Abdlemalik Mohammed

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 82

Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Performance Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based


on Sustainability Variables

Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in


Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Masters of Science in Civil
Engineering(Road and Transport)

Advisor: - Dr. Bikila Teklu

March 27, 2017


March 27, 2017 Page i
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that the thesis comprises my own work. In compliance with internationally
accepted practices, I have dually acknowledged and refereed all materials used in this work. I
understand that non-adherence to the principles of academic honesty and integrity,
misrepresentation/ fabrication of any idea/data/fact/source will constitute sufficient ground for
disciplinary action by the university and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not
been properly cited or acknowledged.

Abdlemalik Mohammed

March 27, 2017 Page ii


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

ABSTRACT
This paper examines how Addis Ababa’s public transport conditions compare in terms of sustainability
before and after the introduction of a proposed LRT system. The system was proposed in order to
improve the infrastructure for commuters in the city and alleviate Economic, Social and Environmental
problems within the existing system. The project has started operation since September 2015 with
70% of its finances coming from the China Exim bank and the rest from the government of Ethiopia.

The study tried to describe the real sustainability benefits of the urban mass transport system,
especially in terms of how to quantify the determining indicators in specific and empirical terms to
measure the extent of these benefits. Sustainability evaluation and enhancement can be accomplished
in a scientific, reasonable and logical manner within the general planning as the beginning of improving
progress toward sustainability development. Indicators such as travel time (timesaving), affordability,
accessibility, employment, safety, modal shift, urban regeneration, air pollutant emissions, are used for
the analysis.

LRT system has numerous evident gains in terms of alleviating the urban mobility challenges in the city.
Nevertheless, it also has shortcomings on low average speed due to close gap between the stations,
short radius curves and low operating speed of the trams.

Keywords: Light Rail Transit (LRT), Public Transport, Sustainable Transport, Sustainability indicators,
Travel time, Emissions

March 27, 2017 Page iii


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

APPROVAL SHEET

Approved by Board of Examiners

Dr.Esayas G/Yohannis ______________ _____________

Chairman Signature Date

Dr.Bikila Teklu _______________ _____________

Advisor Signature Date

Mequanint Mulugeta _______________ _____________

External Examiner Signature Date

Abel Kebede _______________ _____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

March 27, 2017 Page iv


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................................iii
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... x
Acknowledgment .......................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER TWO: LITRATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Light Rail Transit .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Sustainability development .................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Transport Sustainability Benefits .......................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Social Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation ............................................ 6
2.3.2 Environmental Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation .............................. 6
2.3.3 Economic Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation ...................................... 8
2.4 The Role of Indicators in Assessing Sustainability Transport .................................................................. 9
2.4.1 Criteria for selecting an Indicator..................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Evaluating the Real Sustainability Benefits of Urban Transportation.................................................... 12
2.5.1 Existing Assessment Techniques for Sustainability Benefits of Urban Rail Transport ......14
2.5.2 Multicriteria Assessment Methodology ........................................................................15
2.6 Transport System of Addis Ababa ...........................................................................................................18
2.6.1 Transport before LRT....................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 LRT system ........................................................................................................................................ 20
2.7.1East-West and North-South Corridors Overview ............................................................20
2.7.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Design Parameters ..................................................22
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................23
3.1 Research Methods ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Study Population and Sample Size ...................................................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Study Population .........................................................................................................23
3.2.2 Sample Size and Selection ............................................................................................24
3.3 Variables and Indicators to be used in the Analysis ............................................................................. 25
3.3.1 Criteria for selection of Indicators ................................................................................26

March 27, 2017 Page v


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

3.4 Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................................... 29


3.4.1 Primary Data ...............................................................................................................29
3.4.2 Secondary Data ...........................................................................................................30
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................................... 30
3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics Analysis from Questionnaire Results ............................................30
3.6.2 Geospatial Analysis from Satellite Imagery and Light Rail Master Plan ..........................31
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................32
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Score Result for Each Indicators Given By Respondents ....................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Percentage of Respondents per Profession and Institution ...........................................32
4.2.2 Score Result for Each Indicator .....................................................................................33
4.3 Assessing the Sustainability benefit of total travel time saved by the light rail as compared to road
vehicle transport scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 36
4.4 Value of Travel Time in Monetary term .............................................................................................. 48
4.5 Assessing the Sustainability benefit of reduction of Air pollution Greenhouse Effect by the light rail as
compared to road vehicle transport scenarios .......................................................................................... 50
4.5.1 Impact of LRT on Air pollution and Greenhouse Emission Reduction .............................50
4.5.2 Award from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) .....................................................52
4.5.3 Limitation of the Estimated Pollutant Emission .............................................................53
4.6 List of other benefits as stated by respondents ................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................54
5.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 54
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 56
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................................. 56
BIBLOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................................................57
ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................................................................................................................60
ANNEX 2: Sample size and error estimation for questionnaire .......................................................................64
ANNEX 3: Error estimation for mean value of Passenger’s in vehicle time, (min) ............................................66
ANNEX 4: Sensitivity Analysis on Each Sample Selected from Each Profession ................................................68

March 27, 2017 Page vi


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

List of Charts

Chart 1: Percentage of Respondents from Different Institute ........................................................................32


Chart 2: Expert profession in percentage ......................................................................................................33
Chart 3: Weight and rank of each indicator based on importance for global sustainability. .............................35
Chart 4: Shows total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport both in peak and off peak hours
....................................................................................................................................................................43
Chart 5: Shows total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport both in peak and off peak hours
....................................................................................................................................................................45
Chart 6: Summary of Timesaving by E-W LRT compared to other modes ........................................................46
Chart 7: Summary of Timesaving by N-S LRT compared to other modes .........................................................47

March 27, 2017 Page vii


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

List of Tables

Table 1: Objectives, Criteria and Indicators for the overall assessment ..........................................................17
Table 2: Hourly Distribution of the Demand Based on the LRT Corridor Data..................................................19
Table 3: Daily public transit passenger volumes by modes .............................................................................20
Table 4: Alignment Design Parameters .........................................................................................................22
Table 5: Sustainability indicators selected from different literature and experts for the assessment ...............28
Table 6: Summary of the ten indicators, the total sum of the scores and their weight ....................................34
Table 7: The first three indicators with the highest rank score were selected for analysis ...............................36
Table 8: key operating assumptions ..............................................................................................................37
Table 9: Shows routes taken by different kind of mode of transport in the two Lot. .......................................41
Table 10: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on peak hour ..................42
Table 11: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour ..............43
Table 12: Shows the total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport on peak hour ...................44
Table 13: Shows the total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour ...............45
Table 14: Summary of Timesaving by E-W LRT compared to other modes ......................................................46
Table 15: Summary of Timesaving by N-S LRT compared to other mode ........................................................47
Table 16: Estimate of Total Emission from Addis Ababa Road Network without construction of LRT ...............51
Table 17: Estimate of Pollutant Emission from Addis Ababa Road Network after construction of LRT .............51
Table 18: Estimated Emission reduced due to LRT project .............................................................................51
Table 19: Number of respondents that give weight for each indicator ...........................................................64
Table 20: Mean, standard deviation of the sample and Number of respondents required ..............................65
Table 21: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of sustainability indicators weight with (95% CI &,N= 41) .....65
Table 22: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on peak hour at Torhailoch-Ayat
lot ...............................................................................................................................................................66
Table 23: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on offpeak hour at Torhailoch-
Ayat lot........................................................................................................................................................66
Table 24: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on offpeak hour at Gorgis- kaliti
lot ...............................................................................................................................................................67
Table 25: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on peak hour at Gorgis- kaliti lot
....................................................................................................................................................................67
Table 26: Z – Test for sample taken from Economists ....................................................................................68
Table 27: Z – Test for sample taken from Sociologists ....................................................................................68
Table 28: Z – Test for sample taken from Environmentalists ..........................................................................69
Table 29: Z – Test for sample taken from Railway Administrators ..................................................................69
Table 30: Z – Test for sample taken from Transport Engineers .......................................................................70
Table 31: Z – Test for sample taken from Railway Engineers ..........................................................................70

March 27, 2017 Page viii


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

List of Figures

Figure 1: Zegras’s sustainability indicator prism (adapted from Hart, 1998)....................................................13


Figure 2: Evaluation Scenarios ......................................................................................................................15
Figure 3: Schematic Diagram of Station locations (ERC, Design report of LRT, 2009). ......................................21
Figure 4: N-S, E-W Rail tracks and their Rail Stations .....................................................................................38
Figure 5: Road map showing the alignment from Piassa Giorgis to Kality, and Torhailoch to Ayat which are
used by different mode of transport .............................................................................................................40

March 27, 2017 Page ix


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

List of Abbreviations
LRT Light rail transit

CBD central business district

ERC Ethiopian Railway Corporation

ECMT European Council of Ministers of Transport

GIS Geographic Information System

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

NOx Nitrous Oxide

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

EU European Union

EEA European Environmental Agency

MCA Multi Criterion Assessment

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

WHO World Health organization

AOI Area of interest

GCP Geographic Control Points

GPS Geographic positioning systems

RII Relative Importance Index

VTTS Value of Travel Time Savings

AARTA Addis Ababa Road Transport Authority

AAIT Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

March 27, 2017 Page x


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Acknowledgment

First of all, I thank Allah for making it all possible.

I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Bikila Teklu. His guidance and wise inputs throughout the
progress of the research were noteworthy.

My gratitude also goes to my family. My mother, Rehima Seid, your love and support got me through
trying times. My three brothers and two sisters, thank you for all your support and always being there
for me.

I thank Ethiopian Road Authority for giving me this opportunity. It had been a challenge that required
hard work and patience. It was a great learning experience for me.

March 27, 2017 Page xi


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background
Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia, is currently facing rapid urbanization and high population
growth. Overall population is expected to grow from 3.2 million to 5.5 million inhabitants by 2020 and
reach double figures within the next two decades. Car ownership is still significantly low in Addis
Ababa, though rapidly increasing mainly due to economic growth and the introduction of low cost
private vehicles into the local market. Public transportation and Non-motorized transport, and
particularly walking, still dominates the modal split for daily trips in Addis Ababa with most of total
trips, whereas public transport service is not adequate to accommodate the respective demand.

Since most people in the city are relatively poor and cannot afford a private car, public transport is
one of the most common transportation modes that can be accessed by the urban population where
most of trips in Addis Ababa are made by walking and public transport. Like any other rapid growing
city in the developing world, Addis Ababa has not escaped from the impacts of poor public transport
services; improvements in Addis Ababa's public transit network will improve mobility for residents
who currently rely on inefficient and unpredictable minibus and midi-bus bus services. It is in this
respect the government has decided to implement a Light Rail Transit (LRT) System. The System is
defined by a combination of these components together: main truck, Depot, stations and operational
characteristics. A LRT system is described as public transport’s response with an attempt to provide a
tram competitive quality service

In many cities, urban rail transportation projects, i.e. the light rail, metro and tram systems over the
years demonstrated itself as the optimal solution in providing sustainability mobility for the
increasing urban population. This light rail also provides other benefits such as better comfort,
medium-high carrying capacity, faster, more regular and safer. The light rail system is a large project
that requires very high amount of investments, especially for the construction of infrastructure and
maintenance costs. Apart from the economic benefits, the social and environmental improvement
benefits are also derived from the rail system projects (Cascajo, 2004). Investing in transportation
infrastructure does have continuing effects on both the transportation system and the sustainability
system, i.e. economic, social and environmental, which interacts with transportation (Barrella, 2012).

The light rail is expected to provide the city with social, economic and environmental benefits which
also needs to be assessed or measured using specified indicators that is related to ascertain its level
of benefit to sustainability development.

March 27, 2017 Page 1


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

The scope and contents of local indicators differ from one large infrastructural investment to another.
Nevertheless, the main intention of a sustainability assessment is to include the most important local
indicators in the assessment model. An assessment model with a comprehensive inclusion of key
issues provides findings that will be very beneficial to an inclusive decision making ground to support
development of policies and effective measures for a more sustainability urban future. Sustainability
model is characterized with three main aspects, i.e., environmental, economic and social. It is not
completely adequate just to gain the knowledge about the importance of indicators to achieve a
sustainability transportation system. A framework in form of instruments is needed to determine if
the transportation system is progressing towards sustainability. Therefore, a set of indicators is
required to assess the progress in development of a sustainability urban transportation system, which
may also serve many other purposes, such as benchmarking, evaluating effectiveness of policies and
measures, comparing between two cities and monitoring the trend of progress towards sustainability
development.

However there exist other not economic benefits, social benefits and environmental improvements-
induced by such rail projects.

Therefore, it is required to develop an ex-post evaluation considering economic, social and


environmental effects in order to find the real benefit provided by these projects and to justify these
large investments.

The methodology is based on a multicriteria analysis which considers a number of criteria to achieve
the global objective of sustainability

1.1 Statement of the Problem

The common perception about the real and quantifiable sustainability benefits of the urban public
transport system is still poorly understood, especially in terms of how to quantify and assess these
benefits. Over the years, the sustainability of infrastructures in Ethiopia has suffered a serious
obstacle due to inadequate measures to assess its sustainability benefits for better decision making in
the long term. The conventional methods of measuring the sustainability benefits of the light rail
transit system are deeply rooted in the economic theory, depicting inadequacies in the perception of
understanding by the local communities on the sustainability value of public transport.

