Capstone Final.pdf

Improvement Design of Intersections at Ortigas Avenue Extension Intersecting Pres. Quezon St., A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue (Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal)

Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M. Ortiza, Patrick Joseph G. CE52FB1

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

March 2016 i

APPROVAL SHEET The design project entitled "Improvement Design of Intersections at Ortigas Avenue Extension Intersecting Pres. Quezon St., A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue (Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal)" prepared by Jasmine Rose O. Coguiron, Joemar L. Gragasin, Aileen Cates M. Olicia and Patrick Joseph G. Ortiza of the Civil Engineering Department was examined and evaluated by the members of the Students Design Evaluation Panel, and is hereby recommended for approval.

Engr. Nabor Gaviola External Adviser

Mr. Hernando Gozon Internal Adviser

Dr. Amelia Marquez Panel

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Panel Chair

ii

ABSTRACT

The project focuses mainly on the traffic flow system that is implemented in an intersection. Due to the widespread traffic congestion that occurs in most intersections, long queuing for the road users, longer trip times and slower speed occurs simultaneously. Thus, this calls for the need to control intersections properly in order to provide appropriate service for road users. The design of grade separation with partial separation is an option considered since it allows certain turning point movement to freely flow thus reducing conflicts that occur in the at-grade intersection. The type of control used in the intersection is also considered since it provides control to the traffic demand that flows within the intersection. Certain limits occur since design improvement of an intersection requires feasibility of a design project. The designers are economically constraint since cost of a design project is of limited budget. Thus, duration must also be prompted since time constraint is equivalent to a certain cost. Lastly, the sustainability of a project must also be a need and will benefit the users of the design. Considering the influence of these limitations and designs, partial grade separation can help utilize the intersection and reduce conflict when operated with pre-timed traffic signal control. In the considered intersection of Ortigas Avenue Ext. and Pres. Quezon St., in order to control the traffic demand that occurs in the intersection, a pre-timed traffic control can be used to maximize the intersection. On the other hand, the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Ext. and A. Bonifacio Avenue & Felix Avenue, the use of grade separated through flyover prevails in order to reduce conflict in the intersection which is operated with pre-timed traffic control that will correspond to the traffic demand that will occur in the intersection.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Improvement Design of Intersections at Ortigas Avenue Extension Intersecting Pres. Quezon St., A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue (Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal)................................................................... i APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 :

PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 1

1.1

The Project .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3

Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1

General Objective .................................................................................................................. 5

1.3.2

Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................ 5

1.4

The Client ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5

Project Scope and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 5

1.6

Project Development ..................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 :

DESIGN INPUTS ............................................................................................................... 8

2.1

Project Description......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2

Site Investigation and Road Condition ........................................................................................... 9

2.2.1

Traffic Flow Condition ............................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2

Flood Hazard Map ............................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3

Topographic Map ................................................................................................................. 13

2.2.4

Existing Lane Assignments .................................................................................................. 14

2.2.5

Traffic Volume Counts for Intersection ................................................................................. 17

2.3

Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 24

2.3.1

Level of Service for Intersection at Pres. Quezon St. .......................................................... 25

2.3.2

Level of Service for Intersection at Cainta Junction ............................................................. 25

2.4

Projected Level of Service of the Road ........................................................................................ 26

2.4.1

Projected Level of Service for Pres. Quezon St. .................................................................. 26

2.4.2

Projected Level of Service for Cainta Junction .................................................................... 26 iv

2.5

Related Literature ........................................................................................................................ 27

CHAPTER 3 : 3.1

CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS ....................................................... 29

Design Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.1.1

Economic Constraint (Cost) ................................................................................................. 29

3.1.2

Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour) ................................................................................ 29

3.1.3

Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) ............................................................................... 29

3.2

Trade-Offs ................................................................................................................................... 30

3.2.1

Grade Separation Trade-Offs .............................................................................................. 30

3.2.2

Controlled Intersection Trade-Offs ....................................................................................... 33

3.3

Designer’s Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................. 34

3.3.1

Designer’s Raw Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................................................. 35

3.3.2

Designer’s Raw Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection ................................................... 39

3.4

Trade-Off Assessments ............................................................................................................... 45

3.4.1

Trade-offs Assessment (Grade Separation) ........................................................................ 45

3.4.2

Trade-offs Assessment (Controlled Intersection) ................................................................. 47

3.4.3

Trade-Off Assessments for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection .................................................. 49

3.4.4

Trade-Off Assessments for Cainta Junction Intersection ..................................................... 50

3.5

Design Standards ........................................................................................................................ 51

CHAPTER 4 : 4.1

DESIGN STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 52

Design Methodology .................................................................................................................... 52

4.1.1

Traffic Analysis Process ...................................................................................................... 52

4.1.2

Geometric Design Process .................................................................................................. 54

4.1.3

Intersection Traffic Signal Design Process .......................................................................... 56

4.2

Traffic Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 58

4.2.1

Vehicle Volume Projection ................................................................................................... 59

4.2.2

Period of Flow ...................................................................................................................... 62

4.2.3

Peak Hour Factor................................................................................................................. 62

4.2.4

Design Hourly Volume ......................................................................................................... 63

4.2.5

Saturation Flow .................................................................................................................... 64

4.3

Intersection Traffic Signal Design ................................................................................................ 56

4.3.1

Traffic Warrant Analysis ....................................................................................................... 56 v

4.3.2

Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Design .......................................................................................... 62

4.3.3

Actuated Traffic Signal Design............................................................................................. 65

4.4

Geometric Design ........................................................................................................................ 69

4.5

Cost - Benefit Analysis................................................................................................................. 99

4.6

Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................................................... 101

4.6.1

Traffic Phase at Pres. Quezon St. ..................................................................................... 101

4.6.2

Design Scheme 1: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal ...................................................................... 102

4.6.3

Design Scheme 2: Actuated Traffic Signal......................................................................... 105

4.7

Ortigas Avenue Extension and A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. Intersection ........................... 107

4.7.1

Design Scheme 1: Through Flyover .................................................................................. 107

4.7.2

Design Scheme 2: Left-Turn Flyover ................................................................................. 113

4.8

Validation of the Effects of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards ............................... 119

4.8.1

Final Designer’s Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection ....................................... 119

4.8.2

Final Designer’s Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection ................................................. 123

4.9

Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 128

4.9.1

At Pres. Quezon St. Intersection........................................................................................ 128

4.9.2

At Cainta Junction Intersection .......................................................................................... 129

4.10

Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in the Final Design ....................... 130

4.10.1

At Pres. Quezon St. Intersection........................................................................................ 130

4.10.2

At Cainta Junction Intersection .......................................................................................... 133

CHAPTER 5 :

FINAL DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 136

5.1

Intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and Pres. Quezon St. ............................................................. 136

5.2

Intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and A. Bonifacio Ave. & Felix Ave. ......................................... 137

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 139 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 140 APPENDIX A: SIGNAL TIMMING DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS ............................................. 140 APPENDIX B: INITIAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................. 143 B.1 President Quezon St. Intersection .............................................................................................. 143 B.2 Cainta Junction Intersection ....................................................................................................... 144 APPENDIX C: PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTION ......................................................................... 148 C.1 President Quezon St. Intersection .............................................................................................. 148 vi

C.2 Cainta Junction Intersection ....................................................................................................... 151 APPENDIX D: COMPUTATION OF VEHICLE CAPACITY RATIO AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ............ 154 D.1 President Quezon St. Intersection .............................................................................................. 154 D.2 Cainta Junction Intersection ....................................................................................................... 155 APPENDIX E: COMPUTATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN ................................................................. 156 APPENDIX F: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (PRE-TIMED TRAFFIC SIGNAL) .............................................................................................................................................................. 161 APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (ACTUATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL) .............................................................................................................................................................. 163 APPENDIX H: FINAL COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................... 169 C.1 President Quezon St. Intersection .............................................................................................. 169 C.2 Cainta Junction Intersection ....................................................................................................... 170 APPENDIX I: MINUTES OF MEETING ................................................................................................. 174 Title Defense: ............................................................................................................................................ 174 TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT............................................................................................................. 174 ALONG ORTIGAS AVENUE EXTENSION (PASIG CITY TO CAINTA, RIZAL) ........................................ 174

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Present Traffic Condition at Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street intersection. .. 1 Figure 1-2: Traffic Condition at Cainta Junction - Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue intersecting Ortigas Avenue Extension .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-3: Location of the Project ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-4: Location of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street Intersection ............................. 4 Figure 1-5: Location of Imelda Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue intersecting Ortigas Avenue Extension (Cainta Junction) ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1-6: Flowchart of Project Development ............................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-1: Project Location 1 ........................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-2: Project Location 2 ........................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2-3: Intersection Connecting Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street .......................... 10 Figure 2-4: Intersection Connecting Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue .... 10 Figure 2-5: Along Ortigas Avenue Extension ............................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-6: Flood Hazard Map at Pres. Quezon St. ..................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-7: Flood Hazard Map at Cainta Junction ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-8: Topographic Map at Pres. Quezon St. ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-9: Topographic Map at Cainta Junction ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-10: Traffic Lane Assignment at Pres. Quezon St. .......................................................................... 15 Figure 2-11: Traffic Lane Assignment at Cainta Junction ............................................................................ 16 Figure 2-12: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)............................................. 20 Figure 2-13: Vehicle Composition Graph from Pres. Quezon St.................................................................. 20 Figure 2-14: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge ...................................................... 20 Figure 2-15: Vehicle Composition Graph from A. Bonifacio Avenue............................................................ 22 Figure 2-16: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)............................................. 23 Figure 2-17: Vehicle Composition Graph from Felix Avenue ....................................................................... 23 Figure 2-18: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound)............................................ 23 Figure 3-1: Top View of Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Av.e Ext.) ................................... 31 Figure 3-2: Perspective View of Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Av.e Ext.) ...................... 31 Figure 3-3: Top View of Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Roads (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-4: Perspective View of Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Roads (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) .................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-5: Pre – Timed Traffic Signal ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-6: Actuated Traffic Signal .............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference........................................................................................ 35 Figure 3-8: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) .......................................... 37 Figure 3-9: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour) ......................... 37 Figure 3-10: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) ....................... 38 Figure 3-11: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) ........................................ 41 viii

Figure 3-12: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour) ....................... 41 Figure 3-13: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint in Through Flyover (Benefit Cost) .................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 3-14: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Benefit Cost) ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 3-15: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Through Flyover (Sub trade-offs) .................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 3-16: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Sub trade-offs) .................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3-17: Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) ..................................................... 46 Figure 3-18: Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Road (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 3-19: Pre - Timed Traffic Signal ........................................................................................................ 48 Figure 3-20: Actuated Traffic Signal ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 4-1: Traffic Analysis Process ............................................................................................................ 53 Figure 4-2: Geometric Design Process ........................................................................................................ 55 Figure 4-3: Controlled Intersection Design Process..................................................................................... 57 Figure 4-4: Graphs for Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant...................................................................... 60 Figure 4-5: Graphs for Peak Hour Volume Warrant ..................................................................................... 61 Figure 4-6: Traffic Growth Graph for Cainta Junction Intersection ............................................................... 72 Figure 4-7: Design Standard for Philippine National Highway ..................................................................... 75 Figure 4-8: Pres. Quezon St. Traffic Signal (Phase 1) ............................................................................... 101 Figure 4-9: Pres. Quezon St. Traffic Signal (Phase 2) ............................................................................... 102 Figure 4-10: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St. Level of Service ............................................. 103 Figure 4-11: Actuated Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St. Level of Service ................................................ 105 Figure 4-12: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Through Flyover (Phase 1) ............................................. 108 Figure 4-13: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Through Flyover (Phase 2) ............................................. 108 Figure 4-14: Through Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service .............. 109 Figure 4-15: Through Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service ................ 111 Figure 4-16: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Left-Turn Flyovers (Phase 1) .......................................... 114 Figure 4-17: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Left-Turn Flyovers (Phase 2) .......................................... 114 Figure 4-18: Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service ............ 115 Figure 4-19: Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service ............... 117 Figure 4-20: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) ...................................... 120 Figure 4-21: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Duration Cost) ............... 121 Figure 4-22: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost Ratio) ............ 122 Figure 4-23: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) ...................................... 124 Figure 4-24: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Duration Cost) ............... 125 Figure 4-25: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) ..................... 125 Figure 4-26: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) ..................... 126 ix

Figure 4-27: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Through Flyover (Sub-trade-offs) .................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Figure 4-28: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Sub-trade-offs) .................................................................................................................................................................. 128 Figure 4-29: Sensitivity Analysis Ranking at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection .............................................. 129 Figure 4-30: Sensitivity Analysis at Cainta Junction Intersection ............................................................... 130 Figure 4-31: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) ....................... 131 Figure 4-32: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Constructability) .............. 132 Figure 4-33: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Sustainability) ................. 132 Figure 4-34: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Economic) ...................... 133 Figure 4-35: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Constructability) ............. 134 Figure 4-36: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Sustainability) ................. 135 Figure 4-37: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) ....................... 135 Figure 5-1: Top View of Through Flyover along Ortigas Avenue Extension .............................................. 137 Figure 5-2: Perspective View of Through Flyover along Ortigas Avenue Extension .................................. 138

x

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Turning Movement for Road Segments at Pres. Quezon St. ...................................................... 15 Table 2-2: Turning Movement for Road Segments at Cainta Junction ........................................................ 16 Table 2-3: Growth Rate Factor .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2-4: Average Annual Daily Traffic at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) ........................................................... 18 Table 2-5: Peak Hour Volume at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) .......................................................................... 18 Table 2-6: Projected Average Annual Daily Traffic at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) ........................................... 19 Table 2-7: Peak Hour Volume at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) .......................................................................... 19 Table 2-8: Average Annual Daily Traffic at Cainta Junction (2015) ............................................................. 21 Table 2-9: Peak Hour Volume at Cainta Junction (2015) ............................................................................. 21 Table 2-10: Level of Service ........................................................................................................................ 24 Table 2-11: Volume Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) .................................................................. 25 Table 2-12: Volume Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) .................................................................. 25 Table 2-13: Volume Capacity Ratio at Cainta Junction (2015) .................................................................... 25 Table 2-14: Projected Vehicle Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. ............................................................. 26 Table 2-15: Projected Vehicle Capacity Ratio at Cainta Junction ................................................................ 27 Table 3-1: Raw Designer's Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (Pre-Timed against Actuated) ........ 35 Table 3-2: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Economic) ........................................................ 36 Table 3-3: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) .......................................................... 36 Table 3-4: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Constructability) ............................................... 37 Table 3-5: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Constructability).................................................. 37 Table 3-6: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Sustainability) .................................................. 38 Table 3-7: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Sustainability) ..................................................... 38 Table 3-8: Raw Designer's Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection (Through Flyover against Left-Turn Flyover & Pre-Timed against Actuated) ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 3-9: Initial Estimate of the Through Flyover (Economic) .................................................................... 40 Table 3-10: Initial Estimate of the Left Turn Flyover (Economic) ................................................................. 40 Table 3-11: Initial Estimate of the Through Flyover (Constructability) .......................................................... 41 Table 3-12: Initial Estimate of the Left Turn Flyover (Constructability)......................................................... 41 Table 3-13: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Sustainability) ................... 42 Table 3-14: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Sustainability) ...................... 42 Table 3-15: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Sustainability) .................. 42 Table 3-16: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Sustainability)..................... 42 Table 3-17: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Economic)......................... 43 Table 3-18: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Economic) ........................... 43 Table 3-19: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Economic) ....................... 44 Table 3-20: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Economic) .......................... 44 Table 4-1: Volume Capacity Ratio and Level of Service at Pres. Quezon St. .............................................. 58 Table 4-2: Volume Capacity Ratio and Level of Service at Cainta Junction ................................................ 58 Table 4-3: Projected Vehicle Volume for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (A.M. Peak) .................................. 59 xi

Table 4-4: Projected Vehicle Volume for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (P.M. Peak) .................................. 60 Table 4-5: Projected Vehicle Volume for Cainta Junction Intersection (A.M. Peak)..................................... 60 Table 4-6: Projected Vehicle Volume for Cainta Junction Intersection (P.M. Peak)..................................... 61 Table 4-7: Period of Flow Volume for the First 15-Minute at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ........................ 62 Table 4-8: Period of Flow Volume for the First 15-Minute at Cainta Junction Intersection ........................... 62 Table 4-9: Peak Hour Factor at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection .................................................................... 63 Table 4-10: Peak Hour Factor at Cainta Junction Intersection..................................................................... 63 Table 4-11: Design Hourly Volume at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection .......................................................... 64 Table 4-12: Design Hourly Volume at Cainta Junction Intersection ............................................................. 64 Table 4-13: Saturation Flow at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ..................................................................... 55 Table 4-14: Saturation Flow at Cainta Junction Intersection ........................................................................ 55 Table 4-15: Traffic Movement and Maximum Volume Count at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................... 56 Table 4-16: Traffic Movement and Maximum Volume Count at Cainta Junction Intersection ...................... 56 Table 4-17: Minimum Vehicular Volume Condition ...................................................................................... 57 Table 4-18: Interruption of Continuous Flow ................................................................................................ 58 Table 4-19: Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction ......................................................................... 58 Table 4-20: Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. ...................................................................... 59 Table 4-21: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. ....................................................................... 59 Table 4-22: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction .......................................................................... 60 Table 4-23: Peak Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. ....................................................................... 61 Table 4-24: Peak Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction ......................................................................... 62 Table 4-25: Phase Plan at Pres. Quezon St. (Pre-Timed Traffic Signal) ..................................................... 62 Table 4-26: Phase Plan at Cainta Junction (Pre-Timed Traffic Signal) ........................................................ 63 Table 4-27: Phase Plan at Pres. Quezon St. (Actuated Traffic Signal) ........................................................ 65 Table 4-28: Phase Plan at Cainta Junction (Actuated Traffic Signal) .......................................................... 66 Table 4-29: Actuated Traffic Signal Phasing at Pres. Quezon St................................................................. 67 Table 4-30: Actuated Traffic Signal Phasing at Cainta Junction .................................................................. 67 Table 4-31: Design Standard Output ........................................................................................................... 69 Table 4-32: Population Growth Rates .......................................................................................................... 70 Table 4-33: Traffic Demand ......................................................................................................................... 70 Table 4-34: Traffic Growth Rates ................................................................................................................. 70 Table 4-35: Projected AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) for Cainta Junction Intersection ..................... 71 Table 4-36: Drivers Eye and Object Height ................................................................................................. 72 Table 4-37: Stopping Sight Distance ........................................................................................................... 74 Table 4-38: Vehicle Operation Cost Value ................................................................................................. 100 Table 4-39: Value of Time Factors............................................................................................................. 100 Table 4-40: Cost Benefit Analysis Result at Pres. Quezon St. .................................................................. 100 Table 4-41: Cost Benefit Analysis Result at Cainta Junction ..................................................................... 100 Table 4-42: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. ............................................ 104 Table 4-43: Intersection Output Summary (Pre-Timed) ............................................................................. 104 Table 4-44: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 105 xii

Table 4-45: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. ............................................ 106 Table 4-46: Intersection Output Summary (Actuated)................................................................................ 106 Table 4-47: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 107 Table 4-48: Design Result of Through Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction ............. 110 Table 4-49: Intersection Output Summary (Through Flyover with Pre-Timed) ........................................... 110 Table 4-50: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 111 Table 4-51: Design Result of Through Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction ............... 112 Table 4-52: Intersection Output Summary (Through Flyover with Actuated) ............................................. 112 Table 4-53: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 113 Table 4-54: Design Result of Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction............ 116 Table 4-55: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed).......................................... 116 Table 4-56: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 117 Table 4-57: Design Result of Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction .............. 118 Table 4-58: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated) ............................................ 118 Table 4-59: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point .......................................................................... 119 Table 4-60: Final Designer’s Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection ............................................ 119 Table 4-61: Summary of Final Estimate for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................................................ 120 Table 4-62: Estimate of Design Schemes (Economic)............................................................................... 120 Table 4-63: Estimate of Design Schemes (Constructability) ...................................................................... 121 Table 4-64: Estimate of Design Schemes (Sustainability) ......................................................................... 121 Table 4-65: Final Raw Designer’s Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection.............................................. 123 Table 4-66: Summary of Final Estimate for Cainta Intersection ................................................................. 123 Table 4-67: Estimate of Design Schemes (Economic)............................................................................... 123 Table 4-68: Estimate of Design Schemes (Constructability) ...................................................................... 124 Table 4-69: Estimate of Through Fly-over (Sustainability) ......................................................................... 125 Table 4-70: Estimate of Left turn Fly-over (Sustainability) ......................................................................... 125 Table 4-71: Final Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal ....................................................................... 126 Table 4-72: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal .......................................................................... 126 Table 4-73: Final Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left Turn Flyover) ......................................... 127 Table 4-74: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left Turn Flyover) ............................................ 127 Table 4-75: Sensitivity Analysis at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection.............................................................. 128 Table 4-76: Sensitivity Analysis at Cainta Junction Intersection ................................................................ 129 Table 5-1: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. .............................................. 136 Table 5-2: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction ................................................. 138

xiii

CHAPTER 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 The Project The project is a design for the improvement of traffic flow along Ortigas Avenue Extension from Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal. The project intends to make light of the traffic congestion that occurs in the intersection of Pres. Quezon Street up to the intersection at Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue (Cainta Junction), that leads to give commuters a longer trip times and slower speed and long queuing for the vehicles. Ortigas Avenue is a highway traversing to the eastern part of Metro Manila and the western part of the province of Rizal. The avenue’s extension part in the mentioned intersections experience great traffic congestion due to the number of cities and towns that meet in this point in order to access Metro Manila from the rest of the province of Rizal in the fastest possible way. Besides, the number of industrial and commercial establishments and residential areas found adjacent to the road adds up to the heavy volume of traffic flow along the road especially during peak hours. The purpose of the design is to improve the traffic flow condition at the avenue extension from Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal by applying engineering solutions to help maximize the use of the road extension. The designers will present possible trade-offs of grade separation (namely through flyover and left-turn flyover) and traffic network operations (namely pre-timed and actuated traffic signal control) for the design of the traffic flow in order to have a smooth stream for the intersections and synchronize flow of vehicle traveling in the highway.

Figure 1-1: Present Traffic Condition at Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street intersection. 1

Figure 1-2: Traffic Condition at Cainta Junction - Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue intersecting Ortigas Avenue Extension 1.2 Project Location The project is located in Brgy. Sta Lucia, Pasig City and Brgy.Sto. Domingo, Cainta, Rizal. It begins in the intersection of Pres. Quezon Street and Ortigas Avenue Extension located in Pasig City up to the Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue Intersection in Cainta, Rizal. This portion of Ortigas Avenue Extension is included in the designated component of Radial Road 5 (R-5). It is also considered as one of the primary roads by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) since it connects cities with a population of greater than 100,000 and it has a routing number of 60.This stretches of Ortigas Avenue Extension functions to connect the towns from the province of Rizal to Metro Manila.

