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

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
Designers Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................. 34
3.3.1
Designers Raw Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................................................. 35
3.3.2
Designers 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 Designers Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection ....................................... 119
4.8.2
Final Designers 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
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 4-48: 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 4-51: 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 4-54: 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 4-57: 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 4-60: Final Designers 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 Designers 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 avenues 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.
Figure 1-3: Location of the Project

(Source: MapQuest)
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)
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.
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
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.
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 designers 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.
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
C
7
Through
Felix Ave.
A. Bonifacio
8
Right
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
207
635
185
2909
13747
3717
411
712
3953
29
22569
2219
1226
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
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
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
228
709
207
3411
16566
4151
459
783
4414
32
26405
2674
1369
102
1334
94
5574
4
13150
5023
380
807
4142
41
23541
Table 2-7: Peak Hour Volume at Pres. Quezon St. (2015)
Vehicle Type
Turning
Point
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
Vehicle Type
Turning
Point
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
19

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.

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
Table 2-9: Peak Hour Volume at Cainta Junction (2015)
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
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
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

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

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
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
0.51 0.70
Speeds remain near free flow speeds, but freedom to maneuver

noticeably restricted
Moderate
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
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
> 1.00
Saturation traffic volumes, stop and go situations
Very Heavy
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.
Going to
Pres. Quezon St.
VCR
2010
Level of Service
0.83
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)
Pres. Quezon St.
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.
0.97
E
(Eastbound)
Felix Ave.
Felix Ave.
0.75
D
A. Bonifacio
25
OrtigasAve. Ext.
(Westbound)

A. Bonifacio Ave.
0.9
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
2.02
1.22
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
1.78
1.33
1.6
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 designers 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 projects construction cost. Having
a design that is economical will meet the governments 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 thats 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 designers
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

3.3 Designers Raw Ranking
Using the method on Trade-Off Strategies in Engineering Design (Otto &Antonsson, 1991), the criterions
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 methodologys 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)
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 criterions 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 Designers 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 criterions importance that is shown in Table 3-1 is based on the designers own difference and is
entirely subjective. In Table 3-1, the designers set the criterions 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 projects 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 designers 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)
Actuated
4,459,600
Computation for the Designers 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:
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 Designers Raw Ranking (Constructability Constraint)
Higher Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 721
Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 1081
Governing Rank = 5
Subordinate Rank =
(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 Designers Raw Ranking (Sustainability)
Higher Cost Value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 4.32
Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 3.15
Governing Rank = 5
(4.32 3.15)
4.32
Subordinate Rank =
- (27%)
=
X 10
27%
= 2.30
Figure 3-10: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost)
38
3.3.2 Designers 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)
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
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 criterions importance that is shown in Table 3-8 is based on the designers own difference and is
entirely subjective. In Table 3-8, the designers set the criterions 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 projects 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 designers 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
Higher Cost Value: Left Turn Flyover = 121,425,595.00
Lower Cost Value: Through Flyover = 110,380,475.30
Governing Rank = 5
(121,425,595 110,380,475.30)
= 0.091%
121,425,595
Subordinate Rank = 5
- (0.091%) X 10
= 4.09
40
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 Designers Raw Ranking (Constructability Constraint)
Higher Cost Value: Left Turn Flyover = 11,303
Lower Cost Value: Through Flyover = 9,776
Governing Rank = 5
(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 Designers Raw Ranking (Sustainability Constraint)
Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 1.752
Governing rank = 5
Subordinate Rank =
(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 Designers Raw Ranking (Sustainability Constraint)

Lower Cost Value: Actuated Traffic signal = 2.81
Governing rank = 5
(3.33-2.81)
3.33
Subordinate Rank =
- (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)
Pre-Timed
4,920,588
Table 3-18: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Through Flyover) (Economic)
Actuated
5,520,588
Lower Cost Value: Pre-Timed Traffic signal = 4,920,588
Governing rank = 5
43

Subordinate Rank =
(5,520,588- 4,920,588)
= 10.9%
5,520,588
- (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)
Pre-Timed
7,320,588
Table 3-20: Initial Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left-Turn Flyover) (Economic)
Actuated
8,520,588
Governing rank = 5
(8,520,588- 7,320,588)
= 14.1%
8,520,588
Subordinate Rank =
- (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 Designers 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 Designers 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 isnt 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 signals 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

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

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
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)
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.
0.97
Pres. Quezon St.
1.16
Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound) 0.77
From
Going to
VCR
Pres. Quezon St.
0.78
Pres. Quezon St.
0.59
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
Felix Ave.
0.42
B

Felix Ave.