This necessitates the development of a methodology to measure the social, economic and
environmental effects and impacts generated by the urban transport investment projects.

March 27, 2017 Page 2


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Various aspects of the ways indicators are selected and applied in practice by local authorities
including their ability to reflect objectives, their use in developing targets and to form a comfortable
ground with which they are understood in the monitoring process.

Therefore, it is very important to identify specific indicators that are measurable in quantifying the
sustainability benefits of the Addis Ababa light rail and use them to assess the extent of its benefits.
This provides an informed situation where decision makers understands the trade-offs and
comparison between different scenarios of the economic, environmental and social benefits and how
each of them has more weight of importance than the other, thereby providing empirical and
provable reasons for crucial decisions to be implemented. Especially this will help in the decision
making of the next LRT phase two project.

1.2 Objectives of the Study


The main research objective is to show the impact of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit based on
most significant sustainability development variables. Therefore, the specific objectives are:

 Identify the most significant indicators which are used in assessing the
sustainability benefits of the urban light rail system
 Determining the weight of each indicator based on importance for global
sustainability.
 Perform an analysis on empirical assessment of the most ranked indicators

1.3 Research Questions


• The main research question is:
 How do Addis Ababa’s public transport conditions improved in terms of
sustainability after LRT?

• Specific questions are:


 How much spatial coverage of Addis Ababa’s LRT system?
 What are economic benefit indicators and variables of light rail transit?
 What are social benefit indicators and variables of light rail transit?
 What are environmental benefit indicators and variables of light rail transit?
 How do the weight of each indicator and the empirical assessment of the
most ranked indicators can be shown based on importance for global
sustainability.

March 27, 2017 Page 3


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

CHAPTER TWO: LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 Light Rail Transit

Light rail transit (LRT) system is a mass transport system that uses rail-based technology and
typically operates in urban. Vehicles are usually relatively lightweight, run on steel rails and
are driven by overhead electrical wires (Marko, Soskolne, et al., 2004),

The LRT has the potential to open up a new market for public transport travel in our cities,
which has largely remained untapped by bus. Where demand can justify the volumes of
patrons, a natural progression from a bus based system to LRT (modal shift) may occur on
defined line haul routes. Moreover, LRT are meant for solving existing public transport system
problems, if significant modal shifts towards urban public transport are to be achieved.

The success of light rail along defined corridors is attributed to its modern, reliability and
effectiveness in moving commuters especially during peak periods to the central business
district (CBD). Most commuters in the study area lives in the suburbs due to high cost of living
in the CBD, but needs to transport to the CBD daily to work. The LRT system encourages
people to plan their lives around the system with confidence, which ensures them with
transport choices based on its availability. It also encourages businesses to develop along the
routes, which in turn concentrates development, so that it can be more effectively served by
public transport (ERC, 2009).

2.2 Sustainability development

Sustainable transport planning refers to transport policy analysis and planning practices that
support sustainable development. Sustainable development constitutes environmental, social
and economic objectives. Transport policy and planning decisions can have diverse, long-term
impacts. A critical component of sustainable transport planning is the development of a
comprehensive evaluation program that evaluates transport system performance based on an
appropriate set of environmental, social and economic indicators. (Daniel and Litman, 2011)

March 27, 2017 Page 4


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

The European Union’s Sustainability Development Strategy defines transport sustainability as


''the ability to meet the needs of society to move freely, gain access, communicate, trade and
establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human or ecological values today or
in the future'' (Bojković, Macura, et al., 2011).

2.3 Transport Sustainability Benefits

It has been proposed many definitions for sustainable transportation. Of them, the common
definition selected by the European Council of Ministers of Transport (ECMT, 2004) because it
has a broad scope and recognizes specific transportation issues. According to this definition, a
sustainable transport system:

 Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and society
to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and
promotes equity within and between successive generations.
 Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode and
supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development
 Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, uses renewable
resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable resources at
or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while minimizing the
impact on the use of land and the generation of noise.

In achieving a reasonable level of sustainability, it depends on the integrated pattern of


human actions, which therefore necessitates the coordination of deliberations between
different actors and sectors. This consequently tries to achieve consistency between the local
short-term and global long-term targets. (Litman, 2007).

Therefore, achieving benefits in a sustainability manner in the transport sector requires a very
critical dimension of integrating the necessary elements capable of consistent management of
the developed process.

March 27, 2017 Page 5


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

2.3.1 Social Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation

Developing indicators need the innovative use of data, as many variables can be put together
into a quality life index, which helps to identify trade-offs amongst them. The experience in
the United Kingdom (UK) shows how the use of conventional statistics, using socioeconomic or
geographic statistics can provide a useful strategy for assessing social equity. This type of study
would require census data, i.e, geopolitical boundaries, demographics, and available
transportation statistics, which a Geographic Information System (GIS) could also support such
analysis. The use of environmental justice and contextual sensitive solutions policies are some
of the most common ways that the United States (US) agencies use to address social equity
through consideration of the local context and a comprehensive public involvement process
(Steg and Gifford, 2005). The Health Impact Assessment is an example of such method, which
has started been put to use for transportation planning strategies both in the US and other
countries. The Geographic Information System is one of the analytical tools used to assess
sustainability in transportation plans (Macharis and Pekin, 2009), such as criteria selection,
scenario building, healthy practices, and climate support initiatives (Barrella, 2012).

Generally the selected indicators should raise the following issues: (Tara Ramani, 2009)
 People must be able to interact with one another and with nature.
 A safe and secure environment must be provided.
 There must be equity between societies, groups, and generations.
 There must be adequate access to employment and other opportunities.
 It includes issues such as equity, safety, security, human health, education, and quality
of life.

2.3.2 Environmental Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation

Sustainability Transport is connected to travel framework that can meet up with the transport
requirements more efficiently, while also reducing the undesirable impacts and its related
costs over the long term at different geographic locations.

March 27, 2017 Page 6


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

The environmental impacts of transport sustainability deal towards attaining a reduction in


local atmospheric pollution, global warming, negative impact on plants and animals, impact of
waste disposal on environment, e.t.c. This over the years has given rise to developments such
as technology for more efficient waste disposal methods to reduce the waste disposal effects
and its use for alternative fuel to decrease dependence on non-renewable resources, also
reduce pollution from the energy use of fossils. (Whiteing and Stantchev, 2008).

Trains and buses provide a reasonable solution In order to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from road transport by providing of a significant modal shift onto public transport.
This initiative also facilitates state policies like greenhouse gas budget (Barrella, 2012).

The de-carbonisation of our transport networks will play a considerable part in meeting the
challenging targets for carbon reduction. Climate change is the defining challenge of the 21st
century. The Government is leading the charge internationally for global action on this key
issue. It is also firmly committed to further action within the United Kingdom to reduce carbon
emissions. The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act 2008 is the world’s first national long-
term legally binding framework. It commits the Government to cut emissions by at least 80%
by 2050. To ensure the United Kingdom is on a cost-effective path to meet this target, the Act
provides for a system of rolling, five-year carbon budgets for the United Kingdom. However,
the delivery of carbon budgets will require action by businesses and individuals as well as
Government, and local authorities will have an important role to play (Chapman, 2007).
Investing in public transport, including light rail, can play a key part in meeting this challenge.
This is why offering sustainability transport choices, at the local level is important, as short-
distance, local trips are where the biggest opportunities for people to change the way they
travel can be found given that two out of three journeys are under five miles. Light rail
schemes in operation have contributed to the removal of car trips from overcrowded roads
which have led to the reduction in the amount of pollution caused by car exhausts (Barrella,
2012).
The anthropogenic signal has now become increasingly evident in the climate record where
the rate and magnitude of warming due to greenhouse gases is directly comparable to actual
observed increases of temperature.

March 27, 2017 Page 7


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

This is caused by the build-up of key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accumulated from
combustion of fossil fuels and land use changes over the 20th century. (Chapman, 2007).

2.3.3 Economic Benefit Sustainability Assessment in Transportation

The economic aspect of sustainability assessment in transportation is very important because


it provides the enabling environment for investments to meet its profit margin and maintain
the system. The concept of cost benefit analysis and multi criteria analysis is very useful in this
dimension, which also consequently determines the extent of funding instruments such as
user-cost financing, public-private partnerships and tax (Barrella, 2012).

There has been an underlying concept that transport infrastructure has the effect of
promoting economic growth, especially among the politicians. However, according to
Vickerman (2001) the correlation between transport infrastructure and economic growth is
not so stable. It is difficult to assume a single causal direction of these two factors, regarding
the high possibility of mutual interaction. According to Banister and Berechman (2001), it is
widely agreed that the economic growth happens mainly due to capital, labour, etc. and only
partly relying on the infrastructure improvement. Transport acts as a necessary condition for
the growth to occur. Although there is no doubt about the direct effect that the transport
infrastructure improvement contributes to cost savings of productive sectors, such as time
saving.

Economic sustainability maintains a distinction between growth (increased quantity) and


development (increased quality), which focuses on social welfare outcomes rather than simply
measuring material wealth, and questions common economic indicators such as gross
domestic product, which measure the quantity but not the quality of market activities (Litman
and Burwell, 2006). Sustainability tends to show a conservation ethic, which means that
production and consumption patterns are structured to minimize resource consumption and
waste. This requires changing current economic policies that encourage inefficient production
and consumption. Example, many countries minimize energy prices in order to keep utilities
and driving affordable, and to encourage manufacturing. That reflects a consumption ethic.

March 27, 2017 Page 8


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

A conservation ethic might increase energy prices, may be through a carbon tax while
implementing programmes to protect buildings, increase vehicle fuel efficiency, improve
alternative modes, and increase industrial efficiency so that manufacturers and consumers can
meet their needs with less resource consumption (Litman and Burwell, 2006).

2.4 The Role of Indicators in Assessing Sustainability Transport


The overall planning process starts by using indicators, which includes consulting stakeholders,
defining problems, establishing goals and objectives; identifying and evaluating options,
developing policies and plans, implementing programs, establishing performance targets and
measuring impacts (Litman, 2007). Indicators can reflect various levels, For example,
indicators may reflect the decision-making process (the quality of planning), responses (travel
patterns), physical impacts (emission and accident rates), effects this has on people and the
environment (injuries and deaths, and ecological damages), and their economic impacts (costs
to society due to crashes and environmental degradation).

Indicators arise from values and, in turn, they create values; therefore, the biggest advantage
of an indicator-based urban sustainability assessment model is the quantifiability of the
sustainability levels. Another instrumental purpose of using sustainability indicators is that, by
visualising phenomena and highlighting trends, indicators simplify, quantify, analyse and
communicate otherwise complex and complicated information. Depending on these qualities,
indicators have attracted a wide range of interest, and this has led to generation of a large
number of relatively successful urban sustainability assessment practices. The main difficulty
faced while using indicators is to find a common unit and method of measurement leading to
comparison of performance of a setting or policy package. Over the last decade, there has
been an increasing effort to structure an indicator system and monitoring process to
accurately formulate an integrated urban sustainability monitoring and assessment strategy
(Tan Yigitcanlar, 2011).

An indicator can be expressed as a variable chosen within a scope to measure the


development towards a planned objective. A very important approach to measure and
evaluate transport sustainability is the use of indicators.

March 27, 2017 Page 9


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Definitions and characterization of sustainability transport systems help to define the scope of
measurement using indicators. In the argument for using valid and reliable indicators for
monitoring and evaluating transport,

In transportation, no single indicator is adequate to provide useful information for effective


decision-making, therefore a set of indicators should be developed, reflecting various goals
and objectives.

Indicators are mostly defined as quantitative measures that can be used “to illustrate and
communicate complex phenomena simply, including trends and progress over time” (EEA,
2005). During the last two decades measurement of sustainability issues by indicators has
been widely used by the scientific community and policy-makers. Development of
sustainability development indicators was first brought up as a political agenda issue at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. The UNCED policy declaration Agenda 21 requested countries at the national level
and international governmental and non-governmental organizations at the international level
to develop indicators in the context of improving information for decision-making (United
Nations, 1992, Chapter 40). Since then, indicators are considered to be important tools for
measurement of different aspects of Sustainability development, including transport related
issues (Litman, 2007).

2.4.1 Criteria for selecting an Indicator

In most situations, no single indicator is adequate, so a set should be selected. An indicator set
should reflect various goals and objectives. Indicators should be carefully selected to provide
useful information.

There is internationally established and commonly used quality criteria that are used as a base
in the selection of indicators. This part of the research briefly outlines basic indicator quality
criteria used by various European and other international organizations. Afterwards, quality
criteria specific for transport indicators are defined.

March 27, 2017 Page 10


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Quantitative policy targets for sustainability transport are presented as additional useful
criteria for the selection of transport indicators.
In general, indicator quality criteria reflected in the policy documents of the international
organizations commonly state that indicators must be clear and understandable, policy
relevant, accessible, and reliable and the indicator data must be accurate. Most of the
organizations in the European Union and World Health organization (WHO) agree that
indicators should be the representatives of selected geographical or political area (Litman and
Brenman, 2012). Timeliness is an important indicator quality criterion for the EU, Eurostat,
European Environmental Agency (EEA) and OECD. The EEA and the UN take into account the
number of indicators as an important quality aspect. Cost efficiency of indicators plays an
important role for the OECD and UN indicator selections (Litman, 2007).

