Multi-criterion analysis, however, is capable of facilitating project ranking in a multi-aspect environment (4). Thus, an integrated study involving s

Transcription

1 Establishment of Evaluation and Decision Making Model for Cargo Transportation System in Indonesia Sumanta BUANA 1 and Takeshi SHINODA 2 Abstract It is difficult to make decision from various alternatives, when each of which has several factors with many aspects of relationship. Difficulty arises when complication due to ambiguity and close distinction among the identified aspects exists. Such circumstances occur in designing an engineering system, particularly at conceptual design stage. Thus, in order to be able to cope with the aspects that are combined with experience and knowledge of engineer and expert, we try to establish a method for making decision based on multi-criteria analysis. As an example, an evaluation model for inter-city cargo transportation in Indonesia is developed. Keywords : Evaluation model, Multi-criteria analysis, Inter-city cargo transportation 1. Introduction Indonesia s economic growth is outstanding, making this country has a strong demand for an appropriate transportation system, such as for transporting cargo between large cities. Transporting cargo between large cities has been a costly activity because it is merely used one mode of track transportation. Road becomes highly congested which lengthens transportation time and increases transportation cost. A new type of transportation system needs to be developed and to be applied. In fact, there are several possible alternatives available to solve this problem. However, each alternative has various aspects containing element of ambiguity and having close distinctive relationship. Several studies were conducted in order to find appropriate way of transporting goods in large island in Indonesia, particularly between two large cities, such as Surabaya and Jakarta. Most of them are based on the advantage/disadvantage of a particular system in terms of economic criterion alone and if considering other criteria, the analysis is carried out separately, i.e., ignoring possible interaction among the criteria. However, if more than one criterion is used, they are treated separately. Besides, the study only focuses on land mode of transportation, without considering the possibility of other modes such as railway and marine modes. A benchmarking analysis of multimodality was conducted and then used to suggest the implementation in Indonesia in general (1). Transportation activity usually involves the use of more than one mode of transportation. A multimodal freight transport networks study, whose main goal was to maximize freight-related benefit-cost ratio, was established by applying bilevel programming. Although having incorporated the mixed use of several modes of transportation, it only considered economic aspect of the transportation (2). Since it is believed that a complex system cannot be solved using an analytical analysis, a simulation method is applied. Simulation method based on economic merit of a particular system was developed. However, when simulating cargo transportation for an island, this only considered land mode of transportation, i.e., did not include the use other modes such as marine mode. Marine mode was only applied for inter island transportation (3). Analysis only focusing on economic efficiency without considering other relative impacts, such as, social and environmental impact, would fail to rank available alternatives in terms of their relative value. 1 Student member, Graduate School of Engineering, Department of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Kyushu University (744 Moto-oka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, , Japan), i.buana.087@s.kyushu-u.ac.jp 2 Member, Department of Marine System Engineering, Kyushu University, shinoda@nams.kyushu-u.ac.jp

2 Multi-criterion analysis, however, is capable of facilitating project ranking in a multi-aspect environment (4). Thus, an integrated study involving several criteria should be established. Further, the result can be used as a foundation for conducting the feasibility study in order to provide the detail operational and technical aspect of the proposed solution (5). On the other hand, multi-criteria analysis has 12 methods in broad sense, one of which is Concordance Analysis (6). This method is sufficient to set index of advantage and disadvantage as well as to evaluate order of the object. However, this method can only provide rough evaluation. Thus, we will improve this by clearer evaluation method. The aim of this study is to establish an evaluation and decision making model for transportation system in Indonesia using the analytical evaluation methodology based on improved multi-criteria analysis method. As a practical example, we apply the evaluation model to inter-city cargo transportation between Surabaya and Jakarta. Profound analysis concerning this evaluation and decision mode, supplemented by sufficient case study was previously discussed (7). 