Strategies to Enhance Intermodal Movement in Malaysia

Shahrin Nasir, Karl-Lennart Bang, Karl-Lennart Bang, Bo-Lennart Nelldal, Bo-Lennart Nelldal, Azlina Muhammad, Azlina Muhammad


This paper is to develop possible strategies for improving the intermodal hinterland container transport system logistics in Malaysia. It looks into on customer demand, cost-efficiency, environmental impacts and quality. Since 1989, intermodal began to capture more container volumes from ports, especially from Port Klang. This was motivated by the opening of Ipoh Cargo Terminal (ICT). Other inland terminals such as Padang Besar (Perlis), Nilai Inland Port (Negri Sembilan), Segamat Inland Port (Johore) and three other Inland Container Depot (ICD) had a good share of intermodal movement during that time. But for the past 10 years, the intermodal share has declined. The Malaysian government is concerned with the congestions, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and security issues from the road haulage. Since the Prime Minister pledge by the year 2020, Malaysia will reduce its CO2 emissions by 40%, intermodal has been seen as one of the solutions to improves the situations. The need to shift from road haulage to road-rail intermodal has been mentioned in Industrial Master Plan 3 (2006) and the Logistics Road Map (2009) to alleviate these problems. Intermodal hinterland container transport is a trend in many European ports to solve road haulage problems. Lacking of strategic policies and effective institutional aspects also contributed to the less attractiveness of intermodal services.


Intermodal, Institutional framework, Strategies, Incentives

Full Text:



Slack B. Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportation system. Growth and Change. 1993: v. 24, p.379-388.

Van Klink HA, Van Den Berg GC. Gateways and intermodalism. Journal of Transport Geography. 1998: 6, 1–9.

De Langen P and Chouly A. Hinterland access regimes in seaports. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. 2004: 4(4), 361–380.

McCalla RJ. Global change, local pain: intermodal seaport terminals and their service areas. IN: Journal of Transport Geography. 1999: v.7, p. 247-254.

Haezendonck E & Notteboom T. (2 The competitive Advantage of Seaports, in : M. Huybrechts, H. Meersman E. Van de Voorde, E Van Hooydonk , A. Verbeke and W. Winkelmans (Eds) Port competitiveness: an economic and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports: Antwerp:De Boeck. 2002.

Robinson R. ‘Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm’, Maritime Policy and Management. 2002: 29:3, 241-255.

Notteboom T and Rodriguez J. Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 2005: 32(3), 297–313.

De Langen Peter. Ensuring hinterland access, The role of port authorities. Research Round Table Paris. Seaport competition and hinterland connections. 2008.

Gretchen R. Webber and Stephanie Byrd. In-Depth Interviews. Sloan Work-Family Research Network.(n.d.) .2010.

Adler M & Ziglio E. Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Kingsley Publishers. 1996.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Revista Publicando.

Licencia de Creative Commons


This Content is available under licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.