6.

Roadway Design

6.1 Introduction
The process used to develop the alignment of the roadway in horizontal, vertical and cross
sectional terms, is known as geometric design. In principle it must meet at least the following
main objectives:

o uniformity along the route in engineering terms in order to satisfy driver

expectations;
o provision of appropriate levels of road safety and user comfort during operation;
o economy of cost in both the construction and future maintenance stages..

To meet these aims, requires the use of appropriate engineering standards [usually dictated by
the Agency for whom the road is being designed] as well as the application of sound
professional judgment. This relates to several aspects including local topography and land
use and the intended function of the route within the area road network as well as related
environmental and social impact considerations.

With this in mind the Consultant has produced a geometric layout for the roads to a
preliminary design level and these are described in the following paragraphs of this
report. It is intended that the preliminary design work after review and approval by the
Client, will be carried forward in the detailed design stage and the subsequent
construction phase.

6.2 Route Details

6.2.1 Functional Classification

The subject project is comprised of the coastal section of what will become the
Chittagong City Outer Ring Road [CCORR] and three major Feeder Roads that link it
with existing major commercial areas within the CBD. Most noteworthy among these
are perhaps, the export processing zones [EPZs] and the international airport which
are located to the south and west of the urban area and which are of economic
significance both regionally and nationally.

The Detailed Area Plan (DAP) prepared by the CDA in June 2008 - in turn based upon
Chittagong Metropolitan Master Plan of 1995 - identified the full CCORR corridor and its
arterial connectors as critical transport links needed to support the land-use and
commercial development goals for the region in the long term. This concept had been
developed in a JBIC Pilot Study for Project Formation completed in March 2006 and
subsequently in the Special Assistance for Project Formation Report [SAPROF] produced
by JICA in 2009. Later, a Development Proposal Project [DPP] document was published by
the CDA in January, 2011. This embraced the original concept and also contained the
terms of the Loan Agreement signed between the Governments of Bangladesh and Japan
that is one source of the funding for the construction stages ahead.

The above reports variously, indicate the traffic volumes that the links will be required to
handle and identify them as ‘primary roads / primary distributors’ within the context of the
planned regional trunk road system.

For design purposes it was necessary to identify appropriate geometric parameters in order
to ensure that the facilities meet national standards and by so doing, help to satisfy driver
expectations as well as to minimize construction costs.

Using projected peak-hour traffic flow volumes for the ‘base’ year and the definitions
contained in the April 2005 July, 2001 edition of the Geometric Design Standards
published by the Roads and Highways Department of the Ministry of Communications
[Roads and Railways Division] the roadways were classified as follows:

o Outer Ring Road [Coastal Section] - National Road, Type 2

o Feeder Roads 1, 2 and 3 - National Roads, Type 2

Further, due to their important function as trunk roads in terms of the nation’s economy, they
must also be considered to be ‘strategic’ in nature. This has some ramifications for the
pavement design process as discussed elsewhere in this Preliminary Design report document.

6.2.2 Terrain Classification

Directly related to the above is the aspect of terrain as the physical topography in the area plays
an important role in the operational characteristics of the roadway. Identification of the class
of terrain is normally based on a somewhat subjective perception of the general longitudinal
gradients and cross slopes in the area the road will traverse. In general terms, steeper terrain
often means lower operating speeds and in cases where low speed operation is unacceptable
[perhaps for economic cost reasons] this can lead directly to a need for higher investment to
produce more satisfactory operating conditions. Examples of this include additional expenditure
on earthworks in order to increase horizontal curve radii and/or flatten vertical gradients.

In the case of the CCORR project, the surrounding terrain is both gently sloping and
uniform in nature suggesting that the RHD Manual’s designation of a ‘plain’ terrain rather than
the ‘rolling’ and hilly’ alternatives, was appropriate - Table 2.2 of the RHD guideline refers.

6.2.3 Geometric Classification

RHD standards for Design Type-2 roads indicate a number of minimum values for geometric
parameters and cross-sectional dimensions. These are based directly upon the selected design
speed of the roadway under consideration from which all other geometric criteria are related –
this is discussed further below.

For the CCORR links the following design speeds were established from the selected ‘plain’
terrain categorization:

o Outer Ring Road [Coastal section], Type 2 - 80 km/hour;

o Feeder Roads 1, 2 and 3, Type 2 - 50 km/hour.

The design speed criterion complies with the recommendations contained in Section 2 of the
RHD’s Geometric Design Standards manual [April 2005 July 2001] and was also endorsed by
the 2009 SAPROF Report in Chapter ?? on page??

6.3 Design Standards & Software

6.3.1 Reference Documents

Standards for use in the design process have been derived directly from the relevant manual
published by the RHD. In conformance with normal practice on major projects, these have been
supplemented where necessary by internationally recognized versions. A specific example of
this is the geometric layouts for the grade-separated junctions. These have not been featured in
the road system in Bangladesh to date and consequently are not yet covered adequately by
published national design standards. For this project, contemporary data produced by
AustRoads were specifically referenced and introduced where deemed to be appropriate.

