (Ph\u01b0\u1edbc H\u00e0, 2007)
\nThe Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the Ministry of Transport (MOT)
\nwill take the responsibility for national roads, investment finance, and implementation of
\nthese national road network project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s, while the Vietnam Roads Authority (VRA) will
\nundertake maintenance. Road traffic is focused on national roads, especially between
\nand around the major urban centres. Traffic jams and the density of motorbikes are
\nchallenges to road transport and planners as well as policy-makers. Besides, serious
\naccidents have increased significantly in recent years.
\nInland waterway transport is a low cost service. For some shippers who have low value
\nand less time-sensitive cargoes, inland waterway is the suitable choice. The
\ninfrastructure seems to be improved in terms of handling facilities, frequent maintenance
\nand more reliable navigational aids. Although inland waterway vessels have become
\nmore efficient and larger, the role of this type of transport is still limited and there is a
\nlack of competitiveness compared to road transport. Vietnam has 41,900 km of rivers,
\nabout 8,000 km of which are inland waterway navigable.
\n23
\nHowever, only 6,200 km are managed by the central government, the remainder being
\nmanaged by local government. Inland waterways mainly transport cargo and earn
\nfreight. There are two large natural rivers in the North: the Red and Thai Binh rivers
\nplay an important role in the inland waterway network. In the South, the density of rivers
\nis very dense. There are some main routes: Ho Chi Minh \u2013 Can Tho, which runs on the
\nNha Be river and Soai Rap river, and Ho Chi Minh \u2013 Phnom Penh.
\nOn the other hand, there are still some bottlenecks in the development of inland
\nwaterways. They are poorly managed, lack data and information on facilities, conditions,
\nnavigational aids and port facilities. Besides, the services do not meet the requirements
\nand passages are quite small and low draft. The vessels which are operating in the North
\nof Vietnam have capacity from 100 to 400 tonnes. In the north, important transport
\nservices are managed by the State. While in the south private operators get the
\nresponsibility for managing the inland waterways. Because of the development of the
\nprivate sector, the inland waterway has improved remarkably well.
\nRailways: The total length of the railway network in Vietnam is around 2600 km
\nincluding seven main lines and several branch lines. The former Ministry of Transport
\nwas divided into a series of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) covering three area
\ncompanies, infrastructures for 20 enterprises and the repair and construction of other
\naspects involved in rail transport services. In 2003, the Railway Authority was
\nestablished to take the responsibility for policy build up, regulation and safety matters.
\nIn addition, the Vietnam Railway Corp. (VR) was given the responsibility for the rail
\noperations. The railways in Vietnam are not as efficient and effective as in other
\nASEAN countries. The railways were operated to connect residential areas to the centres
\nof culture, agriculture and industry: Vietnam \u2013 China, Vietnam \u2013 Cambodia, Vietnam \u2013
\nLaos, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. In 2010, there were nearly 280 train stations
\nwith VR operating six main lines with 13.4 million passengers and 8.9 million tons of
\nfreight.
\n24
\nNowadays, the Vietnam Railway has to come with some problems. It is developing very
\nslowly in terms of speed improvement, investment capital amount and the role of rail
\ntransport is decreasing in both capacity and volume. The railways network can increase,
\nhowever, as a result of recent changes in financing and policy by establishing a close
\nrelationship among commercial operators and the government. Besides, Vietnam should
\nopen for investors and multimodal transport operators who are interested in expanding
\nmultimodal transport services.
\nThe other problem of railway transport is that the operators are not concerned about
\nenvironmental aspects. They just want to get as much benefit as they can.
\nMaritime transport: There are many operators doing business in this aspect such as
\nstate-owned companies, local government-owned companies, joint ventures and private
\ncompanies. The Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) of Vietnamese cargo ships is over 1
\nmillion, of which 20% are domestic coastal shipping and the rest are engaged in ocean
\nshipping. The average vessel size is about 8.000 DWT for ocean going ships. There are
\nsome Vietnamese shipping companies providing international services. Vietnamese
\nseaports are connected with ASEAN hub ports, and a lot of feeder vessels operate on
\nthese routes. Ho Chi Minh City holds a market share of about 50% with 26 feeder
\ncontainer ships per week. Vietnamese shipping companies keep 21% of the total foreign
\ntrade. It is a relatively small figure, because Vietnamese fleets still have many
\ndrawbacks and suffer from strong competition from strong foreign fleets.
\nDomestic shipping mainly transports agricultural, mining and industrial products, but
\nnowadays containers are becoming more and more important.
\nAir transport The Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam (CAAV) manages civil
\naviation and government takes responsibility for indirect control. In Vietnam, the total
\nnumber of airports is 135 civil, military and police airports used within the country, in
\n18 of which air navigation services are under the management of CAAV. The number of
\n25
\npassengers transported in 2010 was about 12 million. Noi Bai airport in Hanoi and Tan
\nSon Nhat in Ho Chi Minh City are the two biggest airports in Vietnam. In terms of
\ntransporting cargo: the amount of cargo transported abroad from Vietnam was 340.000
\ntonnes and customers\u2019 demand was expected to increase in 2010. However, air
\ntransportation in Vietnam is still below international standards leading to a low share of
\nthe overall transportation market, so improving the infrastructure as well as the quality
\nof service are very important.
\nPorts Some ports in central Vietnam are managed by the Vietnam Maritime
\nAdministration (VINAMARINE), but all ports are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry
\nof Transport through the Vietnam National Maritime Bureau. Although State owned
\nports hold almost the entire market, there are some national shipping lines which operate
\nin Haiphong, Saigon, Danang and Cantho, and other State owned enterprises of local
\ngovernments and ministries other than the Ministry of Transport. The big disadvantages
\nof Vietnamese ports are shallow water depth, poor infrastructure and poor cargo
\nhandling equipment, but Vietnamese ports are improving in both port efficiency and
\namount of cargo handled. Port efficiency depends very much on the conditions of ports
\nand port fees nowadays can compete with other neighboring countries. The
\nimprovement in customs service procedures, reduction in paper work and investment in
\nIT systems are contributing to the development in the port system of Vietnam, but
\ncongestion is a big problem hampering the connection of ports with the hinterland,
\nleading to increase in operating costs. Besides, the ports of Singapore and Hong Kong
\nare very strong because they have deep seawater. Vietnamese ports can\u2019t compete
\nbecause the draft is not sufficient to be called by mother vessels. So, a big amount of
\ncargoes require trans-shipment in bigger ports to come to other countries. The Ministry
\nof Transport is trying to build a deep sea port in Cai Mep, which belongs to the fifth port
\ncluster planning and hopefully this port can receive larger ships in the near future.
\n26
\nLogistics In Vietnam nowadays, there are more and more companies supplying logistics
\nservices and they are trying their best to reduce cost and providing the customers with
\nreasonable freight. Multimodal transport contributes much for logistics activity, and it
\ncreates a lot of revenue for enterprises. In multimodal transport the connections between
\nmodes of transport are very important, but in Vietnam some constraints happen because
\nof lacking guaranteed service schedules. For example, delivery times of shipments are
\nnot easy to follow, information systems are not good and fast enough, in addition to poor
\nfacilities of custom procedures leading to inefficient handling of cargoes.
\n3.2.2 The strengths and weaknesses of multimodal transport business of
\nVietnamese enterprises
\nMultimodal transport is applied popularly all over the world. Global commerce
\ncombines information technology in transporting containers leading to the emergence of
\nmultimodal transport. The requirements in trading globally are higher and higher,
\ncontainers express their advantages in transport, cargo handling and easy to implement
\ndoor to door service. Multimodal transport promotes new business to reduce storage
\ntime and cumbersome procedures, enhancing safety and security. Besides, multimodal
\ntransport assures that door to door services are faster and more effective with the
\ncheapest price.
\nWhen Vietnam accepted foreign investors, economic integration in the region and
\ninternationally, this has brought both opportunities and challenges to Vietnam in terms
\nof taking the advantages as a nation. Multimodal transport is considered as a strategy in
\nimplementing \u201cindustrialization \u2013 modernization\u201d in Vietnam because development of
\nthe transportation network is one of the ways to do that for each country. In the 20th
\ncentury the world witnessed the development of sea, inland waterway and rail transport,
\nbut now air, road and pipe transport are growing more and more.
\n27
\nIn contemporary days, Asia holds about 50% of the container volumes in the world and
\nnine of the ten busiest ports in the world are in Asia (Olsen, 2010). In terms of shipping,
\naccording to UK Port and Logistics Ltd., 10 Asian container shipping lines belong to the
\ntop 20 global container shipping lines. The development of Asian transportation in
\ngeneral, and maritime aspect in particular, is an advantage to promote the development
\nof Vietnamese transportation.
\nIt is said that where there is trade, there is transport. In recent years Vietnam is growing
\nwith high speed, more and more commodities are produced and transport demand is
\nincreasing remarkably. The establishment of industrial zones will help transport services
\nshow their ability in connecting producers and customers. Total export turnover of
\nVietnam reached USD 71.7 billion in 2010, an increase of 25.5% compared to 2009,
\nwhile the increase percentage in the value of export cargoes was 14.5%. Manufacturing
\nindustries have a tendency to increase. The proportion of the goods processing industry
\nrose slightly from 63.7% to 67.9%. The total of import turnover in 2010 was USD 84
\nbillions, rising 20% compared to 2009, but the value also rose by USD 14 billion.
\n3.2.2.1 The facilities for multimodal transport
\nInfrastructure in Vietnam is improving day by day. However, lack of capital investment
\nleads to non-synchronization in transport networks causing difficulty in connecting
\nmodes of transport for moving passengers and cargoes. Nowadays, Vietnamese
\ninfrastructure is still poor and substandard, including a cumbersome legal system. The
\nbiggest problem, however, is capital: shipping, aviation, railways and roads need capital
\nto develop as an urgent need nowadays. Ngo Thinh Duc \u2013 Deputy Minister of Transport
\nsaid that in 2011, in order to prepare well for the plan of economic and social
\ndevelopment and in the five years from 2011 to 2015, the Ministry of Transport will
\nmake an effort to increase cargo transport volume by at least 8-10% and passenger
\ntransport numbers by 9-10% in parallel with reducing accidents and congestion. Besides,
\nthe Ministry will try their best to build new and upgrade as well as renovate more than
\n28
\n800km of road, to construct about 10.000m land bridge, to renovate 40km railroad and
\nbuild 36.000m2
\nairport terminals and 600m of runway.
\nCaimep port of Vietnam is considered to have a potential to become a hub port in the
\nASEAN region because of the good geographic location and long sea shore. However,
\nso as to become deep seaports to receive big vessels, the government needs a big amount
\nof money to invest in infrastructure and dredging. In addition, the Government has to
\nattract more international shipping lines and port operators. The other imperatives are
\nreducing corruption and enhancing the transparency in policy.
\nHowever, as mentioned before the complex and restrictive legal environment and the
\nlong payback time caused the hesitation of private investors in investing in infrastructure
\ndevelopment.
\nThe combination of modes of transport in Vietnam, the importance of multimodal
\ntransport is well known, but with the small capital and lack of competent human
\nresources, enterprises can only be agents, brokers, or other intermediaries. If they want
\nto have a bigger role in trade, they have to connect with each other. Vinalines and VNR
\n(Vietnam railways) can be taken as an example; they signed a cooperation agreement on
\n26th of October 2007 to invest in Inland Clearance Depots (ICD) in key economic zones
\nof the country and to utilise the railway network to transport cargo to these ICDs. In
\naddition, in order to connect sea transport and the railway network with Vinalines\u2019s
\nports in Cai Mep \u2013 Thi Vai, Hiep Phuoc, Van Phong, Ba Ngoi, Hai Phong, Dinh Vu and
\nCai Lan, both parties will combine to make decisions to invest in these railways.
\nBesides, developing Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems are also important
\nnowadays, especially applying to implementing multimodal transport. In Vietnam, EDI
\nis used effectively in Haiphong port, which constructed an EDI program according to the
\nstandard of Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport
\n(EDIFACT). This system combines container management data in a Management
\n29
\nInformation System (MIS) to give reports in electronic form to carriers and shipping
\nagents. The problems are that the awareness of Vietnamese enterprises about ecommerce standards is not high. Only about 45% of agencies and companies confirmed
\nthat they knew them. Even the number of experts knowing these standards is small,
\nGovernment has supported enterprises in more training in e-commerce, but this has still
\nbeen concentrated on business skills and not on competent human resources. Moreover,
\nthe legal system for EDI systems is not comprehensive enough, lacking of guidance for
\napplying EDI systems in enterprises. And the last obstacle stems from enterprises\u2019
\ntraditional transaction habits as they still see EDI as a new method and are not familiar
\nwith it.
\n3.2.2.2 Legal framework
\nIn Vietnam, multimodal transport is regulated in articles 87 and 88 of the Vietnamese
\nmaritime Law in force from 01-Jan-91.
\nArticle eighty seven states the definition about \u201ccombined transport\u201d. \u201cCombined
\ntransport\u201d is transport of cargoes by road, inland water way, or air. Although there is no
\nlaw similar to international convention, it still started a period for developing
\nmultimodal transport in Vietnam. Article 87 also regulates the responsibility of carriers
\nwhen signing a through Bill of Lading.
\nThe law mentions different modes of transport joining in the period of transport, but it
\ndoes not regulate clearly about contracts of carriage such as international conventions,
\nboth parties can negotiate and conduct following the international custom or foreign law.
\nThe aviation law regulates the contract in articles fifty nine through article sixty four.
\nArticle 59 indicates that the carrier has to transport the cargoes agreed in the contract to
\nthe place of delivery to the consignee. An Airway bill is the receipt for cargo transported
\nto destination and is proof of the signed contract. The law also regulates the civil
\nresponsibility of the carrier from article seventy two to article eighty one. The common
\n30
\nprinciple of aviation law allows applying international treaties that Vietnam is a party to.
\nBesides that, enterprises can negotiate and sign transport contracts, provided they do not
\noffend mandatory law and Vietnamese custom.
\nClearly, maritime and aviation law do not meet the requirements of international trade,
\nbut they are the main legal basis for implementing multimodal transport in Vietnam
\nnowadays. In terms of road transport, railway transport and inland waterway transport,
\nthe Ministry of Transport has issued the relevant documents and enterprises have to
\nabide by these documents when doing multimodal transport business.
\nThe establishment of the draft Government Decree on multimodal transport business
\nwill create a more detailed, more sufficient legal basis for multimodal transport services.
\nThis decree contains eight chapters.
\n3.2.2.3 Enterprises doing multimodal transport business in Vietnam
\nThere are some well-established companies involved in transportation such as
\nVietfracht, Vietrans, Transimex, Gemadept, Vosa. However they only do some parts of
\nthe multimodal transport process for example, using multimodal transport documents or
\nhire means of transport.
\nVietfracht has provided combined transport for a long time, especially when foreigners
\ninvested in Vietnam and customer\u2019s demand increased. After the UN Convention on
\nInternational multimodal Transport of Good was adopted in 1980, Vietfracht opened the
\nfirst export routes from Ho Chi Minh to Paris in 1982, mainly transporting containers in
\n45 days from:
\nHo Chi Minh \u2013 Black Sea route, where cargoes were transported by Lash of Interlighter.
\nThis was the first route applying multimodal transport in Vietnam. Because of the
\nscope\u2019s limitation, Vietfracht could not find enough cargoes to transport. Besides, the
\nfreight rate was very high in the European routes.
\n31
\nBlack Sea \u2013 Regensburg (Germany) route, where cargoes were transported by tugboats
\nor barges and Regensburg \u2013 Paris, transporting cargo by train. The second route of
\nVietfracht applying multimodal transport was set up in 1988 transporting asphalt by sea
\nfrom Singapore to Danang and by truck from Danang to Savanakhet
\nVietfracht signed the combined transport contract from Singapore to Savanakhet for the
\nshippers, the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) in Singapore. For the
\nroute from Singapore to Danang, some ships of Vosco and Donasco were used, but from
\nDanang to Lao, Vietfracht hired trucks from the Quang Nam \u2013 Da Nang road transport
\nand No. 6 road transport enterprises. However, this route was soon abolished because
\nthe relationship between Thailand and Laos was improved and Laos returned to
\ntransporting cargoes to Bangkok. It was a reasonable decision, because the route
\nbetween Vietnam and Laos was not good enough, easy to be interrupted when it rained
\nand the procedures and customs formalities were cumbersome.