2

Figure 1-3: Location of the Project (Source: MapQuest)

3

Figure 1-4: Location of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street Intersection

Figure 1-5: Location of Imelda Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue intersecting Ortigas Avenue Extension (Cainta Junction)

4

1.3 Project Objectives 1.3.1 General Objective The general objective of the project is to design and plot the traffic flow system in order to improve the movement of the circulation of vehicles utilizing the extension part of the Ortigas Avenue that will similarly enable highway safety through safeguarding the efficient and liable flow of traffic. 1.3.2 Specific Objectives The specific objectives of the project are as follows:  To design a traffic flow system that will be appropriate on each of the intersections.  To improve the level of service and capacity of the avenue extension and reduce the number of significant types of conflict in the mentioned intersections.  To determine the effects of multiple constraints, tradeoffs, codes and standards that will meet the demands of the client. 1.4 The Client The Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH),which is represented by Rogelio S. Crespo (District Engineer for DPWH Rizal, District 1) and Roberto S. Nicolas (District Engineer for DPWH Metro Manila, District 1). The DPWH is the executive department responsible for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of infrastructures such as bridges, flood control systems, national roads, and other public works. 1.5 Project Scope and Limitations The designer shall provide and focus only on the following stated below:  Existing and Projected Traffic Data Analysis along Ortigas Avenue Extension  Warrant analysis of the intersections  Traffic signal timing design  The cost estimate for the design of proposed trade-offs.  Geometric design of proposed trade-offs.  The traffic flow improvement design based on the effects of multiple constraints, tradeoffs and standards. The following shall not be covered by the services of the designer:  Complete details of construction and management of the traffic signalization.  Details of the hardware characteristics of the signalization.  Design of the wiring details of the traffic signals.  The geologic conditions of the intersections.  Structural design and details of the proposed trade-offs. 5

 The design of the highway drainage structures along the road.  The drivers have a disciplined response to the traffic system. 1.6 Project Development The designers planned for the design of the traffic flow improvement of the intersections along Ortigas Avenue Extension from Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal [specifically the intersection at Pres. Quezon Street up to intersection of Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue (Cainta Junction)] shown in Figure 1-6. The design starts with the conceptualization of the project. The designers put into words what will be the project and where it is located. The next step is the collection of data for the said intersections. Important data such as the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), time travel surveys and intersection traffic counts along the Ortigas Avenue Extension from Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal will have to be gathered. The data that are attained will serve as a basis that the intersection considered is in need of traffic flow improvement and also to determine if the existing intersection meets the level of service requirements. Traffic analysis is the next phase that includes the analysis of the data that were gathered and the identification of the traffic problem and the possible solutions. The next stage is the primary design, in which the designers will design possible engineering solutions to the problem and traffic flow changes for the intersections and the forecasting of the traffic volume and level of service for the road and intersections. This includes the consideration of the effects of multiple constraints, tradeoffs and standards to the primary design. The next step is the validation and interpretation of the results. In this phase, the designers will compare the proposed tradeoffs as to what option is more beneficial for the project. The last phase is the final design in which the designers will present the design and analysis of the governing tradeoff.

6

Project Conceptualization

Validation and Interpretation of Analysis Results

Final Design

•Preparation of the Project Title

•Final Cost Estimate •Cost Benefit Analysis / Final Designer's Ranking •Choosing between Options

•Presentation of the Prevailing Trade-off

Data Collection

Primary Design

•Data Gathering of Intersection Traffic Data •Research Informations of Existing Project Data •Actual Map of the Location

•Traffic Design Period •Level of Service and Traffic Volume Forecast

Traffic Data Analysis

Constraints, Trade-offs And Standards

•Analysis of the Data Gathered •Identifying Traffic Problem and Improvement

•Consideration of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

Figure 1-6: Flowchart of Project Development 7

CHAPTER 2 : DESIGN INPUTS 2.1 Project Description The proposed design project is located along Ortigas Avenue Extension, from Pasig City to Cainta, Rizal. Two of the congested intersection along the stretch is the focus of this project. The first intersection (Fig. 21) connects Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St., which is T-Intersection and the other intersection (Fig. 2-2) connects Ortigas Avenue Extension, Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue, which is a four-leg intersection. The intersections are the route taken to reach business and commercial areas and it is experiencing conflict points when traffic streams are moving in different directions and interfere with each other. The design purpose is to improve the traffic flow of the vehicle at the intersections. This facilitates highway safety by ensuring the orderly and predictable movement of all traffic on the intersection. It helps to reduce the queuing time of the vehicles and longer trip time for passengers entering the intersection.

Figure 2-1: Project Location 1

8

Figure 2-2: Project Location 2

2.2 Site Investigation and Road Condition The present condition of both intersections at Pres. Quezon St. and Cainta Junction can accommodate the traffic volume during normal hours. On the other hand, during peak hours the traffic volume increases, thus, paved for congestion to occur. 2.2.1 Traffic Flow Condition The images below show the traffic situation on the intersections and its situation during rush hours. Fig. 2-3 shows the top view of intersection connecting Pres. Quezon Street on the north and Ortigas Avenue Extension on going east and west directions. Fig. 2-4 shows the top view of the intersection connecting A. Bonifacio Ave. on the south, Felix Ave. on the north and Ortigas Ave. Extension on going east and west directions. On the other hand, Fig. 2-5 describes the traffic condition along Ortigas Avenue Extension that approaches the Cainta Junction intersection. The vehicles shown are approaching the intersection from Ortigas and going to Antipolo City on the right and vice versa on the left image.

9

Figure 2-3: Intersection Connecting Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street (Source: Google Map)

Figure 2-4: Intersection Connecting Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue (Source: Google Map)

10

Figure 2-5: Along Ortigas Avenue Extension 2.2.2 Flood Hazard Map Since flooding that occurs on roadways causes vehicular speeds to slow down that often leads to traffic congestion, the status of the locations of the project on the flood hazard map is determined. Thus, the flood hazard map that surrounds the vicinity of the project is included by the designer’s because it can influence the design of the project. As shown in Figure 2-6 and 2-7, the red shade indicates that the flood level in the areas is prone to high flood hazard with the range of greater than 1.50 meters. The orange shade indicate moderate flood hazard in the area with the range of 0.50 meters to 1.50 meters and the yellow shade indicates low flood hazard areas with the range of 0.10 meters to 0.50 meters. Based on the figure shown below, the location of the Pres. Quezon St. (Fig. 2-6) has a high flood hazard that ranges greater than 1.50 meters while the location of Cainta Junction (Fig. 2-7) has a low to moderate flood hazard that ranges from 0.10 meters to 0.50 meters up to 0.50 meters to 1.50 meters.

11

Figure 2-6: Flood Hazard Map at Pres. Quezon St. (Source: www.nababaha.com)

Figure 2-7: Flood Hazard Map at Cainta Junction (Source: www.nababaha.com) 12

2.2.3 Topographic Map The designers provided the topographic map to show the elevation of the locations of the project and to indicate other details about the project location. Figure 2-8 and 2-9 shows the topographic map of Pasig City and Cainta, Rizal. As shown, the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon is elevated eleven (11) meters above sea level while the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue is elevated ten (10) meters above sea level.

Figure 2-8: Topographic Map at Pres. Quezon St. (Source: http://en-ph.topographic-map.com)

13

Elevation: 10 m

Figure 2-9: Topographic Map at Cainta Junction (Source: http://en-ph.topographic-map.com) 2.2.4 Existing Lane Assignments The figure shows the traffic lane assignments for the intersections of Pres. Quezon St. and Cainta Junction. The numbers and arrows represent the turning movement of vehicles while letters represent the road carriageways as shown. 2.2.4.1 Existing Lane Assignments for Intersection at Pres. Quezon St. The road segment A is the westbound direction of Ortigas Avenue Extension, while the eastbound direction is road segment C. The northbound direction of Pres. Quezon St. is road segment B.

14

Figure 2-10: Traffic Lane Assignment at Pres. Quezon St. Table 2-1 shows the turning movement of each road segment at the intersection of Ortigas Extension and Pres. Quezon St. As shown from Figure 2-10, the road segments are represented by letters A, B, and C. The turning movements for road segment A are represented by the turning numbers 1 – 2; for road segment B, turning number 3 and for road segment C, turning numbers 4. Table 2-1: Turning Movement for Road Segments at Pres. Quezon St. Road Turn Turn From Going to Segment No. 1 Right Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. A (Eastbound) 2 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge B 3 Right Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge C 4 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 2.2.4.2 Existing Lane Assignments for intersection at Cainta Junction The road segment A is the southbound direction of A. Bonifacio Ave., while the northbound direction of Felix Ave. is road segment C. The eastbound direction of Ortigas Avenue Extension is road segment B, while the westbound direction is road segment D.

15

Figure 2-11: Traffic Lane Assignment at Cainta Junction Table 2-2 shows the turning movement of each road segment at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue. As shown from Figure 2-11, the road segments are represented by letters A, B, C, and D. The turning movements for road segment Aare represented by the turning numbers 1 – 3; for road segment B, turning numbers 4 – 5; for road segment C, turning numbers 6 – 8, and for road segment D turning numbers 9 – 10. Table 2-2: Turning Movement for Road Segments at Cainta Junction Road Turn Turn From Going to Segment No 1 Left Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio A 2 Through Felix Ave. Ave. 3 Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 4 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) B (Eastbound) 5 Right Felix Ave. 6 Left Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) C 7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 8 Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 9 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) D (Westbound) 10 Right A. Bonifacio Ave. 16

2.2.5 Traffic Volume Counts for Intersection The data for the traffic volume counts classify the level of service of the road. The data identifies if the road needs to be improved or an alternate route needed to be provided to solve the excessive amount of traffic. For the intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and Pres. Quezon St., the data of traffic volume counts were from the office of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) that is dated in the year of 2010. In order for the designers to have the present volume of data, the following formula was used. Equation 2-1: Future Value F

=

P (1+ gr)n

where: F = projected vehicle volume in n years P = present volume of vehicles gr = growth rate in percentage (refer to Table 2-3 below) n = number of years 2.2.5.1 Growth Rate Factor The table below shows the Annual Growth Rate Factor of a specific vehicle type. The annual growth rate factor is the data used to project the volume of each specific vehicle type that passes through the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street and the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue. Table 2-3: Growth Rate Factor (Source: DPWH Atlas) Annual Vehicle Growth Rate Factor Motorcycle 2.23% Passenger Car 3.80% Passenger Utility 2.23% Goods Utility 1.93% Small Bus 2.23% Large Bus 2.23% Rigid Truck (2 Axles) 1.93% Rigid Truck (3+ Axles) 1.93% Truck Semi-trailer (3&4 Axles) 1.93% Truck Semi-trailer (5+ Axles) 1.93% Truck Trailers (4 Axles) 1.93% Truck Trailer (5+ Axles) 1.93% 17

2.2.5.2 Traffic Volume Counts for Intersection at Pres. Quezon St. The table below shows the volume count during A.M peak hours, P.M peak hours and normal hours and is quantified using the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data of the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street. The data is from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA). Table 2-4 shows the actual Average Annual Daily Traffic of every vehicle type like cars, public utility jeepneys (PUJs), public utility buses (PUBs), trucks, motorcycles, and tricycles for each turning point from Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon Street. The Peak Hour Volume (A.M. and P.M.) is shown at Table 2-5. Table 2-4: Average Annual Daily Traffic at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) (Source: MMDA) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1

1880

0

2

207

635

185

2909

2

13747

3717

411

712

3953

29

22569

3

2219

1226

0

93

1195

84

4817

4 10912 4498 340 733 3709 37 20229 * PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle Table 2-5: Peak Hour Volume at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) (Source: MMDA) A.M. Peak Hour Volume (7:00 AM - 8:00 AM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri 1 143 0 2 8 45 21 2 974 324 37 11 418 5 3 196 163 0 3 231 13 4 728 372 15 22 282 5 P.M. Peak Hour Volume (6:00 PM - 7:00 PM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri 1 133 0 0 13 38 5 2 829 258 29 43 241 2 3 173 86 0 9 32 4 4 964 358 29 29 349 2

Total 219 1769 606 1424

Total 189 1402 304 1731 18

* PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle Table 2-6 shows the projected average annual daily traffic of every vehicle type like cars, public utility jeepneys (PUJs), public utility buses (PUBs), trucks, motorcycles, and tricycles for each turning point for the year 2015. Table 2-7 shows the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Volume. Table 2-6: Projected Average Annual Daily Traffic at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1

2266

0

2

228

709

207

3411

2

16566

4151

459

783

4414

32

26405

3

2674

1369

0

102

1334

94

5574

4 13150 5023 380 807 4142 41 23541 * PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle Table 2-7: Peak Hour Volume at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) A.M. Peak Hour Volume (7:00 AM - 8:00 AM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1 172 0 2 9 50 23 257 2 1174 362 41 12 467 6 2061 3 236 182 0 3 258 15 694 4 877 415 17 24 315 6 1654 P.M. Peak Hour Volume (6:00 PM - 7:00 PM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1 160 0 0 14 42 6 223 2 999 288 32 47 269 2 1638 3 208 96 0 10 36 4 355 4 1162 400 32 32 390 2 2018 * PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle

19

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 17%

1%

3% 2% 14%

63%

CAR PUJ PUB TRUCK MOTORCYCLE TRICYLE

Figure 2-12: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

Pres. Quezon St. 2% 24% 48%

2% 0%

CAR PUJ PUB TRUCK MOTORCYCLE TRICYLE

24%

Figure 2-13: Vehicle Composition Graph from Pres. Quezon St.

Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 0% 20%

CAR PUJ

3% 2%

PUB 56%

19%

TRUCK MOTORCYCLE TRICYLE

Figure 2-14: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 20

Figure 2-12 to Figure 2-14 shows the composition of vehicles passing through the intersection coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound), Pres. Quezon Street and Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge. The most vehicle type that is passing through to all connecting roads on that intersection is private cars. 2.2.5.3 Traffic Volume Counts for intersection at Cainta Junction The data for the traffic volume counts classify the level of service of the road. The data identifies if the road needs to be improved or an alternate route needed to be provided to solve the excessive amount of traffic. The table below shows the volume count during A.M peak hours, P.M peak hours and normal hours and is quantified using the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data. The following data were obtained through the use of road surveys conducted by the designers. Table 2-8 shows the actual Average Annual Daily Traffic of every vehicle type like cars, public utility jeepneys (PUJs), public utility buses (PUBs), trucks, motorcycles, and tricycles for each turning point from Ortigas Avenue Extension (Westbound and Eastbound), Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue. Table 2-9 shows the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Volume. Table 2-8: Average Annual Daily Traffic at Cainta Junction (2015) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1 1316 1372 70 70 1134 84 4046 2 1848 1372 0 280 2352 112 5964 3 448 42 0 98 462 126 1176 4 7112 1022 350 406 4270 238 13398 5 7560 1414 0 784 5236 266 15260 6 4648 1204 0 980 3528 140 10500 7 2324 980 84 280 2688 168 6524 8 1988 0 168 126 1722 84 4088 9 9772 896 476 588 9380 364 21476 10 1064 700 406 126 2422 168 4886 * PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle Table 2-9: Peak Hour Volume at Cainta Junction (2015) A.M. Peak Hour Volume (7:00 AM - 8:00 AM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1 111 116 14 14 97 15 367 2 153 116 0 30 193 17 509 3 43 11 0 16 44 18 132 4 567 88 36 40 344 27 1102 21

5 6 7 8 9 10

602 119 0 70 419 29 1239 373 103 0 85 285 19 865 191 85 15 30 219 21 561 164 8 21 18 143 15 369 776 78 45 54 745 37 1735 92 63 40 18 198 21 432 P.M. Peak Hour Volume (6:00 PM - 7:00 PM) Vehicle Type Turning Point Car PUJ PUB Truck MC Tri Total 1 94 98 5 5 81 6 289 2 132 98 0 20 168 8 426 3 32 3 0 7 33 9 84 4 508 73 25 29 305 17 957 5 540 101 0 56 374 19 1090 6 332 86 0 70 252 10 750 7 166 70 6 20 192 12 466 8 142 0 12 9 123 6 292 9 698 64 34 42 670 26 1534 10 76 50 29 9 173 12 349 * PUJ – Public Utility Jeep, * PUB – Public Utility Bus, * MC – Motorcycle, * Tri – Tricycle

A. Bonifacio Avenue 5% 31% 33%

6% 1%

CAR

PUJ

PUB

TRUCK

MC

TRI

24%

Figure 2-15: Vehicle Composition Graph from A. Bonifacio Avenue

22

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 2% 33% 50%

5% 1%

CAR

PUJ

PUB

TRUCK

MC

TRI

9%

Figure 2-16: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

Felix Avenue 3%

41%

36%

CAR

PUJ

PUB

TRUCK

MC

TRI

7% 2% 11%

Figure 2-17: Vehicle Composition Graph from Felix Avenue

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 3%

40% 43%

CAR

PUJ

PUB

TRUCK

MC

TRI

3%4% 7%

Figure 2-18: Vehicle Composition Graph from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 23

Figure 2-15 to Figure 2-18 shows the composition of vehicles passing through the intersection coming from Ortigas Avenue Extension (Westbound and Eastbound), Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue. The most vehicle type that is passing through to all connecting roads on that intersection is the private cars and the motorcycle. 2.3 Level of Service The level of service (LOS) is the measurement of the quality of traffic service of the road under consideration by using qualitative measures such as vehicular speed, traffic volume, density, etc. The level of service evaluates roads and highways by categorizing the traffic flow from A to F, A having a very light traffic condition and F having a very heavy traffic condition. The table below shows the standard to determine the level of service of each road segment in each intersection. Table 2-10: Level of Service (Source: DPWH Highway Planning Manual) VolumeCapacity Ratio

Description

Traffic Condition

LOS Rating

0 – 0.20

Free flow, Low Volume and Densities; Drivers can maintain their can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay and are unaffected by other vehicles.

Very Light

A

0.21 – 0.50

Reasonably free flow, operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speeds.

Light

B

0.51 – 0.70

Speeds remain near free flow speeds, but freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted

Moderate

C

0.71 – 0.85

Speeds begin to decline with increasing volume. Freedom to maneuver is further reduced and traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions.

Moderately Heavy

D

0.86 – 1.00

Unstable flow, with volume at or near capacity. Freedom to maneuver is extremely limited and level of comfort afforded the driver is poor. Heavy Traffic

Heavy

E

> 1.00

Saturation traffic volumes, stop and go situations

Very Heavy

F

24

2.3.1 Level of Service for Intersection at Pres. Quezon St. Table 2-11 shows the Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VCR) and the equivalent Level of Service (LOS) in the year 2010 for the Eastbound, Northbound and Westbound direction of the roads connected to the intersection. Table 2-12 shows the Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VCR) and the equivalent Level of Service (LOS) in the year 2015. The computation for the volume capacity ratio is in the appendix. Table 2-11: Volume Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. (2010) Carriageway From Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge

Going to Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

VCR

2010 Level of Service

0.83

D

1.01 0.67

E C

Table 2-12: Volume Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. (2015) Carriageway 2015 From Going to VCR Level of Service Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 0.97 E (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 1.16 F Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.77 D 2.3.2 Level of Service for Intersection at Cainta Junction Table 2-13 shows the Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VCR) and the equivalent Level of Service (LOS) for the Southbound, Eastbound, Northbound and Westbound direction of the roads connected to the intersection. The computation for the volume capacity ratio is in the appendix. Table 2-13: Volume Capacity Ratio at Cainta Junction (2015) Carriageway 2015 From Going to VCR Level of Service OrtigasAve. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 0.42 B OrtigasAve. Ext. (Eastbound) OrtigasAve. Ext. (Westbound) OrtigasAve. Ext. 0.97 E (Eastbound) Felix Ave. OrtigasAve. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Ave. 0.75 D A. Bonifacio 25

OrtigasAve. Ext. (Westbound)

OrtigasAve. Ext. (Westbound) OrtigasAve. Ext. (Eastbound) A. Bonifacio Ave.

0.9

E

2.4 Projected Level of Service of the Road In this section, the designers show the projected level of service of the road for the next twenty (20) years. The level of service is projected for a five (5) year interval. The data is based on the Vehicle Capacity Ratio of Ortigas Avenue Extension connecting at Pres. Quezon Street and at Cainta Junction connecting A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. 2.4.1 Projected Level of Service for Pres. Quezon St. Table 2-14 shows the projected vehicle capacity ratio and the projected level of service for the next twenty (20) years in reference to the data in the year 2015. The projected vehicle capacity ratio is computed by using the present vehicle capacity ratio and the annual growth rate factor of the specific vehicle type. As shown, without any engineering intervention, the projected vehicle capacity ratio grows larger and the level of service worsens. Table 2-14: Projected Vehicle Capacity Ratio at Pres. Quezon St. Carriageway 5yrs 10yrs 15yrs From Going to VCR LOS VCR LOS VCR LOS Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 1.13 F 1.32 F 1.54 F Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. Pres. Quezon St. 1.33 F 1.52 F 1.75 F Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 0.75 D 0.88 E 1.04 F Bridge (Eastbound)

20yrs VCR LOS 1.81

F

2.02

F

1.22

F

2.4.2 Projected Level of Service for Cainta Junction Table 2-15 shows the projected vehicle capacity ratio and the projected level of service for the next twenty (20) years in reference to the data in the year 2015. The projected vehicle capacity ratio is computed by using the present vehicle capacity ratio and the annual growth rate factor of the specific vehicle type. As shown, without any engineering intervention, the projected vehicle capacity ratio grows larger and the level of service worsens.

26

Table 2-15: Projected Vehicle Capacity Ratio at Cainta Junction Carriageway 5yrs 10yrs 15yrs From Going to VCR LOS VCR LOS VCR LOS Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 0.48 B 0.55 C 0.63 C Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 1.13 F 1.31 F 1.53 F (Eastbound) Felix Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 0.86 E 0.99 E 1.15 F Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 1.04 F 1.2 F 1.38 F (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Ave.

20yrs VCR LOS

0.72

D

1.78

F

1.33

F

1.6

F

2.5 Related Literature Many factors can cause traffic congestion especially at signalized intersections. According to Kennedy and Sexton (2009), signalized intersection can reduce collisions at junctions which can cause vehicles to pile up since certain cycle time were only given per designed cycle and can also threaten the safety of road users. Minimization of delay time can help prevent further disobedience of road users due to impatience. In 2009, a survey study made by Levinson et. al, made emphasis on the actual waiting time and perceived waiting at signalized intersections. In three consecutive junctions, an actual long red light waiting time were assigned at one junction and the other scenarios allows red light waiting time to be distributed in the three junctions. But, survey found out that in comparison with the perception of road users, the actual waiting time is more accepted when distributed at three junctions even if its tallied total waiting time is longer than the long waiting time assigned at the first junction. For this, Kotwalet. al (2013), stated that with the help of advance technologies when it comes to traffic signal systems, the increasing rate of traffic congestion needs modification of the functions such as signal timing, installation of detection or surveillance equipment or upgrading controllers and communications.