Felix Ave.
0.97
0.75
D
58
A. Bonifacio
0.9
E
A. Bonifacio Ave.
From
Going to
VCR Level of Service
A. Bonifacio Ave.
Felix Ave.
0.42
B
0.97
D
Felix Ave.
Felix Ave.
A. Bonifacio
0.75
C
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
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
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
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
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

Pres. Quezon St.
East Bank Road

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
Felix Avenue
Felix Avenue
A. Bonifacio Avenue
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
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
0.889
2061
3
Pres. Quezon St.
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
132
0.53
1101
Ortigas Ave. Ext.
(Eastbound)
Felix Ave.
0.53
1239
865
Felix Ave.
A. Bonifacio
0.482
561
Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Westbound) 0.482
369
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)
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
3854
3
Right
Pres. Quezon St.
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
629
2
Through
A. Bonifacio Ave.
Felix Ave.
873
3
Right
228
4
Through
2021
Ortigas Ave. Ext.
(Eastbound)
5
Right
Felix Ave.
2253
6
Left
1544
7
Through
Felix Ave.
A. Bonifacio
974
8
Right
663
9
Through
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
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
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
()
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
5044
(Eastbound)
Ortigas Ave. Ext.
TP4
Through Ortigas Ave. Ext. Bridge
4828
(Eastbound)
62
PHASE
()
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
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=
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 =
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
Step 6: Actual Green Time per Phase (Gai)
= . ( )
64
Equation 4-9: Actual Green Time

Gai =
Gei + Li -
For Each Phase:

Equation 4-10: Actual Green Time per Phase
Yi
Gai =
Co
+ Gte -
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
()
1
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
()
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 = ( + ) +
(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.
UP=
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
366
A.Bonifacio
Through
509
1.05
534
Felix Ave.
Left
865
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.
=
= +
.
=+
( + )
(Eq. 20-4: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
(Eq. 20-5: Traffic
Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
67
+
.
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:
, = .
, = . /
Using these default values, lost time per phase and lost time per cycle may be estimated as follows:
= +
= +
= +
= +
Total Lost Time
= +
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.
=
[
]
()
(Eq. 18-11: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
Available Effective Green Time

=
(Eq. 18-12: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
Allocation of Effective Green Time to Each Phase
= ( )
(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.
= ( + )
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.
TGR = {( +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
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.) Drivers 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

= +
= . +
(. )
(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.
= .
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.
( ) =
(. )
Where:
V = Design Speed
a = deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied)
G=Grade
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) Computation
= +
= . +
(. )
= . (. )() +
(Highway and Safety

Standards,
DPWH
Book)
(. . )
= .
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
= KA
=
(Highway and Safety

Standards,
DPWH
Book)
<
( + )
Where:
= length of Vertical Curve
K = length of vertical curve in meters in 1% change in grade
A = Algebraic difference in grade (%)
S = Sight Distance
1 = driver eye distance (m) for car and truck
2 = object height (m) for cars and truck
Design Inputs:
= 276m
S = 60m
= 2.33
= 0.6
= (+8%) (8%) = 16
Computation of Rate of change
=
( + )
602
=
100(2.33 + 0.6)2
= 6.8
=
= 6.8(16)
= 108.79
= 276
<
76
Radius
=
= m
Station of the highest point of curve
1
1 2
276(0.08)
1 =
(0.08 + 0.08)
=
1 =
Elevation of the highest point

=
( )

276
(0.08 (0.08))
8
= .
= 10 + 5.52 = .
=
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
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
Pres. Quezon
To
0.31
C
0.81
D
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
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.
Cycle Length
=
115 Seconds
Yellow Time
=
4 Seconds
Total Lost Time
=
12 Seconds
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
Pres. Quezon St. To Ortigas Ave.
2
Right
25 Seconds
86 Seconds
Ext. Bridge
Table 4-46: Intersection Output Summary (Actuated)
2015
2035
2378
3577
0.7
0.825
11.8
17.2
21.5
32.2
Control Delay (worst movement),sec
21.5
32.2
Travel Time (Total)

Veh-Km/hr
32.0
45.7
48.5
54.2
Travel Speed, Km/hr
46.3
41.5
Level of Service
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).
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
Pres. Quezon
To
0.34
B
0.75
D
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
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).
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)

2015
2035
6672
8500
0.849
0.899
6.9
9.0
21.0
33.1
21.0
33.1
Travel Time (Total)

Veh-Km/hr
79.9
105.8
43.1
44.8
Travel Speed, Km/hr
59.8
57.8
Level of Service
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