2. Evaluation and decision making model The method is established based on analytical process of evaluation and decision making for uncertainty problems (7). This process consists of three stages, that is, (i) structural evaluation model, (ii) grading analysis, and (iii) evaluation-decision model. In the first stage, it is necessary to collect as many important factors and necessary items as possible to be used for constructing a model. The model construction consists of three parts, that is, (a) hierarchy analysis model, (b) items under independent evaluation, and (c) weighing values for items under evaluation. In calculating the weight of each item, care must be taken so that the overall calculation is consistence. The second stage is to define grading estimation for objectives about items. This is carried out to estimate the effects of the objectives using sensory scale such as good and bad. Here, impact matrix, P, is constructed. The matrix has element, p ij, which is a grading estimation of the i-th object (1 i n) about the j-th item (1 j m). p11 p1 j p1m P = p i1 pij pim (1) pn1 pnj pnm The last stage is to determine degree of advantage between the alternatives under evaluation using Concordance Index and Concordance Dominance Index. The Concordance Index, c ii, is the degree of advance between the i-th and the -th objects, and is estimated using the following formula. pij p j c i w j (2) j max p p R ii ' 1i, n ij where w j is the weight of item j, p ij and p i j are grading estimation about the j-th item from matrix P. w j is calculated using the geometric mean of each item. jr ii is set of preference condition, which is expressed as in the following. R ii ' ij i ' j j j p p (3) The Concordance Dominance Index, c i, is the total evaluation index of the i-th object, which is the different between concordance indices of advantage, c ii, and disadvantage, c i. This index can be expressed using the following equation. i n i 1 n i 1 c c c (4) where α and β are weight of each indices. It is assumed that the advantage and disadvantage are judged equally. Thus, α = β = 1. The features of the methodology used in this paper are as follows: - Concordance Analysis is used to form c ii as shown by equation (2), where initially c ii only has the first term, w j, and we consider the second term, p ij -p i j / max p ij -p i j, to distribute the 1 i, n influence of grading on the object; - Concordance Analysis does not suggest how to calculate w j. In this paper, we propose how to

3 Merak Jakarta 100 km Surabaya Main road Alternative road Main railway Alternative railway Banyuwangi Fig. 1 Island of Java North Coast Road calculate it using pair test method described thoroughly in Sub Chapter 3.4; - Concordance Analysis does not consider the weight of advantage, α, and of disadvantage, β. We propose these weights as shown by equation (4). 3. An example of practical application The method is applied to evaluate and determine cargo transportation system between Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, and Jakarta, the capital and the largest city of the country. 3.1 Research background of inter-city cargo transportation system As of 2010, over half the population of Indonesia lives in the Island of Java (8). Here, the most and the second densely inhabited city of the country, Jakarta and Surabaya, are located on the north coast region of the island: Jakarta is on the northwest coast while Surabaya on the northeast. These two metropolises are the economic centre of the country, reflected by the existence of large scale of industry in the surrounding areas as well as seaport and airport. Each city has large seaport: Port of Tanjung Priok, in Jakarta and Port of Tanjung Perak in Surabaya. Each city is also connected to international airport situated just outside the city area: Soekarno-Hatta Airport, to the west of Jakarta and Juanda Airport to the south of Surabaya. Both ports and seaports are vital for domestic/international transportation, either for cargo or for passenger. Besides, there are two massive land transportation networks, railway and road. While road can connect almost all places in the island, railway system only reaches major city mainly located in the northern part of the island. The main road, known as the North Coast Road, is a national road, connecting Merak, on the west coast, to Banyuwangi, on the east, at about km. The most densely traffic usually occurs on Jakarta and Surabaya segment. Fig. 1 shows main road and railway as well as the alternative ones. The North Coast Road, connecting Jakarta and Surabaya, has been used for transporting cargo and passenger for decades. The quantity of cargo and passenger carried through this road has also increased substantially. This makes congestion, which lengthens transportation time and finally increases transportation costs. Several efforts have been done; however, most of them cannot overcome the problem. People tend to use only one mode of road transportation, i.e., truck. As a result, congestion still exists and it even gets worse during holiday, such as, school and Lebaran religious holiday in Indonesia. 3.2 Inter-city cargo transportation system under evaluation In order to solve the above problem, we evaluate seven alternatives which are the possible available alternatives of cargo transportation system. These alternatives are: (A) truck, (B) truck and railway, (C) truck and airplane, (D) truck and SPCB (self-propelled container barge), (E) truck and container vessel, (F) truck and RO-RO vessel type A that is conventional type, and (G) truck and RO-RO vessel type B that transports chassis only. We propose these modes because they have existed in Indonesia or elsewhere. Using alternative (A), cargo will be transported directly using truck through the North Coast Road. Types of truck used here is conventional container trailer, consisting of head truck and chassis, for carrying 20 feet or 40 feet container, from Surabaya to Jakarta and vice versa, travelling for about 800 km. In