\nIn recent years, Vietfracht has done business on some routes by using multimodal
\ntransports network, but they focus on agent activities for container ships, bulk cargo,
\ngeneral cargo, reefer, roro, tanker and passenger ships for some well-known shipping
\nlines. (Vietfracht, 2010)
\nVietrans is another enterprise doing multimodal transport business. This company
\nmainly transported by air, sea and truck. In the first period, Vietrans accepted to be
\nagents for foreign shipping lines in forwarding cargoes in seaports and airports, and
\ndelivered cargoes to the final customers. In recent years, some shipping lines have
\nallowed Vietrans to use their combined B\/L in consolidating and transporting cargo to
\nhub ports or other intermediate ports.
\nIn the year 1982, Vietrans boldly operated the first multimodal transport route from
\nVietnam to Budapest, choosing Heychevsk as trans-shipment point and Zosuvnestrans as
\n32
\nthrough B\/L for the cargo. Although the time for transport was very long, Vietrans was
\nquite successful on this route.
\nAfter that, Vietrans signed a contract as agent for Dynamic Service belonging to the
\nJardine Matheson group in Singapore and Militzer Munch in Western Germany.
\nThe strong points of Vietrans were the acumen with demands and expectations of
\nforeigners and the application of information technology in multimodal transport. It
\nmeans they know what their customers need and provide service immediately. They also
\nhad high quality staff, a large warehouse system in ports and hundreds of effective
\ntrucks. They act as agency for some foreign transport companies such as IBF in Hong
\nKong, Singapore, Bangkok and DFS Singapore. (Vietrans, 2011)
\nVietnam Muti-modal Transport Company (Vietranstimex) In 1976, the company only
\nacted as transport agent in Da Nang. In 2003, the Minister of MOT issued decision
\nnumber 3097\/QD-BGTVT changing the name of the company from Transport Service
\nNo. 2 to Multimodal Transport Company belonging to the Ministry of Transport and
\noperating in a \u201cMother company \u2013 Subsidiary\u201d mode. Most recently, in 2010, the
\ncompany received the decision number 1454\/QD-BGTVT about approving the plan to
\nequitize from a \u201cMother \u2013 Subsidiary\u201d company to a \u201cMultimodal Joint Stock
\nCorporation\u201d.
\nNowadays, the company is operating in most regions of Vietnam with four subsidiary
\ncompanies, one joint venture with foreigners and four other branches. The company has
\naround 200 special axles type G7 vehicles utilized in transportation of oversize and
\noverweight cargoes and more than 100 units of transport as well as stevedoring facilities
\nof many kinds, enabling them to carry out many jobs at the same time with a whole
\ndimension up to 3,000 tons in weight. The company is always a first company in
\ninvesting in advanced technology combining it with high quality human resource. They
\nwant to become the top transport corporation in dimension\/oversize cargoes in the
\n33
\nASEAN region. Multimodal transport is the strategy of the company in expanding the
\noperational aspects of the company.
\nOther companies including VOSA, VICONSHIP and GEMADEPT, are implementing
\nmultimodal transport on behalf of joint-venture shipping lines and foreign companies.
\nIn Vietnam, enterprises clearly identified the importance of multimodal transport.
\nHowever, they did not have enough capital and lacked human resources so in the past
\nmost enterprises did business as brokers, agents or other intermediaries.
\nNowadays, these problems are considerably reduced and Vietnam is setting up
\nmultimodal transport in the same way as global companies. Specifically, two big
\ntransport companies \u2013 VINALINES and VNR signed a cooperation contract on 26
\nOctober, 2007. They are developing Inland Clearance Depots (ICDs) in some key
\neconomic zones in the north, in the centre and in the south by building railway networks
\nto transport cargoes to these zones. In the first period, they joined in the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) to invest
\nin ICD Lao Cai. In addition, the railway network connects with the ports of Vinalines in
\nCai Mep \u2013 Thi Vai, Hiep Phuoc (HCMC), Van Phong (Khanh Hoa), Hai Phong (Lach
\nHuyen), Dinh Vu (Hai Phong) and Cai Lan (Quang Ninh). Each project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) requires
\ncooperation and detailed planning. In terms of multimodal transport, the two companies
\nwill develop the cooperation based on the strong points of each partner. Vinalines will
\nfocus on the big ocean ports and ICDs in key economic zones. However, other transport
\nnetworks such as road, rail and inland waterway must be closely coordinated. VNR can
\ntake the advantages of the big amount of cargoes transported, low freight and follow the
\ntime in schedule. In the future the cooperation between Vinalines and VNR will be
\npromoted effectively.
\n34
\n3.2.3 Comment on multimodal transport business in Vietnam
\nIn legal aspect: Vietnam lacks a specific regulatory system on multimodal transport in
\nthe Vietnamese maritime code, road code, inland waterway code, rail code and aviation
\ncode. It is very difficult to identify the responsibility or to connect transportation types
\ntogether in a multimodal transport service.
\nInfrastructure: Most transport networks, such as road, rail, inland waterway, maritime
\nand air cannot meet the requirements for international multimodal transport demand.
\nInformation technology support for multimodal transport is deficient, despite being more
\nand more improved.
\nEnterprises doing multimodal transport business: enterprises are not trained and do not
\nhave much knowledge about transport law, lack experience and find it difficult to
\ncompete with foreign enterprises joining in this type of service in Vietnam.
\n3.3 Development strategy for multimodal transport system in Vietnam according
\nto port development planning and Sustainable Development of Transport
\nSystem (VITRANSS2) of Prime Minister (Prime Minister, 2009)
\n3.3.1 The goals and trend to develop multimodal transport system in Vietnam
\nfrom now to the year 2020
\nMultimodal transport brings great advantage and benefit for the economy. The
\nVietnamese government is trying its best to develop multimodal transport in the near
\nfuture, in particular, they set forth a plan from now until 2020 and the vision for 2030. If
\nVietnam can implement this plan well, we will have modern infrastructure meeting the
\nrequirements of domestic transport in general and multimodal transport in particular.
\nTransportation is an important part of economic \u2013 social infrastructure. Investment in
\ntransportation should be one of the first priorities with high speed and sustainability.
\nTransportation is a prerequisite for developing social, economic and military aspects and
\nespecially for support to the industrialization and modernization contents in Vietnam.
\n35
\nVietnam should take advantage of the geographic location and natural resources of the
\ncountry, such as the long coastline and inland waterways to develop transportation
\nnetworks suitably leading to reduction social cost.
\nIn order to take advantage of the geographical situation, government and other
\norganizations should develop transport infrastructure in a synchronized way to set up a
\ngood, continuous network of transport modes between urban and suburban regions in
\nnational scope. Besides, the existing transport network must be maintained and operated
\nefficiently and effectively.
\nOn the other hand, Government must focus more on development of modern, high
\nquality transport, suitable cost of transport, assuring safety, limiting environmental
\npollution and saving energy, applying information technology, especially multimodal
\ntransport and logistics.
\nIn addition, connecting new investment and innovation, upgrading, taking advantages of
\nthe existing transport industry, modern technology, especially building vessels,
\nautomobiles and wagons used domestically and for export is also very important. It is
\nnecessary to develop a global transportation system in connection with the national
\ntransportation system to cooperate, integrate regionally and globally.
\nAnother thing to do is developing fast, big capacity modes of transport, for example
\nrailway transport in big cities like Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh. Developing transportation
\nin the big cities by using public transport to assure safety and convenience is important.
\nBesides, controlling the increase in personal transport, reducing traffic jams and assuring
\nsafe and order by traffic need to be done immediately.
\nMoreover, Government is trying to develop local transport to meet the requirements of
\nindustrialization and modernization in agriculture, connecting local transport with
\n36
\nnational transport networks to create smooth and continuous flow of goods with suitable
\ncost.
\nAnother problem are resources, Government has to mobilize maximum resources,
\nincreasing domestic resources to invest in transportation. Government should set up
\ntactics and strategies to attract more investment and take advantage of the country\u2019s
\navailable resources.
\nLast but not least, using land for transportation suitably, planning to use land for
\ntransport, which requires concensus, close connection and synchronizing
\nimplementation between ministries and local regions will create more conditions to
\ndevelop multimodal transport in Vietnam.
\n3.3.2 Strategy in developing transportation in Vietnam
\nTransport networks must meet a variety of transportation demand with fast growth and
\nassure high quality, suitable cost and reduce traffic accidents and limit pollution. In
\ngeneral, the transportation network needs to be set up with a suitable transport system
\nbetween modes of transport, particularly for some commodities in large volumes.
\nRoad transport: highways and roads must be improved and widened especially some
\nhighways having high transport demand, for example 1A highway, 13th highway or
\nHanoi highway and so on. Besides, subways are also focused on and capital for new
\nbuilding and maintaining of subways also needs to be found.
\nRailway transport: innovation and upgrading existing railways to get the standard up to
\n120km\/h. New high speed railways need to be built, particularly the North-South
\nrailway with the speed of 350km\/h. Railway transport can be used for carrying cargoes
\nas well as passengers as public transport, particularly in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
\nMaritime transport: develop the national ports system, including the Van Phong
\ntransshipment port, international gateway ports and deep sea ports in the three key
\n37
\neconomic clusters that are able to receive the current generation of container ships,
\nmultipurpose ports, specialized ports, passenger ports to meet the economic \u2013 social
\ndevelopment and international integration requirement. Investing in and developing port
\ninfrastructure, including berths, narrow passages, hinterland transport and other support
\nsystems.
\nInland waterway: upgrade main inland waterway routes, innovate some important
\nroutes, increase length of river routes that are being operated. Upgrading and building
\nhub ports, cargo berths and passenger berths, especially in the Red river and Cuu Long
\nriver are necessary.
\nAviation: upgrade, enlarge and build new airports to international standard, invest in the
\ninternational airports in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, research and invest in some new
\nairports with the same scale and quality as large airports in the region with operation
\ncapacity increasing 3 to 3.5 times in 2020.
\nUrban transport: developing urban transport infrastructure and public transport,
\nincreasing land used for urban transport from 16 to 26% in 2020. In some big cities
\npublic transport is promoted, elevated railway and metro system in Hanoi and HCMC to
\ncarry passengers to be increased from 35% to 45% in 2020.
\nRural transport: the purpose of developing rural transport is to help motor vehicles
\ntransport to villages. Inland waterways are a big advantage of Vietnam and should be
\ninvested in more in the future to create the smooth flow of transport for the Mekong
\nregion, and Cuu Long river delta.
\nRailway and aviation industry: building new and modern, convenient and varied
\npassenger wagons used domestically and for export, creating spare parts, components
\nand assembling modern locomotives.
\n38
\nIn terms of aviation the strategies are increasing the ability in repairing and maintaining
\nair planes, aircraft engines and other equipments until 2020, broadening supporting
\nservices to foreign airlines, cooperating in making some air plane components and spare
\nparts.
\n3.4 Suggesting methods to achieve those goals
\n3.4.1 Government has given some methods to support transportation
\nFirstly, encouraging all economic sectors to join in the transport business or supporting
\ntransport services. Establish transport groups having state\u2019s capital to support some
\nroutes that have big demand such as North \u2013 South, public passenger transport and
\ntransport supporting regional, remote areas and islands, even for other unexpected tasks
\nwhen necessary.
\nSecondly, Government should support public transport and transport serving regions,
\nremote areas and poor regions in many forms, for instance, preferential credits,
\nincentives after sales facilities, investment or subsidies.
\nThirdly, encouraging enterprises to use domestically assembled means to carry
\npassengers in some forms such as deferred payment, instalment sale and incentive
\npolicies in importing spare parts and equipment that Vietnam has not produced yet.
\nFourthly, setting up suitable freight and fee systems between modes of transport in
\nwhich State plays a macro instrument role.
\nLastly, developing a variety of forms of transport and transport support services in order
\nto assure safety, high quality, speed and convenience and to save cost is also important.
\nThe Government especially emphasized that developing multimodal transport and
\nlogistics services in transport cargo is very important.
\n39
\n3.4.2 Creating more capital to develop transport infrastructure
\nFirst of all, maximizing mobilization of all resources, focusing on internal resources and
\ncreating conditions to attract more investment capital from economic sectors under many
\nforms to build transportation infrastructure, especially investment in some forms such as
\nPublic Private Partnership, Build-Transfer-Operate, Build-Transfer and Build-OperateTransfer should be noted. In addition, Vietnam is applying the form that the State will
\ninvest in building infrastructures and organizations or individuals will lease these
\ninfrastructures to operate and have capital for maintenance or investing in other
\nconstructions.
\nSecond, setting up maintenance and investment funds to develop transport infrastructure
\nwhere the first priority is a road maintenance fund. This fund will help rural transport
\ndevelop.
\nThird, building modern urban infrastructure, focusing on public transport with big
\nnumber of passengers and static transportation system to solve the traffic jam problem as
\nwell as limit pollution in big cities like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
\nFourth, using suitable land for developing transport infrastructure, especially urban
\ntransport infrastructure, should be considered. Besides, combining public land, metro
\nand elevated transport to use land effectively, and plan to redistribute urban space to
\ncreate more land for development of urban transportation.
\nFifth, planning and building transport from communes to districts to assure that rural
\ntransport develops in harmony and links with the national transport system. Besides,
\nstrengthening institutions and improving the institutional management of rural roads.
\nFinally, innovating means of transport in quality to be suitable with requirements in
\ntransporting cargoes and passengers is also a target to develop transportation.
\nStrengthening management, periodically checking the quality of transport modes quality
\n40
\nand service quality, especially in passenger transport are also important. Moreover,
\ndeveloping organizations and associations to protect customer\u2019s interest should be noted
\ncarefully.
\n3.4.3 Developing transport industry policies
\nEncouraging transport enterprises to expand by forming joint-ventures, domestic and
\nabroad, in order to mobilize more capital, information technology transfer and
\nmanagement experience exchange.
\nBesides, establishing financial leasing companies with State guarantees as a condition
\nfor enterprises to approach or use finance sources. Beside, technologies and new
\nequipments should meet the requirements of customers.
\n3.4.4 International integration and competition policies
\nDevelop external synchronization of the transport system and between modes of
\ntransport together with handling equipment with technological standard comparable with
\ncountries all over the world. Capital and resources are priorities to develop a modern
\nfleet of ships and airplanes. Furthermore quality and service standard must be enhanced
\nto assure international competitiveness.
\nContinue amendment of laws, institutions and policies that are suitable to WTO and
\nother international coordination organizations, which Vietnam is a member of.
\n3.4.5 Organization innovation, administration reform policy
\nGovernment should rearrange organization following a functional model and divide the
\nstate management function of state owned companies between the production and
\nbusiness function of enterprises.
\nIn addition, innovating administration in transportation by applying information
\ntechnology and international standards issued by ISO and mobilizing transport plan
\nmanagement are suitable to actual requirements.
\n41
\n3.4.6 Applying new technology and science policy
\nFirst of all, building and improving the standards, procedures, regulations and rules in
\nsurvey, design, construction, testing, maintenance, material and technologies used in
\ntransportation. After that Government should encourage enterprises to apply new
\ntechnology and new materials.
\nNext, modernizing modes of transport, cargo handling and applying modern technology,
\nespecially in multimodal transport and logistics services, will create the chance for
\ndomestic enterprises to get more revenue and benefit. Enterprises should be always
\nencouraged to apply information technology in management, control, and operation.
\nFinally, enhancing the ability of research institutes and experiment centers involved in
\ntransportation would help develop multimodal transport in the long term.
\n3.4.7 Resources development
\nThe first step is broadening training, retraining, social training to enhance knowledge,
\nmanagement skills of managers, servants, officials and workers.
\nAnother way is applying salary and other incentives for workers in transport
\nemployment conditions, especially in maintenance of transport infrastructure in regions,
\nremote, dangerous and hard working areas.
\nFurthermore, focusing on enhancing the ability and equipment of training centres,
\nespecially supporting training for pilots, officers and seafarers to enhance qualified
\nhuman resources is also a good choice. Afterward, mobilizing the coordination and
\nconnection between companies using human resources and training centres to meet the
\nrequirement of actual demand and to use trained human resources are necessary.
\n42
\nCHAPTER 4: ASEAN AND THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM OF
\nASEAN
\n4.1 Trading and transportation system of ASEAN
\n4.1.1 ASEAN trading
\nASEAN was set up in 1967 with the purpose of promoting the development of
\neconomies, keeping peace and stability and strengthening the cooperation among
\nmembers. Currently, there are ten countries in ASEAN but they are heterogeneous. In
\nthe ten countries, there are seven countries connected physically with each other and
\nthree countries (Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei) are islands. Vietnam became the
\n7th member of ASEAN in 1995.