A full set of design criteria was prepared for use by the design team and the contents were
discussed at the Consultant’s technical presentation to the CDA made in Chittagong on October
29, 2011. They have since been incorporated into the preliminary design as reported upon
herein. The criteria were assembled in a tabular form covering separately, the following aspects
for the main CCORR roadway, for the grade-separated junctions and for the three Feeder
Roads separately.
1. Cross-sectional Dimensions;
2. Alignment Geometry.

In each case the appropriate figure from the RHD manual [and where necessary, the CDA’s
own requirement] is shown in one column of the tables with the corresponding AustRoads
equivalent reproduced alongside for ease of reference. A final column was also included to
confirm which version was adopted for preliminary design.

With a few exceptions [e.g. for the grade-separations] the RHD value was adopted. In those
cases where an RHD value was discarded in favor of the AustRoads version, this is highlighted
appropriately and a brief justification for the substitution given in the ‘design departures’
paragraph included in the Chapter of the report at Section 6.?.?.

Tables 6.1a, b and c below contain summaries of the design criteria concerning the basic cross-
sectional dimensions while the full tabulations are included in Appendix 6.?

Table 6.1a: Summary – Sectional Design Criteria [CCORR]

RHD/CDA
Design Element Unit Austroads Standard Adopted Criterion
Standard

Design Speed km/h 80 70-90 80

Nominal RoW Width m 60 feet [18.3 m] Varies 40 – 65 [including sea

defenses, earthworks]
Platform / Crest Width m 21.6 Varies 20.3

Basic Traffic Lane Width m 3.65 3.5 3.65

Auxiliary [Turning] Lane Width m - 3.5 3.65

Raised Median Width m 0.65 or1.6 0.6 0.6

Paved Shoulder Width, Left m 1.8 1.5-3.0 1.8

Paved Shoulder Width, Right m 0.3 1.0 min. 0.3

Sidewalk / Promenade m 2.0/1.83 1.2-2.4 3.0

[RHD/CDA]
 Table 6.1b: Summary – Sectional Design Criteria [Junctions]

RHD/CDA
Design Element Unit Austroads Standard Adopted Criterion
Standard

Design Speed on Ramps km/h - Varies Varies

Design Vehicle - - 19m Articulated Truck 19m Articulated Truck

Traffic Lane Width m - 4.0 4.0
Paved Shoulder Width, m - 2.0 / 1.0 1.8 / 1.0
Left/Right

Table 6.1c: Summary – Sectional Design Criteria [Feeder Roads]

RHD/CDA
Design Element Unit Austroads Standard Adopted Criterion
Standard

Design Speed km/h 50 50-70 50

Nominal RoW Width m 60 feet [18.3 m] Varies 30-45 [including

earthworks]
Platform / Crest Width m 21.6 Varies 31.6 [including NMV
lanes, sidewalks]
Design Vehicle [Major - - 19m Articulated Truck 19m Articulated Truck
Junctions]
Design Vehicle [Minor - - 12.5m Single Truck 12.5m Single Truck
Junctions]
Basic Traffic Lane Width m 3.65 3.5 3.65
Auxiliary [Turning] Lane Width m - 3.5 3.65
NMV Lane Width m 3.0 - 3.0
Parking Lane Width m - 2.3-3.0 3.0
Raised Median Width m 0.65 or 1.6 0.6 0.6
Paved Shoulder Width, Left m 1.8 1.5-3.0 1.8
Paved Shoulder Width, Right m 0.3 1.0 min 0.3
Sidewalk Width m 2.0/1.83 1.2-2.4 2.0

Tables 6.2a, b and c below contain summaries of the design criteria that pertain to the
geometric design elements. Again, the full tabulations are included in Appendix 6?

Table 6.2a: Summary – Geometric Design Criteria [CCORR]

RHD/CDA
Design Element Unit Austroads Standard Adopted Criterion
Standard
Design Speed km/h 80 80 80

Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 2,000 for NC 500 for NC, 400 for RC 2,000 for NC, 1,000 for
1,000 for RC RC
 RHD/CDA
Design Element Unit Austroads Standard Adopted Criterion
Standard
Min. Transition Length m 35 for e = 3% 45 45
Maximum Superelevation on % 7.0 5.0 max 7.0
Curves
Superelevation on Tangents % 3.0 3.0 3.0
Vertical Clearance at Bridges m 5.7 5.4 5.7
Maximum Grade % 3.0 4.0 – 6.0 3.0

Minimum Grade % 0.5 0.0 on fills 0.0 [with specific

drainage provisions]

Table 6.2b: Summary – Geometric Design Criteria [Junctions]