4 Table 1 Characteristics of transportation system under evaluation System Advantage Disadvantage (A) Truck only Very flexible, intensive labour use Susceptible to congestion and resulted in high rate of pollution, low carrying capacity per unit shipment (B) Truck and railway Produce good transportation time and Very inflexible punctuality, has good operating costs, resulted in low level of congestion and pollution (C) Truck and airplane The fastest, the most reliable, the most The most expensive and the most polluted (D) Truck and SPCB (E) Truck and container vessel (F) Truck and RO-RO A (G) Truck and RO-RO B punctual, and the least congested system Provide high carrying capacity, low cost, have good impact on social and environmental aspect alternative Less faster, less reliable, and less flexible Has high carrying capacity, contribute to low Less flexible because it serves many ports of level of pollution call Gives low rate of pollution and congestion Has slightly high capital cost because of ineffective use of head truck Same as above + has higher carrying capacity Transportation time somewhat increases because of loading/ unloading process transporting container, a 40 feet container is carried using a designated chassis, which also can be used to carry two 20 feet size boxes. Although the travel time is quite long, this mode of transportation has become the main choice for years. This is because of several reasons, such as, its flexibility and reliability. The characteristics of this mode and the other modes of transportation system under evaluation are shown in Table 1. Transportation of cargo using a combination of truck and train, alternative (B), will reduce the transportation time because most of the process, i.e., railway, will be without any obstacles. Obstacle here means congestion. In other words, when cargo onboard the train, no congestion exists. Congestion usually occurs from the place of origin where cargo is carried using truck to the train station, and vice versa, to the place of destination from the train station. Alternative (C) is used if the amount of cargo is not substantial and the cargo needs to be transported fast. Cargo in this kind usually is of high value. Truck at both cities will carry the cargo to/from the airport before/after transporting using plane. As the quantity of cargo increases and all land transportation mode cannot accommodate it, a combination of truck and several sea transportation modes would be the most efficient alternative available. Transportation cost could be lowered. These means of transportation would reduce traffic congestion and road maintenance costs. In Indonesia, SPCB is only used to ship container from port to port in different islands. It first introduced by Indonesia shipping company in 2005 and currently at least six units are operated by two major domestic shipping company of the country. This type of sea transportation means is suitable for transporting container when the distance is not so far and the sea condition permits. The distance between Surabaya + Jakarta can be considered moderate and the sea condition in the north coast of Java is calm. As the most common sea means of transportation used in Indonesia, conventional container vessel connects most major ports in this country. A container vessel is faster than SPCB, with service speed averaging at 15 knots. In Java, truck is the most common means for transporting cargo container. Instead of travelling only on the road, the truck and its cargo can be carried using RO-RO vessel. RO-RO vessel used for transporting container will sail at the average speed of 12 knots. The advantage of this combination is that truck time in port can be reduced. Truck with the cargo can directly move into the car deck of the vessel and vice versa. As the previous option, the RO-RO vessel will be the same, so is the voyage time. The voyage time of the vessel is the time spent by the vessel to sail across the sea from a particular port of origin to a designated port of destination. The different is only on the way a container carried. At port of loading, after towing and placing the container on car deck of a RO-RO vessel, the head truck is detached from the chassis and leaves the vessel. The container is on top of chassis on car deck. Head truck at port of unloading will then pick up the container placed on top of the container chassis. Because