The following principles should be applied when selecting transportation performance (Todd
Litman, 2007)

 Comprehensive – Indicators should reflect various economic, social and


environmental impacts, and various transport activities (such as both personal
and freight transport).
 Data quality – Data collection practices should reflect high standards to insure
that information is accurate and consistent.
 Comparable – Data collection should be standardized so the results are suitable
for comparison between various jurisdictions, times and groups. Indicators
should be clearly defined. For example, “Number of people with good access to
food shopping” should specify ‘good accesses and ‘food shopping.’
 Easy to understand – Indicators must useful to decision-makers and
understandable to the general public.
 Accessible and Transparent – Indicators (and the data they are based on) and
analysis details should be available to all stakeholders.
 Cost effective – The suite of indicators should be cost effective to collect. The
decision- making worth of the indicators must outweigh the cost of collecting
them.

March 27, 2017 Page 11


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

 Net Effects – Indicators should differentiate between net (total) impacts and
shifts of impacts to different locations and times.
 Performance targets – select indicators that are suitable for establishing usable
performance targets..

In the area of transport, as in many other fields, indicators play a useful role in highlighting
problems, identifying trends, contributing to priority setting, policy formulation and evaluation
and monitoring of process, in this way informing the public and decision-makers.

On the basis of Vancouver principles (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and


Development, 1996) Sustainability transport can be defined by the following criteria: Access,
equity, health and safety, individual responsibility, integrated planning, Pollution prevention,
land and resource use, education and public participation. In summary, comprehensive criteria
defining sustainability transport system may help to define the scope of indicators for
measurement of transport sustainability performance and may provide with the more
complete overview of various aspects of transport sector (Barrella, 2012).

2.5 Evaluating the Real Sustainability Benefits of Urban Transportation

In many cities, urban rail transportation projects, i.e. the light rail, metro and tram systems
over the years demonstrated itself as the optimal solution in providing mobility for the
increasing urban population, considering sustainability as a core issue of relevance. This light
rail also provides other benefits such as better comfort, medium-high carrying capacity, faster,
more regular and safer. The light rail system is a large project that requires very high amount
of investments, especially for the construction of infrastructure and maintenance costs.
Investing in such a large project is far more expensive than the alternative transport mode of a
new bus line, which indicates that the low financial profitability of the rail transport. Apart
from the economic benefits, the social and environmental improvement benefits also derived
from the rail system projects.
Zegras (2006) presented the sustainability indicator prism that innovatively represents the
hierarchy of goals, indexes, indicators, and raw data as well as the structure of
multidimensional performance measures.
March 27, 2017 Page 12
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

As shown in Fig.1, the top of the pyramid represents the community goals and vision, the
second layer represents a number of composite indexes around the selected themes, third
layer represents indicators or performance measures building from raw data at the bottom of
the pyramid. This concept can also be considered as the combination of Hart’s category or
issue lists (environmental, economic, and social aspects) with the goal-indicator matrix, which
organizes indicators/indexes around a set of community goals or various sustainability issues.
This framework is especially helpful when decision makers first set the community goals for
sustainability around the essential dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, and
social dimensions, etc.) and indicators and composite indexes are constructed based on the
categorized goals and objectives.
The critical points that emerge from these constructs are that performance measures must be
developed to capture a community’s broader vision.

The Information Hierarchy through the Sustainable Indicator Prism

e.g., Sustainable Development

e.g., Index of Sustainable Economic


Welfare
e.g., Motorization Rate
e.g., Vehicle Fleet Size

Source: Zegras, 2004..


Figure 1: Zegras’s sustainability indicator prism (adapted from Hart, 1998).

March 27, 2017 Page 13


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

2.5.1 Existing Assessment Techniques for Sustainability Benefits of Urban Rail Transport

Current practices in sustainability assessment


Jeon, 2010 used Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach for evaluating selected
transportation and land use plans in the Atlanta US region using multiple sustainability
parameters. A composite sustainability index was introduced as a decision support tool for
transportation policymaking, where the sustainability index considers multidimensional
conflicting criteria in the transportation planning process. They conducted a literature review
on sustainability indicators from sixteen different initiatives around the world, including North
America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (Jeon and Amekudzi, 2005).

Jeon and Amekudzi, (2005) addressed sustainability in transportation planning and provision
seems to indicate a higher focus on the effectiveness of transportation systems as well as the
resulting environmental impacts (mainly air quality impacts), and less of a focus on economic
and social impacts.

The measurement using the monetary value shows more objectivity than the MCA, but does
not factor in the non-monetized effects, such as the social and environmental which are more
difficult to monetize, making the CBA approach non-useful in the transport assessment that
includes the social and environmental objectives. While the MCA assesses collectively, the
objective achievement through impact quantification, which is qualitative and quantitative,
these have to be in monetary values. The MCA approach for measuring the criteria has its level
of subjectivity but accommodates the use of both the quantitative and qualitative indicators.
Another important method is the multi-criterion decision-making method, Elimination Et Choix
Traduisant la Realite (ELECTRE), developed by Bernard Roy in 1991 in an effort to solve the
inadequacies of the existing decision making techniques. The ELECTRE comprises of two main
concepts, namely the threshold of indifference/preference and outranking relations that seeks
to develop an outranking relation using thresholds. Considering these three methods, the MCA
is still a more suitable technique to assess transport investment for the benefit of
sustainability development, which takes into consideration the socio-economic and
environmental factors (Cascajo, 2004).

March 27, 2017 Page 14


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

2.5.2 Multicriteria Assessment Methodology

This approach is demonstrated also with the three aspects of sustainability development,
namely environmental, social and economic benefits to be assessed. The evaluation carried
out for transport investment is dependent in their comparison in different scenarios. In this
method, the benefits will be evaluated by the difference between the reference scenario, i.e.
scenario without the plan and the real scenario with the plan which both scenarios are
referred to as the evaluation year, as shown in figure 2 below (Cascajo, 2004).

Investment
Real Scenario
Scenario (t 0)
Before (t-n) (tn)

Impact

Reference
Scenario

Figure 2: Evaluation Scenarios

(Cascajo, 2004)

In figure 2 above, considering the fact and taken into awareness that a specific number of
objectives are to be evaluated, each objective will be evaluated in the two scenarios by one or
even more criteria, which earns a value through one related indicator. This criterion is either
qualitative or quantitative, measured with a proper indicator in numeric figures to ascertain its
level of impact. These defined indicators quantify the criteria and are calculated in the
reference and real scenario situation, to depict the final impact of a ratio of difference
between reference and real scenarios. The second level in this approach is to allocate the
homogenised indicators to every criterion to represent its relative importance to the overall
objective of sustainability (Cascajo, 2004).

March 27, 2017 Page 15


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Thus, the final impact will be calculated as the weighted sum of all indicators multiplied with
the weight allocated to its related criterion.

The level of achievement of each objective has to be expressed as a numeric value in order to
quantify the final value of impact. Therefore, it is required from each topic under evaluation to
define a procedure to convert the qualitative results into a numeric score.
The indicators defined for quantifying the criteria are calculated in the reference scenario and
the real scenario, and the final impact will be the percentage of variation between reference
and real scenarios (Cascajo, 2004).

When the individual effects have been measured, they have to be aggregated in a final single
value: first of all, it is necessary to convert the range of every indicator’s variation in a
homogeneous one, from 0 to 1. This conversion will be done through value functions, one for
each indicator. The value function will convert the indicator variation among scenarios in a
homogeneous value scaled from 0 (no impact) to 1 (maximum impact). These normalized
values will be the individual social utility for each criterion (Vicky Mabin and Michael Beattie,
2006).

The second step in the aggregation procedure is to assign the homogenised indicators to each
criterion to represent its relative importance to the overall objective of sustainability. The final
impact will be the weighted sum of all indicators multiplied by the weight assigned to their
corresponding criterion (Vicky Mabin and Michael Beattie, 2006). The final formulation of the
process will be the following:

Socio + Economic +Environment Utility = ∑Wiαi (2.1)

Where Wi are the weights and αi the individual social utilities of each of the n indicators.
Further assessment is prepared with respect to the objective of the three aspects of
sustainability development, i.e. social, economic and environmental. This will produce an
overview of its contribution to global sustainability in transport developments. To do this, a set
of criteria is developed and its relevant indicators to measure it as well.
March 27, 2017 Page 16
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 1 shows some criteria and their indicators defined which are selected from different
literatures. The table depicts eleven criteria, nine of them measured by quantitative indicators,
while qualitative indicators measured two, haven gone through a consultation process with
some principal actors of various cities participating like Stuttgart, Lyon, Madrid, Vienna,
Manchester, Valencia and Abuja (Cascajo, 2004)

Table 1: Objectives, Criteria and Indicators for the overall assessment

Sub- Criteria Indicators Quantitative/


Objectives
Qualitative
Assessment
Economic Reduction of Total travel time saved by the project Quantitative
in both, public and private transport,
Benefits travel time
between the scenarios
Difference between ‘Fare revenues’
Economic and ‘Operation costs’ Quantitative
Efficiency
Employment Additional Regional Employment Quantitative
Generation
Economic Economic Development Effect Quantitative
Growth

Social Social Equity Quantified questionnaire responses Qualitative


Benefits
Increase in the Increase in public transport (PT) trips Quantitative
use of PT per day
Urban Urban regeneration in the vicinity of
Qualitative
PT
regeneration
Environmental Air Pollution Reduction of pollutant Emissions Quantitative
(Tons/year of CO, SO2, NOx, lead,
Improvements
PM)

Greenhouse effect Quantitative


Reduction of emission of CO2
(tons/year
)

Safety Reduction of accident costs per year


improvements Quantitative
Source: (Cascajo, 2004)

March 27, 2017 Page 17


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

In the table above the sub-objectives, which are in form of economic, social and
environmental benefits are measured using measurable indicators with specific units to
attain categories of criteria, using the qualitative and quantitative approaches. As seen
above, the social equity and urban regeneration as a social benefit, has a qualitative
approach, while all others have the quantitative approach.

2.6 Transport System of Addis Ababa

2.6.1 Transport before LRT


According Addis Ababa transport authority report on 2009, mobility was normal at 1.07 per
capita trip rate; walking is the predominant mode (60.5%). Vehicular ownership is low.
Vehicular trip rate is also low at 0.47 per capita. The main transport facilities in Addis Ababa is
on the road network, which is used by Anbassa Bus Service, mini-bus taxi services, and number
of rapidly increasing private motor vehicles.

Anbassa Bus Service and Mini-bus Taxi Service are the backbone of Addis Ababa's transport
system. They provide limited mobility for the population but suffer from many constraints.
Access to finance; an ageing bus fleet; inadequate infrastructure; an adverse external
operating environment particularly due to severe traffic congestion; extensive competition,
etc. have restrained the growth and efficiency of the various systems. They require
rejuvenation and their route structure and service pattern improved. Future public transport
capacity must be supplemented by medium and large capacity vehicles preferably
incorporating some modern technology.

2.6.1.1 Hourly Distribution of the Demand in the LRT Corridor

Table 2 shows the recorded average hourly distribution in the corridor. While there are
confirmed peak points from 07:20 to 10:20 and between 16:20 and 19:20, there is good
midday demand.

March 27, 2017 Page 18


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 2: Hourly Distribution of the Demand Based on the LRT Corridor Data

From (hour) To (hour) Approximate Percent


of Trips in the Corridor

0:00 4:00 0.00%

4:00 6:00 2.00%

6:00 9:00 30.00%

9:00 12:00 10.00%

12:00 13:30 10.00%

13:30 15:30 10.00%

15:30 21:00 32.00%

21:00 22:00 4.00%

22:00 24:00 2.00%

Total per 24 hours 100.00%

*Source: ERC, Feasibility study report, 2009

The major part of the LRT alignment route is located along existing streets which are serviced
by buses, and taxis.

2.6.1.2 Transit Demand and its Characteristics before LRT


On an average day, Addis Ababa public transport system in the East-West and North-South
corridors (Table 3) carried more than 1.2 million passengers on the Anbessa bus, Medi bus,
mini bus and taxi network before construction of LRT. As most of the trips require transfers,
the number of journeys per day is estimated to be approaching 2 million. The mini bus/taxi
system carries over 0.5 million passengers.

March 27, 2017 Page 19


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 3: Daily public transit passenger volumes by modes

Reported, passengers (2009)

MinibusTaxi 516,560

Midi Bus 326,118

Anbessa Bus 97,306

Other Support Buses 331,344

Total 1,271,328

*Source: Addis Ababa Transport Authority, 2009

2.7 LRT system

2.7.1East-West and North-South Corridors Overview


The Addis Ababa LRT covers the East-West and North-South transport corridors. The East-West
corridor passes through the city centre from the eastern peripheries of the city to the west. In
its final phase, the East-West corridor will connect suburban towns from the Oromia region
such as Legetafo in the East and Sebeta in the West.

Major residential and real estate development locations at Ayat, CMC, Gurdshola and the area
west of Torhailoch are accessed through this route. Meskel Square is the major public
gathering location in Addis Ababa and Meganagna Square is an important transit hub and
commercial centre. The East-West corridor crosses the ring road at Megenagna

In its final phase, it is proposed that the LRT route will connect to the future national railway
hubs at Legetafo and Sebeta (ERC, 2009).

The North-South corridor is a heavily-used route; it is utilized to access Africa’s largest open
market at Merkato. The initial phase of the project starts from Giorgis (Piazza) in the north and
heads a little distance to the west to access Merkato and Autobus Tera (the Intercity Bus
Terminal).

