Capacity assessment of railway stations: a case of Addis Ababa light rail’s Menilik Square Station.

Joan Tondo1*, Jackson Sekasi1,

1,
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, African Railway Center of
Excellence (ARCE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
*Correspondence: Tondo, Joan joan.tondo@aait.edu.et

Abstract
Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia, is experiencing a population boom and rapid urbanization.
Passenger demand on the Addis Ababa Light Rail Train (AALRT) in recent years has not been matched
by the equivalent available capacity, thus maintaining system performance is an increasing challenge.
The objective of this paper was to assess the performance of Menilik Square LRT Station in terms of
the number of passengers boarding the train mainly during peak hours. Capacity utilization of the
rolling stock at the station in terms of passengers carried, number of trains that arrive at the station
during peak hours and passenger volumes per train during peak hours has been analyzed. Data
collected from the

AALRT authority office for the month of November 2019 has been used to conduct the analysis. It has
been discovered that there is overcapacity utilization during peak hours with 400 excess passengers,
for a design capacity of 8000 passengers. Finally, it is recommended to minimize the dwell time at the
station and minimize the headway between the trains to increase the throughput at the station thus
minimizing overloads per train.

Keywords: Railway capacity, Addis Ababa light rail, Capacity assessment, Stations performance,
Railway infrastructure capacity utilization.

Introduction

Addis Ababa, capital of the second most populous country in Africa; Ethiopia (Alemayhu & Yihunie,
2014), is currently facing rapid urbanization and high population growth (Sekasi & Martens, 2021).
Overall population is expected to grow from 3 million (Ethiopia Population, 2021) an estimate made
in the past years, to 7 million inhabitants by 2022 and reach 13 million within the next two decades
(Agence Francaise de Developpement, 2015). Like any other rapid growing cities in the developing
world, Addis Ababa has been experiencing a steady growth of demand for passenger transportation
(Cornet et al., 2019). Public road transportation even when it is not adequate to accommodate the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

passenger demand still dominates the modal split for most daily trips in Addis Ababa. The introduction
of a rapid bus transfer system (Agence Francaise de Developpement, 2015) only halted an increasing
discrepancy between supply and demand, and the situation was not made any better due to an
increasing discrepancy between supply and demand.

The Ethiopian government through the Ethiopian railway corporation devoted enormous efforts in
making railways competitive and sustainable in the country by commissioning a new urban metro
(Getaw, 2017), largely funded, constructed and run by Chinese institutions. This was the first light rail
in sub-Saharan Africa, built with anobjective of; providing an alternative means of public transport to
the city’s road-based system, speed up passenger journey times and to provide a more environmentally-
friendly transport option (International Trade Administration, 2021). A railway system is a
combination of; main truck, Depot, stations, rolling stock and operational characteristics. These all
have to be initially sized well to eliminate operational bottlenecks due to increased traffic capacity. So
, a perfect capacity estimation of a railway system is the cornerstone for proper service delivery and
railway infrastructure deployment (Francesco et al., 2016).

AALRT was originally to have a total of 41 stations on its two lines, and each train was planned have
a capacity to carry 286 passengers. But train capacity is an ambiguous concept (Mo et al., 2020), and
assuming a fixed physical capacity may not be achievable in real life practices as train capacity differs
across stations. Even when, at least 120,000 people per day are transported by AALRT, capacity
problems exist. Beginning with the comprehension of the term capacity itself (Armstrong & Preston,
2017) which is a classical problem in railway industry. Railway capacity is mainly affected by
infrastructure and operation scheme of railway (Han et al., 2014),time tabling, time operation
procedures and people management.

According to Network Rail, (2016), the goal of capacity analysis is to determine the maximum number
of trains that would be able to operate on a given railway infrastructure (station), during a specific
time interval (dwell time), given the operational conditions (Alex Landex & Kaas, 2006). In situations
of insufficiency major in Europe, the situation is described as railway infrastructure saturation problem
(Guo et al., 2016). Many recent station capacity assessment worldwide have focused on high speed
railway passenger stations (Ma et al., 2018), and less attention has been offered to city light rails in
terms of long-term passenger demand (Cornet et al., 2019). Likewise, AALRT stations have not been
matched by the equivalent available capacity, which results in system performance challenges.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

This challenge of ambiguity related to dependable capacity utilization implies that essential train paths
cannot be fully utilized to maximize utilization thus insufficient service. Capacity utilization of railway
resources is directly associated with railway nodes as these are the source of capacity constraints like
bottlenecks which lead to a delay in service thus less capacity utilization. Measures to utilize best the
available capacity, while at the same time striving to uphold acceptable levels of performance, i.e.
punctuality, and, particularly, safety need to be implemented. This can only be achieved by carrying
out capacity assessment on the railway system to determine the utilization capacity in order to conduct
proper capacity planning for the future increasing demand.