27

Further evaluation by Shoup and Bullock in 2014 on the performance of traffic signal was prepared. Hereby validating the viability of a signal timing strategy in an intersection especially when it comes to the deployment in the site of application of the system because of the analysis time it will require. It was in 2010 that Park and Chen quantify the beneficial effects of traffic signal systems in comparing coordinated and non-coordinated actuated traffic signal. Though the travel time improved in a coordinated actuated traffic signal, an increase in stopped delays was also found when it comes to non-coordinated actuated traffic signal. Thus, coordinated actuated traffic signal outperforms non-coordinated actuated traffic signal. Traffic coordination in intersections has clear advantages over other architectures regarding both cost and performance. In the presentation of an adaptive traffic light system based on wireless communication between vehicles and fixed controller nodes deployed in intersections this kind of system can significantly improve traffic fluency in intersections. (Gradinescu et. al, 2007) In analyzing the spreading regularity of the initial traffic congestion, the improved cell transmission model (CTM) was used by Dong et, al (2012) in order to describe the evolution mechanism of traffic congestion in regional road grid. The analysis method of traffic congestion mechanism based on the model could be applied to predict the duration of the initial congestion and locate the secondary congestion. Besides, the microsimulation experiments demonstrate the validity and feasibility of our proposed comprehensive method, which can satisfy the analytical requirements of traffic congestion in the urban transportation. The result shows that the method could predict the duration of the initial congestion and estimate its spatial diffusion accurately. In mid-2012, Yang focused on the flow characteristics at roadway intersections. The right-turn vehicles at intersections or driveway locations have effects on the efficiency and safety of traffic operation for it can enforce closely following vehicles to slow down and cause delay to the traffic. Right-turn capacity decrease whenever the angle of turn is increased more than 75° while right-turn speed increases whenever a lesser value of angle of turn is designed.

28

CHAPTER 3 : CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS 3.1 Design Constraints Constraint is a limiting factor on the condition under which a system is developed, thus increasing the usability of the design and reducing the possibility of designer’s miscalculation. It includes all the potential factors that place an overall boundary around the system of the design process. Some of these constraints may be under economic, environmental, social, political, health and safety, constructability and sustainability considerations. The designer should deal with the effects of these constraints to diminish its limiting factors. The constraints that follow have possible effects on the design of the project: 3.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost) In the design, the economical factor is considered for the purpose of a project’s construction cost. Having a design that is economical will meet the government’s aim to minimize the cost of the project without sacrificing the quality of the project. Economical constraint has an immense part on the design and thus, gives the designers to come up with the propose design methodologies to enhance the effectiveness of the project cost. The design covers the grade separation design between constructing a through flyover in the major street and a left-turn flyover from the minor into the major street. In considering an efficient design, the cost of construction of each design of grade separation is most regarded. 3.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour) The designers also considered the constructability of the design. Since traffic congestion is present in every road development, it is evident that at the very least, one lane or temporary road closures is needed to proceed the construction of the project. This leads to increased delay times, reroutes and vehicular queuing that’s why the speed of the duration of construction is beneficial to the users of the road for it will result to better level of service. The trade-offs between through flyover and left-turn flyover will be evaluated based on the working hours needed for the completion of each project. 3.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) The traffic volume will increase over the next twenty years based on the shown projected level of service of the road. The designers evaluate the traffic growth and the sustainability of the design because the project is dependent on the traffic growth. In order to sustain the growth of the traffic volume on the intersections, the designers are constrained to select the most beneficial design in considering the through flyover and left-turn flyover. Based on the cost – benefit analysis, the benefit-cost ratio of the trade-offs will be measured through. 29

3.2 Trade-Offs Trade-off is an essentially decision-making exercise. It is used as a methodical approach to choose on the kind of solution that will be relevant for the constraints that had been identified on this design project. The trade-off for the improvement design of the traffic flow considered by the designers on the intersections regarded is the grade separation with controlled intersections. According to Sigua (2008), grade separation eliminates the problematic crossing conflicts of the different movements of vehicles and it allows traffic to move freely with fewer interruptions. Controlled intersection is defined as the control of the traffic flow at the given intersection by using yield signs, stop signs, and traffic signals. These prompt the designers to consider grade separation and controlled intersection in order to reduce the number of conflicts within the intersection. 3.2.1 Grade Separation Trade-Offs This will be applicable only to the intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. also known as the Cainta Junction. 3.2.1.1 Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The first grade separation trade-off is the construction of a new highway that will help avoid the conflict along intersection by vertical separation. By this grade separation the other lane will not interrupt the flow of the other. This will be a flyover along the Ortigas Ave. Ext. One of the advantage of this is it will generally allow traffic to move freely, with fewer interruptions, and at a higher overall speeds. It will also provide a safer road because it will not cause trouble between traffic movements.

30

Figure 3-1: Top View of Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Av.e Ext.)

Figure 3-2: Perspective View of Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Av.e Ext.) 3.2.1.2 Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Road (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The second tradeoff is also a construction of a grade separation which has a left-turn interchange. This design has a grade separated left-turns from A. Bonifacio Ave. going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) and from Felix Ave. going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound). Based on the presented data on the previous chapter, the volume of vehicles with left-turning movement in the intersection has a level of service F which is considered to be a heavy congested flow. Thus, the designer’s 31

decided to construct a flyover in the area. This design would allow continuous flow of left-turning movements and reduced number of phasing in the intersection.

Figure 3-3: Top View of Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Roads (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.)

Figure 3-4: Perspective View of Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Roads (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) 32

3.2.2 Controlled Intersection Trade-Offs This will be applicable to both of the considered intersections of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and Pres. Quezon St. and the intersections of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. also known as the Cainta Junction. 3.2.2.1 Pre – Timed Traffic Signal In order to control the flow of traffic passing through an intersection, one of the types of traffic signal that can be used is the pre-timed traffic signal. Pre-timed traffic signal provides the kind of traffic movement through a programmed system that is repeated for the rest of the day.

Figure 3-5: Pre – Timed Traffic Signal (Source: Google Images) 3.2.2.2 Actuated Traffic Signals The actuated traffic signal makes available the service for traffic movements and signal phasing of the vehicles passing through the intersection to be according to the demand of the need of road users. It also involves vehicle detection devices and pedestrians push buttons.

33

Figure 3-6: Actuated Traffic Signal (Source: Google Images) 3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking Using the method on Trade-Off Strategies in Engineering Design (Otto &Antonsson, 1991), the criterion’s importance scale of constraints used is based on the scale of 0 to 5, with 5 being the highest importance. It was assigned and each design methodology’s ability to satisfy the criterion, which is on a scale from -5 to +5, with 5 being the highest ability to satisfy the criterion and was likewise tabulated. This procedure was used in the computation of the ability to satisfy the criterion. The following equations satisfy the computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy criterion of materials: Equation 3-1: Percent Difference Percent Difference =

(Higher Value - Lower Value) Governing Value

Equation 3-2: Subordinate Rank Subordinate Rank

=

Governing Rank

-

(% Difference)

X

10

The ranking that governs is the subjective preference of the designer. The designers subjectively choose any desired value in assigning the value for the criterion’s importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion. The subordinate rank is a variable that tallies to its percentage distance from the rank that governs along the scale of the ranking. 34

Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference As shown in Figure 3-5, the distance indicated is determined by multiplying the percentage difference by the number of scale which is 10. Then the product will be the number of interval from the value that will govern. 3.3.1 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Table 3-1: Raw Designer's Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (Pre-Timed against Actuated) Ability to Satisfy the Criterion Criterion's (scale from -5 to 5) Decision Criteria Importance Pre-Timed Actuated (scale of 0 to 5) Traffic Signal Traffic Signal 1. Economic (Cost) 5 5 3.7 2. Constructability (Man-Hour) 4 5 1.70 3. Sustainability (Benefit Cost) 5 2.30 5 TOTAL 56.5 50.3 *Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013 The criterion’s importance that is shown in Table 3-1 is based on the designer’s own difference and is entirely subjective. In Table 3-1, the designers set the criterion’s importance for the economic constraint (cost) as five (5) for the reason that the cost of the design can be observed to its minimal value. The sustainability constraint (benefit cost) is set to have an importance factor of five (5) for the project’s cost be observed on its minimal value. In constructability constraint (man-hour) is ranked four (4) because the reliability of the duration of the project must be monitored since it must be finished at an acceptable time. 3.3.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost) Based on Table 3-1, the initial result for the designer’s raw ranking is based on trade-off with respect to economic constraints; the competence of the design of the pre-timed traffic signal prevails with its initial estimate on the table below. The cost of its design is contemptible compared to the actuated traffic signal which will require greater cost. 35

3.3.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour) Pre-timed traffic signal prevails when it comes to constructability denoting the minimum possible duration that the design will require for it to be implemented in comparison with the actuated traffic signal. 3.3.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) In considering the benefit cost of the design, actuated traffic signal is competent enough to allow the design to have its benefit on an advantageous value than the pre-timed traffic signal. The initial estimates provided below were elaborated in the Appendix.

3.3.1.4 Initial Estimates of the Traffic Signal Design based on Economic Constraint (Cost): Table 3-2: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Pre-Timed 3,859,600 Table 3-3: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Actuated 4,459,600 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 4,459,600 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 3,859,600 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

(4,459,600- 3,859,600) 4,459,600 5

- (0.13%)

X 10

=

0.13% = 3.7

36

Figure 3-8: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) 3.3.1.5 Initial Estimates of the Traffic Signal Design based on Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour): Table 3-4: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Constructability) Traffic Signal Man-Hour (Hrs.) Pre-Timed 721 Table 3-5: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Constructability) Traffic Signal Man-Hour (Hrs.) Actuated 1081 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Constructability Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 721 Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 1081 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

5

(1081 – 721) 1081

=

- (0.33%)

X 10

0.33% = 1.70

Figure 3-9: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour)

37

3.3.1.6 Initial Estimates of the Traffic Signal Design based on Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost): Table 3-6: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Sustainability) Traffic Signal Total (BCR) Pre timed 3.15 Table 3-7: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Sustainability) Traffic Signal Total (BCR) Actuated 4.32 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 4.32 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 3.15 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: (4.32 – 3.15) 4.32

Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

5

- (27%)

= X 10

27% = 2.30

Figure 3-10: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost)

38

3.3.2 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection Table 3-8: Raw Designer's Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection (Through Flyover against LeftTurn Flyover & Pre-Timed against Actuated)

Decision Criteria

1. Economic (Cost) 2. Constructability (Man-Hour)

Criterion's Importance (scale of 0 to 5)

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion (scale from -5 to 5) Through Flyover Pre-Timed Traffic Signal

5 4

Actuated Traffic Signal 5 5

Left Turn Flyover Pre-Timed Actuated Traffic Traffic Signal Signal 4.09 3.65

3. Sustainability (Benefit-Cost Ratio) 5 4.23 5 3.43 5 4. Economic (Sub-trade-offs)(cost) 5 5 3.91 5 3.59 TOTAL 91.15 89.55 77.2 78 *Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013 The criterion’s importance that is shown in Table 3-8 is based on the designer’s own difference and is entirely subjective. In Table 3-8, the designers set the criterion’s importance for the economic constraint (cost) as five (5) for the reason that the cost of the design can be observed to its minimal value. The sustainability constraint (benefit cost) is set to have an importance factor of five (5) for the project’s cost be benefical when implemented. The constructability constraint (man-hour) is ranked four (4) because the reliability of the duration of the project must be monitored since it must be finished at an acceptable time. Lastly, the economic constraint (cost) for the sub-trade-off is ranked also as four (4) since a nominal value of the design cost must be observed. 3.3.2.1 Economic Constraint (Cost) Based on Table 3-8, the initial result for the designer’s raw rankings based on trade-off with respect to economic constraints, the competence of the design of the through flyover prevails with its initial estimate on the table below. Though both requires costly design, the cost of the through flyover design is contemptible compared to the left-turn flyover which will require greater cost. 3.3.2.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration Cost) Through flyover prevails when it comes to constructability denoting the minimum possible duration that the design will require for it to be completed in comparison with the left-turn flyover. 39

3.3.2.3 Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) In considering the benefit cost of the design, actuated traffic signal for both the through and left-turn flyover is competent enough to allow the design to have its benefit on an advantageous value than the pre-timed traffic signal control. 3.3.2.4 Economic Constraint (Cost for Controlled Intersection) With reference to the table above, the pre-timed traffic signal for both the through and left-turn flyover initially has the competence of having the design cost on a favorable amount in considering the cost of the design. The initial estimates provided below were elaborated in the Appendix. 3.3.2.5 Initial Estimates of the Grade Separation Design based on Economic Constraint (Cost): Table 3-9: Initial Estimate of the Through Flyover (Economic) Grade Separation Total Cost (Php.) Through Flyover 110,380,475.30 Table 3-10: Initial Estimate of the Left Turn Flyover (Economic) Grade Separation Total Cost (Php.) Left Turn Flyover 121,425,595.00 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Left Turn Flyover = 121,425,595.00 Lower Cost Value: Through Flyover = 110,380,475.30 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(121,425,595 – 110,380,475.30) = 0.091% 121,425,595

Subordinate Rank = 5

- (0.091%) X 10

= 4.09

40

Figure 3-11: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) 3.3.2.6 Initial Estimates of the Grade Separation Design based on Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour): Table 3-11: Initial Estimate of the Through Flyover (Constructability) Grade Separation Man-Hours Through Flyover 9776 Table 3-12: Initial Estimate of the Left Turn Flyover (Constructability) Grade Separation Man-Hours Left Turn Flyover 11,303 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Constructability Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Left Turn Flyover = 11,303 Lower Cost Value: Through Flyover = 9,776 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(11,303 – 9,776) = 0.135% 11,303

Subordinate Rank = 5 - (0.135%) X 10 = 3.65

Figure 3-12: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Man-Hour)

41

3.3.2.7 Initial Estimates of the Grade Separation and Traffic Signal Design based on Sustainability Constraint (Benefit-Cost): Table 3-13: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Sustainability) Traffic Signal BCR Pre-Timed 1.203 Table 3-14: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Sustainability) Traffic Signal BCR Actuated 1.303 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 2.303 Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 1.752 Governing rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

5

(2.303-1.203) 2.303

=

- (7.7%)

X 10

7.7% = 4.23

Figure 3-13: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint in Through Flyover (Benefit Cost) Table 3-15: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Sustainability) Traffic Signal BCR Pre-Timed 2.81 Table 3-16: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Sustainability) Traffic Signal BCR Actuated 3.33 42

Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 3.33 Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 2.81 Governing rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: (3.33-2.81) 3.33

Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

5

- (15.7%)

= 15.7 % X 10

= 3.43

Figure 3-14: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Benefit Cost) 3.3.2.8 Initial Estimates of the Grade Separation and Traffic Signal Design based on Economic Constraint (Sub-Trade-offs): Table 3-17: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Pre-Timed 4,920,588 Table 3-18: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Actuated 5,520,588 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 5,520,588 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 4,920,588 Governing rank = 5

43

Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

(5,520,588- 4,920,588) = 10.9% 5,520,588

5

- (10.9%)

X 10

= 3.91

Figure 3-15: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Through Flyover (Sub trade-offs) Table 3-19: Initial Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Pre-Timed 7,320,588 Table 3-20: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Economic) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Actuated 8,520,588 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 8,520,588 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 7,320,588 Governing rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(8,520,588- 7,320,588) = 14.1% 8,520,588

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (14.1%)

X 10

= 3.59

44

Figure 3-16: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Sub trade-offs) 3.4 Trade-Off Assessments From the Designer’s Raw Ranking, the result will be implemented in the construction of the proposed project. In view of the criteria of the project, economic and sustainability constraint was given an excellent magnification while the constructability constraint was set on a fair importance. For the reason that, a greater need for an economical and sustainable design that will serve its intended purpose is the prior concern whilst the duration of the design are a follow through for the constructability of the project. On the other hand, the sub-trade-off economic constraint is also set on a fair importance since the design must be on an acceptable amount. The initial design that will govern will be found on the data presented on the Designer’s Raw Ranking. With the consideration of multiple constraints that affects the design of the project, the data above were based. 3.4.1 Trade-offs Assessment (Grade Separation) The designers assessed the advantages and disadvantages of a through and left-turn flyover for the trade-off assessment of the grade separation design. Based on the possible cost of each design, the designers will evaluate the efficient criterion of the proposed intersection tradeoffs. The designers will also evaluate how each tradeoff affects the design for the traffic flow improvement design at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue at Cainta, Rizal. 3.4.1.1 Trade-Off 1: Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The through flyover is a type of grade separation which is partially separated that allows the freeflowing movement of traffic with lesser interruptions that can occur in the intersection.

45

Figure 3-17: Through Flyover Along the Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The through flyover has advantages that it can reduce intersection collision and blocking congestion delays. The through flyover has disadvantages because it has a high initial cost. The cost of construction depends on various factors like type of separation used and length of separation. 3.4.1.2 Trade-Off 2: Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Road (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The left-turn flyover is a type of grade separation which is partially separated that allows the reduction of merging and crossing conflict in a four-leg intersection.

46

Figure 3-18: Left-Turn Flyover from Minor Road (A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave.) to Major Road (Ortigas Ave. Ext.) The left-turn flyover has advantages that in can increase the capacity of roads by avoiding traffic congestion and minimize the occurrence of accidents. The left-turn flyover has disadvantages that it requires intense effort from engineers and can be extremely expensive to build that it can be time consuming. 3.4.2 Trade-offs Assessment (Controlled Intersection) The designers assessed the advantages and disadvantages of a pre-timed traffic signal and an actuated traffic signal for the trade-off assessment of the traffic signal intersection design. Based on the possible cost of each traffic signal, the designers will evaluate the efficient criterion of the proposed intersection traffic signal tradeoffs. The designers will also evaluate how each tradeoff affects the design for the traffic flow improvement design at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. at Pasig City and at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue at Cainta, Rizal. 3.4.2.1 Trade-Off 1: Pre – Timed Traffic Signal The pre-timed traffic signal is a type of traffic signal control that works best when traffic flow fluctuation isn’t much occurring. Its controller can be a single-program or multiprogram type of controller. The single-program controller only uses one set of signal parameters in order to control traffic flow throughout the day or during the period of the signal’s operation. On the other hand, the 47

multiprogram type makes use of a number of sets of parameters that offers greater flexibility that may be able to aid the changing demand within the day. (Sigua, 2010)

Figure 3-19: Pre - Timed Traffic Signal (Source: Google Images) The pre-timed traffic signal has advantages that it can provide more precise coordination that allows maximum efficiency in the operation of two or more very closely spaced intersections operating under capacity conditions, when the timing relationship between intersections is critical. It is simpler and more easily maintained compared to actuated traffic signal. It is more acceptable than actuated traffic signal in areas where large and fairly consistent pedestrian volumes are present. (Sigua, 2010) The pre-timed traffic signal has disadvantages because it functions without any way for it to modify operations by what is actually happening with the traffic. Its traffic flow has unnecessary delays when entering the intersection and pointless stopping of flow on major roadways occurs due to the presence of little to no traffic or pedestrians on the intersection during off-peak hours. (Klug, 2010) 3.4.2.2 Trade-Off 2: Actuated Traffic Signal An actuated traffic signal is a very effective signal wherein randomness of arrivals is expected at an intersection. In this system, detectors are located only on the approaches of the minor road. With this set up, continuous green time may be given to the major road traffic flow. Right of way is given to the minor road only when demand is detected. In this scheme, all approaches are provided with detectors. (Sigua, 2010)

48

Figure 3-20: Actuated Traffic Signal (Source: Google Images) The actuated traffic signal has advantages that are flexible to short-term variations in traffic flow, it can reduce delay if properly timed and will usually increase capacity by continually reapportioning green time. Under low volume conditions, pre-timed traffic signal can provide continuous operation and most especially effective at multiple phase intersections. (Mathew, 2014) The actuated traffic signal has disadvantages that it requires careful inspection and maintenance to ensure its proper operation. An actuated controllers has an increased maintenance cost compare to pre-timed controllers while its installation cost can be two to three times the cost of a pre-timed signal installation. If traffic demand pattern is very regular, the extra benefit of adding local actuation is minimal, perhaps non-existent. (Mathew, 2014) 3.4.3 Trade-Off Assessments for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection 3.4.3.1 Economic Assessment Based on the initial cost estimate of both design with respect to the economic constraint, the cost of construction for a pre-timed traffic signal is cheaper than the cost of construction for an actuated traffic signal. The results were based on the initial cost of construction of the intersection at Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. The computation for the initial cost estimate for both tradeoffs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.3.2 Constructability Assessment The initial constructability cost of both design with respect to the constructability constraint, the duration of the construction for a pre-timed traffic signal is more tolerable than the duration of 49

construction for an actuated traffic signal. The results were based on the initial duration of construction at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. The computation for the initial cost estimate for both trade-offs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.3.3 Sustainability Assessment The initial benefit cost of both design with respect to the sustainability constraint, shows that an actuated traffic signal has higher benefits than the pre-timed traffic signal. The results were based from the benefit cost for the intersection at Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. The computation for the initial cost estimate for both trade-offs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.4 Trade-Off Assessments for Cainta Junction Intersection 3.4.4.1 Economic Assessment Based on the initial cost estimate of both design with respect to the economic constraint, the cost of construction for the through flyover is cheaper than the cost of construction for a left-turn flyover. The results were based on the initial cost of construction of the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue. The computation for the initial cost estimate for both tradeoffs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.4.2 Constructability Assessment The initial duration of construction of both design with respect to the constructability constraint, indicates that the duration of construction for a through flyover is more tolerable than the left-turn flyover. The results were based on the initial duration of construction of the intersection at Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue. The computation for the initial estimate for both trade-offs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.4.3 Sustainability Assessment The initial benefit cost of both design with respect to the sustainability constraint, displays that the pre-timed traffic signal and through flyover has higher utilities than the actuated traffic signal and leftturn flyover. The results were based from the benefit cost for the intersection at Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue. The computation for the initial estimate for both trade-offs are shown in the appendix. 3.4.4.4 Economic Assessment (Sub-Trade-Off) Based on the initial cost estimate of both design with respect to the economic constraint, the cost of construction for the pre-timed traffic signal is cheaper than the cost of construction for an actuated 50

traffic signal. The results were based on the initial cost of construction of the intersection at Ortigas Avenue Extension, A. Bonifacio Avenue and Felix Avenue. The computation for the initial cost estimate for both trade-offs are shown in the appendix. 3.5 Design Standards Design standards such as specifications and regulations ensure that the design works properly, interactively and responsibly. The following codes and standards were used in order to accomplish the design project:  Highway Capacity Manual 2000  Road Safety Manual (DPWH BOOK 1 and BOOK 2)  AASHTO 2001 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS 1. Highway Capacity Manual This manual contains the different guidelines and computational procedures for the computation of the capacity and quality of service of various highway facilities. a. Level of Service b. Saturation Flow 2. Road Safety Design Manual. Road Safety Design Manual is issued by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to establish and maintain standardized safe road design principles and standards for roads in the Philippines. The manual includes safety design principles based on best international practice applicable to the Philippine setting. AASHTO 2001 A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS The Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) officially adopted the 2001 AASHTO Green Book as minimum design standards for projects on the National Highway System. 3. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. This code contains the design practices develop by the in universal use as the standard for highway geometric design. This guideline includes the design that accounts the speed, vehicle type, stopping distance etc.