March 27, 2017 Page 20


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Afterwards, the route heads south until it joins the East-West route at Lideta. From Lideta to
Meskel Square both services have a common route until the North-South route divides to the
south heading to the new Gotera interchange, Saris and Kaliti.

In its final phase the route will cross the ring road at Kaliti interchange and extend to a new
railway hub at Akaki. The northern end of the route will be extended from Giorgis to
Shiromeda (ERC, 2009).

SHIRO MEDA

LEGE TAFO
SIDIST KILO (AAU)

M
7K
.31
-2
TO M
KA K KM
E R 806 077
- M - 1. 1.
24 6 7-
NS NS2 NS2

NS28 - MENELIK II SQUARE 0.075 KM


KM
KM 48
KM 7K
M
75 9.5 M
NS22 - 2.917 KM 47 7.6 4K
4.4 .14 RE M
25 Q UA .47 5K
E1 RE EH SQ
M 11 0K
M
.16
M AR A L IC 2K CH .38 13 M
5K U U PO M A
0.5
5
UR 12 H 6K
06 M L SQ L SQ IC K DW 1 H E RC KM .92
E6
. K
KA KA FF A A EC EG HU 30 14
M 9 KM R 174 E S S M R A .513
NA/ O
LL E T L L C 4.0 .2 0K
M
. E K 8
NS20 - 3.857 KM 8 2K 5.12 Q UA E7 /M S/M 286 IA
/T
TEL AG SH IH
R
C O
A EL 1
1
M
.C
5 .96 KM
5 R M . N D . . 60
-4
.
ET
A S A
G 7 KM DIU NO L6 O
R HO E UR E
M
IC
E H .C I/C 11
O
IFA AE AZ EG LIT RV
IC .M ER AT 7.2
16 -L
ID
EX
IC A
- L 7.84 - ST
A
UR LE
M
-M -G SA
M
-C 21
NS ST M 7 SE ST M AY
1 9 - M 1 6 - 15 - E -
10
-
9
- 8
EW 6
- IL - 4 3
- - AT
18 E W S14 E W 14 12 EW IV 5
EW
2
AY
EW W W E W E W C E W E W E W -
EW21 - TORHAI EW N EW E E 1
EW
LOCH 0.0 KM A
OC KM
- C 49
2 0 1 .1
E W LA
CO

KEY
NS13 - 8.825 KM

KERANIO
NS11 - 9.605 KM EAST WEST ROUTE

NORTH SOUTH ROUTE


NS10 - GOTTERA 1 10.472 KM
FUTURE EXTENSIONS

ALEM BANK NATIONAL HEAVY


RAIL (FUTURE EXTENSION)

STATION
NS9 - GOTTERA 2 12.079 KM Main Station (Phase I)
Intermediate Station
WOLETIE (REPI) NS8 - 12.840 KM
(Phase I)
MiniStation (Phase I)

NS7 - 13.611 KM Main Station (Phase II)


Intermediate Station
TO NEKEMTE /JIMMA
ALEMGENA
(Phase II)
NS5 - DAMA HOTEL 14.486 KM
MiniStation (Phase II)
SEBETA
NS5A - ABO CHURCH 15.106 KM

LEBU
NS4 - KALITI 16.246 KM

Rev No Rev Note Rev By Ch. By App. By Date Sign.


File Name
ETHIOPIAN RAILWAYS CORPORATION (ERC)
ERC-LRT-PWY-2009-001.dwg Tel 00251-11-661 58 33 Fax 00251-11-618 90 65
Des. By Date Signature Email [email protected] Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

J Pearson 14/ 05 /2009 Project

Dr. By Date Signature


ERC Addis Ababa LRT Project
AKAKI CAMPUS Muluken T. 14/ 05 /2009 Title

Ch. By Date Signature


Station Locations
Gelan
J Pearson 14/ 05 /2009
TO MOJO App. By Date Signature Dr. No. Scale Sheet

G Betru 14/ 05 /2009 ERC-LRT-PWY-2009-001 NTS 01 of 01

Figure 3: Schematic Diagram of Station locations (ERC, Design report of LRT, 2009).

March 27, 2017 Page 21


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

2.7.3 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Design Parameters

The design criteria were developed considering passenger comfort, safety, and accepted
engineering practices used in currently operating rail transit systems of a maximum
commercial speed of 60 km/h for primary track and 40 km/h for depot tracks. The alignment
design parameters are presented in the Table 4.
Table 4: Alignment Design Parameters

Nominal Track Gauge 1435mm


Maximum Service Speed 60 km/h
Maximum Grade, typical 5%
Maximum Grade reduced distance 6%
Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius (MSF) 30m
Minimum Horizontal Curve Radius (main line) 50m
Crest 250m
Sag 350m
*Source: (ERC, Design report of LRT, 2009).

March 27, 2017 Page 22


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Methods

The research methods used in this research are the questionnaire survey, and the
experimental analysis. The questionnaire survey and interview will present a set of ten
indicators for prioritization by the light rail experts, allocating a score to each indicator. These
selected ten indicators will be scored based on the most significant approach, by the
participatory selection of experts. Each indicator is given score separately under its sub
division of economic, social and environmental which were selected from the already existing
indicators in literature based on highest common factor, especially as it relates to its
applicability in a developing country like Ethiopia. Thus, the first with the highest ranked score
amongst the indicators are used for the experimental analysis for quantitative assessment to
empirically determine its level of contribution to sustainability. While the second and third
ranked indicators are discussed to understand the viability of its assessment.

3.2 Study Population and Sample Size

3.2.1 Study Population


The experts on the light rail development are the target group for the questionnaire
administration. The private experts involved in the project are consultants employed for
contract by the government to supervise the activities of the rail construction. While the other
experts are related to federal government bureaus such as the Addis Ababa Transport
Authority and Ethiopian Railway Corporation (ERC), Addis Ababa Urban Planning Institute.

These experts were selected for the participatory indicator scoring because of their
relationship with this light rail infrastructural development as one of the major working group.
Their knowledge and experience during the planning and implementation is useful in
administering the questionnaire, scoring the indicators, thereby giving them score.

March 27, 2017 Page 23


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Respondents to be used in the thesis:

 The urban planners that involved in the planning of the light rail with regards to the
city.
 Railway administrators who are in top railway administrative positions as decision
makers, such as directors and head of departments.
 Engineers, Sociologists, Economists and Environmentalist that works related to the
project.
 Each expert and Engineers within these stakeholders have a very high level of
understanding concerning the recent developments on the urban light rail.
 Transportation Engineers, who work in Transport Bureau and have knowledge in LRT
project.

3.2.2 Sample Size and Selection

The selected sample size for the experts is 50 with 95% confidence interval and the true mean
to be within margin of error of 0.46 and check for the sample size is shown annex 2. The type
of sampling used is the stratified random sampling. 41 respondents ended up filling the
questionnaire out of the 60 copies distributed due to the fear of limited return rate. The
percentage of respondents selected for all institutes is based on the number of professionals
who are related to planning, decision making and construction of Addis Ababa light rail
project.

Total 50 questionnaires are administered, 25 of respondents are professionals from (civil,


mechanical and electrical/electronic engineers, sociologists, Economists and
Environmentalists) who were working at the railway planning, construction, consulting or
operation. The urban planner Institute (engineers, sociologists, Economists and
Environmentalists) are 5 respondents which involved in the planning of the light rail with
regards to the city. City administration (engineers, sociologists, Economists and
Environmentalists) are 5 respondents, who are in top positions as decision makers, such as
directors and head of departments and 10 respondents from transports Bureau (engineers).
And the rest 5 respondents are from Universities (Railway Engineering students).

March 27, 2017 Page 24


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Each expert within these stakeholders has a very high level of understanding concerning the
recent developments on the Addis Ababa light rail project.

These chosen 50 respondents within these different but interlinked experts were selected
because each of the questionnaires administered is done under organizations that have a
common goal and objective, i.e. mandate as a purpose to achieve that, which is directly
related to their important roles in the light rail transit project. This selection is also because it
is mainly the technical and top ranking officials of the related organizations in Addis Ababa
that are involved in such technical oriented infrastructural projects. These technical staff from
each organization directly or indirectly involved in planning, decision making, design and
construction of this project. Due to this, they have technical information on the existing
infrastructure; therefore it necessitates the selection method to give weight to the criteria and
their respective indicators according to its importance.

It is recommended in the literature that selecting the most appropriate individuals can also be
achieved through nomination process within each stakeholder organization (Sandford, 2007).
The top ranking technical officers also nominated some of their technical staff known to them,
working on the light rail project to respond to the questionnaires.

Users of LRT weren’t selected for sample this is due to fear of biased (not sound ) result on
Environmental sustainability criterias and indicators, especially on Air pollution and
greenhouse effect as most people relate sustainability concept only to social and economic
aspect.

3.3 Variables and Indicators to be used in the Analysis

Ten variables and their indicators are selected for scoring from different literature. While three
out of these ten indicators with the highest score will be operationalized and measured in
order to quantify their sustainability benefits. The first with the highest ranked score amongst
the indicators are used for the experimental analysis for quantitative assessment to
empirically determine its level of contribution to sustainability. While the second and third
ranked indicators are discussed to understand the viability of its assessment.

March 27, 2017 Page 25


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

3.3.1 Criteria for selection of Indicators


It is necessary to determine a set of criteria in order to measure the three main objectives for
the socio, economic and environmental evaluation of the transport projects related in terms of
sustainable development.

For each group of sub-objectives, a set of criteria has been chosen in order to measure the
benefits achieved due to the new infrastructure.

A. Economic Indicators

Reduction of travel time: This will be measured by the reduction of travel time, because the
more savings in travel time the more operating costs are saved, and also the time saved has a
value and could be used in other productive activities.

Transport fare Affordability: Transport user benefits in relation with the decreased transport
fare due to the project under evaluation.

Employment Generation: The economic benefits for society are evaluated through the
employment generation, since this infrastructure creates job opportunity.

B. Social Indicators

Proximity settlements of station: The improvement in accessibility is one of the greater social
issues. Not all society has equal access to transport, and provision has to be made for those
without access to a car or public transport system.

Increase in the use of mass transit: Public transport benefits everybody in a society, so the
increase in the use of public transport will measure the social benefits achieved to all the
citizens in relation to reducing congestion and better land use utilization.

Urban regeneration: The construction of a modern public transport infrastructure in


deteriorated areas can produce an urban regeneration of the zone in which it has been built;
there are also other benefits related to this regeneration, as the reduction of the level of
crime, the attraction of new enterprises, the increase in quality of life, etc.

Safety improvements: Reduction of accidents associated to the project under evaluation.

March 27, 2017 Page 26


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

C. Environmental Indicators

Air Pollution affecting air quality: pollutant emission from vehicle such as Carbon monoxide
(CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrous gases (NOx), lead, particulate matter (PM) that have
impact on Health by affecting lung, respiratory system, haemoglobin in the blood, nervous
system, digestive problems, and in some cases cause cancer. The improvement of public health
due reduction of air pollution is selected as one of environmental quality of life indicator.

Greenhouse effect: is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because of the
presence of greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapour and carbon dioxide (CO2)), in the
atmosphere that trap energy from the sun. This environmental indicator helps to measure
how the selected infrastructure keep the study area liveable and at a temperature for life to
flourish on Earth

Noise: Noise pollution levels (reduction of noise from road traffic due to introduction of LRT).

Table 5 below shows criteria, variable, indicators and methodology used for sustainability
assessment of transport facility.

March 27, 2017 Page 27


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 5: Sustainability indicators selected from different literature and experts for the assessment

SN Variables Indicators Instrument of Measurement for Anaysis


Economic Sustainability
Total travel time saved in
Reduction of
between scenarios by the Geographical Information System (GIS)
1 travel(both peak and
project in both the public and and simple Calculation
off peak hour)
private transport
Scenario modelling and simple
Employment
2 Additional city employment calculation using with and without
Generation
situations of the light rail
Scenario modelling and simple
Transport fare Difference between the LRT calculation using the rail transit access
3
Affordability fare and vehicle transport fare fee as compared to the vehicle road
transport
Social Sustainability
Increase in public transport
Increase in the use Scenario modelling and simple
trips per day, based on
4 of mass transport calculation using with and without
reduction of congestion and
(public transport) situations of the light rail
periods of availability
Proximity
Accessibility without extra
5 settlements of GIS for Spatial Analysis
cost
station
Urban regeneration in the GIS for Spatial Analysis for land use
6 Urban regeneration
vicinity of light rail transit changes
Reduction of accidents per Scenario modelling and simple
Safety
7 year and death rate from calculation using with and without
improvements
vehicle accidents situations of the light rail
Environmental Sustainability
Pollutant emissions reduction
Scenario modelling for level of diesel
Air Pollution in CO, SO2, NOx, lead, PM per
8 fuel consumption per cycle, per day to
affecting air quality tons/year of reduced vehicles
be used and Pollutant emissions.
compared to the light rail.

Scenario modelling for level of diesel


Emissions reduction in CO2
9 Greenhouse effect fuel consumption per cycle, per day to
per tons/year of reduced.
be used and Pollutant emissions.

Percentage of persons that


10 Noise Scenario modelling.
are less affected by noise.

March 27, 2017 Page 28


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

3.4 Data Collection Methods


The data collection process involved four stages. The first stage is reviewing of relevant literature
related to urban rail transport assessment using sustainability indicators which made to identify the
key indicators and analysis methods.