5 Table 2 Items for evaluation and its criteria on transportation system Aspects Evaluation item Description Criteria s value Transportation time Overall time needed to transport cargo Very low, if a particular transportation time is very long Reliability Ability of a particular transportation system to function High, if a system tends to be reliable, i.e., able to function Flexibility Level of how flexible a mode of transportation to change its operation pattern Low, if a system is difficult to change its schedule and route Punctuality Ability to keep a given fixed schedule High if a system can keep its fixed schedule Capacity/ payload Maximum capability of a particular mode of transportation to carry cargo High, if (dominant mode used in) a system is capable of carrying large amount of cargo in one shipment Operational Costs All expenses incurred for enabling Low, if a system needs high costs to make its transportation operation operation function - Capital Cost component for acquiring particular The higher the cost, the lower the score cost means of transportation - Overhead Cost element indirectly associated with Same as above costs transportation operation - Manning Cost for paying direct labour in transportation Same as above cost operation - Operating To cover meal of direct labour and fuel for Same as above costs mode of transportation Infrastructure Basic equipment and facility Low, if the existing supporting infrastructure is poor Labour/worker All personnel involved in transportation High, if the number of total workers involved in activity except those in board of management transportation operation is high Energy Source of power for enabling wide varieties High, if the use of energy is low Social Environmental Oil price Pollution Congestion of processes Since oil is used mainly for fueling any mode of transportation, its price will influence the pattern of transportation very much Negative impacts to the environment because of fuel combustion and/or noise. Represent unsmooth operation that will decrease transportation benefit of this method, the quantity of container than can be loaded into the vessel increases. The quantity is larger than the previous option. However, the truck time at both ports is longer than the previous one. This is as a result of the additional time for taking in/out the chassis using head truck. 3.3 Evaluated items for inter-city cargo transportation system In this study, three major concerns related to transportation problems, that is, operational aspects, social and environmental aspects are determined. Operational aspect is considered to be the most dominant factor and directly influences transportation performance, while the last two aspects are those that have indirect impact to the transportation systems under consideration. The last two aspects do not have direct effects to the systems; however, they sometimes could deteriorate transportation significantly. Also, they actually have slightly different behavior. The social aspects have more immediate direct impact than the last one in terms of Low, if the increase of oil price affects transportation costs significantly Very low, if a system pollutes the surrounding area very much Very low, if a system operation is highly congested time. Table 2 shows the evaluation items and the corresponding criteria used in the evaluation. Operational aspect has seven items, that is, (1) transportation time, (2) reliability, (3) flexibility, (4) punctuality, (5) capacity/payload, (6) cost, and (7) infrastructure. Furthermore, cost item can be grouped into four sub-items: (1) capital cost, (2) overhead costs, (3) manning cost, and (4) operating costs. Among these, transportation time and costs are considered the most important items. Transportation time depends on travel distance, the travel speed of a particular mode of transportation, and geographical condition. Transportation time resulted by truck alone is technically limited to legal speed limits, road condition and traffic density. For marine and air modes, the speed is set based on design speed which is set to follow tight fixed schedule (9). In case of marine modes, the speed is sometimes decreased in order to reduce the fuel consumption. Costs are expenses incurred for enabling transportation operation. Here, there are four types of

6 Table 3 Pair test value to determine weight of items Value Situational case 1 Almost equally weighted 3 Former is slightly weighting 5 Former is more weighting Intermediate weighting other than 2,4 above Reciprocal value of Replacing the former with the later the above costs used for the evaluation because they are assumed to be the most common components of costs (10). Capital cost is part of the costs for acquiring the means of transportation, such as truck, rail, plane and ship. This occurs only once before the transportation operation begins. Overhead costs include management cost, insurance, repair and maintenance. In Indonesia, repair and maintenance for operating truck is considered high. This is due to several unpredictable reasons, such as, road condition and accident. Manning cost is used for paying direct labour in transportation operation and is directly proportional to the carrying capacity of a particular