51

CHAPTER 4 : DESIGN STRUCTURE 4.1 Design Methodology The design methodologies of each trade-offs for the improvement design at the intersections of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. and Ortigas Ave. Ext., Felix Ave. and A. Bonifacio Ave. were discussed in the following sections. As shown in Section 3.5 Design Standards, existing codes and standards of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and other governing bodies were used by the designers. In the following sections of this chapter, the design methodology for grade separation and controlled intersection and how these intersection trade-offs were integrated in the design will be presented.

4.1.1 Traffic Analysis Process In the process for the improvement design of the intersections at Pres. Quezon St. and Cainta Junction, the first step is the gathering of the available traffic volume data of vehicles passing through the intersection during the peak hour and the average annual daily traffic that occurs in the intersection. At the Pres. Quezon St. Intersection, the data obtained was from road surveys and received from the office of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA). In the case of Cainta Junction Intersection, data were attained through manual road surveys conducted by the designers using video camera footage of the traffic flow then manual tallying of counts were done. In the analysis and determination of the volume capacity ratio (VCR) and level of service (LOS), the data gathered are used in order to provide details quantifying the level of traffic congestion that happens on each intersection. These data are used to help minimize the occurrence of traffic congestion at each intersection. A site investigation was conducted by the designer through computing the fifteen-minute traffic volume in order to determine the peak hour factor for each intersection including taking actual site photos. The traffic volume passing through each lane, peak hour volume, and vehicle type were also obtained through the existing traffic data gathered which are also used for the analysis and projection of the existing traffic volume. The design of hourly traffic volume and computation of the peak hour factor, saturation flow and delay time at each intersection followed. The computation of vehicle capacity ratio per road turning movement was determined in order to define the level of service of each intersection. Thus, the level of service defined is then used for the validation of the trade-offs regarding traffic signal control. Lastly, after the data were gathered these were inputted in the traffic engineering software Sidra v5.1 for simulation of traffic in each intersection since this will be the basis in order to utilize the geometric design of the intersection trade-offs.

52

Site Investigation

Road Surveys

Existing Traffic Data Collection

Traffic Lane Assignment

24-Hour Traffic Volume

Existing Traffic Volume Analysis

A.M. Peak Hour Volume

Traffic Volume Projection

P.M. Peak Hour Volume

Design of Hourly Traffic Volume and Peak Hour Factor

Computation of Saturation Flow

Vehicle Capacity Ratio Computation per Road Segment

Computation of Delay Time

Computation of Level of Service per Road Segment

Validation of Trade-Offs

Traffic Situation Simulation

Figure 4-1: Traffic Analysis Process

53

4.1.2 Geometric Design Process

The geometric design process followed after traffic analysis and the designers begin with the design standards that must be used for the improvement design of each intersection. The vehicular design speed, the grade of the road, and sight distance elements were included in the mentioned standards and will serve as design inputs for the proposed trade-offs. The computation of sight distances followed since it is for the safety of the drivers passing through the intersection that includes stopping sight, reaction and braking distance. Then, it was followed by the computation of the design grade, speed and deceleration for the vertical alignment. Next, he minimum curve distance computation was used for the horizontal alignment. These alignments are computed for the geometric design of the grade separated intersection trade-offs. Lastly, details of the final plans, layouts and computation are also shown in the design.

54

Establish Design Standards

Design Inputs

Determination of Sight Distance

Stopping Sight Distance Distance

Reaction Distance

Braking Distance

Vertical Alignment for Grade Separation

Design Grade

Design Speed

Deceleration

Vertical Alignment Minimum Curve Distance Final Plan Drawings, Computations, Layouts

Figure 4-2: Geometric Design Process

55

4.1.3 Intersection Traffic Signal Design Process The designers also considered the design of the traffic signal control that will be used in order to respond to the flow of the traffic demand in each intersection after conducting the traffic analysis. In the design, the first phase is the tallying of the maximum traffic volume count including the definition of the traffic movement counts of the vehicles passing through each intersection. The level of service allowed the designers to determine the capacity of each intersection when it comes to accommodating the passage of traffic volume. The existing traffic conditions at each intersection were evaluated through warrant analysis and level of service computation to provide the basis in the need of a traffic signal control in an intersection. The eight warrants composed the warrant analysis and the level of service identifies the capacity of each intersection to the accommodation of passing traffic volume. Then followed, is the phasing movement development for each grade separation design trade-offs. For the through flyover the number of required phases is three (3) phases while for the left-turn flyovers requires two (2) phases. Then, the designers computed the equivalent hourly flow of vehicles at the intersection. It includes the computation of the lane volume and Y i, which is the maximum value of the ratios of approach flows to saturation flow for all lane groups using a phase. Next, the determination of the optimum cycle length through the calculating the total lost time including the effective and actual green time. Then, the design of signal timing for each traffic signal (pre-timed and actuated traffic signal) followed. Lastly, the trade-offs that will govern will be adapted for the design of each intersection traffic signal system.

56

Determine Traffic Volume Count Per Road Section

Identify Traffic Movement Counts

Evaluate Existing Traffic Conditions

Level of Service

Development of Phasing Movement

Lane Volume

Computation of Equivalent Hourly Flow

Yi (Approach Flow / Saturation Flow)

Computation of the Optimum Cycle Length Pre – Timed Signalization

Signal Timing Design

Actuated Signalization

Final Controlled Intersection Design

Figure 4-3: Controlled Intersection Design Process

57

4.2 Traffic Analysis The process of traffic analysis for the proposed trade-offs is shown in Section 4.1.1 of this text. The data inputs for the traffic analysis are previously presented in Chapter 2: Design Inputs. These are used as the parameters for the traffic analysis done using the engineering software Sidra v5.1. With the aid of the engineering software and manual calculations, the designers are able to determine the level of service for each road section as shown in the following tables. The resulting data from these calculations proved the need for the proposed intersection traffic signal trade-offs that should be done to improve the traffic flow condition of the intersections at Pres. Quezon St. and Cainta Junction. Table 4-1 tabulates the peak hour volume at the intersection during the morning and the afternoon. It shows the volume capacity ratio and the level of service for the intersection at Pres. Quezon St. Table 4-1: Volume Capacity Ratio and Level of Service at Pres. Quezon St. A.M. Peak Hour (7:00 AM - 8:00 AM) From Going to VCR Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.97 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 1.16 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.77 P.M. Peak Hour Volume (6:00 PM - 7:00 PM) From Going to VCR Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.78 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 0.59 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.97

Level of Service E F D Level of Service D C E

Table 4-2 tabulates the peak hour volume at the intersection during the morning and the afternoon. It shows the volume capacity ratio and the level of service for the intersection at Cainta Junction. Table 4-2: Volume Capacity Ratio and Level of Service at Cainta Junction From A. Bonifacio Ave.

A.M. Peak Hour (7:00 AM - 8:00 AM) Going to VCR Level of Service Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Felix Ave. 0.42 B Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Ave.

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Felix Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

0.97

E

0.75

D 58

A. Bonifacio Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.9 E A. Bonifacio Ave. P.M. Peak Hour Volume (6:00 PM - 7:00 PM) From Going to VCR Level of Service Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 0.42 B Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.97 D Felix Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 0.75 C Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.9 D A. Bonifacio Ave. 4.2.1 Vehicle Volume Projection In the process of the traffic analysis, the projection of the vehicle volume is also considered. The purpose of the vehicle volume projection is to anticipate the volume in the future periods using the existing traffic volume as basis. The designers use the traffic volume projection to determine if the proposed tradeoffs improve the traffic flow at the intersection for a design period of twenty (20) years. The formula used was Equation 2-1 in order to have the future value of traffic volume that will be accumulated. Table 4-3 to Table 4-6 shows the projected volume of vehicles in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of A.M. & P.M. Peak for Pres. Quezon Intersection and Cainta Junction Intersection, respectively. The data given below is used to calculate the future traffic signalization time of the movement flow. Table 4-3: Projected Vehicle Volume for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (A.M. Peak) Description Turn No 1 2 3

Turn

From

Going to

Pres. Quezon Ortigas Ave. St. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Through (Eastbound) Bridge Pres. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Right Quezon St. Bridge Right

AM Peak

Volume Projection 5 10 15 20 Years Years Years Years

257

302

356

419

494

2061

2405

2811

3289

3854

694

796

914

1050

1209

59

4

Through

Ortigas Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ext. Bridge (Eastbound)

1654

1580

1858

2188

2580

Table 4-4: Projected Vehicle Volume for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection (P.M. Peak) Description Volume Projection Turn PM 5 10 15 20 Turn From Going to No Peak Years Years Years Years Pres. Quezon 1 Right 223 262 310 366 434 Ortigas Ave. St. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 2 Through (Eastbound) 1638 1917 2246 2635 3096 Bridge Pres. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 3 Right 355 414 485 568 666 Quezon St. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 4 Through 2018 2355 2753 3223 3778 Ext. Bridge (Eastbound) Table 4-5: Projected Vehicle Volume for Cainta Junction Intersection (A.M. Peak) Description Volume Projection Turn AM 5 10 15 20 Turn From Going to No Peak Years Years Years Years Ortigas Ave. 1 Left Ext. 366 418 479 548 629 (Westbound) A. Bonifacio 2 Through Felix Ave. 509 581 664 761 873 Ave. Ortigas Ave. 3 Right Ext. 132 151 173 199 228 (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ortigas Ave. 4 Through Ext. 1101 1278 1487 1733 2021 Ext. (Westbound) (Eastbound) 5 Right Felix Ave. 1239 1436 1666 1936 2253 Ortigas Ave. 6 Left Ext. 865 997 1152 1333 1544 (Eastbound) 7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 561 642 737 847 974 Ortigas Ave. 8 Right Ext. 369 426 493 572 663 (Westbound)

60

9

Through

10

Right

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound)

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) A. Bonifacio Ave.

1735

2005

2321

2690

3122

432

490

557

633

721

Table 4-6: Projected Vehicle Volume for Cainta Junction Intersection (P.M. Peak) Description Volume Projection Turn PM 5 10 15 20 Turn From Going to No Peak Years Years Years Years Ortigas Ave. 1 Left Ext. 289 331 379 436 501 (Westbound) A. Bonifacio 2 Through Felix Ave. 426 487 557 639 734 Ave. Ortigas Ave. 3 Right Ext. 84 97 111 128 148 (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ortigas Ave. 4 Through Ext. 957 1113 1296 1512 1766 Ext. (Westbound) (Eastbound) 5 Right Felix Ave. 1090 1264 1468 1707 1988 Ortigas Ave. 6 Left Ext. 750 866 1001 1159 1344 (Eastbound) 7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 466 535 614 707 815 Ortigas Ave. 8 Right Ext. 292 338 393 457 532 (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. 9 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. 1534 1774 2054 2383 2767 (Eastbound) Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio 10 Right 349 396 450 512 584 Ave.

61

4.2.2 Period of Flow In 2000, according to the Highway Capacity Manual, the period of flow is used to compute the flow rate of the vehicles passing through the intersection. The flow rate is the number of vehicles observed in a sub-hourly period, which is equal to fifteen minutes, divided by the time in terms of hours of the observation. Table 4-7: Period of Flow Volume for the First 15-Minute at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Flow Description First 15 mins Vehicles from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

580

Vehicles from Pres. Quezon St.

173

Vehicles from Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge

463

Table 4-8: Period of Flow Volume for the First 15-Minute at Cainta Junction Intersection Flow Description First 15 mins Vehicles from A. Bonifacio Avenue 252 Vehicles from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 585 Vehicles from Felix Avenue 449 Vehicles from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 542 4.2.3 Peak Hour Factor Peak hour factor is a measure of the variability of demand during the peak hour. It is the ratio of the volume during the peak hour to the maximum rate of flow during a given time period within the peak hour. For intersections, the time period used is 15 minutes, and the PHF is given as: Equation 4-1: Peak Hour Factor PHF =

Volume during peak hour 4 X volume during peak 15 min within peak hour (Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel)

where: PHF = Peak Hour Factor

Table 4-9 shows the computed peak hour factor in the existing traffic of the intersection at Pres. Quezon St. The peak hour factor will be used to determine the design hourly volume computation.

62

Table 4-9: Peak Hour Factor at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection From

Going to

Highest Volume per Carriageway

Peak Hour Factor

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge East Bank Road

Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

2061 694 1654 69

0.889 1.000 0.893 1.000

Table 4-10 shows the computed peak hour factor in the existing traffic of the intersection at Cainta Junction. The peak hour factor will be used to determine the design hourly volume computation. Table 4-10: Peak Hour Factor at Cainta Junction Intersection From

Going to

Highest Volume per Carriageway

Peak Hour Factor

A. Bonifacio Avenue Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Avenue Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound)

Felix Avenue Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Avenue Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)

509 1239 865 1735

0.505 0.530 0.482 0.801

4.2.4 Design Hourly Volume Design hourly volume is the average volume of the traffic flow for the full hour. The design hourly volume is computed to determine the traffic volume per turn. The data is used for the evaluation of the proposed road channelization tradeoffs. The design hourly volume can then be obtained as: Equation 4-2: Design Hourly Volume DHV =

Volume during peak hour PHF

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) where: DHV = Design Hourly Volume PHF = Peak Hour Factor Table 4-11 shows the design hourly volume per turn for each road segment at Pres. Quezon St. The peak hour factor and the maximum value of peak hour volume are also displayed in the table.

63

Table 4-11: Design Hourly Volume at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Turn No From Going to PHF Peak Hour Volume 1 Pres. Quezon St. 0.889 257 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 2 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 0.889 2061 3 Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 1.000 694 4 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.893 1654

DHV 289 2319 694 1852

Table 4-12 shows the design hourly volume per turn for each road segment at Cainta Junction. The peak hour factor and the maximum value of peak hour volume are also displayed in the table.

Turn No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4-12: Design Hourly Volume at Cainta Junction Intersection Peak Hour From Going to PHF Volume Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.505 366 A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 0.505 509 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.505 132 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.53 1101 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Felix Ave. 0.53 1239 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.482 865 Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 0.482 561 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.482 369 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.801 1735 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.801 432

DHV 725 1008 261 2077 2338 1795 1164 766 2166 539

4.2.5 Saturation Flow The Saturation flow rate is defined as the number of vehicles per hour that could cross through a signalized intersection in such a stable moving queue. The saturation flow rate depends on an ideal saturation flow, which is usually taken as 1900 veh/hr. of green time per lane. Equation 4-3: Saturation Flow SFR =

3600 (tn – t4) / (n-4)

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) where: SFR = Saturation Flow Rate tn = time required for the nth vehicle in queue to pass the stop line. In this manner the nth Vehicle is 10. t4 = the time required for the 4th vehicle in queue to pass the stop line 64

Road Segment A B

Road Segment A B C D

Table 4-13: Saturation Flow at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Turn No t4 t10 Saturation Flow Rate Lane # 1 12.23 24.28 2689 1 2 21.74 33.16 2522 2 3 17.25 29.18 2414 2

Total Saturation 2689 5044 4828

Table 4-14: Saturation Flow at Cainta Junction Intersection Turn No t4 t10 Saturation Flow Rate Lane # 1 11.32 23.2 2727 1 2 15.95 29.38 2413 1 3 49.11 98.54 655 1 4 14.38 19.97 5152 2 5 22.74 38.16 2101 1 6 15.69 27.51 2741 1 7 17.84 28.92 2924 1 8 12.58 70.41 560 1 9 17.25 25.18 3632 2 10 44.57 80.18 910 1

Total Saturation 2727 2413 655 10304 2101 2741 2924 560 7264 910

Table 4-13 and 4-14 shows the total saturation flow of each route as shown in the flow description. The element t4 is the time required for the fourth vehicle on queue to pass the intersection and the t10 is the time required for the tenth vehicle on queue to pass the intersection. These values are used to compute the steady state headway. It is defined as the average elapsed time between the passages of successive vehicles over the stop line in the same lane. The saturation flow rate per lane of the vehicles is also shown at the table. The saturation flow rate is the capacity of the road or intersection to accommodate the traffic volume.

55

4.3 Intersection Traffic Signal Design The designers considered the design of the intersection traffic signal design for the intersection. The traffic movement for each road segment and the maximum volume count of vehicles passing through the intersection during the peak morning and peak afternoon hours are shown in Table 4-15 and Table 4-16. These are shown to provide data for the verification of the need for the construction of the traffic signal to control the intersections at Pres. Quezon St. and Cainta Junction. Table 4-15: Traffic Movement and Maximum Volume Count at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Maximum Volume Turn No Turn From Going to Count 1 Right Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. 494 (Eastbound) 2 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 3854 3 Right Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 1209 4 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 2580 Table 4-16: Traffic Movement and Maximum Volume Count at Cainta Junction Intersection Maximum Volume Turn No Turn From Going to Count 1 Left Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 629 2 Through A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 873 3 Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 228 4 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 2021 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 5 Right Felix Ave. 2253 6 Left Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 1544 7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio 974 8 Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 663 9 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 3122 Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 10 Right A. Bonifacio Ave. 721

4.3.1 Traffic Warrant Analysis The use of traffic signals in an intersection is one of the most effective ways of monitoring the traffic. Although it can reduce the conflict of the traffic movements entering the intersection, it can also cause interruption to the vehicles in all streams. Hence, the use of traffic signals is when it is necessary only. Lastly, the traffic volume in the approach of each intersection is the most essential factor in proving the need for the traffic light to be used.

56

According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the need for engineering studies of the physical characteristics of the location and the existing and projected traffic condition at an intersection shall be done to justify the installation of a traffic signal at a particular location. To prove the need for the installation of traffic control signals, the MUTCD states that at least one (1) or more warrant out of the eight (8) warrants needs to be satisfied. Therefore, the designers perform a traffic warrant analysis at each intersection. On the other hand, only the satisfied warrants are presented below. 1. Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume The Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume is the initial warrant. This has two conditions in which either condition can be satisfied, the minimum vehicular volume condition and the interruption of continuous traffic. Condition A considers minimum vehicular volumes on the major and higher volume minor streets, while Condition B can be used for locations where Condition A is not satisfied but the high volume on the major street causes the traffic on the minor street to experience excessive delay or conflict with major-street traffic while crossing or turning onto the major street. (Traffic and Highway Engineering, 2009) Table 4-17: Minimum Vehicular Volume Condition

57

Table 4-18: Interruption of Continuous Flow

Table 4-17 and Table 4-18 shows the minimum vehicular volume condition that is needed to satisfy the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant and the interruption of continuous flow condition that can be satisfied if the minimum vehicular volume condition is not satisfied, respectively. Table 4-19 shows the eight-hour vehicle volume for the major street (Ortigas Avenue Extension) and minor streets (Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue). It also shows that the volume on the major street with two or more lanes surpassed the minimum vehicular volume condition. The minor streets also exceeded the minimum vehicular volume. Therefore, the first warrant is satisfied. Table 4-19: Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction Volume on Higher-Volume Volume on Major Street Time Minor Street (total of both approaches) (one direction only) 7:00 AM – 8:00 AM 2036 918 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM 1826 848 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM 1616 821 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM 1418 791 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM 8:00 PM – 9:00 PM

1366 3930 3870 3802

730 1508 1418 1328

Table 4-20 shows the eight-hour vehicle volume for the major street (Ortigas Avenue Extension) and minor street (Pres. Quezon St.). It also shows that the volume on the major street with two or more lanes

58

surpassed the minimum vehicular volume condition. The minor streets also exceeded the minimum vehicular volume. Therefore, the first warrant is satisfied. Table 4-20: Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. Time

Volume on Major Street (total of both approaches)

Volume on Higher-Volume Minor Street (one direction only)

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM

3972 3852 3774 3691

694 684 675 667

5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM 8:00 PM – 9:00 PM

3618 3878 3830 3796

666 355 352 350

2. Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume The four-hour vehicle volume is the next warrant. The warrant condition is based on the comparison of standard graphs shown in Figure 4-6. The installation of traffic control signals shall be considered if for each four-hour vehicle volume, the volume on the major street on both approaches and the volume on higher volume Minor Street considering one direction only falls above the applicable curve in Figure 46. Table 4-21 shows the four-hour vehicle volume for the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. A point color indicator as shown in the table represents the traffic volume per hour. Table 4-21: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. Major Street Minor Street Point Color Time (Both approaches) (Higher approaches) Indicator 7:00 AM – 8:00 AM 3972 694 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM 3852 684 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM

3878 3830

355 352

Table 4-22 shows the four-hour vehicle volume for the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue at Cainta Junction. A point color indicator as shown in the table represents the traffic volume per hour.