The second stage involved the development of questionnaire incorporating score of indicators given by
experts. The questionnaires comprised of open-ended and closed-ended questions. A hand delivered
questionnaire method was used in order to minimize a low response rate.

The third stage focused Vector data extraction of road and rail line features by digitizing from the high
resolution quick-bird image line data for the LRT and roads used by different modes of transport.

Finally Average speed of different modes of transport was determined by using all type of modes for
consecutive 21 days both on peak and offpeak periods.

In summary the following are the primary and secondary data used for the study.

3.4.1 Primary Data

1. Questionnaire response from experts.


2. Addis Ababa Sat-X satellite imagery covering the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and
Quick-bird satellite imagery covering the whole area of Federal Capital City. This
shows all the spatial coverage of the rail corridor using Arc gis 10.1.
3. Line data for roads in Addis Ababa using Arc gis 10.1.
4. Geographic positioning systems (GPS) location of rail stations and ground control
points (GCP).
5. Waiting and access time recording on public transport station.
6. Average speed data for the road transport modes and LRT.

March 27, 2017 Page 29


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

3.4.2 Secondary Data

1. Most significant sustainability indicators from literature review.

2. Feasibility study and design report of conceptual design of corridor 1and 2 of the
Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit System.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

3.6.1 Descriptive Statistics Analysis from Questionnaire Results

The data that is collected from the questionnaire is analysed first of all by using excel
descriptive statistics software to generate the bar chart, representing the differences in the
scores of the indicators according to the most significant.

Excel descriptive statistics is also used to generate a pie chart representing the percentage
participation of the experts who administered the questionnaire. The information gathered
from the questionnaire is based on figures to scores regarding the economic, social and
environmental sustainability as listed in table 5.

3.6.1.1 Mean score and Weight of Each Indicator


This was used in determining the weight of each sustainability variables in terms of degree of
importance. The respondents were asked to give score or quantify the indicators (out of 10) in
order of importance in measuring the benefits of the light rail transit economically, socially
and environmentally as a reason for investing and constructing the rail transport. The criteria
were scored from 1 to 10, where 10 was the maximum importance with respect to sustainable
development
Mean score value (MS)i = ∑Fi*Si/N (3.1)

Where,
Fi = frequency of score given to indicator (i)
Si = Score given by respondents for indicator (i) by respondents, ranging from 1 to 10,
N= the total number of respondents (sample).

March 27, 2017 Page 30


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Within this methodology it has been considered that the relative contribution of each sub-
objective to sustainable development must be equal, and all the weights should sum 100
(∑weight=100). So, economic benefits must weight 100/3, social benefits 100/3 and
environmental improvements also 100/3. This requirement makes normalisation of the Mean
score (shown on Table 6). Thus, the final weights to be applied in the MCA procedure are
those which appear in the “mean normalized” column.

3.6.2 Geospatial Analysis from Satellite Imagery and Light Rail Master Plan

The satellite imagery showing the spatial coverage of the rail corridor settlements and the
whole study area acquired and used to extract relevant features such as roads, corridor 1 and
2 of the rail line corridors, rail station points and settlements with over lay analysis before
further analysis will be carried out.

During field work four station corners selected as Ground Control Points (GCP's) and
determined their coordinates using GPS for geo-referencing. The Area of Interest (AOI) is
spatially geo-referenced to the projected coordinate system. The Ground Control Points
(GCP's) is accurately referenced to its proper position with respect to the world. Hence, the
satellite imagery is geo-referenced using the acquired Ground Control Points (GCP's) of already
geo-referenced image of the same study area and confirmed with the four GCP's acquired with
the GPS during fieldwork. The data are spatially created to its specific referenced location and
their attributes are generated as a database that can be spatially analysed and saved in the GIS
environment (ArcGIS10.1) software.

March 27, 2017 Page 31


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
In order to achieve the purpose of study, a methodology consisting of a review of literature
and a survey were held with the planners of the systems as well as the officials working closely with
the public transport sector of the city and the main stake holders which are related LRT
construction to assess the sustainability of Addis Ababa’s LRT projects, was depicted. This
chapter therefore presents the survey results and findings of the desk study.

4.2 Score Result for Each Indicators Given By Respondents

4.2.1 Percentage of Respondents per Profession and Institution

The sampling technique used for the study is stratified sampling The percentage of each
profession of expert is based on their involvement on the planning, decision making, design
and construction stage of Addis Ababa light rail project. As seen in chart 1, From the total
respondents completed their questionnaire, 13 % were Environmentalists, Economists and
Sociologists each, 12 % were Railway Administrator and Urban Planners each as there decision
is important in planning stage of the project. And 15 % were Transportation Engineers as they
involve both on the planning and design stage of the project, and the rest 22 % were from
Civil/Railway Engineers from the selected institutes for the study as they involve on planning,
design and construction stage of the project.

Percentage of Respondents for the


Questionnaire From Each Institute
50
40
30
Percentage of Respondents for
20
the Questionnaire From Each
10
Institute
0
ERC AARTA Urban AACA AAIT
Planning
Institute

Chart 1: Percentage of Respondents from Different Institute

March 27, 2017 Page 32


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Expert Profession in Percentage


Environmentalists
13%
Urban
Planners
12%

Sociologists
13% Civil/Railway
Engineers
Economists 22%
13%

Transprtation Railway
Engineers Adminstrator
15% 12%

Chart 2: Expert profession in percentage

4.2.2 Score Result for Each Indicator


The summation and, mean score, weight and rank of each indicator are shown on the table 6
and chart 3 below. Accordingly, travel time as an economic sustainability indicator and
reduction of air pollution and reduction of greenhouse effect as environmental sustainability
indicator are the first to third most ranked score. Therefore based on the ranking of travel
time and reduction of air pollution as the most ranked indicator respectively, this research
will be based on the experimental approach assessment of the travel time and discussion on
the viability of assessing the reduction of air pollution indicator and reduction of greenhouse
effect for sustainability benefits of the urban light rail.

March 27, 2017 Page 33


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 6: Summary of the ten indicators, the total sum of the scores and their weight

Summation
of Each
SN Variables
Summation of Mean Normalized Criteria
the score(∑Fi*Si) score Weight Weight
Economic Sustainability
Reduction of travel(both
1
peak and off peak hour) 348.50 8.71 12.16
33.33
2 Employment Generation 296.00 7.40 10.33
3 Transport fare Affordability
310.50 7.76 10.84
Social Sustainability
Increase in the use of mass
4
transport (public transport) 308.50 7.71 8.69
Proximity settlements of
5 33.33
station 273.50 6.84 7.71
6 Urban regeneration 285.00 7.13 8.03
7 Safety improvements 316.00 7.90 8.90
Environmental Sustainability
Air Pollution affecting air
8
quality 338.00 8.45 12.15
33.33
9 Greenhouse effect 322.00 8.05 11.58
10 Noise 267.00 6.68 9.60
Total 76.63 100.00 100

As it is shown on the table 6 above, the summation of mean score value of the selected
indicators is less than 100% hence the mean score value of each indicator is normalised based
on clustered weighting given to each criteria ( Economic, Social, and Environmental) to
determine the weight of each indicator.

i.e

∑weight of social indicators = ∑weight of Economic indicators= ∑weight of Environmental


indicators=33.33%

March 27, 2017 Page 34


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

14.00
12.16 12.15
11.58
12.00 10.33 10.84 10 9.60
10.00 8.69 9 8.90
8 8.03 7.71
8.00 7
6
6.00 5
4
4.00 3
2 Weight(%)
2.00 1 Rank
0.00

Chart 3: Weight and rank of each indicator based on importance for global sustainability.

On chart 3 above, travel time (timesaving) took the 1st rank position as the indicator with the
most ranked figures of the maximum weight and reduction of air pollution is the 2nd rank
position with 12.15% weight .Reduction of greenhouse effect indicator is 3rd position with
11.58% weight, affordability is 4th position with 10.84% weight, Employment generation is 5th
position with 10.33 % weight, noise is 6th with 9.6 % weight, Safety is 7th position with 8.9%
weight, Increasing mass transport is 8th position with 8.69% weight and urban regeneration as
the 9th position with 8.09% weight, and proximity take last position with 7.71% weight.

Therefore, it implies that most of the respondents give higher weight for travel timesaving as
their first choice by scoring it as highest value in the questionnaires and reduction in air
pollution as their second ranked choice to sustainability benefit of the Addis Ababa light rail.
These rankings as first to third for the travel timesaving, reduction of air pollution and
reduction of greenhouse effect are the three indicators that will form the basis for the rest of
the research.

March 27, 2017 Page 35


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 7: The first three indicators with the highest rank score were selected for analysis

Instrument of Measurement for


SN Variables Indicators
Anaysis
Economic Sustainability
Total travel time saved in
Reduction of
between scenarios by the Geographical Information System
1 travel(both peak
project in both the public and (GIS) and simple Calculation
and off peak hour)
private transport
Pollutant emissions reduction
Scenario modelling for level of diesel
Air Pollution in CO, SO2, NOx, lead, PM per
8 fuel consumption per cycle, per day to
affecting air quality tons/year of reduced vehicles
be used and Pollutant emissions.
compared to the light rail.

Scenario modelling for level of diesel


Emissions reduction in CO2
9 Greenhouse effect fuel consumption per cycle, per day to
per tons/year of reduced.
be used and Pollutant emissions.

The first most ranked indicator therefore qualifies for assessment and the second and third for
discussion on viability of assessment.

4.3 Assessing the Sustainability benefit of total travel time saved by the light rail as
compared to road vehicle transport scenarios

The average speed of the light rail varies with time due variation of stoppage time on
stations on peak and offpeak periods, therefore the travel time of the light rail is compared
with the travel time of the road vehicle, at peak and off-peak periods for lots 1, and 2 and
the road along the same routes.

March 27, 2017 Page 36


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 8: key operating assumptions

SN Assumptions Default Level

1 Peak Hours per Day 8:30

2 Non-Peak Hours per Day 15:30

3 AM Peak Hours 3

4 PM Peak Hours 5:30

5 Service Days per Year 365

Source: Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit (LRT)

March 27, 2017 Page 37


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Figure 4: N-S, E-W Rail tracks and their Rail Stations

March 27, 2017 Page 38


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Figure 4 above shows E-W and N-S rail track lines colour red, to depict all the rail stations in
green colours with a common change over rail station at Lideta, Tegbared, Mexico, Legar, and
Stadium. This is carried out by digitizing the rail tracks line by line, with critical attention to end
and start points to avoid the under shoot (digitizing below expected line length) or over shoot
(digitizing beyond the expected line length) errors.

Table 10 and 12 show the distances as measured with the route measurement tool of the
ArcGIS 10.1 software for the rail lot N-S and E-W. The average speed of each type of vehicle
(Anbessa bus, Midi-bus, and Mini-bus) is studied by using each type of mode of transport
mode under study and confirmed by interviewing many drivers as they have experience in
using that road.

Thus, a total of 39 rail stations are available for the two lots (E-W and N-S), all having a major
interchange at Lideta, Tegbared, Mexico, Legar, and Stadium station. According Addis Ababa
light rail transit daily recorded data there is a (15-20) minutes headway time and addition of
one minute stoppage time at each rail station during offpeak hours and one and half minute
during peak hour, appreciating to its total minutes of stoppage time at each rail lot (ERC,
2016). The more the rail stations ahead at each rail lot, the more the stoppage time of one
minute each at the rail stops. Hence there is more than twenty two minutes stoppage time on
each the E-W and N-S lot.

March 27, 2017 Page 39


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Figure 5: Road map showing the alignment from Piassa Giorgis to Kality, and Torhailoch to Ayat which
are used by different mode of transport

March 27, 2017 Page 40


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Figure 5 shows the road measurements of the available road routes the commuters use. And it
is measured using the ArcGIS 10.1 measurement tool. The results of the measurements from
Piassa Giorgis to Kality and Torhailoch to Ayat by different kind of transport modes are
described below in the tables.

Table 9: Shows routes taken by different kind of mode of transport in the two Lot.

Lot/Mode Anbessa Midi-bus Mini-bus


Giorgis, Churchil, Giorgis, Churchil,
Ambassador, Meskel Ambassador, Meskel Giorgis, Churchil, Legar,
N-S
Square, Gotera, Saris, Square, Gotera, Saris, Meskel Square, Gotera,
Kality Kality Saris, Kality
Torhailoch, Lideta, Torhailoch, Lideta, Torhailoch, Lideta,
Mexico, Legar, Filwiha, Mexico, Legar,Meskel Mexico, Legar,Meskel
E-W
Kasanchis, Megenagna, Square, Bambis, Urael, Square, Bambis, Urael,
Ayat Megenagna, CMC, Ayat Megenagna, CMC, Ayat

The methodology used on the analysis is based on origin to destination of the light rail transit
corridor and the analysis on travel time saved by LRT is based on data of key factors (inputs)
that affect travel time. These are:

 Distance travelled by the vehicle


 Average Speed of vehicle
 Waiting time
 Access time

This method can clearly shows the pros and cons of LRT on each factors (inputs) compared to
the road transport modes. In this regard, it shows which factors affected the travel time and
how to improve it on next phase of LRT project.