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
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.
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
Red light time
Left
A
42
40
Through
Right
Left
Extension
B
52
30
Through
Right
Table 4-52: Intersection Output Summary (Through Flyover with Actuated)
2015
2035
7740
9952
0.877
0.985
7.3
20.7
24.6
125.5
24.6
125.5
Travel Time (Total)

Veh-Km/hr
92.0
153.8
42.8
55.6
Travel Speed, Km/hr
60.0
45.8
Level of Service
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).
Present
20yrs
Route
v/h
LOS
v/h
LOS
Felix Ave. To Ortigas Ave. Ext. (Eastbound)
0.66
C
0.96
E
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
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
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
B
40
14
Through
Table 4-55: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Pre-Timed)

2015
2035
7003
8559
2.367
2.893
192.9
265.7
1308.2
1811.2
1308.2
1811.2
Travel Time (Total)

Veh-Km/hr
231.7
721.9
613
606
Travel Speed, Km/hr
9.5
7.2
Level of Service
116

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
0.33
B
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
117
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
B
20
24
Through
Table 4-58: Intersection Output Summary (Left-Turn Flyover with Actuated)

2015
2035
8669
9005
0.861
1.719
265.6
439.1
1811.2
2601.7
1811.2
2601.7
Travel Time (Total)

Veh-Km/hr
721.2
1450.5
303.2
474.5
Travel Speed, Km/hr
7.2
4.5
Level of Service
118
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
0.51
C
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 designers 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 Designers Ranking for President Quezon St. Intersection
Table 4-60: Final Designers 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)
3.91
2. Constructability (Man Hour)
2.14
4.89
TOTAL
69.45
53.11
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
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 Designers 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
Php 5,520,588
Computation for the Designers 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
(5,520,588 - 4,920,588)
4,920,588
Subordinate Rank =
- (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.
120
Estimate Based on Constructability Constraints

Table 4-63: Estimate of Design Schemes (Constructability)
Design Scheme
Estimate
2771
3880
Computation for the Designers Raw Ranking (Constructability)
Higher cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 3880
Lower cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 2771
Governing Rank = 5
(3880 - 2771)
3880
Subordinate Rank =
- (28.6 %)
28.6
X 10
%
= 2.14
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
1.289
Higher cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 1.303
Lower cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 1.289
121
Governing Rank = 5
(1.303 - 1.289)
1.289
Subordinate Rank =
X 10
- (1.1 %)
1.1
= 4.89
Figure 4-22: Percentage Difference Line Graph for Sustainability Constraint (Benefit Cost Ratio)
4.8.1.3 Designers Final Ranking Assessment
Based on the Final Designers 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 Designers Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection

Table 4-65: Final Raw Designers 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
5
5
4.22
4
5
3.77
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
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
134,376,230.80
145,710,714
2. Constructability (Man-Hours)
11,901
13,563
Through Flyover
Constraint
3. Sustainability (BCR)
2.831
2.863
4,133,293
4,416,470
Left-Turn Flyover
Constraint
3. Sustainability (BCR)
1.329
1.437
6,222,500
6,816,470
4.8.2.2 Computation for Final Designers 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 Designers 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
(145,710,714 134,376,230.80)
145,710,714
Subordinate Rank =
- (0.078 %)
X 10
0.078
= 4.22
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 Designers Raw Ranking (Constructability)
Higher cost value: Left Turn Fly-over = 13,563
Lower cost value: Through Fly-over = 11,901
Governing Rank = 5
(13,563 11,901)
13,563
0.123
124
Subordinate Rank =
- (0.123)
X 10
= 3.77
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
2.831
2.863
Higher cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 2.863
Lower cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 2.831
Governing Rank = 5
Subordinate Rank =
(2.863 - 2.849)
2.863
5
- (0.011 )
0.011
X 10
= 4.89
Table 4-70: Estimate of Left turn Fly-over (Sustainability)
125
Design Scheme
Pre-timed Traffic Signal
Benefit Cost Ratio