This paper focuses on the capacity utilization at Menilik Square LRT Station in terms of the number
of passengers carried per given time mainly during peak hours. It mainly delves into assessing the
performance of Menilik Square LRT Station in terms of the number of passengers boarding the train
mainly during peak hours. This exploration will specifically identify; the passenger volumes per train
during peak hours, the number of trains that arrive at the station during peak hours, and finally the capacity
utilization of the rolling stock at the station in terms of passengers carried. The capacity assessments were based
on total number of tickets sold during the peak hours of the day that is; in the morning (8:00-10:00am) and
afternoon (5:00-7:00pm).

Literature review

In literature just like in the field, commendable efforts have been directed towards quantifying capacity
and delays of high- intensity nodes on a railway systems network (Jiang et al., 2015). The UIC code
has had a more agreed explanation about capacity (Gašparík & Cempírek, 2020) and some prior studies
have tried to extend the applicability of the UIC Code 406 even to the stations (Francesco et al., 2016;
Lindner, 2011). The literature review will first try to shade some light on capacity assessment mainly
utilization and consumption. Then it will look into station dwell time and available dwell time
estimation models. Further review will focus on factors affecting dwell time, and station accessibility
issues.

Capacity assessment

In railway systems, capacity assessment is quite ambiguous. Different capacity terms are used to
depict contrasting scenarios and environments. According to Han et al., (2014), there is network
capacity for a whole railway network; there is line capacity for a railway line; there is station capacity
for a railway station. The generalized meaning of capacity refers to the maximum rate of a system or
a process (Lee et al., 2016).The subject “Railway capacity” is a combination of the capacity
consumption (definition) (Lindfeldt, 2015), and how the capacity utilization (Francesco et al., 2016;

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

A. Landex, 2007). However, capacity consumption is not synonymous with capacity occupation (or
infrastructure occupation) (Jensen et al., 2020). More still, as claimed by UIC 406 (International Union
Of Railways, 2013), there is no single way to define capacity, and the concerns and expectations vary
between different points of view by railroad customers, infrastructure and timetable planners, and
railroad operators. For example, Pouryousef, (2015) cites (Lai & Barkan, 2009) defining capacity as
"a measure of the ability to move a specific amount of traffic over a defined rail corridor in the U.S.
rail environment with a given set of resources under a specific service plan, known as level of service
(LOS)". In accordant with Rotoli et al., (2016), capacity can be defined as the “maximum number of
trains that may be operated using concurrently a specific part of the infrastructure during a given time
period and with a fixed level of service”. The capacity definition that is led to some kind of consensus
is that of the UIC 406 Capacity (International Union Of Railways, 2013) which defines railway
infrastructure capacity as "the total number of possible paths in a defined time window, considering
the actual path mix or known developments, respectively, and the IM’s own assumptions; in node
individual lines or part of the network, with market-oriented quality”(Gašparík & Cempírek, 2020).
Previously, capacity has been determined by either graphical, analytical, simulation modelling or a
combination of these methods.

It is always is always necessary to show how capacity is utilized and falling short of this result into
contradictions between railway operators. Mostly timetables with multiple trains results in lower
capacity consumption than a railway line which operates much fewer trains but in a heterogeneous
way (A. Landex, 2007). A. Landex, suggests that it is always neccesary to describe both capacity
consumption or the capacity utilization to lessen the contradictions that may arise.

capacity utilization

As mentioned by A. Landex, (2007), capacity utilization is the degree to which a resource such as
equipment, space, or the workforce is currently being used. It is measured as the ratio of average output
rate to maximum capacity expressed as a percent. Considering railways systems, capacity utilization
can be divided into 4 core elements: The number of trains; the average speed; the heterogeneity of the
operation; and the stability (Pouryousef, 2015). First and foremost, to attain high degrees of capacity
utilization, major hinderances in the utilization of capacity have to be identified, which work always
involves infrastructure managers. Armstrong et al., (2017) argues that some of these challenges are
related to critical nodes such as stations which lead to capacity bottlenecks on the system (Rotoli et
al., 2016a). Rotoli et al., (2016) observes that these bottlenecks result into increase in traffic in certain
corridors that eventually leads to congestion and degraded performance of the railway system. By

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

boosting the productivity of existing infrastructure assets capacity, like running additional trains on
existing infrastructure, while seeking to maintain acceptable levels of performance, system reliability
can be improved.