\nThe differences in the economies of the member countries significantly hamper the
\ndevelopment of ASEAN. For example, Singapore is 80 times richer than Myanmar, the
\npopulation of Indonesia is 230 million compared to 4.7 million in Singapore and so on.
\nThese diversities have restrained the progress of organization for the 40 years since its
\nestablishment.
\n43
\nFigure 4.1: Map of countries in ASEAN
\nSource: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\nMoreover, ASEAN is noted as a potential growth region in which members are
\ncooperating in three main aspects: economic, political and security and social \u2013 cultural.
\nThere were several important events that lead to the establishment and development of
\nthis region as listed in table 4.1 below:
\n44
\nYear Event
\n8-Aug-1967 Setting up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN)
\n27-Nov-1971 Signing the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality
\nDeclaration
\n24-Feb-1976 Signing the declaration of ASEAN Concord and the
\nTreaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asea
\n28-Jan-1992 Signing the agreement on the Common Effective
\nPreferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN
\nFTA
\n15-Dec-1995 Signing the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear
\nWeapon \u2013 Free Zone
\n15-Dec-1997 Adopting the \u201cASEAN Vision 2020\u201d roadmap on the
\noccasion of the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN
\n13-Jan-2007 Signing the Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of
\nthe Establishment of an ASEAN community by 2015
\n1-Apr-2009 Adopting the Cha-am Hua Hin Declaration for the 2009
\n\u2013 2015 roapmap for the ASEAN community
\nBy 2015 ASEAN Economic Community to be fully
\nimplemented
\nTable 4.1: Important events of ASEAN
\nSource: World Economic Forum (2010). Enabling Trade in Greater ASEAN region
\nGeneva: Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz and Thierry Geiger.
\nEach ASEAN country has its own language, own culture and the populations are also
\nvery different from each other. The table below shows the differences in number of
\npeople, GDP and share of export and import within the member States.
\n45
\nTable 4.2: Population, GDP per capita and share of total ASEAN trade (2009)
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources.
\nAs can be seen in the above table, Indonesia has the highest population with
\n229,965,000 people, while Singapore has only just more than 4.5 million. However, the
\nGDP per capital of Singapore is the highest expressed as $62,100\/person per year
\ncompared to the three least developed countries of Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.
\nVietnam is crowded with nearly 90 million people in the square of 331.212 km\u00b2; the
\nGDP\/person per year is not high at USD 3,100 and its import and export share in the
\nregion is ranked fifth of all the States.
\nCountries Population GDP per
\ncapita
\n(PPP)
\n(USD\/year)
\nShare of total ASEAN
\ntrade (2009)
\nExport % Import %
\nBrunei
\nMyanmar
\nCambodia
\nLaos
\nIndonesia
\nMalaysia
\nPhilippines
\nSingapore
\nThailand
\nVietnam
\n400,000
\n55,390,000
\n13,995,904
\n6,320,000
\n229,965,000
\n28,310,000
\n91,983,000
\n4,553,009
\n62,713,941
\n87,375,000
\n51,600
\n1,197
\n2,100
\n2,500
\n4,200
\n14,700
\n3,500
\n62,100
\n8,700
\n3,100
\n0.88
\n0.78
\n0.62
\n0.15
\n14.38
\n19.36
\n4.73
\n33.29
\n18.82
\n6.99
\n0.33
\n0.53
\n0.54
\n0.24
\n13.33
\n16.98
\n6.27
\n33.84
\n18.42
\n9.53
\nASEAN 581,005,854 100
\n46
\nThe target of the region in the declaration of the ASEAN Economic Community
\nBlueprint is setting up an effective ASEAN Economic Community \u201cinto a region with
\nfree movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor and freer flow of capital\u201d.
\nAt the 18th ASEAN summit, the AEC set up certain regulatory issues in implementing
\nintra and extra ASEAN commitments and an Integration Monitoring Office (AIMO) to
\nsupport the process of the fast implementation of the AEC. This gives effort to make
\nASEAN a single market and production base, a highly competitive economic region, a
\nregion of equitable economic development and a region fully integrated into the global
\neconomy. (ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint , 2008-2009)
\nAdditionally, trade and services are anticipated as vital sources of ASEAN in developing
\nthe economy. Member countries have implemented liberalized trade in services on
\nunilateral, regional and multilateral fronts. The Association has had its own unilateral
\nand multilateral liberalization framework agreement of services (AFAS) since 1995,
\nregionalism can act stably, politically, economically and financially. (ESCAP, ASEAN
\nand Trade integration, 2009)
\nEventually, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) has been virtually set up. By 1\/1\/2010
\nThailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Brunei (ASEAN \u2013 6) had
\neliminated import duties on products and the remaining countries will eliminate duties
\nby 1\/1\/2015. This event will create the chance for members to trade more with each
\nother as well as to enhance competition between the enterprises of each country.
\n4.1.2 Transport system between member countries
\nTransportation and communication infrastructure contribute significantly to develop
\ntrade and attract investors, especially when there is an interconnection among countries
\nin a region like ASEAN. Thus it will support the broadening of business activities and
\nuse the facilities and means of transport efficiently and effectively. Moreover, capital in
\ndeveloping countries is not always available to invest in high technology which is
\n47
\nessential for transport and facilities such as roads, railways, ports, warehouses, container
\nfreight stations and handling equipment. Another issue for multimodal transport is
\nprocedures and documents, especially customs procedures, so cooperation will help the
\nmember countries develop infrastructure homogeneously and reduce time and costs
\nwhen implementing multimodal transport for customers.
\nFigure 4.2: Organizational Structure of the ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan (ASTP)
\nProject and the List of Contributors Source: ERIA study Team
\nSource: ERIA study team.
\nIn the ASEAN countries nowadays, there are good opportunities to develop multimodal
\ntransport because of the containerization and upgrading of transportation infrastructure
\n48
\nas well as communication improvements. From 1999 to 2003, the ASEAN countries
\nfocused on developing the trans-ASEAN transportation network, setting up policies,
\nagreements on facilitation and encouraging development studies and project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s.
\n(Wisetruangrot, 2005)
\nFigure 4.3: ASEAN Infrastructure quality
\nSource: World Economic Forum, Executive Opinion Survey 2008, 2009
\nIn this graph, it is easy to recognize that the infrastructure of Singapore, Malaysia and
\nThailand is quite good compared to other countries such as Cambodia, Philippines and
\nVietnam. Thus, it can be clearly seen that Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand have
\nimportant deep-sea ports as well as gateway ports in the South East Asia region. It is
\nimportant to emphasize that infrastructure is very important for countries to broaden
\ntheir commerce.
\nTo do this successfully it is estimated that the required investment in infrastructure from
\n2006 to 2015 is about USD600 billion, of which transport will require about USD157
\nbillion. Nearly 40% of this money will be used for maintaining the existing system, with
\nthe remaining 60% to be used to build new infrastructures. In 2009, the ASEAN
\n49
\nmembers signed the Comprehensive Investment Agreement to attract more individual
\ninvestors through the open and free investment area. (M. D. Hanouz and T. Geiger,
\n2010)
\nEventually, the ASEAN Transport Action Plan (ATAP) 2005-2010 that was adopted in
\n2003 to attract more private investors, established 48 actions to enhance the connection
\nof multimodal transport, encourage the seamless move of goods and people,
\nliberalization in the air and maritime transport services, improvement of transport
\nservices and logistics system integration. Furthermore, there is the ASEAN Highway
\nNetwork Project signed in 1999 that aimed to upgrade a total of 38,400 kilometres of 23
\ndesignated routes into four-lane, asphalted highways.
\nThe ASEAN members have the common idea of setting up important routes to promote
\nthe transport of goods in the region. Moreover, new railroads are being established, road
\nquality is being upgraded, and procedures and custom barriers are being reduced or
\nsimplified, all this step by step.
\nEqually important, two big project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s are underway: the Singapore-Kunming (SKRL)
\nrailroad and the ASEAN road (AHN). SKRL will run from Singapore via Malaysia,
\nMyanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and terminating at Kunming \u2013 China.
\nMalaysia is implementing some solutions to attract investment in SKRL through
\nconferences and exhibitions about the routes. AHN will try to build and upgrade the
\ntransshipment route.
\nIn December, 1999, the Transport Ministerial Agreement on the development of the
\nASEAN road network at the ASEAN Transport Ministers (ATM) 5th Conference was
\nsigned where ASEAN members agreed on the shape of the road network including
\nroutes that each member was appointed to join. In addition, each of the countries should
\nrepair and upgrade their national roads belonging to the ASEAN road network following
\nthe standard and minimum technical requirements. The routes will transverse big cities
\n50
\nand potential regions, which can connect with ports, and will have a high technical
\nstandard to meet the demands in moving transshipment and transnational goods. The
\nASEAN road network system will be fully upgraded and completed in 2020.
\nThe figure below shows the way cargoes are transported among member countries. As
\nshown in figure 4.4, maritime transport has developed remarkably in Singapore; this
\ncountry is the gateway port, or transshipment port, to transport cargoes to Europe and
\nAmerica. In addition to maritime transport, road transport has also developed in the
\nseven countries having borders with each other,
\nFigure 4.4: ASEAN Port Network System
\nSource: ASEAN Maritime Transport Development Study (2002), Final Report Summary
\n2002, Manila: Association of South East Asian Nations.
\n51
\nIn terms of multimodal transport, the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal
\nTransport was signed in 2005 at the ATM 11 conference to supply \u201cdoor to door\u201d
\nservices throughout the ASEAN region by using different modes of transport and only
\none document.
\n4.2 Transportation cooperation among ASEAN countries
\n4.2.1 Giving reasons and the need for transport cooperation among ASEAN
\ncountries
\nTransport and communication development is a prerequisite to promote trade among
\ncountries. At Manila on 15th of December 1987, leaders of 10 ASEAN members agreed
\nthat \u201cthe existing transportation system shall be strengthened to ultimately form an
\noverall ASEAN transportation network\u201d. ASEAN Manila Declaration (1987)
\nTable 4.3: ASEAN trade by region (2009)
\nSource: External trade ASEAN statistics
\n52
\nThe ASEAN Plan of Action in Transport 1996-1998 was conducted successfully to
\nintegrate the regional market and promote the coordination in transportation,
\ncommunication and infrastructure sectors. The ASEAN Transport Cooperation
\nFramework Plan was established to support and assure the implementation of the
\n\u201cASEAN vision 2020\u201d and \u201cthe Hanoi Plan of Action\u201d. From 1999 to 2004 there were
\n55 project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and activities focusing on five sectors: transport facilitation, air transport,
\nland transport, maritime transport and integrated transport development in the ASEAN
\nbased on five strategies, which are the development of infrastructure, promotion of
\ncompetitive transport services, capacity building initiatives, improving transport safety
\nand environment and greater private sector participation.
\nThe ASEAN also cooperates with other countries including the USA, Canada, Japan, EU
\nand Australia beside cooperation within the region. This strategy will help ASEAN
\nimprove services with higher frequency and lower costs, while taking the advantage of
\nthe natural resources available and low labor costs.
\nIn particular, the ASEAN plan of action in transport and communication (1997) was
\nsupported by technical Helpance and finance from many countries. Australia with a
\nstudy on \u201cOpen skies\u201d, China and Belgium with the management of human resources
\ndevelopment in river transport and road traffic, Japan with safety of road and maritime
\ntransport, intelligent transport systems and urban transport while the Republic of Korea
\nhelped with highway construction and Germany planned for handling dangerous goods
\nin ports.
\n4.2.2 Legal basis and programmes to develop the multimodal transport system of
\nASEAN
\nAt the moment of writing (October, 2010), there is a United Nations Convention on
\nInternational Multimodal Transport of Goods, but this has not entered into force yet.
\nHowever, ASEAN has considered multimodal transport as the first priority in
\n53
\ntransportation and traffic development. This was specified as one of seven action
\nprogrammes on transportation and communication in the ASEAN countries of the Senior
\nTransport Officials Meeting (STOM) in Thailand 1997. (UNCTAD Secretariat, 2001)
\nAlso, the ASEAN Transport Ministers (ATM) and Senior Transport Officials Meeting
\n(STOM) had a lot of meetings to reach a Framework on Multimodal Transport including
\n10 chapters and 36 articles. The content of the Agreement was based on the United
\nNations International Convention on Multimodal Transport 1980, the UNCTAD\/ICC
\nRules for Multimodal Transport Documents, the Cartagena Agreement of the ANDEAN
\ncountries on Multimodal Transport (1993) and business practices in the ASEAN
\ncountries.
\nFurthermore, at the end of October 2001, the 7th ASEAN Transport Ministers meeting
\nconvened in Malaysia to sign the draft of the \u201cASEAN Framework on Multimodal
\nTransport\u201d. This agreement has become a prerequisite for the cooperation of ASEAN on
\nmultimodal transport and is a common legal basis that has created many opportunities
\nfor developing multimodal transport in these countries.
\nThe purposes of the agreement are to prescribe a common legal basis involved in
\nmultimodal transport, and from that point it can promote the development of this service
\nthoroughly, economically and effectively. Developing multimodal transport helps
\nbroaden mutual trade among countries as well as trade with other countries outside
\nASEAN. The Agreement also creates a balance of interests between people who provide
\nand use international services in ASEAN. The framework includes 11 chapters and 42
\narticles.
\nFrom 1977 to 1994 cooperation activities involving transportation and communication
\nwere directed by COTAC ASEAN (Cooperation in transport and communication). From
\n1997, there were about 100 project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s set forth but the number completed was not great.
\nCooperation was mainly in the fields of sea transport and ports, roads, civil aviation,
\n54
\nrelated services like post offices and communication. At that time there were four main
\nagreements signed: the Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights of NonScheduled Air Services among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1971, the
\nAgreement for the Facilitation of Search of Aircraft in Distress and Rescue of Survivors
\nin Aircraft Accidents, 1972, Ship Search and Rescue Agreement, 1975 and the ASEAN
\nFramework Agreement on Recognition of Driving Licenses, 1995.
\n4.2.3 Road and rail transport
\nRoad and rail transport are important elements of multimodal transport and must be
\nprioritized. The Governments have purpose of focusing on four aspects related to road
\ntransport
\n\uf0b7 Transportation in big cities: cooperating in ASEAN in solving the problems that
\nhave to be faced.
\n\uf0b7 Road safety: increasing the safety level through methods such as checking,
\nassuring the safety of roads, building new roads and transportation awareness.
\n\uf0b7 Human resource development: enhancing the knowledge and skills of managers
\nand staff to plan, manage and administrate road systems.
\n\uf0b7 Transportation planning and activities: improving and harmonizing the road
\ntransport network in member countries and law standardization in making it easy
\nto move goods and people among the ASEAN countries.
\n55
\nFigure 4.5: Singapore \u2013 Kunming Rail Link
\nSource: ASEAN (1999). Mekong Railway Project. Retrieved June 5, 2011 from the
\nWorld Wide Web: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/cbre.com.kh\/2010\/09\/mekong-railway-project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)\/
\nThe Singapore-Kunming rail project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) runs through Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand,
\nCambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and ends in China. It is estimated to be completed
\nin 2015 at a cost of around US$11 billion.
\nHowever, since there is a shortage of capital, which has lead to lower standards for
\ninternational truck facilities at border crossings, not many TIR (Transport International
\n56
\nRoutier) agreements have been signed making it difficult for trucks to travel between
\ncountries with transshipment goods.
\nWith rail transport, a major problem is the shortage of wagons carrying more than 80
\ntonnes, and 50 foot wagons.
\n4.2.4 Sea transport and ports
\nThe Agreement of ASEAN in 1980 on sea transport and commerce was a guideline for
\nthe cooperation between countries in this respect. The purposes of this agreement were
\nsetting up stable and reasonable freight rates as well as providing efficient and economic
\nsea transport services within the region or outside ASEAN. Some of the main activities
\nwere to broaden and modernize ASEAN fleets, promoting the cooperation of
\ncommercial vessels, minimizing the restraints in sea transport, encouraging the
\nestablishment and upgrading of national information systems in transport goods
\nregistration, setting up more ASEAN sea transport committees, increasing the role of
\nASEAN Port Authorities Association and ASEAN Shipowners Association, and
\nestablishing an advanced environment for the closer cooperation among ASEAN
\ngovernment and private sectors including non-government organizations.