59

Table 4-22: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction Time

Major Street (Both approaches)

Minor Street (Higher approaches)

7:00 AM – 8:00 AM 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM

2036 1826

918 848

6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 7:00 PM – 8:00 PM

3930 3870

1508 1418

Point Color Indicator

Figure 4-4: Graphs for Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant In Figure 4-4, shows the Graph for Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant, the point color indicators are clearly above the minimum number of minor street higher volume approach and as such, above the lines of the graph that satisfies the condition for the four-hour vehicular volume warrant. It proves that the fourhour vehicular volume warrant is satisfied. 3. Warrant 3: Peak Hour The third warrant is the peak hour warrant. It states that if for a minimum of one (1) hour of an average day, the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street, then, there is a need for an installation of traffic control signals. For this warrant, two conditions are present and either of the two conditions should be fulfilled to satisfy the third warrant. For Condition A, the warrant is satisfied when the delay during any four consecutive 15-minute periods on one of the minor-street 60

approaches (one direction only) controlled by a stop sign is equal to or greater than specified levels. The same minor-street approach (one direction only) volume and the total intersection entering volume are equal to or greater than the specified levels. Condition B is satisfied when the plot of the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor-street approach (one direction only) is above the appropriate curve in Figure 4-5. (Traffic and Highway Engineering, 2009)

Figure 4-5: Graphs for Peak Hour Volume Warrant Table 4-23 shows the peak hour vehicle volume. It also shows the volume on the major street (Ortigas Avenue Extension) and minor street (Pres. Quezon St.) and the assigned point color indicator for each traffic volume. Figure 4-5 shows the graph for the peak hour volume warrant and the position of the point color indicator at the graph. As shown, the point color indicator is above the minimum appropriate curve so therefore, the peak hour warrant is satisfied. Table 4-23: Peak Hour Vehicle Volume at Pres. Quezon St. Major Street Minor Street Point Color Peak Hour (Both approaches) (Higher approaches) Indicator 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 3972 694 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 3878 355 Table 4-24 shows the peak hour vehicle volume. It also shows the volume on the major street (Ortigas Avenue Extension) and minor street (Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue) and the assigned point color indicator for each traffic volume. Figure 4-5 shows the graph for the peak hour volume warrant and the position of the point color indicator at the graph. As shown, the point color indicator is above the minimum appropriate curve so therefore, the peak hour warrant is satisfied. 61

Table 4-24: Peak Hour Vehicle Volume at Cainta Junction Major Street Minor Street Point Color Peak Hour (Both approaches) (Higher approaches) Indicator 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 3972 694 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM 3878 355 In conclusion, the designers satisfied three (3) out of the eight (8) possible warrants to prove the need for the installation of the traffic control signals at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension, Felix Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue at Cainta Junction and at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. The designers then proceed with the next step in the controlled intersection design process which is the development of the phasing movement. 4.3.2 Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Design The designers proceed with the design for each proposed controlled intersection tradeoff after proving the need for the installation of the traffic signals at the intersection by using the traffic warrant analysis. The first type of tradeoff for the controlled intersection is the pre-timed traffic signal. Step 1: Development of the Phase Plan The first step in the design of the pre-timed traffic signal is the development of the phase plan. The phase plan is used to control the flow of the traffic entering the intersection. The turning points are assigned in a green time phase. The green time phase is the phase where the traffic is moving. The green time is assigned as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 as shown in the table and the turning points are assigned as TP at Cainta Junction. At Pres. Quezon St., as shown, the green time is assigned as Phase 1 and Phase 2 while the turning points are assigned as TP.

PHASE (Ø)

1

2

Table 4-25: Phase Plan at Pres. Quezon St. (Pre-Timed Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP SATURATION Turn Turn From Going to No. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP1 Right President Quezon 2689 (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP2 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 5044 (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP4 Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge 4828 (Eastbound)

62

PHASE (Ø)

1

2

3

Table 4-26: Phase Plan at Cainta Junction (Pre-Timed Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP SATURATION Turn Turn From Going to No. Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP4 Through 10304 (Eastbound) (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP9 Through 7264 (Westbound) (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP1 Left A. Bonifacio Ave. 2727 (Westbound) TP2 Through A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 2413 Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP6 Left Felix Ave. 2741 (Eastbound) TP7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio Ave. 2924

Step 2: Computation of Equivalent Hourly Flow After assigning the phase for each turning point, the designers compute the equivalent hourly flow. The equivalent hourly flow is the rate at which vehicles pass a fixed point in vehicles per hour. The equivalent hourly flow is the lane volume evaluated from the ratio of the peak hour volume per flow and the peak hour factor as shown in the equation below. For each Phase: Equation 4-4: Lane Volume LANE VOLUME =

Peak Hour Volume per flow Peak Hour Factor

Equation 4-5: Maximum Value of Approach Flow to Saturation Flow Lane Volume Y1 = Saturation (Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) Step 3: Computation of Total Lost Time The total lost time for the vehicles passing through the intersection is also considered in the design of the pre-timed traffic signal. The total lost time is the time the vehicles are delayed in the traffic queue. The equations for the total lost time are shown below.

63

Total Lost Time (L) Assuming Lost Time per Phase is 3.5 and there is N, no. of phases: Equation 4-6: Total Lost Time L=

Σ L1

(Source: Traffic & Highway

Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel)

Step 4: Computation of Optimum Cycle Length (Co) Pre-timed signals assign the right of way to different traffic streams in accordance with a present timing program. Each signal has a present cycle length that remains fixed for a specific period of the day or for the entire day. Webster Method has shown that for a wide range of practical conditions minimum intersection delay is obtained when the cycle length is obtained by the equation: Equation 4-7: Optimum Cycle Length 1.5L + 5 Co =

𝐧=∅

𝟏 − ∑ 𝐘𝐢 𝐢=𝟏

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) Where: Co = optimum cycle length L = total lost time per cycle Yi = maximum value of the ratios of approach flows to saturation flows for all lane ∅ = number of phase Step 5: Total Effective Green Time (Gte) The total effective green time is the equivalent length of time in the cycle that utilized at the saturation flow rate and is given by: Equation 4-8: Total Effective Green Time Gte =

Co - L

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) Step 6: Actual Green Time per Phase (Gai) 𝛕 = 𝟑. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐬 (𝐲𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞) 64

Equation 4-9: Actual Green Time Gai =

Gei + Li - τ

For Each Phase: Equation 4-10: Actual Green Time per Phase Yi Gai = Co

+ Gte - τ

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) 4.3.3 Actuated Traffic Signal Design The designers proceed with the design for each proposed controlled intersection tradeoff after proving the need for the installation of the traffic signals at the intersection by using the traffic warrant analysis. The second tradeoff for the controlled intersection is the actuated traffic signal. Step 1: Development of Phase Plan The first step in the design of the actuated traffic signal is the development of the phase plan. The phase plan is used to control the flow of the traffic entering the intersection. The turning points are assigned in a green time phase. The green time phase is the phase where the traffic is moving. The green time is assigned as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 as shown in the table and the turning points are assigned as TP. At Pres. Quezon St., as shown, the green time is assigned as Phase 1 and Phase 2 while the turning points are assigned as TP.

PHASE (Ø) 1

2

Table 4-27: Phase Plan at Pres. Quezon St. (Actuated Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP SATURATION Turn No. Turn From Going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP1 Right President Quezon 2689 (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP2 Through 2522 (Eastbound) Bridge Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP4 Through 2412 Bridge (Eastbound)

65

Table 4-28: Phase Plan at Cainta Junction (Actuated Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP PHASE SATURATION (Ø) Turn No. Turn From Going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP4 Through 10304 (Eastbound) (Westbound) 1 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP9 Through 7264 (Westbound) (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP1 Left A. Bonifacio Ave. 2727 (Westbound) 2 TP2 Through A. Bonifacio Ave. Felix Ave. 2413 Ortigas Ave. Ext. TP6 Left Felix Ave. 2741 (Eastbound) 3 TP7 Through Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio Ave. 2924 Step 2: Minimum Green Time and Detector Location Minimum green times must be set for each phase in an actuated signalization. The minimum green timing on an actuated phase is based on the type and location of detectors. The minimum green time, therefore must be long enough to clear a queue of vehicles fully occupying the distance x. Gmin = Initial portion + Unit Extension Gmin = (𝐡𝐧 + 𝐤 𝟏 ) +

𝐱 𝟎. 𝟐𝟖𝟕𝐮

(Eq. 20-2: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Where: U = average speed (km/hr or m/sec) X = distance between detectors and stop line (m) H = average headway (s) N = number of vehicle waiting between the detectors and the stop line K1 = starting delay (s) Detectors should be placed not exceeding from x meters from the stop line. Step 3: Unit Extension The Traffic Detector Handbook recommends that a unit extension of 3.0 s be used where approach speeds are equal to or less than 30 mi/h, and that 3.5 s be used at higher approach speeds. U≥P=

X 1.47 S

(Eq. 20-3: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

66

Step 4: Determination of Sum of Critical-Lane Volumes To find the critical path, maximum equivalent volumes must be found for each portion of the cycle, working between full phase transitions boundaries. Table 4-29: Actuated Traffic Signal Phasing at Pres. Quezon St. Lane Through Appraoach Volume Volume Group Phase Movement vehicle from (veh/hr) (tvu/hr) volume Equivalent (tvu/hr) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Right 257 1 257 (Eastbound) 1 2421 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Through 2061 1.05 2164 (Eastbound) 2 Pres. Quezon St. Right 694 1 694 694 Table 4-30: Actuated Traffic Signal Phasing at Cainta Junction Through Lane Volume Volume Phase Approach From Movement vehicle Group (veh/hr) (tvu/hr) equivalent (tvu/hr) Ortigas Ave. Ext. Through 1101 1.05 1156 (Eastbound) 1 2978 Ortigas Ave. Ext. Through 1735 1.05 1822 (Westbound) 2 3

A. Bonifacio

Left

366

1

366

A.Bonifacio

Through

509

1.05

534

Felix Ave.

Left

865

1

865

Felix Ave.

Through

561

1.05

589

Volume/lane (tvu/hr/ln)

1211 347

volume/lane (tvu/hr/ln)

1439

900

450

1454

727

Step 5: Determine Yellow and All-Red Intervals and Lost Time per Cycle Yellow and all-red intervals are determined in the same procedure as for pre-timed signals. 𝐒 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫 = 𝐒 − 𝟓 𝐒 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫 = 𝐒 + 𝟓 𝟏. 𝟒𝟕𝐕 𝐲=𝐭+ (𝟐𝐚 + 𝟐𝐀𝐠)

(Eq. 20-4: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane) (Eq. 20-5: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

67

𝐚𝐫 =

𝐰+𝐋 𝟏. 𝟒𝟕𝐒𝟏𝟓

The 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual indicates that lost times vary with the length of the yellow and all-red phases in the signal timing. The HCM now recommends the use of the following default values for this determination: 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 − 𝐮𝐩 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝓵𝟏 = 𝟐. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐞 = 𝟐. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜/𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 Using these default values, lost time per phase and lost time per cycle may be estimated as follows: 𝓵𝟐 = 𝐲 + 𝐚𝐫 − 𝐞 𝐘𝟏 = 𝐲 + 𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝓵𝟏 = 𝐞 + 𝓵𝟐 𝐭𝓵 = 𝐭𝓵𝟏 + 𝐭𝓵𝟐 Total Lost Time 𝐭𝓵 = 𝐭𝓵𝟏 + 𝐭𝓵𝟐 Step 6:

Maximum Green Phase and Minimum Green Phase

The “critical cycle” for a full-actuated signal is one in which each phase reaches its maximum green time. Maximum green times for actuated phases and/or the minimum green time for the major street with semiactuated signalization are found by determining a cycle length and initial green split based on average demands during the peak analysis period. 𝐂𝐝𝐞𝐬 =

𝐋 𝐕

𝐜 𝟏 − [𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟓 𝐱 𝐏𝐇𝐅 ] 𝐱 (𝐕⁄𝐂)

(Eq. 18-11: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Available Effective Green Time 𝐠 𝐓𝐎𝐓 = 𝐂 − 𝐋

(Eq. 18-12: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Allocation of Effective Green Time to Each Phase 𝐕𝐜𝟏 𝐠 = 𝐠 𝐓𝐎𝐓 ( ) 𝐕𝐜

(Eq. 18-13: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Maximum Green Phase To determine maximum green time for the minor and major road, Highway Capacity Manual recommends a value of 1.50 as multiplying factor. 68

Step 7: Determine Critical Cycle Length The “critical cycle length” is then equal to the sum of the actual maximum green times (and/or the minimum green time for a major street at a semi-actuated location) plus yellow and all-red transitions. 𝐂𝐜 = ∑(𝐆𝐢 + 𝐘𝐢 ) 4.4 Geometric Design

(Eq. 18-14: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

The designers also considered the geometric design of the proposed road channelization tradeoffs. The geometric design was done to identify the road characteristics of the intersection such as the sight distances, vertical alignment and horizontal alignment for the proposed road channelization tradeoffs. The sight distances were computed to establish the safe stopping sight distance, reaction distance and braking distance needed when entering the intersection. These are needed to ensure the safety and welfare of the users of the road. The computation for the vertical alignment is done to compute the grade of the intersection and the computation for the horizontal alignment is done to identify the minimum curve distance for the intersection.

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4-31: Design Standard Output Description Design Standard Average Daily Traffic 200 Design Speed 40 Km/h Radius 50m Grade % 8.00% Traffic Lane Width 1 x 3.0/3.0 Shoulder Width 1m Right of Way 20m Stopping (Non-Passing) Sight Distance 50m Safe Passing Sight Distance 270m Deceleration 3.41m/sec

Traffic Forecast The designers conducted the traffic forecasting in order to determine the possible number of vehicle that will pass the intersection.

69

Traffic Growth Rates It was projected throughout the 20 years assumed economic life of the project facilities by employing traffic growth rates that were estimated based on the method given in the DPWH Highway Planning Manual. 𝑰∗𝑬

TGR = {(𝟏𝟎𝟎 +1) * (CP-1)}*100 Where: TGR = traffic growth rate per annum E = traffic demand income elasticity I = real per capita income growth rate CP = compounded population growth rate Table 4-32: Population Growth Rates Year

Cars/Vans

Jeepneys

Buses

Trucks

M-cycle

T-cycle

2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035

3.43 3.61 3.8 4.04 4.05

3.19 3.31 3.42 3.57 4.02

3.19 3.31 3.42 3.57 4.02

2.8 2.81 2.82 2.83 2.83

2.88 2.91 2.92 2.95 2.98

2.88 2.91 2.92 2.95 2.98

Table 4-33: Traffic Demand Cars/Vans

Jeepneys

Buses

Trucks

1.8

1.5

1.5

1

Motorcycle Tricycle 1.1

1.1

Table 4-34: Traffic Growth Rates Year

Cars/Vans

Jeepneys

Buses

Trucks

M-cycle

T-cycle

2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035

3.43 3.61 3.8 4.04 4.05

3.19 3.31 3.42 3.57 4.02

3.19 3.31 3.42 3.57 4.02

2.8 2.81 2.82 2.83 2.83

2.88 2.91 2.92 2.95 2.98

2.88 2.91 2.92 2.95 2.98

(Source: DPWH 2nd Engineering District Quezon City – Region 4A)

70

Projected AADT for Each Turning Movements The project was assumed to have a period of two (2) years for construction and twenty (20) year life span (DPWH Standard). Therefore, the forecasted Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for each directional traffic flow at the intersection was forecasted up to the year 2038. It was formulated by the designers in able to determine the maximum possible users of the Junction with a period of twenty years. The designers will use the projected AADT simulation for the design of the two possible alternatives to identify the lifespan, effectively and sustainability of each of the Trade-offs to choose which will be suitable for the improvement of the intersection. Table 4-35: Projected AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) for Cainta Junction Intersection Turn No

2018

2023

2028

2033

2038

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4174 6150 1212 13827 15745 10831 6728 4217 22152 5036

4709 6922 1363 15622 17769 12210 7574 4755 24967 5656

5415 7934 1560 18001 20444 14025 8684 5464 28670 6460

6184 9028 1772 20610 23366 16001 9885 6235 32694 7323

7037 10191 1979 23178 26243 17974 11123 6981 36635 8252

2016 – Current, 2018 – After construction, 2023 – five years after construction, 2028 – ten years after construction, 2033 – fifteen years after construction, 2038 – twenty years after construction

71

TRAFFIC GROWTH

VOLUME OF VEHICLES

160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2018

2023

2028

2033

2038

YEARS PROJECTED YEARS PROJECTED

Figure 4-6: Traffic Growth Graph for Cainta Junction Intersection

Sight Distance Sight distance is a length of a roadway a driver can see ahead at any particular time. The sight distance available at each point of the highway must be such that, when a driver is travelling at the design speed adequate time is given an object is observed in the vehicles path to make the necessary evasive maneuver without colliding with the object. Sight Distance Elements: a.) Driver’s eye height is the observed eye height of the driver. b.) Object height is the height of a possible object in the path of the vehicle. Table 4-36: Drivers Eye and Object Height Sight Distance Type Car Stopping Distance Truck Stopping Distance Maneuver Stopping Distance Passing Sight Distance Car Head-Light to road Surface Stopping Distance Truck to Car Tail-Light Stopping Distance

Drivers Eye Height (m)

Object Height (m)

1.08 0.6 2.33 0.6 1.08 0.6 1.08 1.08 0.6 0 2.33 0.6 (Source: DPWH Safety Design Manual) 72

Stopping Sight Distance 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 + 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐕𝟐 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 + 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒(𝟗.𝟖𝟏 ± 𝐆)

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

c.) Reaction Distance Reaction travelled while the driver perceives a hazard, decides to take action, and then acts by starting to apply the brakes to start slowing down. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 Where: t = Reaction time in seconds (2.5 seconds) V = Design Speed (kph) d.) Braking Distance Braking distance is the distance required for the vehicle to slow down and stop. 𝐕𝟐 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞) = 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒 (𝟗.𝟖𝟏 − 𝐆) Where: V = Design Speed a = deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied) G=Grade Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) Computation 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 + 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐕𝟐 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 + 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒(𝟗.𝟖𝟏 ± 𝐆) 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 (𝟐. 𝟓)(𝟒𝟎) +

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

𝟒𝟎𝟐 𝟑.𝟒𝟏

𝟐𝟓𝟒 (𝟗.𝟖𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖)

𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟓𝟔. 𝟒𝟕 𝐦 ≈ 𝟔𝟎𝐦

73

Table 4-37: Stopping Sight Distance Design Speed (kph)

Stopping Sight Distance (m)

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

65 75 85 105 110 125 135 150 165 185 200 220

74

Figure 4-7: Design Standard for Philippine National Highway

75

Vertical Alignment Standards for Grade Separation The vertical alignment of a highway consists of a straight section known as grades connected by vertical curves. The design of the vertical alignment therefore involves the selection of suitable grades for the tangent sections and the appropriate length of vertical curves. Minimum Curve Distance 𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 = KA 𝑲=

𝑺𝟐

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

𝑺<𝐿

𝟏𝟎𝟎(√𝒉𝟏 + √𝒉𝟐 )𝟐

Where: 𝐿𝑣 = length of Vertical Curve K = length of vertical curve in meters in 1% change in grade A = Algebraic difference in grade (%) S = Sight Distance ℎ1 = driver eye distance (m) for car and truck ℎ2 = object height (m) for cars and truck Design Inputs: 𝑳= 276m S = 60m 𝒉𝟏 = 2.33 𝒉𝟐 = 0.6 𝑨 = (+8%) − (−8%) = 16 Computation of Rate of change 𝑲=

𝑺𝟐 𝟏𝟎𝟎(√𝒉𝟏 + √𝒉𝟐 )𝟐 602 𝐾= 100(√2.33 + √0.6)2 𝐾 = 6.8 𝑳𝒗 = 𝑲𝑨 𝐿𝑣 = 6.8(16) 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 108.79 𝑚 ≈ 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝒎 𝐿 = 276

𝑺<𝐿

76

Radius 𝑹 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝑲 𝑹 = 𝟔𝟖𝟎 m Station of the highest point of curve 𝑔1 𝐿𝑣 𝑔1 − 𝑔2 276(0.08) 𝑆1 = (0.08 + 0.08) 𝑺𝟏 = 𝟏𝟑𝟖𝒎 𝑆1 =

Elevation of the highest point 𝑯=

𝑳 (𝒈 − 𝒈𝟐 ) 𝟖 𝟏

276 (0.08 − (−0.08)) 8 𝑯 = 𝟓. 𝟓𝟐 𝒎 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 = 10 + 5.52 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟓𝟐𝐦 𝐻=

4.5 Cost - Benefit Analysis The ratio of the present worth of net project benefits and net project costs is called the benefit-cost ratio (BCR). This method is used in situations where it is desired to show the extent to which an investment in a transportation project will result in a benefit to the investor. To do this, it is necessary to make project comparisons to determine how the added investment compares with the added benefits. The formula for BCR is: Equation 4-11: Benefit-Cost Ratio BCR2/1 =

B2/1 C2/1

Where: B2/1 C2/1

= =

Present Value of benefits Present Value of cost

*if the BCR is 1 or greater, then the higher cost alternative is economically attractive. *if the BCR is less than 1, this alternative is discarded. Equation 4-12: Net Benefits Net Benefits =

O&M + VOC + VOT

Where: O&M

=

Operations & Maintenance Cost 99

VOC VOT

= =

Vehicle Operating Cost Value of Time

The following factors and values were used by the designers to come up with the cost benefit analysis: Project life: 20 years (Standard year of projection for road projects) Construction Duration: 2 years (From 2016 to 2018) Discount rate: 15% (National Economic and Development Authority standard) Discount factor: 1 / (1+i) ^ n Annual growth rate: 2%

Speed (km/hr) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

Table 4-38: Vehicle Operation Cost Value (Source: DPWH, JICA Study Team) Passenger Car Jeepney Bus (Peso/km) (Peso/km) (Peso/km) 14.46 10.32 26.16 13.05 9.14 23.23 11.64 7.97 20.30 10.23 6.79 17.37 10.04 6.73 17.40 9.86 6.66 17.43 9.67 6.59 17.45 9,.76 6.81 17.50 9.86 7.02 17.54

Truck (Peso/km) 37.93 34.01 30.09 26.16 25.94 25.71 25.48 25.69 25.90

Table 4-39: Value of Time Factors (Source: DPWH, JICA Study Team) Vehicle Type 2011 Public 478.0 Peso/hour Private 227.0 Peso/hour All Passenger Car 320.2 Peso/hour Table 4-40 and Table 4-41 show the result of the Cost benefit analysis for the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal and Actuated Traffic Signal at each intersection. Table 4-40: Cost Benefit Analysis Result at Pres. Quezon St. Design System Benefit - Cost Ratio Pre-Timed Traffic Signal 1.303 Actuated Traffic Signal 1.289 Table 4-41: Cost Benefit Analysis Result at Cainta Junction 100

Design System Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal

Benefit - Cost Ratio 1.326 1.437

4.6 Ortigas Avenue Extension and Pres. Quezon St. Intersection The intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension (major road) and Pres. Quezon St. (minor road) is an unsignalized three-leg intersection. The following traffic phases were assigned to both the pre-timed and actuated traffic signal. 4.6.1 Traffic Phase at Pres. Quezon St. Phase 1: Allows vehicle from Pres. Quezon St. going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) (right-turn) as shown in Figure 4-8. Phase 2: Allows vehicle from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) going to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) (through) and Pres. Quezon St. (right-turn) as shown in Figure 4-9.

Figure 4-8: Pres. Quezon St. Traffic Signal (Phase 1)

101

Figure 4-9: Pres. Quezon St. Traffic Signal (Phase 2) 4.6.2 Design Scheme 1: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Based on the Section 4.3.2 of this text, the process of designing pre-timed traffic signal was used in application of solving the Pres. Quezon St. Intersection traffic congestion.

102

4.6.2.1 Effects of Pre – Timed Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St.

Figure 4-10: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St. Level of Service

Figure 4-10 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the pre-timed traffic signal control. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level B for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) and from Level F to Level C for the traffic coming from Pres. Quezon St. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection since the software Sidra v5.1 does not analyze the level of service for continuous traffic flow and as such denoted as LOS NA (Level of Service Not Available). Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 90 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds

103

Table 4-42: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. Phase Flow Description Effective Green light time Red light time OrtigasAve.Extension To Pres. Right Quezon 1 50 Seconds 34 Seconds OrtigasAve.Extension To Pasig Through blvd Extension Pres. Quezon St. To Pasig blvd 2 Right 30 Seconds 54 Seconds Extension

Table 4-43 shows the output summary for the pre-timed traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the design that are as follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years).