Capacity consumption

On the other hand, capacity consumption on railway lines depends on both the infrastructure and the
timetable (Alex Landex & Kaas, 2006). Due to a lack of consensus of how to “express and
communicate core elements such as railway capacity between rail authorities, infrastructure managers
and operators”(A. Landex, 2007), the International Union of Railways (UIC) availed a leaflet the UIC
406 capacity leaflet – describing railway capacity in the year 2004 (Huber & Herbacek, 2012; A.
Landex, 2007). It defined railway capacity as “the total number of possible paths in a defined time
window, considering the actual path mix or known developments respectively…”(A. Landex, 2007).
An expression was put up by (Huber & Herbacek, 2012) expressing the percentage capacity
consumption as below;

𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 + 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 ∗

𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [%] = 𝑥 100
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑

This “Capacity Consumption” (CC) had to put into relation to the defined time period, to generate the
rate of infrastructure utilization. Additionally, the UIC capacity leaflet also suggests a methodology to
determine the capacity consumption using compressed timetable graphs. On the basis of (A. Landex,
2007), capacity consumption depends on both the infrastructure and the timetable and this is why it is
necessary to include both in the evaluation. As shown in figure 1 below, UIC has always emphasized
that the capacity is affected by interdependencies and the interrelationships between the four major
elements of railway capacity including average speed, stability, number of trains, and heterogeneity.

The UIC capacity leaflet designates the constraints of capacity consumption in the “balance of
capacity” (number of trains, average speed, heterogeneity and stability) (Huber & Herbacek, 2012).
But to simultaneously describe capacity consumption and the capacity utilization, there is a necessity
to introduce an additional dimension of capacity consumption as shown in figure 1 in order to balance
capacity. This results into the capacity pyramid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

Figure 1: Railway capacity- balance of capacity to the left and the capacity pyramid to the right (
Source: A. Landex, 2007)
According to figure 1 above, a rail line with various types of trains on the same track (mixed traffic
operations or shared-use corridor) has a higher heterogeneity level compared to the urban metro
(subway) system with dedicated right-of-way and homogeneous operations. While the average speed
of a mixed traffic corridor might be higher than a dedicated metro line, the various train types reduce
the stability of train schedules, as well as the total number of trains that can operate on the line. It is
for this reason that (Emery, 2010) argues that, with the introduction of two service types, the same
capacity consumption can be achieved with quite different average speeds, the three other parameters
being kept the same.

Station dwell time and capacity utilization

Train dwell time is the time during which a train is halted at a station (Christoforou et al., 2020). A
train has got a total travel time which is a combination of the running time plus all station dwell times.
Passenger always transfer from one transport mode to another and for railways (Takuya et al., 2016),
transfer can only be aided at stations which therefore, necessitates stopping (Pouryousef, 2015) at
stations. Passenger transfer is the main determinant of the total train dwell time. The dwell time for a
whole trip is the sum of all dwell times per station.

According to Christoforou et al., (2020), for a single station, dwell time is the maximum time needed
at one door for passengers to alight and board (passenger dwell time). It is consisted of three
components: the door opening and closing movement time and vehicle departure, the passenger flow
time, and the time the doors remain open without passenger flow (Shang et al., 2018). For light urban
rails, dwell time is a very useful factor of travel time and key parameter of rail service quality and
reliability, although not apparently significant due to programable little time of not more than 2 minutes
which is taken as the dwell time at stations. Dwell times have a significant effect on network capacity

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

(Van Den Heuvel, 2016). Increased passenger numbers are linked to longer dwell times (Cats et al.,
2014) and in turn, to a reduction in the performance measures. Even small ‘sub-threshold’ delays (i.e.
tens of seconds) can adversely impact the overall performance of the network (Jensen et al., 2020).
The challenge for the rail industry is accommodating increasing demand while improving
performance, without compromising safety and accessibility at the platform train interface. Longer
standing times induce headway variability and reduce the overall rail system performance by
generating delays that are both unattractive and uneconomical (Gysin, 2018).