\n57
\nFigure 4.6: Container Shipping Services in South East Asia
\nSource: Najoan, J. E. & Sutomo, H. (2005). Short Sea Shipping As An Alternative For
\nASEAN. Surabaya, Indonesia.
\nASEAN countries have implemented some project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s such as training, information
\nexchange, economic and technical research, providing sea transport services, safety at
\nsea and harbours as well as setting up a common stance of ASEAN concerning
\ninternational transportation matters.
\nIn terms of safety at sea the target has been to enhance the safety of ships and sea
\ntransport in the ASEAN sea region. Here member States have set up information in
\nelectronic boards, which include an ASEAN vessels information system and a response
\nplan to deal with accidents at sea and pollution.
\n58
\nThe weaknesses of sea transport are the links with other transport modes, poor
\nequipment for handling cargoes and the time to process customs procedures and transit
\ncargo.
\n4.2.5 Air transport and related services
\nEnsuring safety through cooperation within air transport and improving the air traffic
\ncontrol system have been seen as priorities in air transport. The list below shows the
\ncooperation in terms of air transport services in the South East Asian region:
\n\uf0b7 Cooperation in policy: from the year 1990, annual meetings of the Chief
\nExecutives and Senior Executives of ASEAN airlines have been organized, and
\nin 1992 the ASEAN International Airport Association was established.
\n\uf0b7 Cooperation in Economic and technical research.
\n\uf0b7 Cooperation in human resource development.
\n\uf0b7 Cooperation in professional and information exchange.
\nA Senior Economic Officials Meeting (SEOM) was first organized in 1994 at Jakarta
\nwhich set up a working team for the transport and communication sectors. This team
\ndeveloped a program called \u201cASEAN activities planning on transport and
\ncommunication\u201d and broadened \u201cOpen ASEAN sky policy\u201d. In 1996, the Ministers of
\nTransport of the ASEAN countries signed an agreement to set up a transportation
\ncooperation mechanism and Senior Transport Officials Meetings. Ministers also defined
\nthe goals for cooperation in the transportation sector:
\n\uf0b7 Setting up and developing a harmonized and unified transport system.
\n\uf0b7 Building up a close and flexible transport network among members and with other
\nregions.
\n\uf0b7 Promoting transport cooperation to reach the purposes of the ASEAN Free Trade
\nArea.
\n59
\n\uf0b7 Setting up a mechanism to supervise the implementation of project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s and other
\nactivities involving transportation.
\nWith support from the ASEAN Secretariat, STOM is to cooperate in the following
\naspects: urban transport, aviation, human resource development, setting up an ASEAN
\nrailway centre and a human resource training centre for ASEAN\u2019s inland waterway and
\nrailway system. The last item is the coordination of sea traffic management tools that
\nstill respect the testing procedures of the individual ASEAN members\u2019 ports.
\nThere are seven cooperation programmes:
\n\uf0b7 Developing multimodal transport and promoting trade.
\n\uf0b7 Enhancing the close connection among ASEAN members in terms of
\ncommunication, promoting the development of road, sea and air transport.
\n\uf0b7 Integrating the legal systems and transport rules in the ASEAN countries.
\n\uf0b7 Completing the aviation management system in the ASEAN.
\n\uf0b7 Developing human resources for transportation and communication.
\n\uf0b7 Implementing safety at sea and forecasting pollution caused by vessels.
\n\uf0b7 Developing the competition policy in aviation services to support the conduct of the
\n\u201cOpen ASEAN sky\u201d policy.
\nAir transport in ASEAN countries needs to invest more in facilities such as cold storage,
\nhandling equipment and dangerous goods stores.
\n4.3 The results reached after cooperation in multimodal transport
\nIn order to maintain and develop the status of the ASEAN in the world, there is a need
\nfor coherent policies at the regional and sub-regional levels (UNCTAD, 1989).
\nTrade cannot be conducted without transportation. Transport adds more value to the
\ngoods. Transport becomes an integral element contributing to the production line and
\n60
\nmeeting the requirement to reduce cost of storage and multiple handling through the
\nconcept \u201cJust in time\u201d.
\nIn 2010, the main ports in the ASEAN countries loaded and discharged nearly 62.6
\nmillion TEUs compared to 55.3 million TEUs in 2009. Singapore had the highest
\nnumber of throughput containers, Port Klang, Port Tanjung Pelepas (Malaysia) and
\nLaem Chanbang (Thailand) also received many large vessels and holds a big share in the
\nport market in South East Asia.
\nPorts 2008 2009 2010 Compared of 2010 to
\n2009
\nBangkok 1.45 1.22 1.45 18.8
\nLaem Chabang 5.13 4.54 5.07 9.5
\nHo Chi Minh (Cai Mep) 3.43 3.71 4.3 10.8
\nManila 2.98 2.82 3.22 14.2
\nPort Klang 7.97 7.31 8.87 12.2
\nPort Tanjung Pelepas 5.6 6.02 6.53 8.5
\nTanjung Priok 3.98 3.8 4.71 23.6
\nSingapore 29.9 25.9 28.4 9.7
\nTotal 60.44 55.32 62.55
\nTable 4.4: Throughput comparison of main ports in the ASEAN (2008 to 2010) in
\nmillion TEUs
\nSource: Containerisation International, Solid foundation, 2011
\nCargo handling equipments in some main ports are not enough and demands for new
\nterminals are appearing to meet the developments in the trading of goods.
\n61
\nThe free trade agreement between China and the ASEAN bloc was fully implemented in
\nJanuary, 2010. According to Dr Surin, Secretary General of the ASEAN group of
\ncountries, \u201cthe ASEAN bloc has the capacity to be the supply chain for China\u2019s booming
\neconomy which has been further liberalised by the ASEAN-China FTA\u201d. The trade
\nbetween ASEAN and China increased about 26% annually from 2003 to 2008. (Wellstacked, 2011)
\nTrade lane 2009
\n(TEUs)
\n2010
\n(TEUs)
\n% increase Forecast
\n2011
\n(TEUs)
\nChinese exports to
\nASEAN
\n2,659,074 3,251,589 19.5 3,887,104
\nChinese imports from
\nASEAN
\n1,674,388 1,858,249 1,5 1,885,256
\nTable 4.5: Cargo flow to\/from China-South East Asia (in TEU)
\nSource: Containerisation International, China-ASEAN rate drop after FTA, p.14,
\nJanuary 2011
\nThe Free Trade Area wishes to increase over-land trading opportunities. Kerry Asia
\nRoad Transport (KART) is going to run in ASEAN and China with the purpose of
\nconnecting land\/sea and land\/air traffic. The table above shows that in 2010 the number
\nof TEUs exported to China from ASEAN countries increased by 19.5% compared to
\n2009, while the number of TEUs imported from China rose only 1.5%. China is always
\nthe big market of South East Asian nations, both in terms of imports and exports.
\n62
\nThe second biggest export market of ASEAN is the European Union. The share of total
\nEU imports in 2010 was about 5.8%. On the other hand the export share was nearly
\n4.5% of the total trade of ASEAN.
\nTable 4.6: EU\u2019s trade balance with ASEAN
\nSource: EUROSTAT (Comext, Statistical regime 4)
\nFigure 4.7: ASEAN trade with EU (2007-2009)
\nSource: EUROSTAT (Comext, Statistical regime 4)
\n63
\nThe value of imports from Europe is higher than the exported value to Europe. The
\nAssociation has recognized the importance of this market, so it has to try its best to keep
\nthe market share and improve the trade balance between the two regions.
\nAnother big market of ASEAN is North East Asia, the total trade between ASEAN and
\nNorth East Asia in 2010 also grew by 16.4% compared to 2009. However, the massive
\nJapanese earthquake (8.9 richter scale) and tsunami on 11th of March 2011 has
\nrestrained the activities significantly. Mr. Wong, APL\u2019s Vice President for the in-Asia,
\nMiddle East and Australia trade, said another problem in the ASEAN countries is
\noutdated port infrastructure leading to the failure to meet the requirement in transporting
\nand handling cargo.
\nThe Ministries of Transport of the ASEAN countries and Japan have reviewed 21
\nproject ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in which they have cooperated with each other and adopted an Action plan in
\nimplementing these 21 project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s in 2005 and 2006. Additionally, a logistics and
\ntransportation improvement plan and a common plan for a new aviation system between
\nASEAN and Japan will soon be implemented.
\nDirection\/year 2006 2007 2008 2009
\nSouthbound
\nJapan 1,928,809 2,323,708 2,560,764 2,393,624
\nSouth Korea 675,280 728,961 788,716 638,025
\nNorthbound
\nJapan 1,777,401 1,987,541 1,937,457 2,273,612
\nSouth Korea 6,064,942 6,851,167 7,217,070 7,091,638
\nTable 4.7: ASEAN trade with North East Asia (2007-2009)
\nSource: Containerisation International, Head of the queue, p.50, April 2010
\n64
\nAs shown in table 4.7, the two North East Asia countries, which have a large number of
\ncontainers exported and imported to ASEAN are Japan and Republic of South Korea.
\nNonetheless, the crisis in 2008 led to the decrease in container trade between these
\ncountries.
\nIn addition, the United States is a good and large market for Southeast Asian nations. It
\ncan be seen clearly in the table 4.8 below that the quantity of cargo transported
\nEastbound increased while the cargo transported Westbound decreased from more than
\n1.5 million in 2008 to nearly 1.3 million in 2009.
\nDirection\/year 2006 2007 2008 2009
\nWestbound 1,363,398 1,524,524 1,514,920 1,279,356
\nEastbound 785,918 801,771 821,262 896,211
\nTable 4.8: ASEAN trade with the USA (2007-2009)
\nSource: Containerisation International, Head of the queue, p.50, April 2010
\nMost ASEAN countries are identified as regional short-sea and feeder operators. Only
\nsome ports in this region can be called at by large vessels and belong to the global
\nservice networks.
\nLand transport: the purpose of cooperation among ASEAN members in land transport is
\nto create efficient, economical and safe corridors to connect the 10 members through the
\nASEAN Highway Network project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees), which is mostly located in Myanmar. However, in
\norder to develop land transport, the infrastructure of these countries needs to be
\nimproved. The Singapore-Kunming Rail Link is another project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) that started in 1995 and
\nis expected to be completed in 2015. This route will be Singapore-Malaysia-ThailandCambodia-Vietnam-Thailand.
\n65
\nInland waterways: the big advantage of inland waterways is saving costs. The cost is
\nvery low, especially in the ASEAN, because there are many rivers in the ASEAN
\ncountries, totalling over 51,000km in length. However, the ASEAN member states have
\nnot taken this advantage, which is proven by the fact that the infrastructures, like the port
\nfacilities are very poor and difficult to link with other countries. River ports should be
\nimproved in terms of infrastructure as well as rules and regulations to connect with each
\nother more easily and to contribute to maritime transport.
\nMaritime transport: maritime transport is the strong point of almost all ASEAN
\ncountries except one land-locked country, Laos PDR. However, according to the liner
\nshipping connectivity index issued by UNCTAD, the situation could be better.
\nCountry
\n2008 2009 2010
\nIndex
\nBrunei 3.68 3.94 5.12
\nCambodia 3.47 4.67 4.52
\nLaos
\nIndonesia 24.85 25.68 25.6
\nMalaysia 77.6 81.21 88.14
\nMyanmar 3.63 3.79 3.68
\nPhilippine 30.26 15.9 15.19
\nSingapore 94.47 99.47 103.76
\nThailand 36.48 36.78 43.76
\nVietnam 18.73 26.39 31.36
\nTable 4.9: UNCTAD liner shipping connectivity index 2008-2010
\nSource: UNCTAD, calculated from data of Containerization International Online,
\nwww.ci-online.co.uk.
\n66
\nAccording to Professor Lauri Ojala \u201cThe liner shipping connectivity index (LSCI)
\nmeasures the connectivity of container shipping connectivity of countries based on
\nnumber of container ships, container capacity of ships, maximum vessel size, number of
\nservices and number of carriers sailing from and to a country\u2019s ports\u201d (Ojala, 2011) . In
\naddition, it shows the accessibility to international trade. The high value of the index
\nmeans that this country can access to the global maritime freight transport system easily.
\nAs can be clearly seen in the table 4.9, most of the countries in ASEAN, except
\nSingapore and Malaysia, do not have a high connectivity index. It is necessary for all
\nmembers to attract more investment to achieve deep integration within ASEAN.
\nAir transport: facilities are important to develop air transport, especially runways and
\nwarehouses. The big problem in ASEAN countries is the shortage of warehouses,
\nalthough member nations are trying their best to improve facilities. For example,
\nASEAN has developed passenger and freight air services, based on the Skytrax ranking
\nindicator to rank the air services performance of South East Asian countries from 1 star
\nto 5 stars.
\n67
\nCHAPTER 5: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
\nSYSTEM OF VIETNAM WITH THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM
\nOF ASEAN COUNTRIES.
\n5.1 Transportation and logistics service of ASEAN countries
\n5.1.1 Introduction
\nToday, the trade with other ASEAN countries consists of 25% of the total import- export
\nturnover of Vietnam. ASEAN plays an important role in developing the Vietnamese
\neconomy and ASEAN is a big market for developing logistics service. When Vietnam
\npromotes the integration process in logistics, it will help Vietnam become a logistics
\ncentre that provides logistics services for all the nations in ASEAN and creates a chance
\nto acquire experience from the top logistics service providers in the region.
\nThere is not always cooperation among ASEAN countries, as there are still some areas
\nof conflict and competition. Examples of these competitions among countries are the
\nmovement from Singapore to Malaysia in 2000 of the Maersk hub port and when the
\nAPL round the world service chose Thailand\u2019s Laem Chabang port as a hub port instead
\nof Singapore.
\n68
\nRail Road Sea Air Inland
\nwaterway
\nSpeed Low High Very low Very high Very low
\nCost saving High Low Very high Very low Very high
\nReliability Very high Very high High High High
\nSafety Very high High High Very high Very high
\nFlexibility Low Very high Very low Low Low
\nAvailability Low Very high Low High Very low
\nEnvironment
\nfriendly
\nGood Very poor Very good Good Very good
\nInfrastructure
\ncost
\nVery heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Various
\nInfrastructure
\nmaintenance
\ncost
\nHigh High Low Low Various
\nVehicle size <3000T <40T >3000T <100T <5000T
\nDoor to door
\npotential
\nLow Very high Very low Low Very low
\nSuitable cargo All General
\ncargo
\nAll General
\ncargo
\nAll
\nEconomical
\ndistance
\nLong Short Long\/very
\nlong
\nLong\/very
\nlong
\nLong
\nTable 5.1: Comparison of Major Transport Modes
\nSource: Ma, S. (2011). Logistics. Unpublished lecture handout, World Maritime
\nUniversity, Malmo, Sweden.
\n69
\nAs can be seen clearly in the above table, sea and inland waterways seem to be the most
\neconomic, safe and environmental. In addtion, cargoes are usually transported over long
\ndistances. While air transport is more reliable and flexible, saving time is the biggest
\nadvantage of transporting by air, however, the air freight is expensive and it is only
\nsuitable for high value and perishable cargo. Rail and road are good choices between sea
\nand air transport with suitable freight and the time is flexible. It all depends on what kind
\nof cargo and the priorities of companies and shippers in the transportation of the goods.
\nPort Airport Railway Road
\nCambodia Poor Fair Poor Poor
\nIndonesia Poor Fair Good Fair
\nLaos Not applicable Poor Not applicable Fair
\nMalaysia Good Good Good Good
\nPhilliphines Fair Fair Poor Fair
\nSingapore Good Good Good Good
\nThailand Good Good Good Good
\nVietnam Fair Fair Fair Fair
\nBurma Poor Poor Poor Fair
\nTable 5.2: Logistics Infrastructure of Countries in ASEAN
\nSource: www.Business-in-Asia.com, 2006-2007
\n5.1.2 Some main ports in ASEAN countries.