1.326
1.437

Higher cost value: Pre-Timed Traffic Signal = 1.437
Lower cost value: Actuated Traffic Signal = 1.326
Governing Rank = 5
Subordinate Rank =
(1.437- 1.329)
1.437
- (0.075)
X 10
0.075
= 4.25
Estimates of the Traffic Signal Design based on Economic Constraint (Sub-Tradeoffs):
Table 4-71: Final Estimate of the Pre-Timed Traffic Signal
Pre-Timed
4,133,293
Table 4-72: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal
Actuated
4,416,470
126
Governing rank = 5
(4,416,470- 4,122,293)
= 0.067
4,416,470
Subordinate Rank =
- (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)
Pre-Timed
6,222,500
Table 4-74: Final Estimate of the Actuated Traffic Signal (Left Turn Flyover)
Actuated
6,816,470
Governing rank = 5
(6,816,470- 6,222,500)
= 0.087
6,816,470
Subordinate Rank =
- (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 Designers Final Ranking Assessment
Based on the Final Designers 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
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
84.45
82.32
73.21
73.48
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
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
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
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 designers 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
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
Cycle Length =
110 Seconds
Yellow Time
=
6 Seconds
Total Lost Time =
10.5 Seconds
Phase
A
Table 5-2: Design Result of Pre-Timed Traffic Signal for Cainta Junction
Flow
Description
Red light time
Left
55
49
Through
Right
Left
Extension
50
54
Through
Right
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
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 Gifor 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
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

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

2
2
721
1081
(Source: Based on the Traffic Management Bulacan Province, Package 1 for Critical Intersections
along MNR, Bulacan Section)
143
Sustainability Constraint
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
Total Capital Cost
12,586,507
Whole Life Cost
18,879,760
10,505,793
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
Trade-offs
Through Fly-Over
Left Fly-Over
Man Hours
9776
11303
(Source:
Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf)
Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Through Flyover)
Total Capital Cost
121,223,831
Whole Life Cost
129,945,509
120,844,023
147,903,447
Net Present Value
135,915,014
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.203
Total Capital Cost
122,966,982
Whole Life Cost
129,260,235
120,886,268
157,514,807
Net Present Value
144,674,774
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.303
145
Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Left-Turn Flyover)

Total Capital Cost
132,268,950
Whole Life Cost
139,990,628
131,889,142
370,608,489
Net Present Value
146,960,133
Benefit Cost Ratio
2.81
Total Capital Cost
154,012,101
Whole Life Cost
160,305,354
151,931,387
505,931,518
Net Present Value
175,719,893
Benefit Cost Ratio
3.33
Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Through Flyover)
Description
Traffic Signs
Traffic Signals
Lighting
Total Cost

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

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

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

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
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.) Drivers 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)

= +
= . +
(. )
(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.
= .
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.
(

) =
(. )
Where:
V = Design Speed
a = deceleration of the vehicle when the brakes are applied)
G=Grade
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) Computation
= +
= . +
(. )
= . (. )() +
(Highway and Safety

Standards,
DPWH
Book)
(. . )
= .
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
= KA
=
(Highway and Safety

Standards,
DPWH
Book)
<
( + )
Where:
= length of Vertical Curve
K = length of vertical curve in meters in 1% change in grade
A = Algebraic difference in grade (%)
S = Sight Distance
1 = driver eye distance (m) for car and truck
2 = object height (m) for cars and truck
Design Inputs:
= 276m
S = 60m
= 2.33
= 0.6
= (+8%) (8%) = 16
Computation of Rate of change
=
( + )
602
=
100(2.33 + 0.6)2
= 6.8
=
= 6.8(16)
= 108.79
= 276
<
159
Station of the highest point of curve

1
1 2
276(0.08)
1 =
(0.08 + 0.08)
=
1 =
Elevation of the highest point

=
( )

276
(0.08 (0.08))
8
= .
= 10 + 5.52 = .
=
160
APPENDIX F: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (PRE-TIMED TRAFFIC SIGNAL)

Step 1: Development of the Phase Plan
PHASE
()
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.
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=
L1
161
Step 4: Computation of Optimum Cycle Length (Co)

Optimum Cycle Length
1.5L + 5
Co =
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
Step 6: Actual Green Time per Phase (Gai)
= . ( )
Actual Green Time
Gai =
Gei + Li -
For Each Phase:

Actual Green Time per Phase
Gai =
Yi
Co
+ Gte -
162
APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF CONTROLLED INTERSECTION (ACTUATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL)

Step 1: Development of Phase Plan
PHASE
()
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 = ( + ) +
(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
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.
UP=
X
1.47 S
(Eq. 20-3: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
7103
UP=
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
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
366
A.Bonifacio
Through
509
1.05
534
Felix Ave.
Left
865
865
Felix Ave.
Through
561
1.05
589
1: Vc1 = 1439 tvuhr /ln