Dwell time estimation models available

Dwell times are the most unpredictable components that majorly provide difficulty is capacity
assessments. This is due to the unpredictable flow of passengers boarding the train or those leaving it.
But their accurate prediction is very crucial for efficient operations and effective time tabling
(Christensen, 2009; Oh et al., 2020). Many scholars have focused on developing models that can
precisely predict dwell times. Even though, the alighting and boarding characteristics of passenger
may be different from one geographical area to another (Dewei et al., 2016) and as such, their behaviors
they can hardly be described in one model. Some of the existing dwell time models are shown in Table
1 include; (Lam et al., 1998) study on mass transit railway station, and others. There are some new
models that have been developed like “dwell time at the associated station” model by (Li et al., 2018).
A railway dwell time estimation model using SVR, RF, and MLR methods developed by (Oh et al.,
2020), also (Jensen et al., 2020) has developed model that doesn’t require timetables to determine
capacity. (Dewei et al., 2016) proposed both a parametric regression model and a non-parametric
regression model to estimate the dwell times at short stops for real-time scheduling. Another dwell
time model relating to passenger flow on stations has been proposed by (Cornet et al., 2019).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

Table 1: Some of the existing dwell time estimation models in Railway transport systems: Source (Li
et al., 2018)

There are many factors that affect the dwell time of trains (Cats et al., 2014) and some of these factors
have been identified as; mixed flow of passengers, station design, timetabling and signaling practices
(operational factors), driver behaviors, passenger’s behavior and profile amongst other factors.

Station design also affects the dwell time with narrow platforms often becoming crowded easily,
especially during peak hours. The number, capacity and location of stairs, escalators and lifts
influences the distribution of waiting passengers along the platform and hence the boarding time for
trains.

Station Accessibility
Accessibility concept has been previously studied by different scholars in the transport planning and
urban planning (Geurs & Wee, 2002; Rotoli et al., 2016b) and the way it is defined varies from scholar
to scholar. Equally, critical accessibility models and concepts have been developed (Naranjo et al.,
2021). Some authors have considered accessibility as “the amount of effort to reach a destination”
(Rotoli et al., 2016b). According to (Matuska, 2017) citing of Cass et al. (2005), he included four
dimensions of accessibility that include; physical, financial/social, temporal, and organizational
dimensions. Accessibility in this study is concerned with the passenger’s ability of more people to
reach more quickly and efficiently the station so that the total travel time of their trip, door-to-door, by

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

rail is minimized. Among the factors that influence accessibility to stations by passengers include; The
socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding area, the ease of reaching the station, The service
characteristics of the station, characteristics of the trips by rail, number of trains (throughput) at the
station.

Methodology

Different approaches to evaluate the capacity of a railway network are presented according to the level
of detail and to the availability of data, describing also various methodologies (with varying degrees
of complexity) to link the evaluation of utilized capacity to the probability and value of the expected
capacity; indeed, depending on the data availability, synthetic, analytical or even simulation methods
may be applied. In this methodology, we draw a relationship between the actual capacity/passengers
carried from the station to the maximum design capacity of the train at the station to assess the capacity
utilization of the rolling stock/train at this station.

Design Capacity
The design capacity is the maximum number of passengers that the train can accommodate at a given
station in one direction on a single track. It assumes that the train carries the maximum number of
passengers from the station however they would be fully used only if passengers uniformly filled the
trains throughout the peak hour.

Design capacity has two factors, line capacity and train capacity, and can be expressed as:

𝒄𝒅 = 𝒄𝒍 x 𝒄𝒕

Where: 𝑐𝑑 = design capacity, 𝑐𝑙 = line capacity (trains at the station during peak hours), 𝑐𝑡 = train
capacity (passengers).
𝒒
In expanded form, design capacity is given by; 𝒄𝒅 = x 𝑷𝑪 x 𝑵𝑪
(𝒕𝒔 +𝒕𝒅 )

Where: 𝑐𝑑 = design capacity (p/h); 𝑡𝑠 = minimum train separation (s); 𝑡𝑑 = dwell time at the controlling
station (s); 𝑃𝐶 = total passengers per car; and 𝑁𝐶 = number of cars per train.