\nPort Klang is a transit hub port for cargoes mainly from Australia and New Zealand to
\nEurope and South-East Asia and cargoes from West India and the Gulf for South-East
\nand East Asia and the US Pacific coast. (ESCAP, Regional Shipping and Port
\n70
\nDevelopment Strategies, 2001). Port Klang is expected to handle 9.6 million
\n20\u201dcontainers in 2011. In ASEAN, Port Klang is one of the busiest ports with 54 berths
\nand with a total berth length of 11.7 thousand meters. It can handle vessels up to 130,000
\nDWT (only 12 berths). (World Port Source, 2011)
\nSingapore is always the best choice transshipment port in ASEAN. The cargoes from
\nand to ASEAN countries, which are transited in Singapore, hold about 70% of the
\nmarket share. Singapore is the logistics centre in Asia, where there are enough facilities
\nto serve large vessels as well as being able to connect with other ports as transshipment
\nports. The Port of Singapore may be the best port in ASEAN and it is the hub port for all
\nthe countries in the region. It receives around 140,000 vessels, which carry 30 million
\ncontainers, 500 million tons of cargo and a million cruise passengers each year. (World
\nPort Source, 2011)
\nTanjung Pelapas: in the future, the port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP) has the potential to
\nbecome a big hub port to compete with Singapore to attract South East Asian countries.
\nIt is estimated that 86% of cargoes will come to PTP from ASEAN during 2011.
\n(ESCAP, Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies, 2001). The port of
\nTanjung Pelapas lies in the centre for both local transport as well as international and it
\ncan compete with the Port of Singapore to become the big hub for ASEAN ports. There
\nare currently 6 berths in the Port of Tanjung Pelapas and the deepest has a draft of 15
\nmeters. (World Port Source, 2011)
\nCambodia: Cambodia has two ports, Phnom Penh port is a river port in the capital of
\nCambodia and the international port, Shihanoukville, which is 240km away from Phnom
\nPenh.
\nPhilippines: there are three main container terminals in Manila. Manila International
\nContainer Terminal (MICT) has five berths, aquay length of 1300 meters, a depth of
\n10.5-14 meters and 10 quay cranes, 7 of which are post panamax. The North Habour has
\n71
\na low draft of 5.5 meters while the South Habour has a draft of 12m and is equipped
\nwith 7 gantry cranes.
\nThailand: maritime transport in Thailand carries about 86% of the country\u2019s total freight
\nvolume. There are two ports in Thailand, Laem Chabang and Bangkok. Laem Chabang
\ncan be seen as a hub port for the East-West trade. Airports in Thailand include
\nSuvanabhumi, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Hat Yai and Phuket. The railway network
\nconnects Malaysia through Padang Besar and Sungai Kolok. The other railway network
\nis the connection between Laem Chabang and Lat Krabang Inland container depot. The
\nRoad network includes the Asian network that connects Thailand with other
\nneighbouring countries such as Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia.
\nThe facilities of Laos: Laos is the only land-locked country in ASEAN. There are two
\nairports, one is Vientinne and the other is Luang Prabang, however the demand is very
\nlow and they do not have enough facilities to handle cargoes nor to keep cargoes. The
\nstrong point of Laos is its road network which includes 2,298km of the Asian highway.
\nA railway network is not developed. (K.I.Asia, 2010)
\nMoreover, many countries are chosen as the transshipment places through crossing
\nborder nowadays. Neighboring countries encourage trade and create many opportunities
\nto help import and export cargo entering each other countries easily and quickly.
\nVietnam Cambodia Laos Thailand Singapore
\nRank in trading across border
\ncost in the world
\n67 122 165 10 1
\nProcedure of exporting
\nDocument preparation 115 220 120 270 105
\nCustom clearance and
\ntechnical control
\n100 262 10 50 31
\nPort and terminal handling 369 100 130 85 180
\nProcedure of importing
\nPrepare for document 70 210 120 300 88
\nCustom clearance 100 265 20 75 31
\nHandling charge 431 217 300 200 180
\n72
\nTable 5.3: Country level costs of trading across border (USD)
\nSource: International Finance Corporation (IFC), \u201cDoing Business 2008\u201d database.
\n5.2 Intermodal transport optimization model
\nThis part of the dissertation focuses on analysing and finding the optimum cost and
\nfreight for a 20 foot container from Laos to Singapore via Thailand or Vietnam and from
\nBangkok to Vietnam via Phnom Penh using the Zero-one goal programming model
\ncombined with integer linear programming and the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
\n5.2.1 Choosing deviation variable factors and weighting each factor
\nQuestionnaires were used to survey what factors logistics providers and shippers
\nconsider when choosing the mode or modes of multimodal transport to carry cargoes
\nfrom the origins to the destinations. Respondents have ranked the required level of each
\nfactor in 4 classes: 1: very necessary, 2: necessary, 3: quite necessary and 4:
\nunnecessary. And there are also 4 main factors that affect the choices of customers:
\ncargo related factors, service related factors, company\u2019s strategy and other factors.
\nBased on 51 questionnaire interviews with logistics providers, carriers and shippers in
\nVietnam, the results are expressed in the following tables:
\n73
\nRANK
\n1 2 3 4
\nI. Cargo related factors
\nValue 27 15 8 1
\nPercentage (%) 52.94 29.41 15.69 1.96
\nVolume and measurement 22 18 9 2
\nPercentage (%) 43.14 35.29 17.65 3.92
\nWeight 19 21 8 3
\nPercentage (%) 37.25 41.18 15.69 5.88
\nWeight\/measurement 11 23 16 1
\nPercentage (%) 21.57 45.1 31.37 1.96
\nPacking 5 26 14 6
\nPercentage (%) 9.8 50.98 27.45 11.76
\nSpecialized goods :dangerous, fragile, perishable 23 18 4 6
\nPercentage (%) 45.1 35.29 7.84 11.76
\nRANK
\nII. Service related factors 1 2 3 4
\nTransit time 18 27 5 1
\n74
\nPercentage (%) 35.29 52.94 9.8 1.96
\nCost 26 21 1 3
\nPercentage (%) 50.98 41.18 1.96 5.88
\nReliability and punctuality 23 22 3 3
\nPercentage (%) 45.1 43.14 5.88 5.88
\nCustomer relationship 5 30 11 5
\nPercentage (%) 9.8 58.82 21.57 9.8
\nFrequency 7 17 19 8
\nPercentage (%) 13.73 33.33 37.25 15.69
\nGlobal coverage 16 22 13 0
\nPercentage (%) 31.37 43.14 25.49 0
\nProcedure processing time 12 27 12 0
\nPercentage (%) 23.53 52.94 23.53 0
\nHandling equipment arrangement 11 25 15 0
\nPercentage (%) 21.57 49.02 29.41 0
\nLegal documentation 26 19 5 1
\nPercentage (%) 50.98 37.25 9.8 1.96
\nSecure of product 24 19 5 3
\n75
\nRANK
\nII. Service related factors 1 2 3 4
\nPercentage (%) 47.06 37.25 9.8 5.88
\nElectronic Data Interchange 10 25 11 5
\nPercentage (%) 19.61 49.02 21.57 9.8
\nFlexibility of modes of transport 7 26 17 1
\nPercentage (%) 13.73 50.98 33.33 1.96
\nRANK
\nIII. Company\u2019s strategy 1 2 3 4
\nMarketing strategy 13 29 5 4
\nPercentage (%) 25.49 56.86 9.8 7.84
\nSystem of modal Assessment 12 25 10 4
\nPercentage (%) 23.53 49.02 19.61 7.84
\nManagement structure 6 22 17 6
\nPercentage (%) 11.76 43.14 33.33 11.76
\nThe size of company 2 13 20 16
\nPercentage (%) 3.92 25.49 39.22 31.37
\nCapital of company 7 19 19 6
\n76
\nPercentage (%) 13.73 37.25 37.25 11.76
\nInvestment policy 12 21 13 5
\nPercentage (%) 23.53 41.18 25.49 9.8
\nRANK
\nIV. Other factors 1 2 3 4
\nTransport distance 15 17 16 3
\nPercentage (%) 29.41 33.33 31.37 5.88
\nDestination area 9 26 13 3
\nPercentage (%) 17.65 50.98 25.49 5.88
\nDelivery terms in contract 13 24 12 2
\nPercentage (%) 25.49 47.06 23.53 3.92
\nEnvironmental issues 6 24 18 3
\nPercentage (%) 11.76 47.06 35.29 5.88
\nInfrastructure of Vietnam 24 17 7 3
\nPercentage (%) 47.06 33.33 13.73 5.88
\nRegulation of Vietnam and other countries 20 20 9 2
\nPercentage (%) 39.22 39.22 17.65 3.92
\n77
\nIV. Other factors 1 2 3 4
\nFacilities and ability of shipper\u2019s warehouse
\n12 26 12 1
\nPercentage (%) 23.53 50.98 23.53 1.96
\nCommunication and information 15 30 5 1
\nPercentage (%) 29.41 58.82 9.8 1.96
\nTable 5.4: Shippers\u2019 and logistics providers ranking of carrier performance
\nSource: Author calculated based on the result of questionnaires
\n78
\nOut of the four main factors, the second main factor was taken to choose variables
\nfor a zero-one goal program modelling. However, there are many sub factors in the
\nsecond main factor, the three most important sub factors in the second main factor
\nhad to be calculated and decided based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
\nFigure 5.1: Analytic Hierarchy Process applying to multimodal transport
\nSource: Author\u2019s drawing based on the AHP model set up by many previous authors
\nIn order to choose what the variables will be, the calculation was conducted
\naccording to the formula:
\nG = \u22171+ \u22172+ \u22173+ \u22174
\n51
\nIn the formula, A is the number of votes for rank 1 of each sub factor, B is the
\nnumber of votes for rank 2, C is number of votes for rank 3 and D is number of votes
\nfor rank 4, and 51 is the number of people that were interviewed.
\nFor example:
\nGcost =
\n26\u22171+21\u22172+1\u22173+3\u22174
\n51
\n= 1.627451
\nCost Transit Time Transit time variable
\nRoute no. 1 Route no.2 Route no.3 Route no.n
\nFactors
\n79
\nService related factors
\nRank
\nG
\n1 2 3 4
\n\u00b7 Cost 26 21 1 3 1.627451
\n\u00b7 Legal documentation
\n26 19 5 1 1.627451
\n\u00b7 Reliability and punctuality
\n23 22 3 3 1.72549
\n\u00b7 Security of product 24 19 5 3 1.745098
\n\u00b7 Transit time 18 27 5 1 1.784314
\n\u00b7 Global coverage 16 22 13 0 1.941176
\n\u00b7 Procedure processing time
\n12 27 12 0 2
\n\u00b7 Handling equipment
\narrangement 11 25 15 0 2.078431
\n\u00b7 Electronic Data
\nInterchange 10 25 11 5 2.215686
\n\u00b7 Flexibility of modes of
\ntransport 7 26 17 1 2.235294
\n\u00b7 Customer relationship 5 30 11 5 2.313725
\n\u00b7 Frequency 7 17 19 8 2.54902
\nTable 5.5: Ranking service related factors
\nSource: Author calculated based on AHP model
\n80
\nAfter calculation, the results express:
\n\uf0b7 The smaller the value of G is, the more necessary the sub factor is.
\n\uf0b7 The most necessary is the cost that shippers have to pay and it is the first
\nvariable.
\n\uf0b7 The second most necessary factor is legal documentation or exact documents,
\nbut this factor is very difficult to measure and convert to quantity.
\n\uf0b7 The third factor is service\u2019s reliability and punctuality, which can be
\ntranslated to transit time variability. The transit time has a wide range so it is
\nmore necessary to specify the distribution than just finding the average of
\ntransit time (C. Chen, E. v. Zwet, P. Varaiya, A. Skabardonis, 2002). This
\nfactor is a little bit difficult to quantify, but it can be figured out by using the
\nmean and standard deviation of freight and time quoted by several carriers in
\nthese routes. The optimization of multimodal transport is the trade off
\nbetween cost and quality of service supplied, so the transit time variability is
\nalso a very important factor that needs to be considered when choosing mode
\nof transport in multimodal transport.
\n\uf0b7 The fourth factor is security of product that is difficult to quantify so the
\nauthor chose the fifth factor, which is transit time to become a third variable
\nto apply the zero-one goal program modeling.
\n5.2.2 Weighting main factors
\nThe optimization of shippers is minimizing the cost, minimizing the transit time and
\nminimizing the transit time variable.
\nHowever, it is very difficult to identify which one is the most important, cost or
\ntransit time or transit time variable, because it depends on each enterprise with its\u2019
\nown strategy and its own available resources. This is the reason why the method
\n\u201cquestionnaires\u201d was chosen to ask Vietnamese enterprises to decide what the
\nvariables are, and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to specify
\nthe weight of each factor.
\n81
\nThis model uses the judgment of the author combined with questionnaires to
\ndetermine the ranking of criteria. (R.r Haas and O. Meixner, 2005). The rank will be
\narranged from 1 to 9 in which 1 is less important, 3 is moderate important, 5 is
\nstrongly important, 7 is very strongly important and 9 is extremely important, and 2,
\n4, 6, 8 are the compromises between the above.
\nBased on the result of the questionnaire, the cost is the most important factor, and it
\nis three times as important as the transit time variable, and the transit time variable is
\ntwice as important as transit time, the cost is fourth times as important as transit time.
\nAfter that, pairwise comparisons were used to set up a matrix as follows:<\/p>\n
1 3 4
\n1\/3 1 2
\n1\/4 1\/2 1<\/p>\n
1 3 4
\n1
\n3
\n1 2
\n1
\n4
\n1
\n2
\n1<\/p>\n
1 3 4
\n1
\n3
\n1 2
\n1
\n4
\n1
\n2
\n1
\n=
\n2.9999 7 14
\n1.1666 2.9999 5.3332
\n0.66665 1.75 3<\/p>\n
2.9999 + 7 + 14
\n1.1666 + 2.9999 + 5.3332
\n0.66665 + 1.75 + 3
\n=
\n23.9999
\n9.4997
\n5.41665
\nSum = 38.91625
\n82
\nNormalizing the result:<\/p>\n
23.9999
\n38.91625
\n9.4997
\n38.91625
\n5.41665
\n38.91625<\/p>\n
=
\n0.6167
\n0.2441
\n0.1392<\/p>\n
Continuing:<\/p>\n
2.9999 7 14
\n1.1666 2.9999 5.3332
\n0.66665 1.75 3<\/p>\n
2.9999 7 14
\n1.1666 2.9999 5.3332
\n0.66665 1.75 3<\/p>\n
=
\n26.4987 66.4986 121.331
\n10.55474 26.4987 48.33107
\n6.041383 15.16638 27.6662<\/p>\n
26.4987 + 66.4986 + 121.331
\n10.55474 + 26.4987 + 48.33107
\n6.041383 + 15.16638 + 27.6662
\n=
\n214.3283
\n85.38451
\n48.87396<\/p>\n
Sum 348.5868
\nNormalize the result:<\/p>\n
214.3283
\n348.5868
\n85.38451
\n348.5868
\n48.87396
\n348.5868<\/p>\n
=
\n0.6148
\n0.2449
\n0.1402<\/p>\n
As can be seen clearly that:
\n0.6167
\n0.2441
\n0.1392
\n\u2212
\n0.6148
\n0.2449
\n0.1402
\n=
\n0.0019
\n\u22120.0008
\n\u22120.0010
\nthere is not much
\ndifference between the two, so the author chose the weight for the factors as follow:
\n83
\nWcost = 0.6148 = W1
\nWTransit time variable = 0.2449 = W2
\nWTransit time = 0.1402 = W3
\n5.2.3 Scenario when applying zero-one goal programming model combining
\nwith integer liner programming
\nThe purpose of applying this model was to find the most optimal route to transport
\none 20\u201d container from Bangkok (Thailand) to Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam). The
\noptimal route is defined as a route with minimum total costs, minimum total transit
\ntime and minimum transit time variability.
\nThere are still limitations, but the author has tried to convert some quality factors to
\nmake it more reasonable. For example, congestion in port, safety of cargoes,
\nscheduling obstacles and other problems were considered as transit time variability.
\nGoal
\nF = W1 d1 + W2 d2 + W3 d3 \uf0e0 min (1)
\nConstraints:
\n \u2208 \u2208 \u2208 Cmnl xmnl = d1 (2)
\n \u2208 \u2208 \u2208 Vmnl xmnl = d2 (3)
\n \u2208 \u2208 \u2208 Tmnl xmnl = d3 (4)
\n \u2208 \u2208 xmnl = 1 (m \u2208 O) (5)
\n84
\n \u2208 \u2208 xmnl = 1 (n \u2208 D) (6)
\nxmhk = \u2208 \u2208 xhnt (h \u2260 m \u2260 n, h \u2208 N \u2013 O) (7)
\nExplanation:
\nThe goal is achieved when the sum of costs, transit time and transit time variability is
\nminimized. This means finding three deviational variables that make the goal
\nminimize.