Table 4-43: Intersection Output Summary (Pre-Timed) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

2104

3156

Degree of Saturation

0.7

0.83

Control Delay (average),sec

12.3

14.5

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

18.1

24.6

`Control Delay (worst movement),sec

18.1

24.6

Travel Time (Total), Veh-Km/hr

28.8

38.5

Travel Time (average), sec

49.3

51.8

Travel Speed, Km/hr

45.6

43.4

Level of Service

LOS B

LOS D

104

Table 4-44: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present Year 20 years Route v/c LOS v/c LOS Ortigas Ave. Extension To 0.25 B 0.56 C Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext To 0.4 B 0.69 C Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon To 0.31 C 0.81 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge

4.6.3 Design Scheme 2: Actuated Traffic Signal Based on the Section 4.3.3 of this text, the process of designing actuated traffic signal was used in application of solving the Pres. Quezon St. Intersection traffic congestion. 4.6.3.1 Effects of Actuated Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St.

Figure 4-11: Actuated Traffic Signal at Pres. Quezon St. Level of Service 105

Figure 4-11 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the actuated traffic signal control. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level B for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) and from Level F to Level C for the traffic coming from Pres. Quezon St. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection. Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 115 Seconds Yellow Time = 4 Seconds Total Lost Time = 12 Seconds Table 4-45: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. Phase Flow Description Effective Green light time Red light time Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) To Right Pres. Quezon St. 1 75 Seconds 36 Seconds Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) To Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon St. To Ortigas Ave. 2 Right 25 Seconds 86 Seconds Ext. Bridge Table 4-46: Intersection Output Summary (Actuated) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

2378

3577

Degree of Saturation

0.7

0.825

Control Delay (average),sec

11.8

17.2

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

21.5

32.2

Control Delay (worst movement),sec

21.5

32.2

Travel Time (Total) Veh-Km/hr

32.0

45.7

Travel Time (average), sec

48.5

54.2

Travel Speed, Km/hr

46.3

41.5

Level of Service

A

C 106

Table 4-46 shows the output summary for the diverging diamond interchange with pre-timed traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the geometric design that are as follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years). Table 4-47: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present years 20 years Route v/c LOS v/c LOS Ortigas Ave. Extension To 0.16 A 0.51 C Pres. Quezon St. Ortigas Ave. Ext To 0.46 B 0.83 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge Pres. Quezon To 0.34 B 0.75 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge

4.7 Ortigas Avenue Extension and A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. Intersection The intersection of Ortigas Avenue Extension (major road) and A. Bonifacio Ave. and Felix Ave. (minor roads) is a signalized four-leg intersection. 4.7.1 Design Scheme 1: Through Flyover The first tradeoff is the design of grade separated through flyover from the major street of Ortigas Ave. Ext. going east and west bound. 4.7.1.1 Traffic Phase at Cainta Junction Phase 1: Allows vehicle from Felix Ave. to Tikling (Left) and from Felix Ave. to A. Bonifacio Ave. (Though) as shown in Figure 4-12. Phase 1: Allows vehicle from A. Bonifacio Ave. to westbound of Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Left) and from A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave. (Though) as shown in Figure 4-13.

107

Figure 4-12: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Through Flyover (Phase 1)

Figure 4-13: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Through Flyover (Phase 2)

108

4.7.1.2 Effects of Through Flyover with Pre – Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction

Figure 4-14: Through Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service Figure 4-14 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the pre-timed traffic signal. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level D for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. West bound going to East bound while Level F to Level C for the traffic coming from East going to the West bound of Ortigas Ave. Ext. The level of service is also reduced for the flow of traffic coming from Felix Ave. and A. Bonifacio Ave. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection. The software Sidra v5.1 does not analyze the level of service for continuous traffic flow and as such denoted as LOS NA (Level of Service Not Available). Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 110 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds 109

Table 4-48: Design Result of Through Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction Phase Flow Description Effective Green light time Red light time Left Felix Ave. To Tikling A 55 49 Through Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Right Tikling to Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio to Ortigas Ave. Left Extension B 50 54 Through A. Bonifacio to Felix Ave. Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. to A. Bonifacio

Table 4-49: Intersection Output Summary (Through Flyover with Pre-Timed) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

6672

8500

Degree of Saturation

0.849

0.899

Control Delay (average),sec

6.9

9.0

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

21.0

33.1

`Control Delay (worst movement),sec

21.0

33.1

Travel Time (Total) Veh-Km/hr

79.9

105.8

Travel Time (average), sec

43.1

44.8

Travel Speed, Km/hr

59.8

57.8

Level of Service

B

D

Table 4-49 shows the output summary for the single point urban interchange with pre-timed traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the geometric design that are as follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years).

110

Table 4-50: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present 20yrs Route v/h LOS v/h LOS 0.43 B 0.76 E Felix Ave. To Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.36 B 0.71 C Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.23 A 0.61 C Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) to Felix Ave. 0.64 C 0.64 C A. Bonifacio Ave. to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.59 C 0.73 D A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave. 0.41 B 0.76 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) to A. Bonifacio Ave.

4.7.1.3 Effects of Through Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction

Figure 4-15: Through Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service Figure 4-15 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the actuated traffic signal. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level 111

D for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. East bound going to West bound while Level F to Level E for the traffic coming from the rest of the road segments. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection. Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 90 Seconds Yellow Time = 4 Seconds Total Lost Time = 8 Seconds Table 4-51: Design Result of Through Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction Phase Flow Description Effective Green light time Red light time Left Felix Ave. To Tikling A 42 40 Through Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Right Tikling to Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio to Ortigas Ave. Left Extension B 52 30 Through A. Bonifacio to Felix Ave. Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. to A. Bonifacio Table 4-52: Intersection Output Summary (Through Flyover with Actuated) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

7740

9952

Degree of Saturation

0.877

0.985

Control Delay (average),sec

7.3

20.7

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

24.6

125.5

`Control Delay (worst movement),sec

24.6

125.5

Travel Time (Total) Veh-Km/hr

92.0

153.8

Travel Time (average), sec

42.8

55.6

Travel Speed, Km/hr

60.0

45.8

Level of Service

B

E

Table 4-52 also shows the output summary for the diverging diamond interchange with an actuated traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the geometric design that are as 112

follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years). Table 4-53: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present 20yrs Route v/h LOS v/h LOS Felix Ave. To Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.66 C 0.96 E Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.45 B 0.72 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) to Felix Ave. 0.29 B 0.56 C A. Bonifacio Ave. to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.50 B 0.81 D A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave. 0.47 B 0.76 D Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) to A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.20 A 0.64 C 4.7.2 Design Scheme 2: Left-Turn Flyover The second tradeoff is the design of actuated traffic signal that operates to a varied time intervals in accordance with the traffic demand. Phases may be omitted if there is no requirement and the demand is registered through suitably placed vehicle detectors which are linked to the traffic signal controller. (Ashley, 1994) 4.7.2.1 Traffic Phase at Cainta Junction Phase 1: Allows vehicle from Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) (Through) and Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) (Through) as shown in Figure 4-16. Phase 2: Allows vehicle from Felix Ave. to A. Bonifacio Ave. (Through) and A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave. (Through) as shown in Figure 4-17.

113

Figure 4-16: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Left-Turn Flyovers (Phase 1)

Figure 4-17: Cainta Junction Traffic Signal with Left-Turn Flyovers (Phase 2)

114

4.7.2.2 Effects of Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction

Figure 4-18: Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service Figure 4-18 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the actuated traffic signal. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level D for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. East bound going to West bound while Level F to Level E for the traffic coming from the rest of the road segments. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection. Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 60 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds

115

Table 4-54: Design Result of Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction Effective Green light Phase Flow Description Red light time time Ortigas Ave. Ext (West Bound) to Through Ortigas Ave. Ext (East Bound) A 30 24 Ortigas Ave. Ext (East Bound) to Through Ortigas Ave. Ext (West Bound) Through Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio B 40 14 Through A. Bonifacio to Felix Ave.

Table 4-55: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

7003

8559

Degree of Saturation

2.367

2.893

Control Delay (average),sec

192.9

265.7

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

1308.2

1811.2

`Control Delay (worst movement),sec

1308.2

1811.2

Travel Time (Total) Veh-Km/hr

231.7

721.9

Travel Time (average), sec

613

606

Travel Speed, Km/hr

9.5

7.2

Level of Service

C

E

Table 4-55 also shows the output summary for the diverging diamond interchange with an actuated traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the geometric design that are as follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years).

116

Table 4-56: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present Route v/h LOS Ortigas Ave. Ext (Westbound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext (Eastbound) 0.53 C Ortigas Ave. Ext (East Bound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext (Westbound) 0.56 C 0.39 B Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.33 B A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave.

20yrs v/h LOS 0.88 E 0.90 E 0.81 D 0.74 D

4.7.2.3 Effects of Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction

Figure 4-19: Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal at Cainta Junction Level of Service Figure 4-19 shows the level of service from the software Sidra v5.1 for the projected 20 years of the design period of the actuated traffic signal. The figure shows that the level of service is reduced from Level F to Level D for the traffic coming from Ortigas Ave. Ext. East bound going to West bound while Level F to Level E for

117

the traffic coming from the rest of the road segments. The traffic flow denoted by Level of Service (LOS) NA is the level of service for the continuous flow of traffic passing through the intersection. Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 50 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds Table 4-57: Design Result of Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction Effective Green light Phase Flow Description Red light time time Ortigas Ave. Ext (West Bound) to Through Ortigas Ave. Ext (East Bound) A 30 14 Ortigas Ave. Ext (East Bound) to Through Ortigas Ave. Ext (West Bound) Through Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio B 20 24 Through A. Bonifacio to Felix Ave.

Table 4-58: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated) Intersection Output Summary

2015

2035

Demand Flows (Total Veh/hr)

8669

9005

Degree of Saturation

0.861

1.719

Control Delay (average),sec

265.6

439.1

Control Delay (worst lane),sec

1811.2

2601.7

`Control Delay (worst movement),sec

1811.2

2601.7

Travel Time (Total) Veh-Km/hr

721.2

1450.5

Travel Time (average), sec

303.2

474.5

Travel Speed, Km/hr

7.2

4.5

Level of Service

C

F

118

Table 4-58 also shows the output summary for the diverging diamond interchange with an actuated traffic signal design. The table shows the results for the computations done in the geometric design that are as follows: Demand Flows, Degree of Saturation, Control Delay, Travel Time, Travel Speed and Level of Service. The level of service is for the whole road intersection. The table also shows the result for the total design period of the project (20 years). Table 4-59: Projected Level of Service per Turning Point Present Route v/h LOS Ortigas Ave. Ext (Westbound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext (Eastbound) 0.59 C Ortigas Ave. Ext (Eastbound) to Ortigas Ave. Ext (Westbound) 0.43 B 0.38 B Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Ave. 0.51 C A. Bonifacio Ave. to Felix Ave.

20yrs v/h .93 0.79 0.73 0.88

LOS E D D E

4.8 Validation of the Effects of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards The designers validate the designs in accordance with the effect of multiple constraints after designing the trade-offs. As shown in the previous chapter, this validation is based on the raw designer’s ranking. The final design that will be adopted by the designer would be based on the result of the shown validation below. 4.8.1 Final Designer’s Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection Table 4-60: Final Designer’s Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection Decision Criteria

Criterion's Importance (scale of 0 to 5)

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion (scale from -5 to 5) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal

Actuated Traffic Signal

1. Economic (Material Cost)

5

5

3.91

2. Constructability (Man Hour)

4

5

2.14

3. Sustainability (Benefit-Cost Ratio)

5

4.89

5

TOTAL 69.45 53.11 *Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

119

4.8.1.1 Final Estimate Table 4-61: Summary of Final Estimate for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal 1. Economic (Material Cost) 2. Constructability (Man Hours) 3. Sustainability (Benefit Cost Ratio)

Php. 4,920,588 2771 man hours 1.289

Php. 5,520,588 3880 man hours 1.303

4.8.1.2 Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking Estimate Based on Economic Constraints Table 4-62: Estimate of Design Schemes (Economic) Design Scheme Estimate Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Php 4,920,588 Actuated Traffic Signal Php 5,520,588 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic) Higher cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal= 5,520,588 Lower cost value: Pre-timed Traffic Signal = 4,920,588 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(5,520,588 - 4,920,588) 4,920,588

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (0.63 %)

= X 10

0.63

%

= 3.91

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-20: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost)

120

Estimate Based on Constructability Constraints Table 4-63: Estimate of Design Schemes (Constructability) Design Scheme Estimate Pre-Timed Traffic Signal 2771 Actuated Traffic Signal 3880 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Constructability) Higher cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 3880 Lower cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 2771 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(3880 - 2771) 3880

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (28.6 %)

=

28.6 X 10

% = 2.14

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-21: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Duration Cost) Estimate Based on Sustainability Constraints Table 4-64: Estimate of Design Schemes (Sustainability) Design Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio Pre-timed Traffic Signal 1.303 Actuated Traffic Signal 1.289 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability) Higher cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 1.303 Lower cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 1.289 121

Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(1.303 - 1.289) 1.289

=

Subordinate Rank =

5

X 10

- (1.1 %)

1.1

%

= 4.89

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-22: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost Ratio) 4.8.1.3 Designer’s Final Ranking Assessment Based on the Final Designer’s Ranking, the governing trade-off for the intersection at Pres. Quezon St. is Pre-Timed Traffic Control. In terms of Economic Constraints, the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal got the rank of 5 considering that its price cost is cheaper compared to the Actuated Traffic Signal. As for the constructability constraints, the cost of duration for the construction of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal is less compared to the cost of the Actuated Traffic Signal. In terms of cost benefit analysis, the Actuated Traffic Signal is more cost effective than the other trade-off that is why a governing rank of 5 was given. Lastly, for the Social Constraints, the Actuated Traffic Signal was given a governing rank of 5 because of the cheaper cost than the other trade-off.

122

4.8.2 Final Designer’s Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection Table 4-65: Final Raw Designer’s Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection Ability to Satisfy the Criterion (scale from -5 to 5) Criterion's Through Flyover Left Turn Flyover Importance Decision Criteria (scale of 0 Pre-Timed Actuated Pre-Timed Actuated Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic to 5) Signal Signal Signal Signal 1. Economic (Material Cost) 5 5 4.22 2. Constructability (Man-Hour) 4 5 3.77 3. Sustainability (Benefit-Cost Ratio) 5 4.89 5 4.25 5 4. Economic (Sub-trade-offs)(cost) 5 5 4.33 5 4.13 TOTAL 94.45 91.65 82.43 81.83 *Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013 4.8.2.1 Final Cost Estimate Table 4-66: Summary of Final Estimate for Cainta Intersection Constraint Through Fly-over Left Turn Fly-over 1. Economic (Material Cost) 134,376,230.80 145,710,714 2. Constructability (Man-Hours) 11,901 13,563 Through Flyover Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal 3. Sustainability (BCR) 2.831 2.863 4. Economic (Material Cost) 4,133,293 4,416,470 Left-Turn Flyover Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal 3. Sustainability (BCR) 1.329 1.437 4. Economic (Material Cost) 6,222,500 6,816,470 4.8.2.2 Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking Estimate Based on Economic Constraints Table 4-67: Estimate of Design Schemes (Economic) Design Scheme Estimate Through Fly-over 134,376,230.80 Left Turn Fly-over 145,710,714.00 123

Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic) Higher cost value: Left Turn Fly-over= 145,710,714 Lower cost value: Through Fly-over = 134,376,230.80 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(145,710,714 – 134,376,230.80) 145,710,714

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (0.078 %)

X 10

=

0.078

= 4.22

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-23: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint (Cost) Estimate Based on Constructability Constraints Table 4-68: Estimate of Design Schemes (Constructability) Design Scheme Estimate Through Fly-over 11,901 Man-Hours Left Turn Fly-over 13,563 Man-Hours Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Constructability) Higher cost value: Left Turn Fly-over = 13,563 Lower cost value: Through Fly-over = 11,901 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference =

(13,563 – 11,901) 13,563

=

0.123

124

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (0.123)

X 10

= 3.77

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-24: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Constructability Constraint (Duration Cost) Estimate Based on Sustainability Constraints Table 4-69: Estimate of Through Fly-over (Sustainability) Design Scheme Benefit Cost Ratio Pre-Timed Traffic Signal 2.831 Actuated Traffic Signal 2.863 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability) Higher cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 2.863 Lower cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 2.831 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

(2.863 - 2.849) 2.863 5

- (0.011 )

=

0.011

X 10

= 4.89

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-25: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) Table 4-70: Estimate of Left turn Fly-over (Sustainability) 125

Design Scheme Pre-timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal

Benefit Cost Ratio 1.326 1.437

Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Sustainability) Higher cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 1.437 Lower cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 1.326 Governing Rank = 5 Using Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2: Percent Difference = Subordinate Rank =

5

(1.437- 1.329) 1.437

=

- (0.075)

X 10

0.075 = 4.25

The governing rank will be subtracted to percent difference and then plot with the percent difference line graph which is scaled from -5 to +5. As shown in the figure below.

Figure 4-26: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost) Estimates of the Traffic Signal Design based on Economic Constraint (Sub-Tradeoffs): Table 4-71: Final Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Pre-Timed 4,133,293 Table 4-72: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Actuated 4,416,470 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 4,416,470 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 4,122,293 126

Governing rank = 5 Percent Difference =

(4,416,470- 4,122,293) = 0.067 4,416,470

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (0.067)

X 10

= 4.33

Figure 4-27: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Through Flyover (Subtrade-offs) Table 4-73: Final Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal (Left Turn Flyover) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Pre-Timed 6,222,500 Table 4-74: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left Turn Flyover) Traffic Signal Total Cost (Php.) Actuated 6,816,470 Computation for the Designer’s Raw Ranking (Economic Constraint) Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 6,816,470 Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 6,222,500 Governing rank = 5 Percent Difference =

(6,816,470- 6,222,500) = 0.087 6,816,470

Subordinate Rank =

5

- (0. 087)

X 10

= 4.13

127

Figure 4-28: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Economic Constraint in Left Turn Flyover (Subtrade-offs) 4.8.2.3 Designer’s Final Ranking Assessment Based on the Final Designer’s Ranking, the governing trade-off for the intersection at Cainta Junction is Pre-Timed Traffic Control. In terms of Economic Constraints, the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal got the rank of 5 considering that its price cost is cheaper compared to the Actuated Traffic Signal. As for the constructability constraints, the cost of duration for the construction of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal is less compared to the cost of the Actuated Traffic Signal. In terms of cost benefit analysis, the Actuated Traffic Signal is more cost effective than the other trade-off that is why a governing rank of 5 was given. Lastly, for the Social Constraints, the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal was given a governing rank of 5 because of the cheaper cost than the other trade-off. 4.9 Sensitivity Analysis 4.9.1 At Pres. Quezon St. Intersection When the economic criterion is 5 the pre-timed traffic signal will win in the ranking and if the criterion will reduce into 4, the pre-timed traffic signal will still be the winner in the ranking but the discrepancy in the ranking against to the other trade-offs it will be closer and if its reduce into 3 the discrepancy is more closer to other trade-offs but the pre-timed traffic signal will still be the winner in the ranking. Table 4-75: Sensitivity Analysis at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection Economic Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal Criterion's Total Ranking Total Ranking 5 69.45 53.11 4 64.45 49.2 3 59.45 45.29

128

70 60 50 40

Series1 Series2

30

Series3

20 10 0 Economic Criterion's

Pretimed Traffic Signal Total Ranking

Actuated Traffic Signal Total Ranking

Figure 4-29: Sensitivity Analysis Ranking at Pres. Quezon St. Intersection 4.9.2 At Cainta Junction Intersection When the economic criterion is 5 the through fly-over with a sub trade-off of pre-timed traffic signal will win in the ranking and if the criterion will reduce into 4, the through fly-over with a sub trade-off of Pretimed traffic signal will steal the winner in the ranking but the discrepancy in the ranking against to the other trade-offs will closer and if its reduce into 3 the discrepancy is more closer to other trade-offs but the fly-over with a sub trade-off of Pre-timed traffic signal will steal the winner in the ranking. Table 4-76: Sensitivity Analysis at Cainta Junction Intersection Economic Criterion Importance 5

Through Fly-Over Pre Timed Actuated Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Total Ranking Total Ranking 94.45 91.65

Left Turn Fly-Over Pre Timed Actuated Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Total Ranking Total Ranking 82.43 81.83

4

84.45

82.32

73.21

73.48

3

64.45

63.66

54.77

56.78

129

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Series1 Series2 Series3 Pre Timed Actuated Pre Timed Actuated Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Total Total Total Total Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Economic Criterion Importance

Through Fly-Over

Left Turn Fly-Over

Figure 4-30: Sensitivity Analysis at Cainta Junction Intersection

4.10

Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in the Final Design

The multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards influence the decision in choosing the final design. The constraints provide limitations on the design as well as selections of methodology. The trade-off set is the pre-timed traffic signal and actuated traffic signal. In accordance with the economic constraints, the pre-timed and actuated traffic signal is being compared with respect to its cost in materials needed for the construction. On the other hand, with respect to the constructability constraints, the pre-timed and actuated traffic signal is compared according to the cost of the duration of construction. Then, on the sustainability constraint, pre-timed and actuated traffic signal was evaluated based on the benefit cost analysis of each design. Lastly, on the social constraint, the travel time cost was the basis of comparison between pre-timed and actuated traffic signal design. 4.10.1

At Pres. Quezon St. Intersection

4.10.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost) As a guide to the designer on what trade-off to choose on the design of traffic signal control, the data was plotted with respect to its material costs. Both trade-offs are estimated based on its individual designs, material components and parameters. The graph displayed below shows the comparison of the two traffic signal control: pre-timed and actuated traffic signal. 130

The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-31) has a cost difference of Php. 600,000. This cost difference is in favor of the pre-timedtraffic signal. The reason is that the design of actuated traffic signalrequires additional equipment and technologies to satisfy required setup in order to be functional. On the other hand, the design of the pre-timedtraffic signal is in its appreciable value because it does not involve additional equipment and technologies in order to be operated on site.

Economic (Cost)

5,600,000 5,400,000 5,200,000 5,000,000 4,800,000 4,600,000 Pre-Timed Traffic Signal

Actuated Traffic Signal

Figure 4-31: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) 4.10.1.2 Constructability Constraints (Duration Cost) The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-32) has a duration cost difference of Php. 66,512. This cost difference is in favor of the pre-timed traffic signal. The reason is that the design of actuated traffic signal is more complicated to construct. On the other hand, the design of the pretimed traffic signal is in its appreciable value because it does require less cost of duration of construction.