mode of transportation. Operating costs are usually used to cover meal for direct labour involved in transportation activity and fuel for running the transportation mode (e.g., truck). Social aspect can be divided into three items: labour/worker, energy, and oil price. Out of this three, labour is considered the most important factor. Labour in transportation plays a very important role because it is the backbone of the operation. This includes all personnel involved in transportation activity except those in board of management. Labour in transportation activity usually belongs to a labour union. Thus, this labour union will represent labour interest when dealing with transportation company, such as, truck company, shipping company, seaport and airport. If negotiation fails, strike takes place and, in the worst case, this will stop the transportation activity from working. Environmental aspect can be classified into two items, i.e., pollution and congestion. In Indonesia, congestion remains to be more important than pollution. Congestion usually occurs at transit point, such as seaport and airport, where cargo and mode of transportation wait for service, i.e., cargo handling. Level of congestion will be proportional to the condition of handling equipment and supporting tools used, such as, information technology, as well as traffic condition in port. Trucks alone will experience high level of congestion because of the road condition. This will be the same with train. The level of congestion for train depends on the track condition. Because most railway track is a single one, cargo train has to stop, waiting for the passenger train to pass. Finally, there will be three levels in the hierarchy model: level 1 consisting of three aspects of transportation, level 2 comprising 12 items, and level 3 which is the four elements of costs. 3.4 Weighting of items for inter-city cargo transportation system Initially, weight of each item has to be calculated in order to obtain degree of importance of the items under evaluation. For this, a pair wise method is used and standard values are set. A scale of value from 1 to 5 will be used to compare a particular item with others. Table 3 shows these values for the pair test. In this research, we represent cargo owner/shipper point of view in selecting the value of pair test. Table 4 shows the selected pair test value of the operational aspect. A pair of items is compared and valued. Row items are to be compared with the column ones, for example, transportation time and cost, two items of operational aspect. Since transportation time is perceived as important as the cost, the value is set to become 1. If the same item is compared, the result Table 4 Pair test for items of operational aspect Items Elements of pair test value Geometric Weight (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) mean, G i w i (1) Transportation time (2) Reliability 1/ / (3) Flexibility 1/3 1/2 1 1/2 1/3 1/ (4) Punctuality 1/ /2 1/ (5) Capacity/payload 1/ / (6) Costs (7) Infrastructure 1/2 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/2 1/ Total CI 0.066

7 will be the same, i.e., 1. It is possible to have the same value when valuing several items with the same rowed item. For instance, transportation time is assumed to be₃ more₄ slightly important than reliability, punctuality, payload and infrastructure. The value is 2 for each pair. This is in contrast with the other pair of items: cost and flexibility. Costs item is assumed to be more important than flexibility. The value is 5. Inversely, flexibility is less important than cost, thus the value is 1/5. This is called reciprocal valuing. Values are given based on the past experience and expertise, thus, if the judgment is made by those who are incapable, the result will be very subjective and bias. Sometimes, the judgment reflexes policy of the government for people sake which is contradictory with expert s knowledge. After determining the values, the weight of items w i is calculated by using geometric mean. Geometric mean of item i, G i, can be calculated using the equation below (11). n G i a ij j 1 1 n, i, j = 1, 2,, n (5) where a ij is element of pair test, and n is the number of systems to be evaluated Hence, the weight of item i, w i, is normalized using the following formula. w G i i n G j 1 j, i,j = 1, 2,, n (6) In calculating the weight, it is necessary to pay attention on the Consistency Index (CI), i.e., the index has to be less than 0.1. CI is calculated using the following equation. n n CI (7) n 1 where 1 n n n n i i1 n i aijw j j ni 1, i, j = 1, 2,, n w (8) (9) Fig. 2 shows the complete hierarchy analysis model for the evaluated transportation system. The system can Level 2 Transportation time (0.220) Transportation system Level 1 Operational aspect (0.637) Reliability Flexibility Punctuality (0.120) (0.071) (0.108) (0.148) Capacity/payload Costs Infrastructure Labour/worker (0.266) (0.066) (0.523) Level 3 Capital cost Overhead costs Manning cost Operating costs (0.388) (0.274) (0.124) (0.214) Transportation systems (A) Truck (B) Truck & railway (C) Truck & airplane (D) Truck & SPCB (E) Truck & container vessel Social aspect (0.258) Environmental aspect (0.105) Energy Oil price Pollution Congestion (0.174) (0.302) (0.250) (0.750) Fig. 2 Hierarchy analysis model for the evaluated transportation system (F) Truck & RO-RO vessel A (G) Truck & RO-RO vessel B