Achievable Capacity, ca
Achievable capacity; the actual number of passengers that is carried from the station in one direction
on a single track allowing for the diversity of demand. Achievable capacity takes into account that
demand fluctuates over the peak hour and that not all trains or all cars of a train are equally and
uniformly full of passengers.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

Design Versus Achievable Capacity
The difference between design and achievable capacity is an important consideration. It signifies the
capacity utilization of the rolling stock at the station

𝑐𝑎 =𝑐𝑑 : optimum capacity utilization

𝑐𝑎 <𝑐𝑑 : under utilization

𝑐𝑎 >𝑐𝑑 : over utilization

Design capacity, in passengers per hour per direction, is calculated using the following factors:

• ·number of seats per car,

• number of standees per car (= standing area x standee density),
• ·number of cars per train, and
• Train headway (minimum headway determined by a combination of the signaling system,
station dwell, and terminus constraints).

Achievable capacity is based on the number of tickets sold per a given time.

Data collection and Analysis

During the study, data was collected by means of interview methods from ERC employees and by
examination of the Number of tickets sold during peak hours. Generally, the methodology that is
followed during the research is summarized below.

Data Analysis
Design Capacity of the AALRT Rolling Stock, 𝑐𝑑
Total carrying capacity, 𝑐𝑡 = 400 passengers
Line Capacity (trains at the station during peak hours) 𝑐𝑙
PEAK HOURS THROUGH PUT PER DAY
8:00 AM – 10:00 AM 10
5:00 PM – 7:00 PM 10
TOTAL 20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

THUS, 𝑐𝑑 = 20 X 400 = 8000 passengers

Achievable Capacity, Ca

This was based on only the sold tickets at the station in the pick hours i.e. the total passengers boarding
during the peak hours.

Analysis Was Done on The Month of November 2019

Day Total Number of Tickets Per Number of Tickets During Peak

Day Hours

2019.11.01 39918 7793

2019.11.02 47758 15633

2019.11.03 46010 13885

2019.11.04 46947 14822

2019.11.05 40075 7950

2019.11.06 44746 12621

2019.11.07 43404 11279

2019.11.08 27758 4367

2019.11.09 40464 8339

2019.11.10 45972 13847

2019.11.11 36094 3969

2019.11.12 28152 3973

2019.11.13 34369 2244

2019.11.14 37191 5066

2019.11.15 35614 3489

2019.11.16 46459 14334

2019.11.17 45686 13561

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

 2019.11.18 45441 13316

2019.11.19 44947 12822

2019.11.20 43315 11190

2019.11.21 41212 9087

2019.11.22 22617 9508

2019.11.23 48187 16062

2019.11.24 37417 5292

2019.11.25 44720 12595

2019.11.26 43864 11739

2019.11.27 22067 10058

2019.11.28 22538 9587

2019.11.29 30650 1475

2019.11.30 22617 9508

2019.11.31 48187 16062

Total 1204396 305473

𝟑𝟎𝟓𝟒𝟕𝟑
Mean, 𝑐𝑎 = = 9854 passengers
31

Results and Discussions

Design capacity, 𝑐𝑑 = 8000 passengers

Mean achievable capacity, 𝑐𝑎 = 9854 passengers

9854
Excess Passengers per trip = = 19.708 = 20 passenger
25 𝑥 20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

For, 𝒄𝒂 > 𝒄𝒅 there is over capacity utilization of the rolling stock i.e. excess 20 passengers are

carried by the rolling stock per trip during peak hours.

Total excess passengers = 20 x 20 = 400 passengers

This implies that during peak hours, an extra throughput is required to meet the demand.

Conclusions and Recommendation

The over capacity utilization of the rolling stock is caused by the high number of passengers going in
the morning and leaving in the afternoon work in the respective time. The analysis covered only
passengers boarding at Menilik square and did not cater for their destination throughout the line. There
other factors that can be used to improve assessment results at a given station in addition to the number
of tickets sold. From the results of the study, it is recommended to minimize the dwell time at the
station and minimize the headway between the trains to increase the throughput at the station thus
minimizing overloads per train. Further research focus on capacity assessment studies that incorporate
more stations of the AALRT in order to generate a broader view of capacity utilization and capacity
consumption.