\n\uf0b7 xmnl is a binary variable, if link (m, n) carried by mode l is chosen then x = 1,
\nif not, x will be 0.
\n\uf0b7 xmnl is an integer variable
\n\uf0b7 d1: deviational variable of total costs (USD)
\n\uf0b7 d2: deviational variable of transit time variability (hours)
\n\uf0b7 d3: deviational variable of transit time (hours)
\n\uf0b7 m: start nodes
\n\uf0b7 n: end nodes
\n\uf0b7 l: modes of transport
\n\uf0b7 O: origin node
\n\uf0b7 D: destination nodes
\n\uf0b7 OL nodes directly linked with the origin
\n\uf0b7 LD: nodes directly linked with the destination.
\nParameters:
\n\uf0b7 W1: weight of cost factor
\n\uf0b7 W2: weight of transit time variablility
\n\uf0b7 W3: weight of transit time
\n\uf0b7 Cmnl: cost that shippers have to pay from m to n by mode l
\n\uf0b7 Vmnl: transit time variable from m to n by mode l
\n\uf0b7 Tmnl: transit time from m to n by mode l
\n85
\nConstraints:
\nFormula (2): total cost is minimized
\nFormula (3): total transit time is minimized
\nFormula (4): total transit time variability is minimized
\nFormula (5): to ensure that the origin has only one outflow
\nFormula (6): to ensure that the destinations have only one inflow
\nFormula (7): to ensure that the inflows equal to the outflows for all connection
\nnodes excepting the origin node and destination nodes.
\nEach program has its own drawback:
\n\uf0b7 The cost including freight, handling cost, customs procedure, inventory and
\ninsurance fee.
\n\uf0b7 There are a lot of land transport carriers that have a wide range, so the second
\nassumption is that different carriers have the same price and service.
\n\uf0b7 The third assumption is the economic factor that has the same effect on the
\nfreight from the time data collected until this moment.
\n\uf0b7 Because cost, time and time variability are not in the same units, it was
\nnecessary to convert to another common unit by dividing each value with the
\nmax value in each column.
\n5.2.4 Cases of choosing modes and routes to transport cargoes
\nAt 26th of November 1999, the agreement between and among the Governments of
\nthe Lao People\u2019s Democratic Republic, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist
\nRepublic of Vietnam for \u201cFacilitation of Cross-border Transport of Goods and
\nPeople\u201d was signed. In the agreement the parties reduced time used for customs
\nprocedures such as exempting cargoes in international transit from routine customs
\n86
\nphysical inspection at the border, customs escorts in the national territory and the
\ndeposit of a bond as a guarantee for the customs duties. (Vietnam, Laos, Thai, 1999)
\nAccording to the Agreement, the operators of each country can enter into the other
\ntwo to deliver and pick up cargoes. Cargoes are transported from Thailand to
\nVietnam by road along the East West Economic Corridor, from Thailand via
\nSavannakhet \u2013 Laos to Danang or Quy Nhon \u2013 Vietnam. This agreement will help
\nreduce transport costs, and increase the amount of cargo imports and exports between
\nthe countries. At first there were 1200 vehicles, 400 from each country, licensed to
\nenter the two neighbouring countries, and with some types of cargo that have low
\nrisk, they are allowed to clear fast at the border crossing. (Vovnews, 2009)
\nVietnamese cargoes are holding a big market share of Cambodia, Cambodia is also a
\nbig market for Vietnam to transport to 3rd countries. The Cambodians really like
\ncargoes from Vietnam, and they have many policies to attract more investment and
\npromote import and export from and to Vietnam. In 2009, the import and export
\nvalue had significantly grown at the Tinh Bien (An Giang) border. (Nguy\u1ec5n, 2010)
\n87
\nFigure 5.2: Route Vietnam \u2013 Laos \u2013 Thailand
\nSource: Jetro Logistics Network Map.
\nFor example: the cooperation among the three countries Thailand-Laos-Vietnam in
\ntransportation is the route Bangkok-Savanakhet-Ha Noi the distance, time for
\ncarrying cargoes and time at berth as well as cost are displayed in the table below:
\n88
\nRoute Distance (km) Time (hours) Remark
\nBangkok \u2013 Mukdahan (road) 700 26
\nCustom procedure at border
\npoint
\n3 1 hour for
\nwaiting at
\ncustom office
\nSavannakhet \u2013 Den Savan 250
\nTransshipment 24
\nCustom procedure at border
\npoint
\n1
\nLaoBao \u2013 Ha noi 700 27
\nTotal 1650 81
\nTable 5.6: Total distance and time from Bangkok to Ha Noi (Vietnam)
\nSource: Author, synthesized from many sources
\nRoute Freight (per
\nTEU)USD
\nCost Custom
\nClearance
\ncharge
\n(USD)
\nBangkok \u2013 Mukdahan
\n\uf0b7 Mukdahan
\n700
\n200
\nSavanakhet \u2013 Den Savan
\n\uf0b7 Document fee
\n\uf0b7 Transshipment fee
\n\uf0b7 Custom clearance
\n250
\n200
\n100
\n200
\nLao Bao \u2013 Hanoi
\n\uf0b7 Custom clearance
\n700
\n200
\nTotal 2550
\nTable 5.7: Freight, cost and custom clearance charge when three countries cross
\nborders of each other.
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources.
\nThe route between Bangkok and Hanoi has some advantages, but many
\ndisadvantages still exist. Laos is a land-locked country, so there is no way to take the
\nadvantages of water transport in terms of saving money and reducing cost used for
\n89
\ninvesting in infrastructure. The way to transport cargo depends much on the
\ninfrastructure system in Laos and neighbouring countries. However, the national road
\nNH1 has high population where inter-city traffic and local traffic are mixed with
\neach other. This leads to the limitation in speed when transporting cargo from the
\norigin to other places to about 25km\/h for vans and trucks.
\nAnother obstacle on this route is the loss of time for formalities and procedures,
\ncomplicated documents and limitations in operating hours at border gates. In spite of
\napplying the \u201cFacilitation of Cross-border Transport of Goods and People\u201d, carriers
\nstill need to present the original documents, which leads to loosing time and money.
\n5.4 Route number 1: from Laos to Singapore via Bangkok \u2013 Thailand or Quy
\nNhon \u2013 Vietnam.
\nTransport cost includes some elements:
\nFreight, in order to quote the freight for the customer, each company has to consider
\nmany costs related to their quotation such as fuel, crew cost, administration cost,
\ncharter rate, port charges, agency fee and other fees. The freight rate depends on the
\nlength of route, the time of economy, and the balance between demand and supply.
\nThis thesis is based on the freight rates of some carriers that hold big market shares
\non these routes.
\nAccording to \u201cintermodal transportation cost modelling\u201d and \u201cmodelling shipper
\ncosts\u201d, there are four types of cost: inventory costs (including: shipper inventoryholding cost, in-transit inventory holding cost, recipient inventory holding cost and
\nsafety stock), shipment holding costs, facility (warehouse and terminal) cost and
\nindirect costs (administration, clerical, marketing and claims). (Higginson, 1993)
\nThe storage cost, or perhaps better named, the inventory-holding cost, depends on
\nwhere the warehouses are located. This is calculated as the product of the inventory
\nholding cost parameters, the value of each item shipped and the transportation time.
\n(Higginson, 1993)
\n90
\nThe handling cost, depends on the ports that a vessel calls at. For example: Terminal
\nhandling charge (THC) of PSA is 182 SGD for a 20\u201d container and 270 SGD for a
\n40\u201d container. Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville apply THC of 70USD for a 20\u201d
\ncontainer. Bangkok port charges THCM at the fee of 2600 baht for a 20\u201d container.
\nIn addition, the tariff, documentation fees and other charges of 21 ports in 17
\ncountries in Asia and the Pacific region including Vietnam were investigated by the
\nEconomic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
\nTransit time variable includes the delay time in port because of strikes or bad
\nweather and so on.
\nTransit time depends on the characteristics of each route, for example the means of
\ntransport used, the distance between nodes and so on. It includes the loading,
\nunloading and waiting time at the port. The estimated transit time is compiled in the
\nfollowing table:
\n\uf0fc Vientiane \u2013 Quy Nhon \u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013 Sea)
\nRoute Distance (km) Time (hours)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Savannakhet
\n(Laos)
\n469 24
\nSavannakhet (Laos) \u2013 Lao Bao
\n(cross border point)
\n264 26
\nLao Bao \u2013 Quy Nhon (Vietnam) 330 24
\nQuy Nhon \u2013 Singapore
\n(including 24 hours feeder
\nconnection)
\n1910 120
\nTotal 2973 194
\nTable 5.8: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Quy Nhon \u2013
\nSingapore (Road \u2013 Sea)
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n91
\nRoute Freight (per
\nTEU)USD
\nCost USD Custom
\nClearance
\ncharge
\n(USD)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013
\nSavannakhet (Laos) \u2013 Quy
\nNhon (Vietnam)
\n1100 50 100
\nQuy Nhon \u2013 Singapore
\n(including 24 hours feeder
\nconnection)
\n\uf0b7 Other charges
\n400 60
\n600
\nOther cost
\n\uf0b7 THC in Singapore
\n\uf0b7 Other costs
\n146
\n100
\nTotal 2556
\nTable 5.9: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nQuy Nhon \u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013 Sea)
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n\uf0fc Vientiane \u2013 Bangkok \u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013 Sea)
\nRoute Distance (km) Time (hours)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Nong Khai
\n(Thailand)
\n20 8.5
\nNong Khai (Thailand) \u2013 Bangkok
\nPort (Thailand)
\n650 16
\nBangkok Port \u2013 Singapore 1542 110
\nTotal 2212 134.5
\nTable 5.10: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Bangkok \u2013
\nSingapore
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n92
\nRoute Freight (per
\nTEU)USD
\nCost
\nUSD
\nCustom
\nClearance
\ncharge (USD)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Nong Khai
\n(Thailand)
\n\uf0b7 Document fee
\n\uf0b7 Transit fee
\n\uf0b7 Custom (Laos)
\n\uf0b7 Custom (Thailand)
\n100
\n55
\n70
\n13
\n13
\nNong Khai (Thailand) \u2013 Bangkok
\nPort (Thailand)
\n\uf0b7 THC
\n350
\n86
\nBangkok Port \u2013 Singapore
\n\uf0b7 THC
\n\uf0b7 Other charges
\n230
\n146
\n150
\nTotal 1213
\nTable 5.11: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nBangkok \u2013 Singapore
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n\uf0fc Vientiane \u2013Laem Chabang \u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013 Sea)
\nRoute Distance (km) Time (hours)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Thanaleng (Thailand) 13 1
\nThanaleng \u2013 Laem Chabang Port 719 24
\nLaem Chabang port
\n\uf0b7 Handling cargo
\n\uf0b7 Feeder connection
\n24
\n24
\nLaem Chabang Port \u2013 Singapore 1470 96
\nTotal 2202 169
\nTable 5.12: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Laem
\nChabang \u2013 Singapore
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n93
\nRoute Freight (per
\nTEU)USD
\nCost Custom
\nClearance
\ncharge (USD)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Thanaleng
\n(Thailand)
\n55
\nThanaleng \u2013 Laem Chabang
\nPort
\n\uf0b7 Document fee
\n\uf0b7 Laos
\n\uf0b7 Thai
\n365
\n55
\n13
\n13
\nLaem Chabang port
\n\uf0b7 Handling cargo
\n\uf0b7 Other charges
\n86
\n150
\nLaem Chabang Port \u2013
\nSingapore
\n\uf0b7 THC
\n\uf0b7 Other charges
\n200
\n146
\n150
\nTotal 1233
\nTable 5.13: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nLaem Chabang \u2013 Singapore
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n\uf0fc Vientiane \u2013 Lat Krabang \u2013 Port Klang – Singapore (Road \u2013 Rail \u2013 Road)
\nRoute Distance (km) Time (hours)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Thanaleng
\n(Thailand)
\n13 1
\nThanelang\u2013 Lat Krabang 580 45
\nLat Krabang \u2013 Port Klang 1180 100
\nPort Klang \u2013 Singapore 407 34
\nTotal 2180 180
\nTable 5.14: Route, distance and transport time in the route Vientiane \u2013 Lat Krabang \u2013
\nPort Klang
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\n94
\nRoute Freight (per
\nTEU)USD
\nCost Custom
\nClearance
\ncharge (USD)
\nVientiane (Laos) \u2013 Thanaleng
\n(Thailand)
\n55
\nThanaleng \u2013 Lat Krabang
\n\uf0b7 Document fee
\n\uf0b7 Laos
\n\uf0b7 Thai
\n\uf0b7 Transfer mode
\n400
\n55
\n100
\n13
\n13
\nLat Krabang \u2013 Port Klang
\n\uf0b7 At Lat Krabang
\n350
\n200
\nPort Klang \u2013 Singapore
\n\uf0b7 Transfer mode at
\nSingapore
\n\uf0b7 Other charges
\n200
\n100
\n150
\nTotal 1636
\nTable 5.15: Route, freight, cost and custom clearance charge in the route Vientiane \u2013
\nLat Krabang \u2013 Port Klang
\nSource: Author, compiled from many sources
\nStart node End node Mode Cost Transit
\ntime
\nTransit
\ntime
\nvariable
\nVientiane Thanelang Road 55 1 0.166667
\nVientiane Nongkhai Road 251 28.5 9
\nThanelang Laemchabang Road 682 72 14
\nThanelang Lat Krabang Rail 581 45 10
\nNongkhai Bangkok Road 436 16 4
\nBangkok Singapore Sea 526 120 17
\nLaeam
\nChabang
\nSingapore Sea 496 96 15
\nLat Krabang Port Klang Rail 550 100 17
\nPork Klang Singapore Road 450 34 9
\nVientiane Quy Nhon Road 1250 74 14
\nQuy Nhon Singapore Sea 1306 110 16.3333
\nTable 5.16: Cost, transit time and transit time variable of routes Vientiane-Singapore
\nSource: Author, collected from various industrial sources.
\n95
\nStart node End node Mode Normalized
\nCost
\nNormalized
\nTime
\n(hours)
\nNormalized
\nTransit time
\nvariablility
\nVientiane Thanelang Road 0.042113323 0.008333333 0.009803941
\nVientiane Nongkhai Road 0.192189893 0.2375 0.529411765
\nThanelang Laemchabang Road 0.522205207 0.6 0.823529412
\nThanelang Lat Krabang Rail 0.444869832 0.375 0.588235294
\nNongkhai Bangkok Road 0.333843798 0.133333333 0.235294118
\nBangkok Singapore 0.402756508 1 1
\nLaeam
\nChabang
\nSingapore Sea 0.379785605 0.8 0.882352941
\nLat
\nKrabang
\nPort Klang Rail 0.421133231 0.833333333 1
\nPork Klang Singapore Road 0.344563553 0.283333333 0.529411765
\nVientiane Quy Nhon Road 0.95712098 0.616666667 0.823529412
\nQuy Nhon Singapore Sea 1 0.916666667 0.960782353
\nTable 5.17: Normalized cost, transit time and transit time variable of routes
\nVientiane – Singapore
\nSource: Author\u2019s calculations.
\n96
\nUsing solver 2007 in excel, the scene was:
\nAfter solving by using excel, the best route is Vientiane- Thanelang-Laem ChabangSingapore (Road \u2013 Road \u2013 Sea) with the total cost being 1233 USD\/container 20\u201d of
\ndry cargo, the total transit time variable is 29.16666 hours and the total transit time is
\n169 hours.
\n97
\nNumber Route Cost
\n(USD)
\nTime
\n(hours)
\nVariable
\ntime
\nTarget
\n1 Vientiane \u2013 Quy Nhon
\n\u2013 Singapore (Road \u2013
\nSea)
\n2556 30.3333 184 1.855189263
\n2 Vientiane \u2013 Bangkok \u2013
\nSingapore (Road \u2013
\nSea)
\n1273 30 164.5 1.223632541
\n3 Vientiane \u2013Laem
\nChabang \u2013 Singapore
\n(Road \u2013 Sea)
\n1233 29.16666 169 1.19806
\n4 Vientiane \u2013 Lat
\nKrabang \u2013 Port Klang
\n– Singapore (Road \u2013
\nRail \u2013 Road)
\n1636 36.16667 180 1.501460376
\nTable 5.18: Comparing four routes from Vientiane to Singapore
\nSource: author calculated
\nComparing the cost, transit time and transit time variability, Thailand is more
\ncompetitive than Vietnam, although at the Thanaleng border between Thailand, and
\nLaos, the time used for custom clearance can be long and at the custom house
\npilferage can occur when the customs officers check the goods.