8 be constructed after obtaining the CI less than 0.1, i.e., This means that the valuing of items is consistence and weight calculation for items of operational aspect is satisfied. The overall weight of items is calculated by multiplying the weight of the lowest level with the corresponding higher level. Thus, weight of all items in Level 3, is obtained by multiplying the weight of corresponding item in Level 1, with that in Level 2, and that in Level 3. For instance, the weight of capital cost is 0.066, which is as a result of times and times Goodness gradation for evaluation After constructing the model, the seven selected transportation systems are then evaluated. For this, a set of goodness gradation value will be used. Table 5 shows the overall goodness gradation information for the evaluation. To make the evaluation consistence, the evaluation is based on standard of criteria set in Table 2. As in weighting of items process, the goodness gradation value is made based on past experience and expertise. Here, judgment is made based on cargo owner/shipper point of view. Different cargo owner/shipper, however, will have slightly different opinion. This will not change the result of the evaluation very much. In doing so, it is better to judge item by item for all transportation system under evaluation rather than to value one particular transportation system throughout all given items. ; for instance, evaluating transportation systems with regard to transportation time. A combination of truck and airplane is the fastest transportation system, thus, the judgment is excellent. In fact, this is as a result of airplane. After that, two systems follow with the same judgment, i.e, good : combination of truck and railway as well as truck and RO-RO vessel A. These transportation systems are assumed to have the same transportation time, i.e., slightly faster than the remaining systems. Transportation time of truck and SPCB is good because of better port time than the other two marine systems: truck and conventional vessel as well as truck and RO-RO vessel B. Transportation time item is somewhat in contrast with other items of operational aspect: capital cost. A combination of truck and railway is valued good in terms of transportation time; however, it is bad pertaining to the capital cost. A combination of truck and airplane, which is the fastest alternative, has the worst value, i.e., very bad. Table 5 Goodness gradation for evaluated transportation systems Operational aspect Social aspect Enviro. aspect Level 1 Weight Level 2 (1) Transportation time (2) Reliability (3) Flexibility (4) Punctuality (5) Capacity/payload (6) Costs (7) Infrastructure (1) Labour/worker (2) Energy (3) Oil price (1) Pollution (2) Congestion Transportation System Level 3 (6.a) Capital (6.b) Overhead (A) F F Ex Vb Vb F B Vb F F Ex G B B Vb (B) G F Vb G F B F Vb G F F F F G G (C) Ex Ex Vb Ex Vb Vb Vb B Vb G Vb Vb Vb F Ex (D) F F F G Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex G G Ex G G Ex (E) F B F F Ex G F G F G G G F Ex G (F) G G G G F F G F F G G G F Ex Ex (G) F G G G Ex G G G G G F G F Ex G Remarks Ex: Excellent, G: Good, F: Fair, B: Bad, Vb: Very bad (6.c) Manning (6.d) Operating

9 Table 6 Calculated evaluation indices of transportation systems Transportation system Concordance Discordance Concordance indexc i index, c i dominance index, c i Order (A) Truck (B) Truck & railway (C) Truck & airplane (D) Truck & SPCB (E) Truck & container vessel (F) Truck & RO-RO vessel A (G) Truck & RO-RO vessel B Judgment concerning labour item is made based on Indonesia s situation where use of intensive labour is preferable. This makes transportation system which uses a few workers will have low score, i.e., truck and airplane. On the other hand, truck alone has the highest value. The most extreme valuation is made for congestion item in which only alternative (A) has the lowest score while the others have high ones. 4. Evaluation of inter-city cargo transportation and result analysis The last stage of the evaluation is to calculate the Concordance Index using equation (2) and (3) as well as the Concordance Dominance Index using equation (4). In order for being able to perform the calculation, it is necessary to change linguistic values listed in Table 5 into numerical values. Excellent, good, fair, bad, and very bad are equal to 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The calculated index represents rank of the system under evaluation and the appropriateness of the system based on one s point of view. The calculation shows that the most appropriate system is (D), a combination of truck and self-propelled container barge (SPCB), while the least appropriate one is (A), the use of truck alone. However, when the evaluation is broken down into three parts, according to the pertinent aspect used, the results are significantly different. Impact of each item for a particular transportation system has different