Acknowledgments
The authors sincere appreciation African Railway Center of Excellence (ARCE) at Addis Ababa
University for financial and academic support provided. We also thank employees of Ethiopian
Railway Cooperation for providing us the data used in this study.

Declaration of conflicting Interests

The author(s) declare no potential conflict of interest with regard to the study subject matter, materials
discussed, or tests conducted during this study from any known person or organization, including with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding acknowledgement
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Agence Francaise de Developpement. (2015). First Bus Rapid Transit lane in Addis Ababa. 1.
http://www.afd.fr/en/print/pdf/node/3411%0Ahttps://www.afd.fr/en/print/pdf/node/3411

Alemayhu, B., & Yihunie, L. (2014). Projecting ethiopian demographics from 2012–2050 using the spectrum
suite of models. In Ethiopian Public Health Association (Issue July).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

Armstrong, J., & Preston, J. (2017). Capacity utilisation and performance at railway stations. Journal of Rail
Transport Planning and Management, 7(3), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2017.08.003

Armstrong, J., Preston, J., Potts, C., Bektas, T., & Paraskevopoulos, D. (2017). Addressing nodal constraints on
the capacity of railways. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail
and Rapid Transit, 231(5), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409717706271

Cats, O., Rufi, F. M., & Koutsopoulos, H. N. (2014). Optimizing the number and location of time point stops.
Public Transport, 6(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-014-0092-1

Christensen, V. (2009). Ecopath with Ecosim: linking fi sheries and ecology 1 Why ecosystem modeling in fi
sheries? WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, 34, 1755–8336.
https://doi.org/10.2495/978-1-84564

Christoforou, Z., Chandakas, E., & Kaparias, I. (2020). Investigating the Impact of Dwell Time on the Reliability
of Urban Light Rail Operations. Urban Rail Transit, 6(2), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40864-020-
00128-1

Cornet, S., Buisson, C., Ramond, F., Bouvarel, P., & Rodriguez, J. (2019). Methods for quantitative assessment
of passenger flow influence on train dwell time in dense traffic areas. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 106, 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.008

Dewei, L., Winnie, D., & Rob, G. (2016). Survey and empirical evaluation of nonhomogeneous arrival process
models with taxi data. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 47(June 2010), 512–525.
https://doi.org/10.1002/atr

Emery, D. (2010). Increasing the capacity of a single-track line. Swiss Transport Research Conference, 15.

Ethiopia Population,. (2021). World Population Review.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ethiopia-population

Francesco, R., Gabriele, M., & Stefano, R. (2016). Complex railway systems: capacity and utilisation of
interconnected networks. European Transport Research Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-
016-0216-6

Gašparík, J., & Cempírek, V. (2020). Railway Infrastructure Capacity in the Open Access Condition: Case
Studies on SŽDC and ŽSR Networks. Transportation Systems Analysis and Assessment, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88929

Getaw, S. A. (2017). Post Completion Sustainability of Ethiopian Railway Project : The Case of Addis Ababa
Light Rail Transit Project ( AALRTP ). 7(November 2007), 7–28.
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.mm.20170701.02

Geurs, K., & Wee, V. (2002). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and
research directions. 127–140.

Guo, B., Zhou, L., Yue, Y., & Tang, J. (2016). A Study on the Practical Carrying Capacity of Large High-Speed
Railway Stations considering Train Set Utilization. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2741479

Gysin, K. (2018). An Investigation of the Influences on Train Dwell Time. Ethz.Ch, Table 1.
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/baug/ivt/ivt-dam/publications/students/601-
700/sa611.pdf

Han, S., Yue, Y., & Zhou, L. (2014). Carrying capacity of railway station by microscopic simulation method.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

 2014 17th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC 2014, October
2014, 2725–2731. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958126

Huber, H., & Herbacek, R. (2012). UIC Leaflet 406- Capacity ,new release. 2–7.

International Trade Administration. (2021). Ethiopia - Road and Railways.

https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/ethiopia-road-and-railways

International Union Of Railways. (2013). Capacity (UIC Code 406). 2nd edition, 56.

