Robeam, Solomon (PhD)Hanna, Dejene2022-03-052023-11-112022-03-052023-11-112021-07http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/12345678/30431Ropeways are potential means of transport that are adaptable to the existing terrain, and an alternative transport solution for difficult topographical landscapes, manmade obstacles, for instance Rivers, lagoons and estuaries. Ropeway decrease environmental impact caused by road construction and energy efficient than most transport systems and can be used in urban transport system to overcome the city traffic by installing intermediate towers. Before 19th centuries, in Ethiopia, China, Japan, Brazil, Newzland and India used traditional cable car transport. Now a days, modern cable care were emerging specially in Latin America, people were using cable car to connect unsuitable terrain type with human or man-made berries and provide new perspective for viewing scenery as recreational activities. The maximum capacity of the existing cable cars is 4000 person per hr with maximum speed of 43.2km and the basic component of the Arial cable car is cabin, a driver, returned terminal, towers and ropes. The objective of this research is to explore an alternative means of transportation mode for the road segments from Koladit junction to Gishen Mariam church. This section of the road is found in a very difficult terrain with combination of steep gradient and winding sharp curves to tackle escarpments and mountainous terrain. The problem of transportation will not be solved only by constructing road up to the church from Koladit junction, but also by introduction of other means of transportation that is suitable for its terrain type. After collecting primary and secondary data from site during field visit, qualitative and quantities, methods adopted to analysis the data. The site visit were made on one of the peak season from between March 17, 2021 up to March 21, 2021 while the Meskel celebration was on March 19. Generally, 55.49% and 64.67% of the pilgrims and peoples living around the route have an interest to use cable car respectively. This helps to estimate the number of people that will use the cable car after implementations and intern the number of users is used for fix the average fair price. The estimated traffic used for economic evaluation of both cable car and roadway are stated in the table below. Table 0-1:- Estimated traffic for cable car Descriptions L/Rover S/Bus L/Bus Total vi Total AADT @2021 estimated by Beza Consulting 164 3 5 172 Percentage composition 95% 2% 3% 1 Total estimated traffic by local administration 20,000 19,070 349 581 20,000 Total Estimated traffic 61,023 3,349 16,278 80,651 Source:- Estimations Table 0-2:- Estimated traffic for road user Descriptions Car L/Rover S/Bus L/Bus S/Truck M/Truck H/Truck Truck & Trailer Total Total AADT @2021 0 164 3 5 68 7 8 1 256 Percentage composition 0 64.06 1.17 1.95 26.5 2.73 3.125 0.39 100 Source:- Estimations and adopted from the BCE data base Economic analysis has carried out using HDM-4 model (version 1.1). The model, which based on life cycle costing, used for assessing the costs and benefits of implementation technologies. Within this framework, two mutually exclusive project alternatives i.e. i) Construction of able car and ii) construction of road, have been considered for assessing the economic viability against the do nothing scenarios. Based on the traffic and engineering assessment, a comparison made between the construction of cable car and implementation of upgrading the existing road to asphalt Concrete road. Summary results of the economic analysis presented in Table 0-3 below. Table 0-3: Economic Analysis: Summary Results (Do-minimum versus With the Project Alternatives) Scenarios Construction of cable car Construction of road way Base Case IRR @ 10.23% 33.1% 26.8 NPV (In Million Birr) 18,851 220 Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) 4.412 4.294 Cost Increased by 20 % IRR @ 10.23% 31.7 24.4 NPV (In Million Birr) 18,625 207 Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) 4.367 3.599 vii Scenarios Construction of cable car Construction of road way Benefits decreased by 20% IRR @ 10.23% 26.7% 23.5 NPV (In Million Birr) 13,716 163 Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) 3.165 3.435 Cost Increased by 20% & Benefits decreased by 20% IRR @ 10.23% 26.0% 21.1 NPV (In Million Birr) 13500 150 Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) 3.13 2.879 Source:- Out put from HDM4 The economic analysis, as well as overall engineering and traffic assessment show that both proposed technologies are economically worthwhile based on direct traffic benefits. However, the economic parameters of cable car is higher than the construction of road. In addition, users benefit for cable car: user cost savings including travel time is more viable than for the implementation of road. The EIRR of the project investment for cable car is 33.1%, which is higher than the EIRR of road construction. Even under the most pessimistic scenario of 20% increase capital cost and 20% decrease in project benefits, it yields an EIRR of 26.0% still higher value from the road construction (i.e., considering the cut-off rate applicable in Ethiopia is 10.23%). In addition, the fair price for transportation of cable car was estimated at an averagely price of 46.25birr per trip. For fair price analysis yearly pilgrim’s growth rate and inflation rate was used. This assessment revels that the installation of cable car on rugged terrain with man mad and natural barriers, with seasonal traffic, with limited right-of-way and with beautiful landscape areas, is more viable than construction of roadways. Hence, this research presents the cost benefit analysis between cable car and road way construction in the case of Koladit Junction to Gishen Mariam Church which is located in northern part of Ethiopia around 482 km from Addis Ababa.en-USThesis