131

Constructability (Duration)

250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Pre-Timed Traffic Signal

Actuated Traffic Signal

Figure 4-32: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Constructability) 4.10.1.3 Sustainability Constraints (Benefit Cost) The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-33) has a benefit cost difference of 0.014. This cost difference is in favor of the actuated traffic signal. The reason is that the design of actuated traffic signal is more beneficial due to its ability to supply the traffic demand in variation of time. On the other hand, the design of the pre-timed traffic signal is not in its appreciable value because of its fixed cycle time that does not compromise to the demand on the intersection.

Sustainability (Benefit Cost)

1.305

1.3 1.295 1.29 1.285

1.28 Pre-Timed Traffic Signal

Actuated Traffic Signal

Figure 4-33: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Sustainability) 132

4.10.2

At Cainta Junction Intersection

4.10.2.1 Economic Constraints (Cost) As a guide to the designer on what trade-off to choose on the design of traffic signal control, the data was plotted with respect to its material costs. Both trade-offs are estimated based on its individual designs, material components and parameters. The graph displayed below shows the comparison of the two traffic signal control: pre-timed and actuated traffic signal. The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-34) has a cost difference of Php. 11,334,483. This cost difference is in favor of the through flyover. The reason is that the design of left-turn flyover requires additional equipment and technologies to satisfy required setup in order to be functional. On the other hand, the design of the through flyover is in its appreciable value because it does not involve additional equipment and technologies in order to be operated on site.

Economic (Cost)

150,000,000.00 145,000,000.00 140,000,000.00 135,000,000.00 130,000,000.00 125,000,000.00 Through Flyover

Left Turn Flyover

Figure 4-34: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Economic) 4.10.2.2 Constructability Constraints (Duration Cost) The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-35) has a duration cost difference of 1662 man-hours. This cost difference is in favor of the pre-timedtraffic signal. The reason is that the design of actuated traffic signalis more complicated to construct. On the other hand, the design of the pretimedtraffic signal is in its appreciable value because it does require less cost of duration of construction.

133

Constructability (Duration)

14,000 13,500 13,000 12,500 12,000 11,500 11,000 Through Flyover

Left Turn Flyover

Figure 4-35: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Constructability) 4.10.2.3 Sustainability Constraints (Benefit Cost) The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-36) has a benefit cost difference of 0.014 for through flyover in favor of actuated traffic signal and 0.111 for through flyover in favor of actuated traffic signal. This cost difference is in favor of the actuated traffic signal. The reason is that the design of actuated traffic signalis more beneficial due to its ability to supply the traffic demand in variation of time. On the other hand, the design of the pre-timed traffic signal is not in its appreciable value because of its fixed cycle time that does not compromise to the demand on the intersection.

134

Sustainability (Benefit Cost)

1.45 1.4 1.35 1.3 1.25 1.2

Through Flyover

Left-Turn Flyover

Figure 4-36: Cost Difference between Through Flyover and Left-Turn Flyover (Sustainability) 4.10.2.4 Economic Constraints (Sub-trade-off)(Cost) The evaluation for the two traffic signal control (Figure 4-37) has a benefit cost difference of 283,177 in favor of pre-timed traffic signal. The reason is that the design of pre-timed traffic signal is more beneficial because it is easier to maintain. On the other hand, the design of the actuated traffic signal is not in its appreciable value because of it requires

Economic (Sub-trade-off) (Cost)

4,500,000 4,400,000 4,300,000 4,200,000 4,100,000 4,000,000 3,900,000 Pre-Timed

Actuated

Figure 4-37: Cost Difference between Pre-Timed and Actuated Traffic Signal (Economic) 135

CHAPTER 5 : FINAL DESIGN As discussed in the previous chapter, the design of grade separated and controlled intersection for each of the intersections considered must be in accordance with the multiple constraints, trade-off and standards. After assessing the trade-offs based on the grade separated using through flyover and left-turn flyover and based on controlled intersection using pre-timed and actuated traffic signal with respect on its economic, constructability and sustainability constraints and ranking it based on designer’s raw ranking, the designer come up with the final design to be implemented. The designs have satisfied the constraints and the standard set by the client. 5.1 Intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and Pres. Quezon St. In the design, the designer found out that the design of pre-timed traffic signal as traffic control is more economical and easy to construct for it satisfies the constraints set than the actuated traffic signal. Thus, allowing to have a savings of up to 5.75% of the estimated cost corresponding to Php. 600,000.00 and 16.67% of man-hour cost equivalent to Php. 66,512.00 of the estimated duration. The final design for the design of controlled intersection of a pre-timed traffic signal can be seen in the appendix. With respect to the figures and tables provided on the previous chapter, it shows that using pre-timed traffic signal is more sensible to be used as the design of controlled intersection in terms of cost and duration. And since this design is efficient, therefore, the designer conclude that the design of controlled intersection could use a pre-timed traffic signal since it is satisfying the economic and constructability criteria required for the implementation of this project design. Design of Traffic Signal Time Result: Cycle Length = 90 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds Table 5-1: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Pres. Quezon St. Effective Red Light Phase Flow Description Green Light Time Time Right Ortigas Ave. Extension to Pres. Quezon St. 1 50 Seconds 34 Seconds Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) to Ortigas Through Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Pres. Quezon St. to Ortigas Ave. Ext. 2 Right 30 Seconds 54 Seconds (Westbound)

136

5.2 Intersection of Ortigas Ave. Ext. and A. Bonifacio Ave. & Felix Ave. In the design, the designer found out that the design of through flyover as grade separated is more economical, easy to construct and well-beneficial for it satisfies the constraints set than the left-turn flyover. Thus, allowing the client to have a savings of up to 4.05% of the estimated cost corresponding to Php. 11,334,483.20, a value of 1,662 man-hours equivalent to 6.53% of the estimated duration and 0.54% equivalent to 0.014 estimated ratios. When it comes to the controlled intersection the design of pre-timed traffic signal prevails than actuated traffic signal because it is more economic and sustainable. Thus, allowing the client to have a savings of up to 0.54% with an equivalent value of 0.014 estimated ratios and 3.31% of the estimated cost that is equivalent to Php. 283,177.00. The final design for the design of grade separated and controlled intersection of a through flyover operated with a pre-timed traffic signal can be seen in appendix. With respect to the figures and tables provided on the previous chapter, it shows that using through flyover operated with a pre-timed traffic signal is more sensible to be used as the design of grade separated and controlled intersection in terms of cost, duration and cost-benefit ratio. And since this design is efficient, therefore, the designer conclude that the design of grade separated and controlled intersection could use a through flyover operated with a pre-timed traffic signal since it is satisfying the economic, constructability and sustainability criteria required for the implementation of this project design.

Figure 5-1: Top View of Through Flyover along Ortigas Avenue Extension

137

Figure 5-2: Perspective View of Through Flyover along Ortigas Avenue Extension Design of Traffic Signal time Result: Cycle Length = 110 Seconds Yellow Time = 6 Seconds Total Lost Time = 10.5 Seconds

Phase A

B

Table 5-2: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction Flow Description Effective Green light time Red light time Left Felix Ave. To Tikling 55 49 Through Felix Ave. To A. Bonifacio Right Tikling to Felix Ave. A. Bonifacio to Ortigas Ave. Left Extension 50 54 Through A. Bonifacio to Felix Ave. Right Ortigas Ave. Ext. to A. Bonifacio

138

REFERENCES American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. (2001) “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. (2003) “User Benefit Analysis for Highways” Department of Public Works and Highways. (2012, May) “Design Manual on Highway Safety Design Standards” Garber & Hoel. (2009)”Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition” Sigua, Ricardo. (2008) “Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value http://thedailyguardian.net/index.php/iloilo-opinion/18546-the-p53-m-dungon-bridge-in-iloilo http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/infra_stat/2012%20Atlas%20for%20viiewing/2012%20Atlas/22.%20 Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/infra_stat/2012%20Atlas%20for%20viiewing/2012%20Atlas/22.%20 Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf http://business.homespx.com/bir-rdo-zonal-value-of-salitran-dasmarinas-cavite/ http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/986B4C98-6D6F-464E-B2008C822FF7EDD1/0/App_B_Grade_Separation_Eval_LR.pdf http://ncts.upd.edu.ph/main/downloads/finish/8-graduate-research/79-a-study-on-the-effects-of-flyoverconstruction-on-traffic-flow-the-case-of-metro-manila

139

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SIGNAL TIMMING DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS The most fundamental unit in signal design and timing is the cycle, as defined below. 1. Cycle. A signal cycle is one complete rotation through all of the indications provided. in general, every legal vehicular movement receives a “green” indication during each cycle, although there are some exceptions to this rule. 2. Cycle length. The cycle length is the time (in seconds) that it takes to complete one full cycle of indications. It is given the symbol “C.” 3. Interval. The interval is a period of time during which no signal indication changes. It is the smallest unit of time described within a signal cycle. There are several types of intervals within a signal cycle:  Change interval. The change interval is the “yellow” indication for a given movement. It is part of the transition from “green” to “red:’ in which movements about to lose “green” are given a “yellow” signal, while all other movements have a “red” signal. It is timed to allow a vehicle that cannot safely stop when the “green” is withdrawn to enter the intersection legally. The change interval is given the symbol “yj” for movement(s) i.  Clearance interval. The clearance interval is also part of the transition from “green” to “red” for a given set of movements. During the clearance interval, all movements have a “red” signal. It is timed to allow a vehicle that legally enters the intersection on “yellow” to safely cross the intersection before conflicting flows are released. The clearance interval is @en the symbol “ari” (for “all red”) for movement(s) i.  Green interval. Each movement has one green interval during the signal cycle. During a green interval, the movements permitted have a “green” light, while all other movements have a “red” light. The green interval is given the symbol “Gif”or movement(s) i.  Red interval. Each movement has a red interval during the signal cycle. All movements not permitted have a “red” light, while those permitted to move have a “green” light. In general, the red interval overlaps the green intervals for all other movements in the intersection. The red interval is given the symbol “Rj” for movement(s) i. 4. Phase. A signal phase consists of a green interval, plus the change and clearance intervals that follow it. It is a set of intervals that allows a designated movement or set of movements to flow and to be safely halted before release of a conflicting set of movements. 140

Types of Signal Operation Traffic signals can operate on a pre-timed basis or may be partially or fully actuated by arriving vehicles sensed by detectors. In networks, or on arterials, signals may be coordinated through computer control. 1. Pre-timed operation. In pre-timed operation, the cycle length, phase sequence, and timing of each interval are constant. Each cycle of the signal follows the same predetermined plan. “Multi-dial” controllers will allow different pre-timed settings to be established. An internal clock is used to activate the appropriate timing. In such cases, it is typical to have at least an AM peak, a PM peak, and off-peak signal timing. 2. Semi-actuated operation. In semi-actuated operation, detectors are placed on the minor approaches to the intersection; there are no detectors on the major street. The light is green for the major street at all times except when a “call” or actuation is noted on one of the minor approaches. Then, subject to limitations such as a minimum major-street green, the green is transferred to the minor street. The green returns to the major street when the maximum minor street green is reached or when the detector senses that there is no further demand on the minor street. Semi-actuated operation is often used where the primary reason for signalization is ‘‘interruption of continuous traffic,”. 3. Full actuated operation. In full actuated operation, every lane of every approach must be monitored by a detector. Green time is allocated in accordance with information from detectors and programmed “rules” established in the controller for capturing and retaining the green. In full actuated operation, the cycle length, sequence of phases, and green time split may vary from cycle to cycle. Chapter 20 presents more detailed descriptions of actuated signal operation, along with a methodology for timing such signals. 4. Computer control. Computer control is a system term. No individual signal is “computer controlled,” unless the signal controller is considered to be a computer. In a computer-controlled system, the computer acts as a master controller, coordinating the timings of a large number (hundreds) of signals. The computer selects or calculates an optimal coordination plan based on input from detectors placed throughout the system. In general, such selections are made only once in advance of an AM or PM peak period. The nature of a system transition from one timing plan to another is sufficiently disruptive to be avoided during peak-demand periods. Individual signals in a computercontrolled system generally operate in the pre-timed mode. For coordination to be effective, all signals in the network must use the same cycle length (or an even multiple thereof), and it is therefore difficult to maintain a progressive pattern where cycle length or phase splits are allowed to vary.

141

Treatment of Left Turns The modeling of signalized intersection operation would be straightforward if left turns did not exist. Left turns at a signalized intersection can be handled in one of three ways: 1. Permitted left turns. A “permitted” left turn movement is one that is made across an opposing flow of vehicles. The driver is permitted to cross through the opposing flow, but must select an appropriate gap in the opposing traffic stream through which to turn. This is the most common form of left-turn phasing at signalized intersections, used where left-turn volumes are reasonable and where gaps in the opposing flow are adequate to accommodate left turns safely. 2. Protected left turns. A “protected” left turn movement is made without an opposing vehicular flow. The signal plan protects left-turning vehicles by stopping the opposing through movement. This requires that the left turns and the opposing through flow be accommodated in separate signal phases and leads to multiphase (more than two) signalization. In some cases, left turns are “protected” by geometry or regulation. Left turns from the stem of a T-intersection, for example, face no opposing flow, as there is no opposing approach to the intersection. Left turns from a one-way street similarly do not face an opposing flow. 3. Compound left turns. More complicated signal timing can be designed in which left turns are protected for a portion of the signal cycle and are permitted in another portion of the cycle. Protected and permitted portions of the cycle can be provided in any order. Such phasing is also referred to as protected plus permitted or permitted plus protected, depending upon the order of the sequence.

142

APPENDIX B: INITIAL COST ESTIMATE B.1 President Quezon St. Intersection Economic Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost pcs 2 145,800 pcs 2 1,200,000 LS 1 1,168,000

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting Total Cost

Total Cost 291600 2400000 1168000 Php 3,859,600

Actuated Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost pc. 2 145,800 pc. 2 1,500,000 LS 1 1,168,000

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting Total Cost

Total Cost 291600 3000000 1168000 Php 4,459,600

Constructability Constraint Intersection

Trade offs

Units

Man Hours

Pres. Quezon

Pre timed Traffic Signal Actuated Traffic Signal

2 2

721 1081

(Source: Based on the Traffic Management Bulacan Province, Package 1 for Critical Intersections along MNR, Bulacan Section)

143

Sustainability Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 10,843,356 Whole Life Cost ₱ 12,565,034 Present Value of Cost ₱ 10,463,548 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 32,998,088 Net Present Value ₱ 25,534,539 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.15 Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 12,586,507 Whole Life Cost ₱ 18,879,760 Present Value of Cost ₱ 10,505,793 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 45,385,028 Net Present Value ₱ 34,294,299 Benefit Cost Ratio 4.32 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

B.2 Cainta Junction Intersection Economic Constraint Trade-offs Through Fly-Over Left Fly-Over

Total Length (m) 230 253

Cost per Linear meter(Php) 479,915.11 479,915.11

Total Cost (Php) 110,380,475.30 121,425,595.00

144

Constructability Constraint

Trade-offs Through Fly-Over Left Fly-Over

Man Hours 9776 11303

(Source: http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/infra_stat/2012%20Atlas%20for%20viiewing/2012%20Atlas/22.%20 Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf) Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Through Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 121,223,831 Whole Life Cost ₱ 129,945,509 Present Value of Cost ₱ 120,844,023 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 147,903,447 Net Present Value ₱ 135,915,014 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.203 Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 122,966,982 Whole Life Cost ₱ 129,260,235 Present Value of Cost ₱ 120,886,268 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 157,514,807 Net Present Value ₱ 144,674,774 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.303 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

145

Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Left-Turn Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 132,268,950 Whole Life Cost ₱ 139,990,628 Present Value of Cost ₱ 131,889,142 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 370,608,489 Net Present Value ₱ 146,960,133 Benefit Cost Ratio 2.81 Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 154,012,101 Whole Life Cost ₱ 160,305,354 Present Value of Cost ₱ 151,931,387 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 505,931,518 Net Present Value ₱ 175,719,893 Benefit Cost Ratio 3.33 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Through Flyover)

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting Total Cost

Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost LS pcs LS

1 2 1

1,352,588.00 1,200,000 1,168,000

Total Cost 1352588 2400000 1168000 4,920,588.00

146

Actuated Traffic Signal Description

Unit

Quantity

Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting

LS pc. LS

1 2 1

Unit Cost 1,352,588.00 1,500,000 1,168,000

Total Cost

Total Cost 1352588 3000000 1168000 5,520,588.00

Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Left-Turn Flyover)

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting

Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost LS pcs LS

1 4 1

1,352,588.00 1,200,000 1,168,000

Total Cost

Total Cost 1352588 4800000 1168000 7,320,588.00

Actuated Traffic Signal Description

Unit

Quantity

Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting

LS pc. LS

1 4 1

Total Cost

Unit Cost 1,352,588.00 1,500,000 1,168,000

Total Cost 1352588 6000000 1168000 8,520,588.00

(Source: Based on: Traffic Management Bulacan Province, Package 1 for Critical Intersections along MNR, Bulacan Section)

147

APPENDIX C: PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTION C.1 President Quezon St. Intersection A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME 2015 Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type

1 172 0 2 9 50 23 257

1 208 0 2 10 56 26 302

1 250 0 3 11 63 29 356

1

Turn Point 2 3 1174 236 362 182 41 0 12 3 467 258 6 15 2061 694 2020 Turn Point 2 3 1414 285 404 203 46 0 13 4 521 288 6 16 2405 796 2025 Turn Point 2 3 1704 343 451 227 52 0 15 4 582 322 7 18 2810 914 2030 Turn Point 2 3

4 877 415 17 24 315 6 1654

4 1057 464 19 27 352 6 1924

4 1274 518 21 29 393 7 2241

4 148

Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total

301 0 3 12 70 33 419

2054 413 504 253 58 0 16 4 650 359 8 20 3288 1050 2035 Turn Point 1 2 3 363 2475 498 0 562 283 3 64 0 13 18 5 78 725 401 36 9 23 494 3853 1209

1535 578 23 32 438 8 2615

4 1850 646 26 35 489 9 3055

P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME 2015 Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC

1 160 0 0 14 42 6 223

1 193 0 0 16 47

Turn Point 2 3 999 208 288 96 32 0 47 10 269 36 2 4 1638 355 2020 Turn Point 2 3 1204 251 322 107 36 0 52 11 300 40

4 1162 400 32 32 390 2 2018

4 1400 446 36 35 435 149

Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total

6 262

1 233 0 0 17 53 7 310

1 280 0 0 19 59 8 366

1 338 0 0 21 66 9 433

2 5 1917 414 2025 Turn Point 2 3 1450 303 359 120 40 0 57 12 335 45 3 6 2246 485 2030 Turn Point 2 3 1748 365 401 134 45 0 63 13 375 50 3 6 2635 568 2035 Turn Point 2 3 2106 440 448 149 50 0 69 15 418 56 3 7 3095 666

2 2355

4 1687 498 40 39 486 3 2753

4 2032 556 45 43 542 3 3222

4 2449 621 50 47 606 3 3777

150

C.2 Cainta Junction Intersection A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME 2015 Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ

1 101 95 14 14 97 10 330

1 122 106 15 15 108 11 377

1 147 118 17 16 121 12 432

1 177 132

2 135 84 0 30 113 17 379

2 163 94 0 33 126 19 434

2 196 105 0 36 141 21 499

2 236 117

3 43 11 0 16 44 18 132

3 52 13 0 17 49 20 151

3 63 14 0 19 55 22 173

3 76 16

4 467 88 36 40 244 27 901 2020 4 563 99 40 44 272 30 1047 2025 4 678 110 44 48 304 33 1218 2030 4 817 123

Turn Point 5 6 602 173 119 81 0 0 70 85 419 85 29 19 1239 443

7 114 75 15 30 195 21 450

8 164 8 21 18 143 15 369

9 379 78 45 54 233 37 827

10 92 63 40 18 198 21 432

Turn Point 5 6 725 208 133 90 0 0 77 94 468 95 32 21 1436 509

7 137 84 16 33 218 24 512

8 198 9 24 20 160 16 426

9 457 88 51 60 260 41 956

10 110 70 45 20 221 24 490

Turn Point 5 6 874 251 148 101 0 0 84 103 523 106 36 24 1666 585

7 166 94 18 36 243 26 583

8 238 10 26 22 179 18 493

9 550 98 57 66 290 46 1106

10 133 79 50 22 247 26 557

Turn Point 5 6 1053 303 166 113

7 199 104

8 287 11

9 663 109

10 160 88 151

PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total

19 18 135 14 495

0 40 157 23 574

0 21 62 25 199

1 213 148 21 20 151 16 568

2 285 131 0 44 176 26 661

3 91 18 0 23 69 28 228

49 0 0 53 93 113 340 584 118 37 40 26 1419 1936 673 2035 Turn Point 4 5 6 985 1269 365 137 185 126 55 0 0 58 102 125 379 652 132 42 45 30 1656 2253 777

20 40 271 30 665

30 24 199 20 572

63 72 324 51 1283

56 24 276 30 633

7 240 117 23 44 303 33 760

8 346 12 33 26 223 23 663

9 799 122 71 79 362 57 1490

10 193 98 62 26 308 33 721

P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME 2015 Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total

1 94 98 5 5 81 6 289

1 113 109 6 6 90 7 331

2 132 98 0 20 168 8 426

2 159 109 0 22 188 9 487

3 32 3 0 7 33 9 84

3 39 3 0 8 37 10 97

4 508 73 25 29 305 17 957 2020 4 612 82 28 32 341 19 1113

Turn Point 5 6 540 332 101 86 0 0 56 70 374 252 19 10 1090 750

7 166 70 6 20 192 12 466

8 142 0 12 9 123 6 292

9 698 64 34 42 670 26 1534

10 76 50 29 9 173 12 349

Turn Point 5 6 651 400 113 96 0 0 62 77 418 281 21 11 1264 866

7 200 78 7 22 214 13 535

8 171 0 13 10 137 7 338

9 841 71 38 46 748 29 1774

10 92 56 32 10 193 13 396 152

2025 Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total Vehicle Type Car PuJ PuB Truck MC Tri Total

1 136 122 6 6 101 7 379

1 164 136 7 7 113 8 436

1 198 152 8 7 126 9 501

2 192 122 0 24 209 10 557

2 231 136 0 27 234 11 639

2 278 152 0 29 261 12 734

3 46 4 0 8 41 11 111

3 56 4 0 9 46 13 128

3 67 5 0 10 51 14 148

4 738 91 31 35 380 21 1296 2030 4 889 102 35 39 425 24 1512 2035 4 1071 113 39 43 474 26 1766