Jensen, L. W., Schmidt, M., & Nielsen, O. A. (2020). Determination of infrastructure capacity in railway
networks without the need for a fixed timetable. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 119(July), 102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102751

Jiang, Z., Tan, Y., Wang, F., & Bu, L. (2015). Turnback capacity assessment and delay management at a rail
transit terminal with two-tail tracks. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/369767

Lai, Y. C., & Barkan, C. P. L. (2009). Enhanced parametric railway capacity evaluation tool. Transportation
Research Record, 2117, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3141/2117-05

Lam, W. H. K., Cheung, C. Y., & Poon, Y. F. (1998). A Study of Train Dwelling Time at the Hong Kong Mass
Transit Railway System. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 32(3), 285–295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670320303

Landex, A. (2007). Capacity Statement for Railways. Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, 1–
19.

Landex, Alex, & Kaas, A. H. (2006). Evaluation of railway capacity. Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg
University 2006, 1–22.

Lee, K., Larry, R., & Manoj, M. (2016). Operations management, processes and supply chains. In Solutions:
Business Problem Solving. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420065541.ch22

Li, D., Yin, Y., & He, H. (2018). Testing the Generality of a Passenger Disregarded Train Dwell Time Estimation
Model at Short Stops: Both Comparison and Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, 2018, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8521576

Lindfeldt, A. (2015). Railway capacity analysis delays and infrastructure Anders Lindfeldt. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A850511&dswid=-2900

Lindner, T. (2011). Applicability of the analytical UIC Code 406 compression method for evaluating line and
station capacity. Journal of Rail Transport Planning and Management, 1(1), 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2011.09.002

Ma, M., Zhang, X., & Wang, Z. (2018). Capacity Evaluation and Optimization of Heavy Haul Railway Station
Based on the Simulation of Operation of Station. 149(MECAE), 606–613.
https://doi.org/10.2991/mecae-18.2018.108

Matuska, J. (2017). Railway system accessibility evaluation for wheelchair users: Case study inthe Chech
Republic. 32(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.941396

Mo, B., Ma, Z., Koutsopoulos, H. N., & Zhao, J. (2020). Capacity-Constrained Network Performance Model for
Urban Rail Systems. Transportation Research Record, 2674(5), 59–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120914309

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579

Naranjo, M., Vulevic, A., & Couto, G. (2021). Accessibility in European Peripheral Territories : Analyzing the
Portuguese Mainland Connectivity Patterns from 1985 to 2020. 1–13.

Network Rail. (2016). STATION CAPACITY PLANNING GUIDANCE Network Rail. November, 5.

Oh, Y., Byon, Y. J., Song, J. Y., Kwak, H. C., & Kang, S. (2020). Dwell time estimation using real-time train
operation and smart card-based passenger data: A case study in seoul, south korea. Applied Sciences
(Switzerland), 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020476

Pouryousef, H. (2015). Timetable management technique in railway capacity analysis: Development of the
Hybrid Optimization of Train Schedules (HOTS) model. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1694579964?accountid=188395

Rotoli, F., Navajas Cawood, E., & Ramirez, S. A. (2016a). JRC Publications Repository - Capacity assessment of
railway infrastructure: Tools, methodologies and policy relevance in the EU context.
https://doi.org/10.2791/037759

Rotoli, F., Navajas Cawood, E., & Ramirez, S. A. (2016b). JRC Publications Repository - Capacity assessment of
railway infrastructure: Tools, methodologies and policy relevance in the EU context.
https://doi.org/10.2791/037759

Sekasi, J., & Martens, M. (2021). Assessing the Contributions of Urban Light Rail Transit to the Sustainable
Development of Addis Ababa. 1–22.

Shang, P., Li, R., Liu, Z., Yang, L., & Wang, Y. (2018). Equity-oriented skip-stopping schedule optimization in an
oversaturated urban rail transit network. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
89(December 2020), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.02.016

Takuya, W., Munenori, S., & Takamasa, S. (2016). Method for Identifying “Bottleneck” Stations on Inter-
regional Public Transport Networks Takuya. 57(1), 105–108.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/rtriqr/57/1/57_15/_pdf

Van Den Heuvel, J. (2016). Field experiments with train stopping positions at Schiphol Airport train station in
Amsterdam, Netherlands. Transportation Research Record, 2546(2546), 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2546-04

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3868579