Abdlemalik Mohammed
Abdlemalik Mohammed
Abdlemalik Mohammed
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
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
APPROVAL SHEET
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
List of Charts
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
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
LRT Light rail transit
CO Carbon Monoxide
EU European Union
Acknowledgment
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.
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.
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.
The methodology is based on a multicriteria analysis which considers a number of criteria to achieve
the global objective of sustainability
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.
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.
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
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).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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,
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
2.5.1 Existing Assessment Techniques for Sustainability Benefits of Urban Rail Transport
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).
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
(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).
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:
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)
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.
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.
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.
Table 2: Hourly Distribution of the Demand Based on the LRT Corridor Data
The major part of the LRT alignment route is located along existing streets which are serviced
by buses, and taxis.
MinibusTaxi 516,560
Total 1,271,328
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).
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
KEY
NS13 - 8.825 KM
KERANIO
NS11 - 9.605 KM EAST WEST ROUTE
STATION
NS9 - GOTTERA 2 12.079 KM Main Station (Phase I)
Intermediate Station
WOLETIE (REPI) NS8 - 12.840 KM
(Phase I)
MiniStation (Phase I)
LEBU
NS4 - KALITI 16.246 KM
Figure 3: Schematic Diagram of Station locations (ERC, Design report of LRT, 2009).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Table 5: Sustainability indicators selected from different literature and experts for the assessment
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.
2. Feasibility study and design report of conceptual design of corridor 1and 2 of the
Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit System.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Sociologists
13% Civil/Railway
Engineers
Economists 22%
13%
Transprtation Railway
Engineers Adminstrator
15% 12%
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
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.
Table 7: The first three indicators with the highest rank score were selected for analysis
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.
3 AM Peak Hours 3
Source: Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Addis Ababa Light Rail Transit (LRT)
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.
Figure 5: Road map showing the alignment from Piassa Giorgis to Kality, and Torhailoch to Ayat which
are used by different mode of transport
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.
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:
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
Table 10: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on peak hour
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
Table 11: Shows the total travel time taken by E-W LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour
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
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
Table 13: Shows the total travel time taken by N-S LRT, and other mode of transport on offpeak hour
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Where,
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.
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)
Value of time saved by LRT users who were other mode users before start of LRT
VTTS = ∑Pi*N*Ti*C
The value time saved by LRT on the two lots is the sum of the value of time saved by each lot.
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.
Table 16: Estimate of Total Emission from Addis Ababa Road Network without construction of LRT
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
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), 2012. Cost and benefits of clean
technologies for bus rapid transit (BRT) : Summary of results for Addis Ababa
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
2. Job Experience
3. Mode(s) of transport used presently by you. Please tick below your corresponding answer.
4. Number of times in a week you use the mode of transport in question 3 above?
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?
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
Table 24: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on offpeak hour at Gorgis- kaliti lot
Table 25: Error of estimation (±) for mean value of passengers in vehicle time on peak hour at Gorgis- kaliti lot