The following four tables shows, the distance covered by each mode on both road and rail
routes using Arc gis software. And the average speed of the vehicles was determined based on
the continuous observation and recording of average speed of vehicles for consecutive 21
days.
March 27, 2017 Page 41
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Total of 182 vehicles were used for the study (98 vehicles from E-W lot and 84 vehicles from
N-S lot) both at peak and offpeak hours with 95% confidence interval and error of estimation
(<2minute) shown on annex 3. Access time was determined by recording the time spent by
walking to transfer from one vehicle to the next. Besides, the waiting time spent by Midi-bus
and Mini-bus transport users on each station was determined by recording and interviewing
public transport user on both corridors and at peak and offpeak periods. The headway
schedule time was used for waiting time of Anbessa bus both on peak and offpeak periods
incorporating early and late arrives. On the other hand all data on LRT was taken from Addis
Ababa light rail transit office (kality).

Hence, Total travel time = In vehicle travel time + Waiting time + Access time

In vehicle time = Distance travelled/Average speed (4.1)

Table 10: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on peak hour

LRT Anbessa P.T Midi-bus Mini bus taxi


Tor
Tor Tor Tor
Peak hour Legar- hailoch Mexico- Mexico- Megenagna
hailoch hailoch- hailoch-
Ayat - Ayat Megenagna - Ayat
- Ayat Legar Mexico
Mexico

Distance measured
17350 3650 15010 2641 14359 2641 7025 7334
by GIS(meters)

Average
15.8 6.6 10.6 6.3 11.2 7.9 15.7 13.8
Speed(km/hr)
In vehicle
66 33 85 25 77 20 27 32
Time(min)
Access Time(min) 5 10 5 5
Waiting Time(min) 15 10 15 10 20 10 20 15
Total Time(min) 81 148 142 134

March 27, 2017 Page 42


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 11: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour

LRT Anbessa P.T Midi-bus Mini bus taxi


Tor Tor
Mexico-
Tor Tor Legar- hailoch hailoch
Megena
hailoch hailoch Ayat - Mexico - Megenagna-
gna
Offpeak hour - Ayat - Legar Mexico - Ayat Mexico Ayat
Distance measured
by GIS(meters) 17350 3650 15010 2641 14359 2641 7025 7334
Average
Speed(km/hr) 20.0 8.8 13.9 10.6 14.1 15.8 21.1 20.0
In vehicle Travel
Time(min) 52 25 65 16 61 11 20 21
Access Time(min) 5 10 5 5
Waiting Time(min) 18 10 15 10 20 5 5 5
Total Time(min) 70 120 117 82

160

140

120

100

80 Peak
Offpeak
60

40

20

0
LRT Anbesa Midi-bus Mini-bus

Chart 4: Shows total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport both in peak and off peak
hours

March 27, 2017 Page 43


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 10 and 11, and chart 4 show time spent by different kinds of transport modes
including Addis Ababa LRT from Torhailoch to Ayat both on peak and offpeak hours. Hence
taking trip by Anbessa bus would take longest time compared to LRT, Midi-bus and Mini-bus
both on peak hour and off peak hour. And taking trip by LRT would take smallest time
compared to Anbessa, Midi-bus and Mini-bus both on peak and offpeak hour. This is due to
Anbessa, Midi-bus and Mini-bus take longer stoppage, access and waiting time during
offpeak hours and also road congestion would cause another additional time during peak
hours. Besides Anbessa bus take the longest route compared to the others.

Table 12: Shows the total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport on peak hour

LRT Anbessa P.T Midi-bus Mini bus taxi


Saris Giorgis - Saris
Giorgis - Giorgis- Giorgis - Saris-
abo- Saris Abo-
Kality Saris Saris Kality
Peak hour Kality Abo Kality
Distance measured by
GIS(meters) 16900 9094 2723 9294 2525 12400 2723
Average
Speed(km/hr) 16.5 6.8 16.3 7.4 15.2 14.9 16.3
In vehicle Travel
Time(min) 63 79 11 75 10 50 11
Access Time(min) 3 5 2
Waiting Time(min) 15 15 15 20 10 10 5
Total Time(min) 78 123 120 79

March 27, 2017 Page 44


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 13: Shows the total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour

LRT Anbessa P.T Midi-bus Mini bus taxi


Giorgis - Saris
Giorgis - Giorgis- Saris- Giorgis - Saris-
Saris Abo-
Kality Saris Kality Saris Kality
OffPeak hour Abo Kality
Distance measured
by GIS(meters) 16900 9094 2723 9294 2525 12400 2723
Average
Speed(km/hr) 20.3 9.9 32.7 11.2 30.3 24.8 20.4
Travel Time(min) 50 55 5 51 5 33 8
Access Time(min) 3 5 2
Waiting Time(min) 18 15 15 20 10 10 5
Total Time(min) 68 95 91 58

140

120

100

80
Peak
60 Offpeak

40

20

0
LRT Anbesa Midi-bus Mini-bus

Chart 5: Shows total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode both in peak and off peak hours

Table 12 and 13, and Chart 5 show time spent by different kinds of transport modes
including Addis Ababa LRT from Piassa Giorgis to Kality both on peak and offpeak hours.
Hence taking trip by Anbessa bus and Midi-bus would take longer time compared to LRT and
Mini-bus both on peak hour and off peak hour.

March 27, 2017 Page 45


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

And taking trip by LRT would take smallest time compared to Anbessa, Midi-bus and Mini-
bus both on peak hours but during offpeak hours Mini-bus take smallest time. This is due to
Anbessa, Midi-bus and Mini-bus take longer stoppage, access, waiting time and additional
time spent due to road congestion during peak hours. But during offpeak hours Mini-bus
has higher average speed than the other modes hence it has a better timing.

Table 14: Summary of Timesaving by E-W LRT compared to other modes

Midi-
E-W route Anbessa bus Mini-Bus
Off Peak Hour 50 47 12
Peak Hour 67 61 53

80

70

60

50

40 Peak
Offpeak
30

20

10

0
Anbesa Midi-bus Mini-bus

Chart 6: Summary of Timesaving by E-W LRT compared to other modes

Table 14 and Chart 6 show timesaving benefit by E-W LRT compared to the other modes
which shows the minutes spent by rail and the minutes spent by road. The time saved by
both scenarios is also calculated. LRT saves 50 minutes compared to Anbessa bus, 47
minutes compared Midi-bus and 12 minutes compared to Mini-bus during offpeak hours.
And during peak hours LRT saves 67 minutes compared Anbessa bus, 61 minutes compared
Midi-bus and 53 minutes compared to Mini-bus

March 27, 2017 Page 46


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 15: Summary of Timesaving by N-S LRT compared to other mode

Midi- Mini-
N-S route Anbessa bus Bus
Off Peak Hour 27 23 -10
Peak Hour 45 42 1

50

40

30

20
Peak
Offpeak
10

0
Anbesa Midi-bus Mini-bus
-10

-20

Chart 7: Summary of Timesaving by N-S LRT compared to other modes

Table 15 and Chart 7 show timesaving benefit by E-W LRT compared to the other modes which
shows the minutes spent by rail and the minutes spent by road. The time saved by both
scenarios is also calculated. LRT saves 27 minutes compared to Anbessa bus and 23 minutes
compared to Midi-bus during offpeak hours. And during peak hours LRT saves 45 minutes
compared Anbessa bus, 42 minutes compared Midi-bus and 1 minute compared to Mini-bus.
But during offpeak hours Mini-bus saves 10 minutes compared to LRT. As it is shown in the
result the N-S LRT route doesn’t save much time as compared to E-W LRT route, this is due of
N-S route is longer than the respective road route.

As it is shown on table 14 and 15, it is clear that, road transport modes took longer travel time
than LRT. This is due to long access, stoppage and waiting time both at peak and offpeak
periods. LRT doesn’t show much improvement in vehicle time due to low average speed.

March 27, 2017 Page 47


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

This could give a lesson for the next phase LRT project which extends to Shiromeda, Legetafo,
Lebu and Akaki. Hence it is better to give higher weight to the time saving than the other
sustainability indicators and optimise its benefits on key factors or inputs. Here are some
proposed ways to improve the travel time on LRT:

 Increasing the distance between the stations which minimize the stoppage time
 Increasing the speed of the trams like other countries
 Choosing a best alignment which allows higher radius and speed.

This developed logical and spatial reasoning provides more insights to the level of trade-offs
some routes can provide in the form of better travel demand and traffic modelling for
optimum benefit as income to be generated from the users. Furthermore, considering that
there are still four more light rail lots to be built, loosing time during the peak and off peak
periods as compared to the road routes, can be avoided through alternative route designs.
This is capable of delivering cost effective large capital expenditures on the rail, minimum time
of movement between locations and better travel demand for higher income to the
government. Promoting better timesaving benefit as useful information for the transport user
will go a long way in facilitating a high modal shift from the roads to the rail usage, thus
fulfilling the provision of a common good, as a mass transport system in a fast growing
population and city like Addis Ababa.

4.4 Value of Travel Time in Monetary term


The Value of Travel Time (VTT) refers to the cost of time spent on transport, including waiting
as well as actual travel. It includes costs to consumers of personal unpaid time spent on travel,
and costs to businesses of paid employee time spent in travel. The Value of Travel Time
Savings (VTTS) refers to the benefits from reduced travel time costs (Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, 2013).

Total travel time costs are the product of time spent traveling measured as minutes or hours
multiplied by unit costs measured as cents per minute or dollars per hour. Travel time unit
costs vary depending on type of trip, travel conditions, and traveller preferences.

March 27, 2017 Page 48


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

For example, ten minutes spent relaxing on a comfortable seat imposes less cost than the
same amount of time spent driving in congestion or standing on a crowded bus. Travel time
costs often vary for different parts of a trip. For example, walking to a bus stop, waiting for a
bus, riding an uncrowded bus, and riding a crowded bus may each have different unit costs.
Travel time costs also vary depending on traveller needs and preferences. For example, a
person might one day enjoying a relaxed recreational walk or drive, but another may pay
generously for faster travel when rushing to an important event. Travel time unreliability
(uncertainty how long a trip will take, and unexpected delays) imposes additional costs.

Due to inadequacy of data to estimate accurate time unit cost, the prevailing wage rate
($0.52/hour) was used for the study. This time unit cost was used by International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT) for travel time value of Addis Ababa bus rapid transit (BRT) on the
report of Cost and benefits of clean technologies for Addis Ababa’s bus rapid transit
(International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), 2013).

According to transport Authority data report on passenger data in 2009, the modal share of
each mode before construction of LRT for the two lots were 40.6% mini-bus, 25.7% midi-bus,
7.7% Anbessa bus and 26.1% were other support buses. Assuming that 40.6% of LRT users
were mini-bus users, 25.7% of LRT users were midi-bus users, and 7.7% of LRT users were
Anbessa bus users and 26.1% of LRT users were other support buses users (Transport Authority,
Addis Ababa Branch office).

Lot1, (Torhailoch-Ayat)

Value of time saved by LRT users who were other mode users before start of LRT

VTTS = ∑Pi*N*Ti*C (4.2)

Where,

Pi is percentage of LRT users who were mode i users

N is number of LRT users per day on one corridor = 60,000 E-S, and 55,000 for N-S (ERC, 2016)

Ti is time saved by LRT users who were i mode users in hours per day.

Time unit cost (C) = $0.52/hour

March 27, 2017 Page 49


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

According to table 2, hourly Distribution of the passengers on the LRT Corridor 62%
passengers were on peak hour and 38% on offpeak hour (ERC, Feasibility study report, 2009)

VTTS = ∑Pi*N*Ti*C = 0.62(7.7%*1.11+25.7%*1.01+40.6%*0.88)*60,000*0.52+


0.38(7.7%*0.88+25.7%*0.78+40.6%*0.20)*60,000*0.52= $ 17,728.4/day

Lot2, (Piassa Giorgis-Kality)

Value of time saved by LRT users who were other mode users before start of LRT

VTTS = ∑Pi*N*Ti*C

VTTS = ∑Pi*N*Ti*C = 0.62(7.7%*0.75+25.7%*0.70+40.6%*0.02)*55,000*0.52+


0.38(7.7%*0.45+25.7%*0.38+40.6%*-0.17)*55,000*0.52= $ 5,045.8/day

The value time saved by LRT on the two lots is the sum of the value of time saved by each lot.

Hence, VTTS = $ 17,728.4+$ 5,045.8 = $22,774.23/day

4.5 Assessing the Sustainability benefit of reduction of Air pollution Greenhouse


Effect by the light rail as compared to road vehicle transport scenarios

4.5.1 Impact of LRT on Air pollution and Greenhouse Emission Reduction

The transport sector is a major consumer of energy. It is also a major emitter of the carbon dioxide that
is contributing to global warming. Most of this comes from road transport. In contrast, LRT emission
much less compared to road transport and strong justification for a modal shift from road to rail. More
than 400,000 passengers will use LRT per day when all of 40 LRT trams start service. That means LRT
covers 26% traffic volume (out of 1.52 million). Hence Fuel consumption reduction is assumed 26%
from the total fuel consumption, as LRT started operation assuming the emission rate constant. Tables
17 and 18 show the estimated total pollutant emission with and without LRT introduction.
The impact of the integrated solution, based on the decrease of road kilometres through the shift of
car and bus users towards the light rail, is a reduction of 26 % in 2024 on traffic CO2 emissions,
corresponding to a level of emissions of 81,701.98 tons. CO emissions decrease further by 26 % to
reach approximately 1,016.38 tons in 2024. Similarly Particulate matter (PM) and total hydrocarbon
(THC) exhaust emissions will also decrease further by a 26 % in 2024.