manner. Operational aspect has relatively similar pattern of rank order. System (D) is the most appropriate alternative, while the least is system (A). Interestingly, system (F) and (G) are swapped. The others remain the same. The impact of social aspect is somewhat different, although the most suitable transportation system is the same, i.e., alternative (D). The least choice is system (C). Remarkably, system (A), which is the worst evaluated system based on the operational aspect, is the second best appropriate system. The impact of environmental aspect have completely different pattern of rank order. Here, the most appropriate transportation system is (F), a combination of truck and RO-RO vessel A. However, the least and the second least systems are the same with what are given by the operational aspect: system (A) and (B). Table 6 shows the complete calculated evaluation indices of the transportation systems. In terms of advantage and disadvantage, the results of the evaluation also give various behaviors, as can be seen in Fig. 3. With regards to the operational aspect, Transportation systems Operational aspect Social aspect Environmental aspect (A) Truck (B) Truck & railway (C) Truck & airplane (D) Truck & SPCB (E) Truck & container vessel (F) Truck & RO-RO vessel A (G) Truck & RO-RO vessel B Concordance Discordance Fig. 3 Share of concordance and discordance index

10 system (D), (F), and (G) have much higher advantage impact than its disadvantage, while system (A) and (B) experience the opposite. The advantage side of system (E) is slightly higher than its disadvantage impact. This is in contrast with system (C). According to social aspect, system (A), (D), (E), and (F) have significantly higher advantage impact than its disadvantage. On the contrary, System (B) and (G) have somewhat higher advantage impact than its disadvantage side. System (C) has only disadvantage impact, making it the least appropriate system. Concerning environmental aspects, system (F) has only advantage side, while system (A) has only disadvantage impact. This makes system (F) and system (A) are the most and the least appropriate system respectively. System (B) shares its advantage and disadvantage impact equally. The advantage impact of system (C), (D), (E), and (G) are higher than its disadvantage. In summary, the total evaluation shows that marine mode combinations with truck, system (D), (E), (F), and (G), outrank the other transportation systems. As the most appropriate one, system (D) is realistic. It has been used in Indonesia since 2005, although in different route but the same condition. 5. Conclusion Evaluation and decision making model for cargo transportation system are created, particularly when several aspects containing complication due to ambiguity and close distinction among the identified within various possible options. This method is applied effectively in evaluating model for cargo transportation system between two large cities in Indonesia. For future works, it would be better to consider the economic growth of both Indonesia and the world, because transportation activity is much influenced by the economic situation. Besides, the analyses should be applied for transporting cargo through open sea, as the fact that Indonesia is an archipelagic country. References (1) A. Sjafruddin, H. A. S. Lubis, D. B. Dharmowijoyo: Multimodal Transport in Indonesia: Recent Profile and Strategy Development, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, pp , Bangkok, 2005 (2) T. Yamada, B. F. Russ, J. Castro, E. Taniguchi: Designing Multimodal Freight Transport Networks: A Heuristic Approach and Applications, Journal of Transportation Science, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp , 2009 (3) A. Sjafruddin, H. A. S. Lubis, R. B. Frazila, D. B. Dharmowijoyo: Policy Evaluation of Multimodal Transportation Network: the Case of Inter Island Freight Transportation in Indonesia, Journal of Asian Transport Studies (ATS), Vol.1, Issue 1, pp , 2010 (4) I. C. Schutte and A. Brits: Prioritising transport infrastructure projects: towards a multi-criterion analysis, Southern African Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp , 2012 (5) H. Sutomo and J. Soemardjito: Assessment Model of the Port Effectiveness and Efficiency (Case Study: Western Indonesia Region), Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 43, pp , 2012 (6) Pacific Consultant: Investigation on Methodology of Multi Criteria Analysis for National Investment in Infrastructure, Government-commissioned Research by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan, 2013 (7) T. Shinoda and N. Fukuchi: Establishing the Evaluation and Decision Making Models for Uncertainty Problems, the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 30, pp , 1993 (8) World Population Review, Retrieved July 18, 2014 from indonesia-population/ (9) J. P. Rodrigue, C. Comtois, B. Slack: The Geography of Transport Systems, Hofstra University, Department of Global Studies & Geography, Retrieved March 13, 2014 from (10) N. Wijnolst and T. Wergeland: Shipping, Delft University Press, 1997 (11) J. Fukuda, M. Kodama, J. Nakamichi: Introduction to OR, Taga Shuppan, 1995