Turn Point 5 6 784 482 126 107 0 0 68 85 466 314 24 12 1468 1001

7 241 87 7 24 239 15 614

8 206 0 15 11 153 7 393

9 1014 80 42 51 835 32 2054

10 110 62 36 11 216 15 450

Turn Point 5 6 945 581 141 120 0 0 75 93 521 351 26 14 1707 1159

7 290 97 8 27 267 17 707

8 248 0 17 12 171 8 457

9 1221 89 47 56 933 36 2383

10 133 70 40 12 241 17 512

Turn Point 5 6 1139 700 157 134 0 0 82 103 581 392 30 16 1988 1344

7 350 109 9 29 298 19 815

8 299 0 19 13 191 9 532

9 1472 99 53 62 1041 40 2767

10 160 78 45 13 269 19 584

153

APPENDIX D: COMPUTATION OF VEHICLE CAPACITY RATIO AND LEVEL OF SERVICE D.1 President Quezon St. Intersection 2015 Road Section A Lane Width = Volume TP1 = Volume TP2 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service = Road Section B Lane Width = Volume TP3 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service = Road Section C Lane Width = Volume TP4 = Volume TP5 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

2035

7.2 223 1638 2400 0.78 D

Road Section A = Lane Width = Volume TP1 = Volume TP2 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service

7.2 433 3095 2400 1.47 F

3.5 355 600 0.59 C

Road Section B = Lane Width = Volume TP3 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service

3.5 666 600 1.11 F

7.2 2018 299 2400 0.97 E

Road Section C = Lane Width = Volume TP4 = Volume TP5 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service

7.2 3777 557 2400 1.81 F

154

D.2 Cainta Junction Intersection 2015 Road Section A Lane Width = Volume TP1 = Volume TP2 = Volume TP3 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service = Road Section B Lane Width = Volume TP4 = Volume TP5 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service = Road Section C Lane Width = Volume TP6 = Volume TP7 = Volume TP8 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service = Road Section D Lane Width = Volume TP9 = Volume TP10 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

2035

8 330 379 132 2400 0.35054 B

Road Section A Lane Width = Volume TP1 = Volume TP2 = Volume TP3 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

8 568 661 228 2400 0.60714 D

8 901 1239 2400 0.89183 E

Road Section B Lane Width = Volume TP4 = Volume TP5 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

8 1656 2253 2400 1.62897 F

8 443 450 369 2400 0.52583 D

Road Section C Lane Width = Volume TP6 = Volume TP7 = Volume TP8 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

8 777 760 663 2400 0.91659 F

9 827 432 2400 0.52438 E

Road Section D Lane Width = Volume TP9 = Volume TP10 = Lane Capacity = VCR = Level of Service =

9 1490 721 2400 0.92105 F

155

APPENDIX E: COMPUTATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN Sight Distance Sight distance is a length of a roadway a driver can see ahead at any particular time. The sight distance available at each point of the highway must be such that, when a driver is travelling at the design speed adequate time is given an object is observed in the vehicles path to make the necessary evasive maneuver without colliding with the object. Sight Distance Elements: a.) Driver’s eye height is the observed eye height of the driver. b.) Object height is the height of a possible object in the path of the vehicle. Drivers Eye and Object Height Sight Distance Type

Drivers Eye Height (m)

Object Height (m)

Car Stopping Distance Truck Stopping Distance Maneuver Stopping Distance Passing Sight Distance Car Head-Light to road Surface Stopping Distance Truck to Car Tail-Light Stopping Distance

1.08 2.33 1.08 1.08 0.6 2.33

0.6 0.6 0.6 1.08 0 0.6

(Source: DPWH Safety Design Manual) Stopping Sight Distance 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 + 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐕𝟐 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 + 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒(𝟗.𝟖𝟏 ± 𝐆)

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

c.) Reaction Distance Reaction travelled while the driver perceives a hazard, decides to take action, and then acts by starting to apply the brakes to start slowing down. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 Where: t = Reaction time in seconds (2.5 seconds) V = Design Speed (kph) 156

d.) Braking Distance Braking distance is the distance required for the vehicle to slow down and stop. 𝐕𝟐 (𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞) = 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒 (𝟗.𝟖𝟏 − 𝐆) Where: V = Design Speed a = deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied) G=Grade Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) Computation 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 + 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐕𝟐 𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 𝐭𝐕 + 𝐚 𝟐𝟓𝟒(𝟗.𝟖𝟏 ± 𝐆) 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕𝟖 (𝟐. 𝟓)(𝟒𝟎) +

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

𝟒𝟎𝟐 𝟑.𝟒𝟏

𝟐𝟓𝟒 (𝟗.𝟖𝟏 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖)

𝐒𝐒𝐃 = 𝟓𝟔. 𝟒𝟕 𝐦 ≈ 𝟔𝟎𝐦 Stopping Sight Distance Design Speed (kph)

Stopping Sight Distance (m)

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

65 75 85 105 110 125 135 150 165 185 200 220

157

Design Standard for Philippine National Highway

158

Vertical Alignment Standards for Grade Separation The vertical alignment of a highway consists of a straight section known as grades connected by vertical curves. The design of the vertical alignment therefore involves the selection of suitable grades for the tangent sections and the appropriate length of vertical curves. Minimum Curve Distance 𝑳𝒎𝒊𝒏 = KA 𝑲=

𝑺𝟐

(Highway and Safety Standards, DPWH Book)

𝑺<𝐿

𝟏𝟎𝟎(√𝒉𝟏 + √𝒉𝟐 )𝟐

Where: 𝐿𝑣 = length of Vertical Curve K = length of vertical curve in meters in 1% change in grade A = Algebraic difference in grade (%) S = Sight Distance ℎ1 = driver eye distance (m) for car and truck ℎ2 = object height (m) for cars and truck Design Inputs: 𝑳= 276m S = 60m 𝒉𝟏 = 2.33 𝒉𝟐 = 0.6 𝑨 = (+8%) − (−8%) = 16 Computation of Rate of change 𝑲=

𝑺𝟐 𝟏𝟎𝟎(√𝒉𝟏 + √𝒉𝟐 )𝟐 602 𝐾= 100(√2.33 + √0.6)2 𝐾 = 6.8 𝑳𝒗 = 𝑲𝑨 𝐿𝑣 = 6.8(16) 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 108.79 𝑚 ≈ 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝒎 𝐿 = 276

𝑺<𝐿

159

Station of the highest point of curve 𝑔1 𝐿𝑣 𝑔1 − 𝑔2 276(0.08) 𝑆1 = (0.08 + 0.08) 𝑺𝟏 = 𝟏𝟑𝟖𝒎 𝑆1 =

Elevation of the highest point 𝑯=

𝑳 (𝒈 − 𝒈𝟐 ) 𝟖 𝟏

276 (0.08 − (−0.08)) 8 𝑯 = 𝟓. 𝟓𝟐 𝒎 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 = 10 + 5.52 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟓𝟐𝐦 𝐻=

160

APPENDIX F: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (PRE-TIMED TRAFFIC SIGNAL) Step 1: Development of the Phase Plan

PHASE (Ø)

Phase Plan at Cainta Junction (Pre-Timed Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP Turn No.

Turn

TP4

Through

TP9

Through

TP1

Left

A. Bonifacio Ave.

TP2

Through

A. Bonifacio Ave.

TP6

Left

Felix Ave.

TP7

Through

Felix Ave.

1

2

3

From

Going to

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound)

Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) Felix Ave. Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) A. Bonifacio Ave.

SATURATION 10304 7264 2727 2413 2741 2924

Step 2: Computation of Equivalent Hourly Flow For each Phase: Lane Volume Peak Hour Volume per flow Peak Hour Factor

LANE VOLUME =

Maximum Value of Approach Flow to Saturation Flow Lane Volume Y1 = Saturation

Step 3: Computation of Total Lost Time Total Lost Time (L) Assuming Lost Time per Phase is 3.5 and there is N, no. of phases: Total Lost Time L=

Σ L1

161

Step 4: Computation of Optimum Cycle Length (Co) Optimum Cycle Length 1.5L + 5 Co =

𝐧=∅

𝟏 − ∑ 𝐘𝐢 𝐢=𝟏

Where: Co = optimum cycle length L = total lost time per cycle Yi = maximum value of the ratios of approach flows to saturation flows for all lane ∅ = number of phase Step 5: Total Effective Green Time (Gte) The total effective green time is the equivalent length of time in the cycle that utilized at the saturation flow rate and is given by: Total Effective Green Time Gte =

Co - L

(Source: Traffic & Highway Engineering 4th Edition © 2009, Garber & Hoel) Step 6: Actual Green Time per Phase (Gai) 𝛕 = 𝟑. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐬 (𝐲𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞) Actual Green Time Gai =

Gei + Li - τ

For Each Phase: Actual Green Time per Phase Gai =

Yi Co

+ Gte - τ

162

APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (ACTUATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL) Step 1: Development of Phase Plan

PHASE (Ø)

Phase Plan (Actuated Traffic Signal) LANE GROUP SATURATION

Turn No. TP4

Turn

From

Going to

Through

Pasig Blvd Extension

10304

TP9

Through

Tikling

7264

TP1 TP2 TP6 TP7

Left Through Left Through

Tikling Pasig Blvd Extension A. Bonifacio A.Bonifacio Felix Ave. Felix Ave.

Pasig Blvd. Felix Ave. Tikling A. Bonifacio

2727 2413 2741 2924

1 2 3

Step 2: Minimum Green Time and Detector Location Gmin

=

Initial portion + Unit Extension Gmin = (𝐡𝐧 + 𝐤 𝟏 ) +

𝐱 𝟎. 𝟐𝟖𝟕𝐮

(Eq. 20-2: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Where: U X H N K1

= = = = =

average speed (km/hr or m/sec) distance between detectors and stop line (m) average headway (s) number of vehicle waiting between the detectors and the stop line starting delay (s)

Using start up lost time of 2.0s and minimum green time that could be allocated would be 7.0s 𝑥 7 = (2(1) + 3.50) + 0.287(16.667) X = 7 meters Detectors should be placed not exceeding from 7 meters from the stop line. Step 3: Unit Extension

163

The Traffic Detector Handbook recommends that a unit extension of 3.0 s be used where approach speeds are equal to or less than 30 mi/h, and that 3.5 s be used at higher approach speeds. U≥P=

X 1.47 S

(Eq. 20-3: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

7𝑥10−3 U≥P= x3600 = 0.286 seconds 1.47 (60) Therefore, the 3 seconds unit extension is safe Step 4: Determination of Sum of Critical-Lane Volumes

Phase

Approach From Tikling

1

2 3

Actuated Traffic Signal Phasing Through Volume Volume Movement vehicle (veh/hr) (tvu/hr) equivalent Through

1101

1.05

Lane Group (tvu/hr)

volume/lane (tvu/hr/ln)

2978

1439

900

450

1454

727

1156

Pasig Blvd. Extension

Through

1735

1.05

1822

A. Bonifacio

Left

366

1

366

A.Bonifacio

Through

509

1.05

534

Felix Ave.

Left

865

1

865

Felix Ave.

Through

561

1.05

589

∅ 1: Vc1 = 1439 tvu⁄hr /ln ∅ 2: Vc1 = 450 tvu⁄hr /ln ∅ 3: Vc1 = 727 tvu⁄hr /ln Step 5: Determine Yellow and All-Red Intervals and Lost Time per Cycle Yellow and all-red intervals are determined in the same procedure as for pre-timed signals. 𝐒 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫 = 𝐒 − 𝟓 𝐒 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫 = 𝐒 + 𝟓 𝟏.𝟒𝟕𝐕

𝐲 = 𝐭 + (𝟐𝐚+𝟐𝐀𝐠)

(Eq. 20-4: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

164

𝐰+𝐋

𝐚𝐫 = 𝟏.𝟒𝟕𝐒

𝟏𝟓

(Eq. 20-5: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

The 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual indicates that lost times vary with the length of the yellow and all-red phases in the signal timing. The HCM now recommends the use of the following default values for this determination: 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 − 𝐮𝐩 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝓵𝟏 = 𝟐. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜 𝐄𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐞 = 𝟐. 𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜/𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 Using these default values, lost time per phase and lost time per cycle may be estimated as follows: 𝓵𝟐 = 𝐲 + 𝐚𝐫 − 𝐞 𝐘𝟏 = 𝐲 + 𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝓵𝟏 = 𝐞 + 𝓵𝟐 𝐭𝓵 = 𝐭𝓵𝟏 + 𝐭𝓵𝟐 Total Lost Time 𝐭𝓵 = 𝐭𝓵𝟏 + 𝐭𝓵𝟐 A. Minor Road Speed Limit = 24.86 mph 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 𝑆 − 5 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 24.86 − 5 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 19.86 𝑚𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 𝑆 + 5 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 24.86 + 5 𝑆𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟 = 29.86 𝑚𝑝ℎ

B. Major Road Speed Limit = 37.30 mph 𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 𝑆 − 5 𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 37.30 − 5 𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 32.30 𝑚𝑝ℎ

𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 𝑆 + 5 𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 37.30 + 5 𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟 = 42.30 𝑚𝑝ℎ

Along Minor Road Yellow or change interval (Equation 20-4: Roess,Prassas, McShane, Traffic Engineering) y=t+ y=1+

1.47V (2a + 2Ag)

1.47(19.86) (2(3) + 2(9.81)(5%))

𝐲 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 165

All – red clearance interval (Equation 20-5: Roess,Prassas, McShane, Traffic Engineering) w+L ar = 1.47Sminor (−) ar =

3 + 3.5 1.47(19.86)

𝐚𝐫 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Along Major Road Yellow or change interval (Equation 20-4: Roess,Prassas, McShane, Traffic Engineering) 1.47V y=t+ (2a + 2Ag) y=1+

1.47(32.30) (2(3) + 2(9.81)(5%))

𝐲 = 𝟔. 𝟖𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 All – red clearance interval (Equation 20-5: Roess,Prassas, McShane, Traffic Engineering) w+L ar = 1.47Smajor (−) ar =

3 + 3.5 1.47(32.30)

𝐚𝐫 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟒 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Start − up lost time, ℓ1 = 2.0 sec Enroachment of vehicles, e = 2.0 sec/phase Along Minor Road Y1 = y + ar Y1 = 4.20 + 0.22 𝐘𝟏 = 𝟒. 𝟒𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 ℓ2 = y + a r − e ;

clearance lost time

ℓ2 = 4.20 + 0.22 − 2.0 𝓵𝟐 = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 tℓ1 = e + ℓ2 tℓ1 = 2.0 + 2.42 𝐭𝓵𝟏 = 𝟒. 𝟒𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 166

Along Major Road Y2 = y + ar Y2 = 6.80 + 0.14 𝐘𝟏 = 𝟔. 𝟗𝟒 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 ℓ2 = y + a r − e ;

clearance lost time

ℓ2 = 6.80 + 0.14 − 2.0 𝓵𝟐 = 𝟒. 𝟗𝟒 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 tℓ1 = e + ℓ2 tℓ1 = 2.0 + 4.94 𝐭𝓵𝟏 𝟔. 𝟗𝟒 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Total Lost Time tℓ = tℓ1 + tℓ2 tℓ = 4.42 + 6.94 𝐭𝓵 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟑𝟔 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝟏𝟐 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Step 6: Maximum Green Phase and Minimum Green Phase 𝐂𝐝𝐞𝐬 =

𝐋 𝐕

𝐜 𝟏 − [𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟓 𝐱 𝐏𝐇𝐅 ] 𝐱 (𝐕⁄𝐂)

𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐠 𝐓𝐎𝐓 = 𝐂 − 𝐋

(Eq. 18-11: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane) (Eq. 18-12: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Allocation of Effective Green Time to Each Phase 𝐕𝐜𝟏 𝐠 = 𝐠 𝐓𝐎𝐓 ( ) 𝐕𝐜 PHF =

(Eq. 18-13: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

Hourly Volume Max. Rate of Flow

PHFFrom A.Bonifacio = 0.505 PHFFrom Tikling = 0.530 PHFFrom Feix Ave. = 0.482 PHFFrom Pasig Blvd.Extension = 0.801 167

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭 𝐏𝐇𝐅 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟎𝟏

Cdes =

12 1439

1 − [1615 x 0.801 x 1.34]

𝐂𝐝𝐞𝐬 = 𝟕𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬



Available Effective Green Time g TOT = C − L g TOT = 70 − 12 g TOT = 58 seconds



Allocation of effective Green Time to Each Phase g = g TOT (

Vc1 ) Vc

1439 g1 = 58 ( ) = 58 seconds 1439 450 g 2 = 58 ( ) = 19 seconds 1439 727 g 3 = 58 ( ) = 30 seconds 1439 To determine maximum green time for the minor and major road, Highway Capacity Manual recommends a value of 1.50 as multiplying factor so: Maximum Green Phase Gmax1 = 1.50 ∗ 58 = 87 ≈ 𝟗𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Gmax2 = 1.50 ∗ 19 = 28.5 ≈ 𝟑𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Gmax2 = 1.50 ∗ 30 = 45 ≈ 𝟓𝟎 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 Step 7: Determine Critical Cycle Length 𝐂𝐜 = ∑(𝐆𝐢 + 𝐘𝐢 )

(Eq. 18-14: Traffic Engineering, Roess, Prassas, & McShane)

𝐂𝐜 = 90+30+50+4.42+6.94 = 181.36 ≈ 185 seconds 168

APPENDIX H: FINAL COST ESTIMATE C.1 President Quezon St. Intersection Economic Constraint Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting

Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost LS 1 1,352,588.00 pcs 2 1,200,000 LS 1 1,168,000

Total Cost

Total Cost 1352588 2400000 1168000 4,920,588.00

Actuated Traffic Signal Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting

Unit L.S pc. L.S

Quantity 1 2 1

Unit Cost 1,352,588.00 1,500,000 1,168,000

Total Cost

Total Cost 1352588 3000000 1168000 5,520,588.00

Constructability Constraint Trade-offs Pre Timed Actuated

Man Hours 2771 3880

(Source: Based on: Traffic Management Bulacan Province, Package 1 for Critical Intersections along MNR, Bulacan Section) Sustainability Constraint Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 15,627,692 Whole Life Cost ₱ 18,821,537 Present Value of Cost ₱ 15,242,817 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 19,647,992 Net Present Value ₱ 19,534,539 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.289

169

Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 17,583,502 Whole Life Cost ₱ 18,879,762 Present Value of Cost ₱ 16,505,793 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 21,507,048 Net Present Value ₱ 30,254,296 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.303 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

C.2 Cainta Junction Intersection Economic Constraint Trade-offs Total Length (m)

Cost per Linear meter (Php)

Through Fly-Over

280.00

479,915.11

Left Turn Fly-Over

304.00

479,915.11

Total Cost (Php) 134,376,230.80 145,710,714.00

Constructability Constraint Trade-offs Through Fly-Over Left Turn Fly-Over

Man Hours 11,901 13,563

(Source: http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/infra_stat/2012%20Atlas%20for%20viiewing/2012%20Atlas/22.%20 Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf)

170

Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Through Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 139,223,831 Whole Life Cost ₱ 142,945,508 Present Value of Cost ₱ 137,854,023 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 390,264,739 Net Present Value ₱ 195,916,012 Benefit Cost Ratio 2.831 Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 160,223,831 Whole Life Cost ₱ 167,260,232 Present Value of Cost ₱ 154,896,168 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 443,467,729 Net Present Value ₱ 194,274,755 Benefit Cost Ratio 2.863 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Left-Turn Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 250,264,705 Whole Life Cost ₱ 263,259,578 Present Value of Cost ₱ 246,945,255 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 328,190,243 Net Present Value ₱ 300,955,888 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.329

171

Actuated Traffic Signal Summary of the result of the analysis Total Capital Cost ₱ 272,007,856 Whole Life Cost ₱ 280,305,354 Present Value of Cost ₱ 271,931,387 Present Value of Benefit ₱ 390,765,403 Net Present Value ₱ 295,719,893 Benefit Cost Ratio 1.437 BCR = PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFIT/PRESENT VALUE OF COST

Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Through Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Traffic Signs LS 1 565,293 Traffic Signals pcs 2 1,200,000 Lighting LS 1 1,168,000 Total Cost

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting Total Cost

Actuated Traffic Signal Unit Quantity Unit Cost LS 1 248,470 pc. 2 1,500,000 LS 1 1,168,000

Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Left-Turn Flyover) Pre-Timed Traffic Signal Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Traffic Signs LS 1 848,470 Traffic Signals pcs 4 1,200,000 Lighting LS 1 1,168,000 Total Cost

Total Cost 565,293 2400000 1168000 4,133,293

Total Cost 248,470 3000000 1168000 4,416,470

Total Cost 1352588 4800000 1168000 6,816,470

172

Description Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Lighting Total Cost

Actuated Traffic Signal Unit Quantity LS 1 pc. 4 LS 1

Unit Cost 254,500 1,500,000 1,168,000

Total Cost 1352588 6000000 1168000 6,222,500

(Source: Based on: Traffic Management Bulacan Province, Package 1 for Critical Intersections along MNR, Bulacan Section)

173

APPENDIX I: MINUTES OF MEETING

Date: Time: Meeting with: Attendees:

November 16, 2015 1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M. Ortiza, Patrick Joseph G.

Agenda

TITLE DEFENSE: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT ALONG ORTIGAS AVENUE EXTENSION (PASIG CITY TO CAINTA, RIZAL)

Comment - The Project Title must be specific, include the project location, the solution to the problem and the word “Design.” - The project must not include only one intersection, as much as possible; consider also the occurring of another intersection after another. - Include the stationing of the project location if it is a stretch of a road.

Noted By: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

174

Date: Time: Meeting with: Attendees:

December 7, 2015 1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M. Ortiza, Patrick Joseph G.

Agenda

Comment - In Chapter 1, identify what the problem is. How are you going to improve the flow of traffic condition? - Arrange the Project Development properly.

Presentation of Chapter 1 - 2

- Include only aerial recent photo for the Traffic Condition of the project location. - Make sure the intersection is clearly projected in the pictures include in the discussion of Chapter 2. - The elevation of the intersections must be visibly seen.

Noted By: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

175

Date: Time: Meeting with: Attendees:

January 11, 2016 1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M.

Agenda

Comment - Specify the intersections in the project title. - The specific objectives must allow to “determine the effects of multiple constraints …” Presentation of Chapter 1 - 3

- The traffic volume data must be present (2015) and the projected 20 years after must be the one solved. - In the discussion of constraints, the trade-offs must be included.

Noted By: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

176

Date: Time: Meeting with: Attendees:

February 29, 2016 1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M. Ortiza, Patrick Joseph G.

Agenda

Comment - In the title, specify the major and minor road - The project should discuss the problem, where is it located, and what is the project all about.

Presentation of Chapter 1 - 4

- In chapter 2, remove the introduction for the related literature - In chapter 3, the trade-offs must be discuss along with the discussion of the constraints - In presenting, just mention only the highlights of the project

Noted By:

177

Date: Time: Meeting with: Attendees:

March 7, 2016 1:30 PM – 5:30 PM Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Coguiron, Jasmine Rose O. Gragasin, Joemar L. Olicia, Aileen Cates M. Ortiza, Patrick Joseph G.

Agenda

Comment - revision of some data Final Defense

- include sources - include the other trade-off which is improving the existing design of the project

178