March 27, 2017 Page 50


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Table 16: Estimate of Total Emission from Addis Ababa Road Network without construction of LRT

Carbon emissions (M Tones/Year)


Source
S.No of
Pollutant 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024

1 CO 1,244.00 1,268.88 1,294.26 1,320.14 1,346.55 1,373.48

2 THC 110.70 112.91 115.17 117.48 119.83 122.22

3 PM10 40.57 41.38 42.20 43.05 43.91 44.79

4 CO2 100,000.00 102,000.00 104,040.00 106,120.80 108,243.22 110,408.08

TOTAL 101,395.27 103,423.17 105,491.63 107,601.47 109,753.50 111,948.57

Source: Estimated from Federal Transport Master Plan Study, Appendix 1.9, Environmental Studies,
November 2008, Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Ethiopia, Transportation

Table 17: Estimate of Pollutant Emission from Addis Ababa Road Network after construction of LRT

Source Carbon emissions (M Tones/Year)


S.No of
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
Pollutant
1 CO 1,244.00 1,268.88 1,294.26 1,320.14 996.45 1,016.38
2 THC 110.7 112.91 115.17 117.48 88.67 90.44
3 PM10 40.57 41.38 42.2 43.05 32.49 33.14
4 CO2 100,000.00 102,000.00 104,040.00 106,120.80 80,099.98 81,701.98
TOTAL 101,395.27 103,423.17 105,491.63 107,601.47 81,217.59 82,841.94
Table 18: Estimated Emission reduced due to LRT project

Source of Pollutant(M Tones/year)


Year
CO THC PM10 CO2 Total
2019 350.10 31.16 11.42 28,143.24 28,535.92
2024 357.10 31.78 11.65 28,706.10 29,106.63

March 27, 2017 Page 51


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

4.5.2 Award from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)


The Clean Development Mechanism is one of the key components of the Paris Protocol.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol is a
legally binding global agreement to combat climate change through a reduction of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.

The scheme appears simple: private companies fund projects in developing countries that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This means CDM awards these projects certified emission
reductions (CERs), each equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide. Certified emission reductions
(CERs) are then sold to developed countries, which use them to meet a part of their reduction
commitments under the Kyoto.

Accordingly,

Total CO2 reduction (MT) after LRT operations for 10 years between the period (2015-2024) GC

= 281,432.4 MT

Total Carbon Reduction Cost (€) = CER * Total CO2 emission reduced (4.3)

Certified emission reductions (CERs) = €8.23/MT of CO2, Source: (Investing.com, 11/9/ 2015)

Total Carbon dioxide reduction cost = €2,316,188.652

In Paris on December 12, 2015, countries adopted new international agreement to address
climate change that requires deeper emissions reduction commitments from developed and
developing countries (NRDC, 2015). Countries responsible for 97 percent of global emissions
submitted their climate commitments prior to the conference. Developed countries are being
obliged to create a Green Climate Fund of about $100 billion to help developing countries to
achieve their goals. This protocol will be put in to action in 2020 replacing Kyoto protocol
(UNFCCC, 2016).

March 27, 2017 Page 52


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

4.5.3 Limitation of the Estimated Pollutant Emission


The study considered vehicle emission rate constant for all vehicle type. But vehicle emission affected
by the following factors:

 Vehicle type: larger vehicles tend to produce more emissions.


 Vehicle age and condition: Older vehicles have less effective emission control systems.
Vehicles with faulty emission control systems have high emissions.
 Driving cycle: Emission rates tend to be relatively high when engines are cold.
 Driving style: Faster accelerations tend to increase emission rates.
 Driving conditions: Emissions per mile increase under hilly and stop-and-go conditions, and at
low and high speeds,
 Slope of road

4.6 List of other benefits as stated by respondents


The respondents stated some other vital social, economic and environmental indicators to be
considered in assessing urban light rail transport. These are:

 Moving large numbers of people more efficiently and effectively to key centres and
employment nodes.
 Reducing car use and congestion, which can reduce business costs.
 Making trams and buses work together to provide efficient and cost effective access to
more destinations.
 Making the transport system more efficient by getting more people to catch public
transport to major destinations rather than drive
 Encouraging more people to catch public transport because it can move more people,
in fewer vehicles and less space
 Providing quality infrastructure and services to encourage land use decisions that
support good public transport outcomes.

March 27, 2017 Page 53


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
In this research multicriteria assessment is used in addition to Geographical Information
System (GIS) to show the spatial coverage of light rail transit, stations and road networks that
used by different mode transport. This kind of analysis helps to compare transport routes
alternatives of the rail and their corresponding road routes, measuring the timesaving as an
economic sustainability benefit. Thus, revealing how the economic measurement indicator, i.e.
timesaving, reduction of air pollution and reduction of greenhouse, which are selected as the
most ranked indicator that results into different empirical rate or level of contribution to
sustainability benefit, thus answering the question how are the sustainability benefits of the
urban light rail system assessed.

This thesis explains the necessity and weight of different indicators in measuring the
sustainability assessment of rail project which make transport planners to give priority for the
indicators based on their weight for upcoming projects. Hence to measure the contribution of
LRT project and monitor the level of its benefit, most ranked indicators are selected which are
used to analyse the project. In the case of this thesis, the timesaving, Air pollution and
Greenhouse effect indicators were able to show the extent at which each lot rail track was
able to contribute to sustainability benefit. During this process it is clear to note that N-S lot
does not save time as compared to minibus, by losing 10 minutes during off peak period, but
gained a minute during peak period despite it showed advance in saving time as compared to
other road transport mode. On the other hand the E-W lot save time during the peak and off-
peak periods as compared to all road transport modes.

The multicriteria assessment concept further illustrates the relative impacts of alternative
plans on system performance, i.e. the economic, environmental and social quality of life that
helps decision-makers categorize the main choice.

March 27, 2017 Page 54


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

In the case of this research, the relative impact of the travel timesaving indicator can be used
to determine different parameters that could be used by decision makers to reduce or
increase certain planned inputs, such as head way time, stoppage time, and number of rail
stations on each lot, in order to improve the economic, social and environment benefits. This
is such that the headway time can be increased or reduced, for example in the case of N-S lot,
to improve its travel time-savings benefit. This can also help to determine the addition of more
or less rail station stops that will guarantee more revenue income at a national scale to the
government as an economic benefit.

The use of Geo-Information System (GIS) to quantitatively evaluate the empirical level of
benefit and simple calculus to quantify also in empirical terms that is practically provable,
which provides quality in terms of reliability and validity of result over time. Ethiopian Railway
Corporation planned to construct LRT phase 2 project in near future hence timesaving,
reduction Air pollution and reduction Greenhouse effect to be core sustainability benefit
indicators in assessing the sustainability benefits of an infrastructure especially before it is
implemented, in order to achieve a more time and economic efficient transport system that
will provide valid base information in delivering quality service to the people. This provides
adequate chance to observe different scenarios that will be of optimum benefit, limiting cost
and encouraging in-depth understanding of assessing sustainability benefits before its
operation.

In summary, indicator based multi criteria assessment on large infrastructural projects like
Addis Ababa light rail project assessment, is reliable because it can prove in a scientific,
provable and non-subjective manner, delivering accurate empirical values that are used to
measure the rate or level of a sustainability benefit or negative impact, promoting a more
informed and reliable implementation.

March 27, 2017 Page 55


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

5.2 Recommendations

1. As shown on the result, Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit brought benefit for public transport
user in saving travel time. This is due to road transport modes affected by waiting time, access
time, stoppage time, congestion and shortage of road network in the city. And it is clear that
LRT doesn’t show much improvement in operating speed compared to road transport modes.
Hence it is better decision makers to consider the following inputs in planning the next phase
project:
 Increasing the distance between the stations which minimize the stoppage time
 Increasing the speed of the trams like other countries
 Choosing a best alignment which allows higher radius and speed.

2. To make informed and reliable planning and decision making for infrastructure, the study of
how indicators affect our decisions and use of indicator assessment tools should be
encouraged. This will promote the development of required data and the use of it. This can be
done through funding of research years ahead, before the implementation of any form of
assessment.
3. All sectors especially in the transports and urban management sectors should be
empowered to acquire adequate data for easier and researchable models to be analysed. This
will promote easy modelling of scenarios over time that will assist indicator-based
assessments.

5.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Two new research questions for this further research are:


1. What inputs and factors affect the indicators that are used for the assessment of Light rail
transit?
2. How is indicators based assessment data generated in Ethiopia to assess the sustainability
benefits of the light rail transit?
3. How can scenario modeling or forecasts for indicator based assessment be validated?

March 27, 2017 Page 56


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

BIBLOGRAPHY
Ethiopian Railways Corporation, 2009. Feasibility study of Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit.

Litman, T., 2007. Developing indicators for comprehensive and Sustainability transport
planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Steg, L. and Gifford, R. 2005. Sustainability transportation and quality of life. Journal of
Transport Geography,

Macharis, C. and Pekin, E. 2009. Assessing policy measures for the stimulation of
intermodal transport: a GIS-based policy analysis. Journal of Transport Geography

Barrella, E. M., 2012. Strategic planning for a Sustainability transportation system: a swot
based framework for assessment and implementation guidance for transportation agencies

Whiteing, T. and Stantchev, D., 2008. European Commission, Thematic Research Summary:
Environmental Aspectsof Sustainability Mobility

Chapman, L., 2007. Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transport Geography

Banister, D. and Berechman, Y. 2001. Transport investment and the promotion of economic
growth. Journal of Transport Geography

Lakshmanan, T., 2011. The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure


investments. Journal of Transport Geography

Marko, J., Soskolne,L., Church, J., Francescutti, L., 2004. Development and application of a
framework for analyzing the impacts of urban transportation.

Ramani, T., Zietsman, J., Eisele, W., Rosa, D., 2009. Developing Sustainability Transportation
Performance Measures for TXDOT's Strategic Plan: Technical Report,

March 27, 2017 Page 57


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Jeon, C. M., Amekudzi, A. and Guensler, L. 2010. Evaluating Plan Alternatives for
Transportation System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. International Journal of
Sustainability Transportation,

Cascajo, R., 2004. Assessment of Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of Rail Urban
Projects

Yigitcanlar, T. and Dur, F. 2010. Developing a sustainability assessment model: the


Sustainability infrastructure, land-use, environment and transport model.

Jeon, C., Amekudzi. A. and Guensler, L. 2010. Evaluating Plan Alternatives for Transportation
System Sustainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. International Journal of Sustainability
Transportation

United Nations, 2011. Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD
Process: Commission on Sustainable Development Nineteenth Session

Eshete, M. 2015. Public Transportation System: The Case Of Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa
University College Of Social Science

Douglas N.J. and Wallis I.P. 2013. Predicting the Value of Public Transport In-Vehicle Time.
Australasian Transport Research Forum

Engdayahu, A. 2007. National Energy Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethiopia and Its
Mitigation Analysis. Addis Ababa University Faculty of Science Environmental Science Program

American Public Transportation Association, 2009. Economic Impact Of Public Transportation


Investment. Economic Development Research Group, Inc.

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), 2012. Cost and benefits of clean
technologies for bus rapid transit (BRT) : Summary of results for Addis Ababa

March 27, 2017 Page 58


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Fenta.T, 2014. Demands for Urban Public Transportation in Addis Ababa. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation and Urban Planning

Mark. W. Value of Business Travel Time Savings. Institute for Transport Studies, Faculty Of
Environment

Communities and Local Government, 2009. Multi-criteria analysis manual

I. T. Transport Ltd, 2005. Valuation of Travel Time Savings: Empirical studies in Bangladesh,
Ghana and Tanzania and a practical model for developing countries.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2013. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Travel
Time Costs
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), 2013. Cost and benefits of clean
technologies for Addis Ababa’s bus rapid transit.

March 27, 2017 Page 59


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Sir/Madam,

I’m a graduate student in Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. This questionnaire is prepared to collect data for a Master’s Thesis
work in the Road and Transport Engineering program under the title “Assessment of Addis
Ababa’s Light Rail Transit Based on Sustainability Variables.”

The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine the weight of assigned indicators to


represent its relative importance to the overall objective of sustainability by rating the level of
contribution to sustainability benefit. This further explains the necessity to measure the
specific rate of contribution of different indicators to measure and monitor the level of benefit
in either an increase or a decrease in a specific indicator.

Three thematic areas are adopted as indicators of Sustainability in transport, which also reflect
a standard definition of Sustainable transport. These indicators, described below, are the three
'Sustainable Development Pillars', and, they have been applied here to study the sustainability
of light rail transit in Addis Ababa.

A. ECONOMIC - Creating Sustainable economic growth and prosperity

B. ENVIRONMENTAL - Protecting and enhancing the environment

C. SOCIAL - Ensuring social equity (fairness) or well being

As an expert in the area, your participation is very crucial to the success of this study.
Therefore, your cooperation is highly appreciated. All the collected information will be used
for academic purpose only and will not be disclosed to any third party, including any personal
identifiers, if any.