\nRoute number 4 has a high cost, longer transit time and lower reliability because the
\nICD at Lat Krabang is the major ICD in Thailand, and always has traffic jams
\nbecause the cargoes from and to Laem Chabang are loaded and discharged there up
\nto 40%. Another reason is that Laeam Chabang wishes to save costs and due to the
\ndirect transport from Bangkok to Laem Chabang this causes traffic jams so Lat
\nKrabang is chosen to reduce this. (State Railway of Thailand)
\nWhen transporting cargoes across Vietnam, the infrastructure is the biggest
\ndisadvantage since the main road on this route is under-qualified. Although the
\n98
\nfreight is not a big problem in either road or sea transport compared to transport via
\nother ports in Thailand, the cost paid for a container in transit in Quy Nhon is twice
\nas high as in Bangkok. In addition, 6% of the total inland transport cost is spent at the
\nborder between Laos and Quy Nhon. The reliability of this route is very low,
\nshippers sometimes have to wait for a long time before cargoes are loaded on to the
\nvessel and transported to Singapore. Moreover, the Single Stop Service (SSS) and
\nSingle Window Service (SWS) are not fully implemented. The number of officials
\naffects the time and cost of cargo trasitting.
\nAccording to Prof. Banomyong, the other charges that are indirectly involved in
\ntransportation represent nearly 50% of total cost that shippers have to pay. In order to
\nreduce these costs, the cooperation between Laos and Vietnam should be promoted
\nto a higher level, the imbalance in trade between the two be limited and more
\nattention paid to \u201cGreen Logistics\u201d.
\nAccording to Salakham (2007), \u201cLaem Chabang’s main objective to cater to domestic
\ntransportation requirement. Although Danang has the advantage of strategic location
\nand shorter route, Laem Chabang is more competitive in terms of modern
\ninfrastructures, convenient domestic transportation systems and efficient port
\nfacilities. In 2006, only 37,000 TEU containers passed through Danang compared to
\nLaem Chabang’s volume of 4.1 million TEU containers. It will take a lot of capital
\nand time before Vietnam, Laos and Burma can catch up\u201d said Chalermkeat
\nSalakham, Director General of Laem Chabang Port. (\u0e01\u0e2d\u0e07\u0e1a\u0e23\u0e23\u0e13\u0e32\u0e18\u0e34\u0e01\u0e32\u0e23, 2007)
\nTime is the difficult thing which needs to be reduced by implementing SWS and SSS
\nquickly and homogenously, as well as applying more advanced technology in
\nchecking and monitoring cargoes.
\nVietnam should care more for the human resources, by enhancing employees skills in
\nlogistics to reduce costs and attract more customers. Also, enterprises should use
\nmodern equipment to handle cargoes and encourage more investment in the
\ninfrastructure.
\n99
\n5.5 The case of transport cargoes in route Vietnam \u2013 Cambodia \u2013 Thailand
\nThe case choice of routes between Thailand-Cambodia- Vietnam: applied to a 20\u201d
\ncontainer.
\nData collection:
\nThere are not many carriers operating in this trade, but each carrier transports in
\ndifferent time and with different freight. The inland waterway freights of some main
\nenterprises operating on the Phnom Penh-Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) route are:
\nName Freight (cont 20\u201d) Time (hours)
\nGemadept 270 36
\nHai Minh 240 40
\nTan Cang Cypress 250 48
\nAverage 253.333 40.333
\nStandard deviation 15.275 7.5055
\nTable 5.19: some shipping lines are operating in the route PhnomPenh- HCMC
\nSource: author complies from enterprises
\nName Freight (cont
\n20\u201d)
\nCost\/cont Time (hours) for
\ntranportation
\nTotal time
\nK\u201dLine 300 600 72 90
\nVosco 300 600 73 95
\nVinaline 320 620 73 95
\nNYK 300 600 72 92
\nBien Dong 280 580 74 96
\nAverage 300 600 72.8 93.6
\nStandard
\ndeviation
\n14.1421 12.65 0.8367 2.50998
\nTable 5.20: ocean freight, cost, transport time and total time from Bangkok to
\nVietnam
\nSource: author complies from enterprises
\n100
\nNumber Start nodes End nodes Mode Cost Time Variable
\n1 Bangkok Phnom Penh Road 690 28 2
\n2 Bangkok Phnom Penh Rail 725 24 3
\n3 Bangkok Sihanoukville Sea 800 45 3
\n4 Bangkok HCM Sea 600 93.6 2.50998
\n5 Bangkok HCM Air 7500 4 0.5
\n6 Sihanoukville Phnom Penh Road 210 5 0.451
\n7 Sihanoukville HCM Sea 1000 48 3
\n8 Phnom Penh HCM Road 600 27 5
\n9 Phnom Penh HCM
\nInland
\nwtw 253 40.333 7.5055
\n10 Phnom Penh Sihanoukville Road 210 5 0.451
\nTable 5.21: Cost, transit time and transit time variability of some routes between
\nBangkok and HCMC
\nSource: author complied from many industrial sources.
\nNumber Start nodes End nodes Mode Cost Time Variable
\n1 Bangkok Phnom Penh Road 0.092
\n0.2991453 0.266471
\n2 Bangkok Phnom Penh Rail
\n0.0966667 0.25641026 0.399707
\n3 Bangkok Sihanoukville Sea
\n0.1066667 0.48076923 0.399707
\n101
\n4 Bangkok HCM Sea
\n0.08 1 0.334419
\n5 Bangkok HCM Air
\n1 0.04273504 0.066618
\n6 Sihanoukville Phnom Penh Road
\n0.028 0.0534188 0.060089
\n7 Sihanoukville HCM Sea
\n0.1333333 0.51282051 0.399707
\n8 Phnom Penh HCM Road
\n0.08 0.288462 0.666178
\n9 Phnom Penh HCM
\nInland
\nwtw
\n0.0337333 0.43090812 1
\n10 Phnom Penh Sihanoukville Road
\n0.028 0.0534188 0.060089
\nTable 5.22: normalized cost, transit time and transit time variable.
\nSource: author calculated based on table 5.21
\nData was entered into an excel file and solver was used to find the best choice of
\nroute.
\n102
\nRoute number 4 from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City by sea was seen to be the best
\nroute with the normalized target is 0.34097, d1= 0.08, d2=1 and d3=0.334419.
\nNumber Route Cost
\n(USD)
\nTime
\n(hours)
\nVariable
\ntime
\nTarget
\n1 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh
\nHo Chi
\nMinh city
\n1290 51.94171 6 0.353726
\n2 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh<\/p>\n
HCMC
\n943 65.27471 8.5055 0.406969
\n3 Bangkok
\nSihanoukville
\nSihanoukville
\nHCMC
\n1800 93 6 0.50296
\n4 Bangkok
\nSihanouville
\nSihanouville
\nPhnom
\nPenh
\nPhnompenh
\nHCMC
\n1263 90.333 10.9565 0.544548
\n5 Bangkok
\nHCMC
\n7500 4 0.55 0.634606
\n103
\n6 Bangkok
\nHo Chi Minh
\nCity 600 93.6 2.50998 0.34097
\n7 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh
\nHo Chi
\nMinh City
\n1325 51 8 0.391491
\n8 Bangkok
\nSihanouville
\nSihanouville
\nPhnom
\nPenh
\nPhnompenh
\nHCMC
\n1610 77 8.451 0.491306
\n9 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh<\/p>\n
HCMC
\n978 64.333 10.5055 0.444733
\n10 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh
\nSihanoukville
\nSihanouville
\nHCMC
\n1935 77 6.451 0.480588
\n11 Bangkok
\nPhnom Penh
\nPhnom Penh
\nSihanoukville
\nSihanouville
\nHCMC
\n1900 77.94171 4.451 0.442823
\nTable 5.23: Comparing routes between Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City
\nSource: author calculated
\nThere are many choices of routes and combinations of modes when transporting
\ncargo from one node to another. With the developments in high technology and
\n104
\ninformation collected by shippers, excel with solver program can easily run and give
\nresults in just a few seconds. This program can be applied for more complex routes
\nwith many origin nodes and destinations as well as intermediate nodes.
\nThe route from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City by sea was seen to be the best choice
\nbecause it saves time and costs compared to other routes. In addition, the link
\nbetween the two large markets makes it easy to have frequent services.
\nHowever, if there is the requirement to transit in Cambodia, route number 6, number
\n1 and number 7 will be the other good alternatives.
\nRoute number 1 from Bangkok to Phnom Penh and from Phnom Penh to Ho Chi
\nMinh City by road covers a total distance of nearly 950 km. However, the time for
\ntransport and transit at the border takes nearly as long as transporting by sea and the
\ncost is more than twice as high. Most roads on this route are urban, so it is easy to be
\ndelayed by traffic jams in rush hours. One more bottleneck is the customs clearance,
\nwhich takes too much time at the border and requires the unity of 3 countries to
\nallow the trucks of each country to enter others without checking.
\nRoute number 2 is a potential route because cargoes can follow the river in the South
\nof Vietnam to Phnom Penh with little difficulty except the bottleneck at Cho Gao
\nchannel, which is narrow and where traffic jams occur regularly.
\n105
\nFigure 5.3: route from Ho Chi Minh City to Phnom Penh by inland waterway
\nSource: Gemadept corporation
\nDue to the limitation in draft of the route, the maximum size of vessel is 100 TEUS.
\nConsequently, the capacity is not high enough to meet the requirements of the
\ncustomers.
\nThe other routes do not seem to be significantly operated because of the high cost,
\nlong transit time and low quality infrastructure to make the transportation process
\nsmooth.
\nIn the future, if the missing link between Phnom Penh and Ho Chi Minh City is
\ncompleted the transport time from Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City can be reduced
\n106
\nsignificantly. However, it is said that this link will be difficult to be completed, since
\nthere is no incentive to build it and a lack of investment.
\n107
\nCHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
\nThis chapter has the purpose of summarizing all the tasks that the author has done. In
\naddition, the author mentions the limitations of this dissertation. Furthermore some
\nrecommendations to improve these limitations are given. At the end of the chapter,
\nsome comments and recommendations for further research in the future are included.
\n6.1 Conclusion
\nNowadays, logistics is becoming more and more popular. One way that helps this
\nbusiness succeed is paying attention to multimodal transport. However, choosing the
\nbest way to transport cargoes by using more than one means of transport is very
\ncomplicated and requires Multimodal Transport Operators to consider many factors
\nsuch as cost, time, route and so on. This research focuses on following matters:
\nThere are many ways to choose the important elements affecting the choice of
\ncarriers. There are some studies that have researched this. However, different
\ncountries and different enterprises have different criteria. Therefore, in order to find
\nthe best criteria, it is necessary for this thesis to implement a survey that asks the
\npeople who are giving multimodal transport services in the country that the author
\nwishes to analysis. The result of the survey has revealed that for Vietnamese
\nenterprises, the cost, transit time, security of cargo and reliability are the most
\nimportant aspects.
\nFrom that result, the thesis continues with the decision of which method to use to
\nfind the best means of transport to carry cargoes from one origin to the expected
\ndestination. The author chose to the methods of linear programming and non-linear
\n108
\nprogramming that were used by some authors in selecting modes for transporting
\ncargoes. Consequently, the linear program with zero-one goal modeling was chosen
\nin which the targets are based on the expectations of Vietnamese shippers. They are
\nminimizing cost, transit time and transit time variables.
\nTwo routes from Laos to Singapore via Vietnam or via Bangkok and from Bangkok
\nto Ho Chi Minh City via Phnom Penh are chosen to illustrate how the model works.
\nWhen the outcomes are known with the help of a solver program in Microsoft Excel,
\nthe thesis can answer these questions:
\n\uf0b7 Which modes of transport are selected?
\n\uf0b7 Which routes should multimodal transport operators choose?
\n\uf0b7 What are the potential alternative modes and routes?
\nTherefore, if the data of other routes are available even with more data and large
\nsamples, the zero-one goal modeling combined with the Analytic Hierarchy Process
\nand solver program in Excel can be applied to choose the optimal solution to
\ntransport cargoes in as short time as possible.
\nThis thesis also analyses the cooperation in multimodal transport among ASEAN
\ncountries. From that point of view, the benefits and the limitations of this cooperation
\ncan be recognized in some of the following aspects:
\n\uf0b7 ASEAN countries are located on the significant position that international
\nmaritime transport passes. The Port of Singapore, Port of Tanjung Pelapas and
\npotential port of Cai Mep (Vietnam) are the deep sea ports where mother
\nvessels can call and serve for the Asian market.
\n\uf0b7 ASEAN is a flexible region; the growth rates of member countries are high.
\nThey are reviewed as potential regions, and the cargoes transported from and to
\nASEAN are estimated to increase year by year.
\n\uf0b7 The differences of culture, economy and politics are important obstacles for
\ncooperation among the member countries.
\n109
\n\uf0b7 The infrastructure of member countries is asynchronously developed. Some
\ngovernments do not pay attention to, or do not invest in, infrastructure
\nappropriately. Consequently, it is difficult to coordinate transport systems
\namong the member countries.
\n\uf0b7 The ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport has been signed.
\nHowever, the law systems of each country are totally different. There are some
\nplaces where the procedures related to transporting cargoes among countries
\nare very complicated. Shippers have to wait a long time to make cargo
\nclearances and even the other cumbersome procedures are evident.
\nAlthough Vietnam has Cai Mep port and Van Phong port with deep drafts. However,
\nin a research of Mr Nguyen Dang Ben (Vietnam) in recent years has estimated that
\ncargo throughput of Vietnamese transshipment ports in 2015 are 10.946.253TEU
\n(Cai Mep) and 2.100.000TEU (Van Phong) and in 2020 are 14.208.156TEU (Cai
\nMep) and 4.500.000TEU (Van Phong), it is still be very difficult for Vietnam to
\nbecome a hub port in the future because of the fast development of Hong Kong port
\nand Singapore port. (Nguyen, 2009). Therefore, in long term Vietnam needs more
\ntime and more investment in infrastructure and human resources as well as suitable
\nstrategy to develop logistics service. Moreover, the close relationship with ASEAN
\nmember states will help Vietnam have good trade within region together with other
\nregions in the world.
\n110
\nCountries 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
\nBrunei 639.5 774.8 684.2 632.9 865 1529 1887.3 2149.5 1,972.9 1229.3
\nCambodia 76 72.6 91.9 101.5 80.2 144.5 235.4 251.4 310.6 644.6
\nIndonesia 10883.7 9507.1 9933.5 10725.4 12994.3 15823.7 18483.1 22291.2 27,170.8 24623.9
\nLaos – – – 102.2 89.6 147.6 289.8 257.4 724.4 997.4
\nMalaysia 24408.6 21024.2 22127.1 26036.2 31737.2 36633.7 40979.6 45295.6 50,401.4 40365.1
\nMyanmar 393.5 951.3 1221.3 3060.2 996.8 1559.7 2149.7 3427.7 3,853.4 3196.7
\nPhilippinnes 5982.6 4986 5529.7 6581.7 6837.9 7149.9 8192.2 8031.9 7,081.7 5838.4
\nSingapore 37784 32815.4 33962.6 51777.8 62494.4 71976.4 83801.6 95003.5 101,477.3 81646.5
\nThailand 13312.2 12549.4 13156.4 16583 21710 23867 26944.2 32894.2 39,487.0 32490.6
\nVietnam – – – – 3850.9 5039.9 6214 7730.8 10,017.8 8554.8
\nTable 6.1: Intra ASEAN Export
\nSource: Author, compiled from ASEAN statistics
\nCountries 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
\nBrunei 534.4 544.8 627.5 616.9 644.5 738.5 745.8 1043.3 1,571.4 1242.8
\nCambodia 549.1 1091.7 598 1694.9 673.5 1026.8 991.2 1283 1,599.3 1453.3
\nIndonesia 6781.2 5726.8 6995.5 8030.3 11686 17329.5 19379.2 23792.1 40,991.7 27742.4
\nLaos – – – 252.7 365.1 362.4 500.7 576.5 1,490.9 1480.8
\nMalaysia 15934.8 15254.3 17245.2 21003.1 26191.1 29164 32290.7 37315.9 34,675.3 31700.2
\nMyanmar 1113.3 1319.2 1190.8 967.8 951.1 896.6 1174.7 1413.1 1,728.2 2065.7
\nPhilippinnes 4955.4 4664.8 5542 6398.1 8355.9 8874.3 10218.3 12875.1 14,316.7 11561.1
\nSingapore 33291.3 28991 30441.4 39550.5 47184.2 52148.6 62300.4 65850.2 69,878.1 59047.6
\nThailand 10306.4 10047 10561.7 12616.3 15834.6 21552.4 23539.8 24992.5 29,888.2 26759.5
\nVietnam – – – – 7695.3 8937.7 12453.7 15444.5 19,476.8 13566.7
\nTable 6.2: Intra ASEAN Import
\nSource: Author, compiled from ASEAN statistics
\n111
\nLimitation of the thesis
\nThe survey is limited in the number of people, only 51 logistic providers, forwarders
\nand shippers have been interviewed, while there are hundreds of enterprises involved
\nin multimodal transport services.