2: Vc1 = 450 tvuhr /ln
3: Vc1 = 727 tvuhr /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.
=
= +
.
= + (+)
(Eq. 20-4: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
164
= .
(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:
, = .
, = . /
Using these default values, lost time per phase and lost time per cycle may be estimated as follows:
= +
= +
= +
= +
Total Lost Time
= +
A. Minor Road Speed Limit = 24.86 mph
= 5
= 24.86 5
= 19.86
= + 5
= 24.86 + 5
= 29.86
B. Major Road Speed Limit = 37.30 mph

= 5
= 37.30 5
= 32.30
= + 5
= 37.30 + 5
= 42.30
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%))
= .
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)
= .
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%))
= .
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)
= .
Start up lost time, 1 = 2.0 sec
Enroachment of vehicles, e = 2.0 sec/phase
Along Minor Road
Y1 = y + ar
Y1 = 4.20 + 0.22
= .
2 = y + a r e ;
clearance lost time
2 = 4.20 + 0.22 2.0

= .
t1 = e + 2
t1 = 2.0 + 2.42
= .
166
Along Major Road

Y2 = y + ar
Y2 = 6.80 + 0.14
= .
2 = y + a r e ;
clearance lost time
2 = 6.80 + 0.14 2.0

= .
t1 = e + 2
t1 = 2.0 + 4.94
.
Total Lost Time
t = t1 + t2
t = 4.42 + 6.94
= .
Step 6: Maximum Green Phase and Minimum Green Phase
=
[
]
()
(Eq. 18-11: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
(Eq. 18-12: Traffic
Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
Allocation of Effective Green Time to Each Phase
= ( )
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
, = .
Cdes =
12
1439
1 [1615 x 0.801 x 1.34]
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
Gmax2 = 1.50 19 = 28.5
Gmax2 = 1.50 30 = 45
Step 7: Determine Critical Cycle Length
= ( + )
(Eq. 18-14: Traffic

Engineering, Roess,
Prassas, & McShane)
= 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

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

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
Trade-offs
Pre Timed
Actuated
Man Hours
2771
3880
Bulacan Section)
Sustainability Constraint
Total Capital Cost
15,627,692
Whole Life Cost
18,821,537
15,242,817
19,647,992
Net Present Value
19,534,539
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.289
169

Total Capital Cost
17,583,502
Whole Life Cost
18,879,762
16,505,793
21,507,048
Net Present Value
30,254,296
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.303
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
Trade-offs
Through Fly-Over
Left Turn Fly-Over
Man Hours
11,901
13,563
(Source:
Table%201.6%20Bridge%20Cost%20per%20l.m..pdf)
170
Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Through Flyover)

Total Capital Cost
139,223,831
Whole Life Cost
142,945,508
137,854,023
390,264,739
Net Present Value
195,916,012
Benefit Cost Ratio
2.831
Total Capital Cost
160,223,831
Whole Life Cost
167,260,232
154,896,168
443,467,729
Net Present Value
194,274,755
Benefit Cost Ratio
2.863
Sub-Trade-Offs (Sustainability: Left-Turn Flyover)

Total Capital Cost
250,264,705
Whole Life Cost
263,259,578
246,945,255
328,190,243
Net Present Value
300,955,888
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.329
171

Total Capital Cost
272,007,856
Whole Life Cost
280,305,354
271,931,387
390,765,403
Net Present Value
295,719,893
Benefit Cost Ratio
1.437
Sub-Trade-Offs (Economic: Through Flyover)

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

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)

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

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
Bulacan Section)
173
APPENDIX I: MINUTES OF MEETING
Date:
Time:
Meeting with:
Attendees:
November 16, 2015

1:30 PM 5:30 PM
Gragasin, Joemar L.
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:
174
Date:
Time:
Meeting with:
Attendees:
December 7, 2015
1:30 PM 5:30 PM
Gragasin, Joemar L.
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:
175
Date:
Time:
Meeting with:
Attendees:
January 11, 2016

1:30 PM 5:30 PM
Gragasin, Joemar L.
Agenda
Comment
- Specify the intersections in the project title.
- The specific objectives must allow to determine
the effects of multiple constraints
- 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:
176
Date:
Time:
Meeting with:
Attendees:
February 29, 2016

1:30 PM 5:30 PM
Gragasin, Joemar L.
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.
- 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
Gragasin, Joemar L.
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

Capstone Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capstone Final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capstone Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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.

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

Engr. Nabor Gaviola

Mr. Hernando Gozon

Dr. Amelia Marquez

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Designers Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................. 34

Designers Raw Ranking for Pres. Quezon St. Intersection ................................................. 35

Designers Raw Ranking for Cainta Junction Intersection ................................................... 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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