SECTION A: Personal Information


1. Profession of respondent

2. Job Experience

March 27, 2017 Page 60


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

3. Mode(s) of transport used presently by you. Please tick below your corresponding answer.

Public transport Private transport Both public and private


Transport

4. Number of times in a week you use the mode of transport in question 3 above?

5. Do you use the light rail transit?

Yes No

6. If yes, how many days a week do you use the light rail?

7. How many minutes does it take you to get to your place of work, using the light rail from
the nearest rail stop?

8. How many minutes does it take you to get to your home, using the light rail from the
nearest rail stop?

March 27, 2017 Page 61


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

B. Giving score to Indicators to represent its relative importance to the overall objective of
sustainability by rating the level of contribution to sustainability benefit.
In your own opinion, how would you give score or quantify the following indicators in
order of importance in measuring the benefits of the light rail transit economically,
socially and environmentally as a reason for investing and constructing the rail transport?

The score is from 1 – 10, where 1 = Lowest importance and 10 =Highest importance,
INSTRUCTION: Please write the score number (1 - 10) by the side of your corresponding
indicator
SN Indicator Score

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

1 Reduction of travel time as compared to the use of vehicles on


the roads (Total travel time saved by the use of the light rail as
compared to the public road transport, such as
public bus mass transit.
2 Employment generation (Additional employment to be
generated by the new light rail transit).
3 Transport Affordability by people as compared to public road
transportation (i.e. as compared to mass transit buses and taxis
within the same route)

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

4 Increase in the use of the light rail public mass transport, i.e.
Increase in public transport trips per day, based
on better
timing and periods of availability (modal shift)
5 Urban Regeneration (Urban regeneration in the vicinity of light
rail transport, i.e. urban development for improved
environment along the areas of the light rail corridor)
6 Proximity of Settlements to Rail stations (Accessibility to the
rail station without extra cost of using a public or private road
vehicle to get to the rail station or rail stop, i.e., are the rail
stops within 5-20 minutes walking distance to the settlements?
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

7 Reduction in Air Pollution (Reduction of pollutant emissions of


carbon-monoxide (CO), Sulphur Oxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx), lead, particulate matter (PM) in tons/year of road
vehicles to be reduced from roads, such as trailers, buses, cars
and as compared to pollution emitted by the light rail.
8 Percentage of persons that are less affected by noise
Greenhouse effect Emissions reduction in CO2 per tons/year of
vehicles to be reduced from roads, such as trailers, buses, cars
9 and as compared to pollution emitted by the light rail.
Safety Improvements (reduction of accidents and death
10 rate from road accidents per year)
March 27, 2017 Page 62
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability
Variables

Are there other indicators you think can also be useful in assessing the benefits of the
light rail? Please feel free to use extra sheets if needed. If yes, please list and weigh them
on a scale of (1-10), just as the ten indicators where listed and given score above).

S/NInIndicator Score

March 27, 2017 Page 63


Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

ANNEX 2: Sample size and error estimation for questionnaire


To calculate the required sample size in this study, the following inputs were considered:

1. The level of confidence required for the true value of a mean. This is closely connected with the level of significance for statistical tests, such as a t-test.
Hence 95% confidence was selected for the study. I.e., the true mean value lies somewhere within a valid 95% confidence interval, and this corresponds to
significance testing at the 5% level (P < 0.05) of significance and .

2. The degree of precision is required (margin of error). In this study margin of error 0.46 is selected.

3. Standard deviation, May be guided by past research or pilot survey. The collected data was used.

Table 19: Number of respondents that give weight for each indicator

weight given
by Travel Urban Air Green
respondents Time Employement Affordability Modal shift regeneration proximity pllution Noise House Safety
10 14 2 5 4 1 12 10 4
9 10 5 6 9 5 4 4 3 6 11
8 11 14 16 6 11 7 14 5 10 10
7 1 9 4 17 8 13 6 6 6 9
6 4 6 6 3 10 11 4 12 7 4
5 4 3 1 2 5 14 1 2

Mean, standard deviation of the sample and Number of respondents required

N = ( Zα/2 * σ/e)2
Zα/2 =1.96 for 95% confidence interval
σ = is calculated for each indicators based on the sample
e= 0.46 (margin of error selected for the sample)

March 27, 2017


Page 64
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Table 20: Mean, standard deviation of the sample and Number of respondents required
Urban Air Green
Travel Time Employement Modal shiftregeneration proximity pollution Noise
Affordability House Safety
Mean 8.713 7.400 7.763 7.713 7.050 6.838 8.350 6.263 8.063 7.900
standard
daviation(σ)
Number of 1.254 1.300 1.405 1.332 1.284 1.131 1.314 1.250 1.476 1.319
respondents
required(N) 28.5686094 30.68197 35.85331 32.19961 29.91037807 23.23558 31.36278 28.36437 39.5297 34.52678

Hence the sample size is 41 > 39.5 (maximum no. respondents required for indicators with 95% CI and 0.46 margin of error) , so its ok

Table 21: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of sustainability indicators weight with (95% CI &,N= 41)

Urban Air Green


Travel Time Employement
Affordability
Modal shiftregeneration proximity pollution Noise House Safety
Mean 8.713 7.400 7.763 7.713 7.050 6.838 8.350 6.263 8.063 7.900
standard
daviation(σ) 1.254 1.300 1.405 1.332 1.284 1.131 1.314 1.250 1.476 1.319
Error of
estimation(e) 0.385 0.399 0.431 0.409 0.394 0.347 0.403 0.383 0.453 0.405

March 27, 2017


Page 65
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

ANNEX 3: Error estimation for mean value of Passenger’s in vehicle time, (min)
Mean, standard deviation of passenger’s in vehicle time and Number of vehicles surveyed

e = ( Zα/2 * σ/√N)
Zα/2 =1.96 for 95% confidence interval
σ = standard deviation
N = Number vehicle surveyed 49 for Torhailoch- Ayat lot both on peak off peak hour and 42 for Giorgis- Kality both on peak and offpeak
hour
e= error of estimation (min)

Table 22: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on peak hour at Torhailoch-Ayat lot

Torhailoch-Ayat(peak)
Mode Anbessa bus Midi- bus Mini-bus
Torhailoch - Torhailoch - Torhailoch Mexico- Megenagna-
Route Legar Legar- Ayat Mexico Mexico- Ayat - Mexico Megenagna Ayat
Mean 32.571 85.286 24.714 77.571 20.143 27.286 32.286
σ 2.441 4.978 2.763 5.039 2.799 2.603 3.493
e 0.731 1.490 0.827 1.508 0.838 0.779 1.046

Table 23: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on offpeak hour at Torhailoch-Ayat lot

Torhailoch-Ayat(offpeak)
Mode Anbessa bus Midi- bus Mini-bus
Torhailoch - Torhailoch - Torhailoch Mexico- Megenagna-
Route Legar Legar- Ayat Mexico Mexico- Ayat - Mexico Megenagna Ayat
Mean 25.714 64.571 15.714 61.286 11.429 20.286 21.143
σ 2.537 4.795 1.320 3.576 1.742 2.345 2.641
e 0.760 1.435 0.395 1.070 0.522 0.702 0.791

March 27, 2017


Page 66
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Table 24: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on offpeak hour at Gorgis- kaliti lot

Giorgis- kality(off peak)


Mode Anbessa bus Midi- bus Mini-bus
Giorgis -saris Giorgis -saris
Route abo Saris abo- kality abo saris abo- kality Giorgis -saris saris - kality
Mean 55.429 4.857 50.857 4.857 32.571 8.429
σ 3.458 1.125 3.870 1.125 2.499 1.400
e 1.035 0.337 1.159 0.337 0.748 0.419

Table 25: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on peak hour at Gorgis- kaliti lot

Giorgis- kality( peak)


Mode Anbessa bus Midi- bus Mini-bus
Giorgis -saris Giorgis -saris
Route abo Saris abo- kality abo saris abo- kality Giorgis -saris saris abo- kality
Mean 80.143 10.857 75.286 10.857 49.857 10.857
σ 4.060 1.244 3.781 1.512 2.755 1.211
e 1.215 0.372 1.132 0.453 0.825 0.363

March 27, 2017


Page 67
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

ANNEX 4: Sensitivity Analysis on Each Sample Selected from Each Profession


I. Null hypothesis (H0), μ0 =μ II. Alternative hypothesis (Ha), μ ≠μ0 either Z ≥ Zα/2 or Z≤ -Zα/2

Test statistics value Z= X-μ0 Where, α=0.05, Zα/2=Z0.025 = 1.96


σ/√N
Table 26: Z – Test for sample taken from Economists

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 8.6 7 8.4 7 7 6.4 9.2 7.2 8.6 8.4
SD 0.8 0.894427 0.489897949 1.095445 1.26491106 1.0198039 1.16619 1.469694 0.8 1.356466
μ-X 0.1125 0.4 -0.6375 0.7125 0.05 0.4375 -0.85 -0.9375 -0.5375 -0.5
SD/√N 0.357771 0.4 0.219089023 0.489898 0.56568542 0.4560702 0.521536 0.657267 0.35777088 0.60663
-
Z value 0.314447 1 -2.909776087 1.454385 0.08838835 0.9592822 -1.6298 -1.42636 1.50235817 -0.82423
μo NR NR R NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Table 27: Z – Test for sample taken from Sociologists

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 8.3 7.4 7.5 7.3 7 7.3 9.6 7.1 9.5 8
SD 1.077033 0.8 0.774596669 1.777639 1.67332005 1.2489996 0.8 1.428286 0.4472136 1.095445
μ-X 0.4125 0 0.2625 0.4125 0.05 -0.4625 -1.25 -0.8375 -1.4375 -0.1
SD/√N 0.481664 0.357771 0.346410162 0.794984 0.74833148 0.5585696 0.357771 0.638749 0.2 0.489898
Z value 0.856407 0 0.757772228 0.518878 0.06681531 -0.828008 -3.49386 -1.31116 -7.1875 -0.20412
μo NR NR NR NR NR NR R NR NR NR

March 27, 2017


Page 68
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Table 28: Z – Test for sample taken from Environmentalists

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 7.6 6.2 7.6 7.8 6.6 6 9 6.4 8 7.6
SD 1.496663 1.16619 1.854723699 0.979796 1.0198039 0.6324555 0.894427 1.2 1.26491106 0.8
μ-X 1.1125 1.2 0.1625 -0.0875 0.45 0.8375 -0.65 -0.1375 0.0625 0.3
SD/√N 0.669328 0.521536 0.829457654 0.438178 0.45607017 0.2828427 0.4 0.536656 0.56568542 0.357771
Z value 1.662115 2.300895 0.195911147 -0.19969 0.98669027 2.9610096 -1.625 -0.25622 0.11048543 0.838525
μo NR R NR NR NR R NR NR NR NR

Table 29: Z – Test for sample taken from Railway Administrators

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 9 8.166667 7.5 8.333333 6.5 7.1666667 8.666667 6.5 8.5 8.5
SD 1.356466 1.496663 1.743559577 1.019804 0.89442719 0.7483315 0.979796 0.489898 1.78885438 1.32665
μ-X -0.2875 -0.76667 0.2625 -0.62083 0.55 -0.329167 -0.31667 -0.2375 -0.4375 -0.6
SD/√N 0.60663 0.669328 0.779743548 0.45607 0.4 0.334664 0.438178 0.219089 0.8 0.593296
Z value -0.47393 -1.14543 0.336649147 -1.36127 1.375 -0.983574 -0.72269 -1.08403 -0.546875 -1.0113
μo NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Where, NR= Null hypothesis is not rejected

R= Null hypothesis is rejected

March 27, 2017


Page 69
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

Table 30: Z – Test for sample taken from Transport Engineers

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 8.85 6.4 7.4 7.6 7 6.2 8.2 5.4 8 6.8
SD 1.16619 1.573 1.854723699 0.4 0.89442719 0.4898979 0.894427 0.748331 1.72046505 1.414214
μ-X -0.1375 1 0.3625 0.1125 0.05 0.6375 0.15 0.8625 0.0625 1.1
SD/√N 0.476095 0.642175 0.757187779 0.163299 0.36514837 0.2 0.365148 0.305505 0.70237692 0.57735
Z value -0.28881 1.557209 0.47874518 0.688919 0.13693064 3.1875 0.410792 2.823194 0.08898356 1.905256
μo NR NR NR NR NR R NR R NR NR

Table 31: Z – Test for sample taken from Railway Engineers

Travel Employment Transport fare Modal Urban Proximity Air Greenhouse


Indicators time generation affordability shift regeneration service pollution Noise effect Safety
Grand mean(μ) 8.7125 7.4 7.7625 7.7125 7.05 6.8375 8.35 6.2625 8.0625 7.9
sample mean(X) 9.588889 8.333333 8.222222222 8.444444 7.77777778 7.6666667 7.444444 5.777778 7.22222222 8.444444
SD 1.7258 1.936832 1.227262335 1.342561 1.749562 0.942809 1.69375 0.95628 2.387286 1.4733
μ-X -0.87639 -0.93333 -0.459722222 -0.73194 -0.7277778 -0.829167 0.905556 0.484722 0.84027778 -0.54444
SD/√N 0.575267 0.645611 0.409087445 0.44752 0.58318733 0.3142697 0.564583 0.31876 0.795762 0.4911
Z value -1.52345 -1.44566 -1.123774948 -1.63556 -1.2479314 -2.638392 1.603936 1.520649 1.05594107 -1.10862
μo NR NR NR NR NR R NR NR NR NR
Where, NR= Null hypothesis is not rejected

R= Null hypothesis is rejected

March 27, 2017


Page 70
Assessment of Addis Ababa’s Light Rail Transit (LRT) Based on Sustainability Variables

March 27, 2017


Page 71

You might also like