\nIn addition, it does not exactly reflect the real situation if just only cost, time and
\ntime variables are chosen to weigh and analyze the selected routes. There are still
\nmany factors that need to be considered, for example customer relationship, the level
\nof global coverage of service, procedure processing time and so on.
\nThe data collected are not sufficient because there are many carriers operating on
\nthese routes. The transit time and transit time variability is based on some main
\ncarriers due to the lack of information, and it is difficult to collect the data from all
\ncarriers.
\nAnother limitation of the research is the choice of routes to analyze from Laos to
\nSingapore and from Bangkok to Vietnam. These are short trips and they are not
\nsignificantly affected by pirates, bad weather or other factors that a long trip can
\neasily meet when navigating. As a result, the general scenario cannot be expressed
\nclearly and it is difficult to apply to longer routes.
\nAnother limitation of this thesis is that it only concentrated on the economic aspect.
\nHowever, the environmental aspect and the influence of many other factors were not
\nmentioned while in the world today, besides the purpose of enterprises is maximizing
\nthe profit, the environmental and welfare are also very important and should be
\nconcerned.
\nFinally, the methods which are used to calculate the weight of factors and solver
\nprogram, especially establishing the constraints of each route in chapter 5 are
\ncomplicated, difficult and take much time. The users need to use excel frequently and
\nproficiency
\n112
\n6.2 Recommendation
\nFurther research can be implemented for other routes which have a longer distance
\nand take a longer time, not only transporting via Vietnam but also via other member
\nStates of the Association of Southeast Nations.
\nOther research can be conducted but in a larger scale, for example, choosing modes
\nto transport cargo from one ASEAN country via deep sea ports such as Cai Mep Port
\n(Vietnam) or the Port of Singapore to other continents like Europe, the Americas or
\nAfrica.
\nWhen implementing different research, the matter that should be concerned is that
\neach type of transport will be suitable for specific type of cargo in terms of volume
\nand value. Moreover, each type of mode is also suitable to each type of service and
\nthe distance of transportation. The table below gives a suggestion of the good mode
\nto choose for the carriers as well as shippers.
\n113
\nMode Value Volume Service Distance
\nTruck Moderate
\nto high
\nLoads of less than
\n50,000 lbs.
\nOn-time
\nperformance
\nabove 90%.
\nDriver can go 500
\nmiles per day. 2\/3
\nof tonnage
\ncarried over less
\nthan 100 miles.
\nRail Moderate
\nto low
\nMultiple car loads.
\nNo weight
\nrestrictions.
\n4 to 7 days
\ndelivery time. 60
\nto 85% on-time
\nperformance.
\nAverage haul
\nlength between
\n600 and 800
\nmiles.
\nIntermodal Moderate
\nto high
\nNo weight
\nrestrictions.
\n3 days for cross
\ncountry. On-time
\nperformance
\nbetween truck and
\nrail.
\nAverage haul
\nbetween 700 and
\n1,500 miles.
\nAir High Small. Most loads
\nless than 100 lbs.
\nNormally
\novernight or
\nsecond day.
\nMore than 1,300
\nmiles.
\nInland Water Moderate
\nto low Bulk shipments.
\nVaries according
\nto segment.
\nCompetitive with
\nrail.
\nBetween 250 and
\n1,600 miles.
\nCoastal
\nWater
\nModerate
\nto low
\nContainers,
\ngeneral freight and
\nbulk shipments.
\nFunction of
\ndistance. Between
\n2 to 5 days.
\nBetween 500 and
\n2,000 miles.
\nInternational
\nWater
\nHigh to
\nlow
\nMainly containers
\nand bulk
\nshipments.
\n7 to 10 days
\ntrans-Atlantic and
\ntrans-Pacific
\nroutes.
\nMore than 2,600
\nmiles.
\nPipeline Low Bulk shipment of
\nliquids and gazes.
\nAccording to
\ndemand. 0 to 20
\nmph.
\n825 miles
\naverage distance
\nfor crude oil.
\nTable 6.3: the relationship between mode and cargo, distance and service
\nSource: US-DOT, FHA (1998) US Freight: Economy in motion.
\nhttp:\/\/ntl.bts.gov\/data\/freightus98.pdf
\n114
\nReferences
\nNajoan,J. E. & Sutomo, H. . (2005). Short Sea Shipping As An Alternative For
\nASEAN. ASEAN Port and Shipping Conference (p. 12). Surabaya: Pustral
\nUGM.
\nAl-Muhaisen, S. A. (2005). Overview of Trends in Multimodal Transport. Geneva:
\nInternational Multimodal Transport Association.
\nAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations. (2008-2009). ASEAN Economic Community
\nBlueprint. Jakarta: Association of South East Asia Nations.
\nASEAN. (2002). ASEAN Maritime Transport Development Study. Manila: AMEC
\nCorporation.
\nAthakorn Kengpol, Warapij Meethom, Markku Tuominen. (2011). The Development
\nof a decision support system in multimodal transportation routing within
\nGreater Mekong sub-region countries. Bangkok: Elsevier B.V.
\nBattaglia, P. (2007). Modeling Intermodal Transportation for Developing Countries.
\nVirginia: Florida Institute of Technology – National Capital Region Site.
\nChen, C., Zwet, E. V., Varaiya, P., Skabardonis, A.. (2002). Travel Time Reliability
\nas a Measure of Service. 1-2. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
\nBoard.
\nCapelle, R. B. (1994). Planning and Managing Intermodal Transportation Systems:
\nA Guide to ISTEA Requirements . Washington, DC.: Intermodal Division
\nOffice of Environment and Planning Federal Highway Administration .
\nChang, T.-S. (2007). Best routes selection in international intermodal networks.
\nHualien: Institute of Global Operations Strategy and Logistics Management.
\nD’Este, G. (1996). An event-based approach to modelling intermodal freight systems.
\nInternational Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management .
\nBingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
\n115
\nEconomic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (2001).
\nRegional Shipping and Port Development Strategies. Bangkok: United Nation.
\nEconomic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2009). ASEAN and
\nTrade integration. Bankok: UNESCAP.
\nHigginson, J. K. (1993). Modelling Shipper Costs in Physical Distribution Analysis.
\n115. Riverport: Elsevier
\nHo, W. ( 2007). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications \u2013 A
\nliterature review. Riverport: Elsevier.
\nInstitute of Shipping Economics and Logistics. (1991). Port Management Textbook
\nVolume 2 “Intermodal Transport Systems”. Bremen: Institute of shipping
\neconomics and logistics.
\nJames H. Bookbinder and Neil S. Fox. (1998). Intermodal Routing of Canada \u00b1
\nMexica Shipments Under NAFTA. Waterloo: Elsevier.
\nK.I.Asia. (2010). Logistics Development through EWEC. Retrieved 25 8, 2011, from
\nSlide server: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/slideserve.com\/presentation\/113116\/LogisticsDevelopment-through-EWEC
\nKher, S. V. (1995). Multimodal transport in developing countries. Unpublished
\nmaster’s thesis, World Maritime university, Malmo, Sweden.
\nCullinane, K. and Toy, N. (1999). Identifying influential attributes in freight
\nroute\/mode choice decisions: a content analysis. Hong Kong: Elsevier Science
\nLtd.
\nHanouz, M. D. and Geiger, T. (2010). Enabling Trade in the Greater ASEAN
\nRegion. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
\nM. Tamiz, D.F.Jones and El-Darzi. (1995). A review of Goal Programming and is
\napplications. England.
\n116
\nMin, H. (1990). International Intermodal Choices Via Chance-Constrained Goal
\nProgramming. Boston: Elsevier.
\nJin, M. and Wang, H. (2004). System Performance Measures For Intermodal
\nTransportation With a Case Study and Industrial Application. Denver:
\nNational Center for Intermodal Transportation.
\nNguyen, M. D. (2009). Vietnamese container ports in the Asian container hub port
\narrangement. Ho Chi Minh City: GMC.
\nNguy\u1ec5n, T. (2010, June 7). Export cargoes to Cambodia, Advantages but
\nChallenges. Ho Ci Minh City, Vietnam.
\nTuna, O. and Silan, M.. (1999). Freight Transportation selection criteria: an
\nempirical investigation of Turkish liner shipping. IAME Panama 2002
\nConference Proceedings. Izmir.
\nOjala, P. (2011). Logistics Performance Index (LPI) & Liner Shipping Connectivity
\n(LSCI) Index. Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for
\nSpatial\/Regional Planning (p. 4). Hannover: CEMAT.
\nOlsen, R. (2010, July 6). Forbes.com. Retrieved August 25, 2011, from
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/forbes.com\/2010\/06\/07\/containers-ports-trade-business-logisticsshipping.html
\nPercin, S. (2006). An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model in supplier
\nselection. Trabzon: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
\nPh\u01b0\u1edbc H\u00e0. (2007). Mobilizing VND 400 million for constructing expressway. Ho
\nChi Minh City: VietBao .
\nPrasetyo, H. (1992). Maritime transport co-operation in the ASEAN countries.
\nUnpublished master’s thesis, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
\n117
\nPrime Minister of Vietnam. (2009, December 24). Decision number 2190\/Q\u0110-TTg
\non approval of development Vietnamese’s sea port system plan to 2020 and
\norientation 2030. Vietnamese’s sea port system in 2030 . Ha Noi: Governent.
\nHaas, R.r and Meixner, O.. (2005). An Illustrated Guide to the Analytic Hierarchy
\nProcess. Handout, Vienna: University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
\nSciences.
\nRawindaran VNP. Nair, Bernard M Gardner & Ruth Banomyong. (2011). Theories
\n& Practices of Multimodal Transport in Europe. Cardiff: Cardiff Business
\nSchool.
\nSrinivasan, V. & Thompson, G.L. (1977). Determining cost vs. time pareto-optimal
\nfrontiers in multimodal transportation problems. Transportation Science , Vol.
\n11, No. 1.
\nState Railway of Thailand. Vietnam Logistics Development, Trade Facilitation & the
\nImpact on Poverty Reduction. Hanoi: Ministry of Transport, Vietnam & The
\nWorld Bank
\nTo, H. M. T. (2007). Multimodal transport in Vietnam and ASEAN countries.
\nUnpublished thesis, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
\nTran, N. K. (2007). Studying the selection of ports on liner routes. Unpublished
\nmaster’s thesis, World Maritime university, Malmo, Sweden.
\nUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (1989). Report of the group
\nof experts on economic cooperation among developing countries in shipping,
\nports and multimodal transport. Geneva: UNCTAD.
\nUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development Secretariat. (2001).
\nImplimentation of Multimodal Transport Rules. Geneva: UNCTAD.
\nVietfracht. (2010). Company profile. Retrieved July 13, 2011, from Vietfracht web
\nsite: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/vietfracht.com.vn\/company.asp?key=1
\n118
\nVietnam, Laos, Thai. (1999, November 26). Agreement Between and Among the
\nGovernments of the Lao People\u2019s Democratic Republic, the Kingdom of
\nThailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam For Facilitation of CrossBorder Transport of Goods and People. Bankok, Thailand.
\nVietrans. (2011). About us: Vietrans – A name that you can trust. Retrieved July 23,
\n2011, from Vietrans website:
\nhttp:\/\/vietrans.com.vn\/Default.aspx?ModuleID=101
\nVovnews. (2009, June 15). The transport route accrossing borders of Vietnam,
\nThailand and Laos was officially operated. Tp.HCM, Vietnam.
\nWell-stacked. (2011, May). Containerisation International , p. 61. London: Informa
\nUK Ltd
\nWisetruangrot, S. (2005). Intermodal and maritime transport policies in Asia.
\nunpublished lecture handout, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
\nWorld Port Source. (2011). World Map: Port Klang. Retrieved Aug 30, 2011, from
\nWorld Port Source:
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/worldportsource.com\/ports\/MYS_Tanjung_Pelepas_Port_1442.php
\nXuejing, Y. (2009). Intermodal Transportation in Major Asian Ports. Unpublished
\nmaster’s dissertation, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
\n\u0e01\u0e2d\u0e07\u0e1a\u0e23\u0e23\u0e13\u0e32\u0e18\u0e34\u0e01\u0e32\u0e23. (2007). Laem Chabang Director General accelerates railway and
\ncoastal feeders development to compete with Danang. Logistics Digest .
\n119
\nAppendix 1 \u2013 Questionnaire
\nQUESTIONAIRE TO MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
\nCould you please to anticipate the necessary level of following factors when choosing modes of transport in
\nmultimodal transport in Vietnam?
\nPlease ranking by typing “x” in the cell that you choose.
\nThe scale of factors is ranked from 1 to 4:
\n1: very necessary
\n2: fairy necessary
\n3: quite necessary
\n4: unnecessary
\nRANK
\n1 2 3 4
\nI. Cargo related factors
\nValue
\nVolume and measurement
\nWeight
\n120
\nWeight\/measurement
\nPacking
\nSpecialized goods :dangerous, fragile, perishable
\nRANK
\nII. Service related factors 1 2 3 4
\nTransit time
\nCost
\nReliability and punctuality
\nCustomer relationship
\nFrequency
\nGlobal coverage
\nProcedure processing time
\nHandling equipment arrangement
\nLegal documentation
\nSecure of product
\n121
\nElectronic Data Interchange
\nFlexibility of modes of transport
\nRANK
\nIII. Company\u2019s strategy 1 2 3 4
\nMarketing strategy
\nSystem of modal Assessment
\nManagement structure
\nThe size of company
\nCapital of company 7 19 19 6
\nInvestment policy 12 21 13 5
\nRANK
\nIV. Other factors 1 2 3 4
\nTransport distance
\nDestination area
\nDelivery terms in contract
\n122
\nEnvironmental issues
\nInfrastructure of Vietnam
\nRegulation of Vietnam and other countries
\nRANK
\nIV. Other factors 1 2 3 4
\nFacilities and ability of shipper\u2019s warehouse
\nCommunication and information
\nYes No
\nDo you suggest any more factor? (B\u1ea1n c\u00f3 \u0111\u1ec1 ngh\u1ecb th\u00eam y\u1ebfu t\u1ed1 n\u00e0o n\u1eefa kh\u00f4ng?)
\nWhat is it?
\nThank You Very Much For Helping Me Finish My
\nDissertation
\n123
\nAppendix 2 \u2013 ASEAN highway network map
\nFigure 4.5: ASEAN highway route number (mainland)
\nFigure 4.6: ASEAN highway route number (Island)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT IN VIETNAM IN RELATIONSHIP WITH ASEAN COUNTRIES A CASE STUDY OF ROUTES THAILAND \u2013 CAMBODIA \u2013 VIETNAM AND LAOS \u2013 SINGAPORE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8827,10099,10540,10536,10892,10538,10539,10537,10891],"tags":[10549,10616,10615,7687,10627,8857,10552,10295,10548,10622,8907],"class_list":["post-132306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-essays","category-buy-essay","category-cheap-essay-writers","category-get-assignments-done","category-page-paper","category-phd-essay-writers","category-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","category-study-bay-essay","category-write-my-assignment-ireland","tag-ai-plagiarism-free-essay-writing-tool","tag-australian-best-tutors","tag-best-trans-tutors","tag-buy-essay-uk","tag-cheap-dissertation-writer","tag-help-with-writing-an-essay","tag-help-write-my-paper-ai-free","tag-homework-for-you","tag-online-essay-writers","tag-phd-essays","tag-write-my-essay-for-me"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132306"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132427,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132306\/revisions\/132427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}