RHD/CDA Austroads
Design Element Unit Adopted Criterion
Standard Standard

Min. Service Interchange km - 2.0 [in urban areas] 2.0

Spacing
Min. Horizontal Curve Radius
m -/- 75-165 [40-65] 150 [40 on Loops]
Semi-direct Ramps and Loops

Number of Exit / Entry Lanes no. - 1 or 2 1

Exit / Entry Configuration type - Direct Taper or Parallel Entry / Direct

Parallel Lane Taper Exit
Min. Exit / Entry Lane Length m - 80 / 140 80 / 140
Min. Transition Length m - not required none
Maximum Superelevation % - 5.0 5.0
Max. Grade – Ramps, [Uphill % - +8.0 / +5.0 +3.0/+3.0
Exit / Entry]
Max. Grade – Ramps, [Downhill % - -6.0 / -8.0 -3.0/-3.0
Exit / Entry]

Table 6.2c: Summary – Geometric Design Criteria [Feeder Roads]

RHD/CDA Austroads
Design Element Unit Adopted Criterion
Standard Standard

Design Speed for Classification km/h 50 50 50

Min. Horizontal Curve Radius m 500 for NC, 250 130-90 250
for RC
Min. Transition Length m 20 for e = 3% Not required 20

Maximum Superelevation m 7.0 5.0 5.0

Superelevation on Tangents % 3.0 3.0 3.0
Vertical Clearance under m 5.7 5.4 5.7
Bridges
Vertical Clearance under Power m Owner to define Varies Owner to define
Cables
 RHD/CDA Austroads
Design Element Unit Adopted Criterion
Standard Standard

Maximum Grade % 3.0 6.0-8.0 3.0

Minimum Grade % 0.5 0.3-0.5 0.5

6.3.2 Design Software

After the establishment in the field of appropriate primary and secondary control monuments,
the survey teams proceeded to capture topographical surface features. Each of the data points
collected were awarded a specific feature identification number using a coding protocol
established by the designer - this is described in Chapter 4 above. Assembled data was
regularly returned to the design office where it was ‘translated’ using proprietary software
directly compatible with the type of field equipment in use. For this project this was Sokkia
Power Set and Topcon GTS105N total station equipment again, as described above in Chapter
4.

Using the CivilCad computer package the captured field data was transformed into 3-
dimensional object records and then into a triangulated ‘terrain model’ or DTM. The final stage
was to produce the base mapping on which the design details are based for which a specific
layering and layer notification system was defined by the design team.

The Consultant has since used MX-Road design software to manipulate the DTM data and
through its built-in compatibility with the AutoCAD drafting system, to produce the preliminary
design drawings. These depict the preliminary design layouts in both the horizontal and
vertical planes and will subsequently form the basis of the drawings to be used for the
procurement of works [i.e. the tender process] and for construction purposes during the
eventual construction phase.

6.4 Design Constraints

Much of the length of the project roadways are on new alignment and are therefore largely
unconstrained by existing Right of Way [RoW] and private ownership boundaries. There are
however, a few exceptions in each corridor where these do occur and others where physical
conditions also have an effect. These are outlined in the following Table 6.3a, b and c

Each of the constraining issues were studied closely and taken into account when setting the
horizontal and vertical alignment geometry. This was done to ensure that as far as possible,
the resulting embankment side slopes fell within available land thereby minimizing impacts on
the adjacent lot ownership. In locations where the earthworks limits were still intrusive but
where revised alignments could not be introduced [for economic or operational reasons] earth
retaining structures were introduced in order to eliminate or at least to effectively minimize the
encroachment.

The types and locations of these retaining structures are described elsewhere in Chapter 11 –
Structures.
Table 6.3a: Horizontal Alignment Constraints [CCORR]
 Location
[East Side*] km 0-km 1 km 5.5-km 8.5 km 12.5-Northern Limit

Nature of Existing Private and Proximity of Existing Port Toll

EPZ Boundary Wall
Constraint Institutional Land Uses Road Embankment
Set horizontal & vertical alignments to avoid encroachment Set horizontal & vertical
Solution
and provide space for drainage and access for slope alignments to provide
Adopted
maintenance etc. sufficient separation
* For the CCORR, the seashore lies to the west side and is understood at present to offer no major
geometric constraint.

Table 6.3b: Horizontal Alignment Constraints [Feeder Roads]

Feeder Road 1 [km 0.6 Feeder Road 2 [km 0 to Feeder Road 3 [km 0.6 to km
Location
to end] km 1.5] 1.0]
Various roadside private Various private and institutional
Nature of Various roadside
and institutional property impacts [incl. some within Zahir
Constraint property impacts
impacts Ahmed Stadium area]
Retain existing south Introduce retaining walls to Introduce retaining walls to
Solution side to restrict minimize earthworks minimize earthworks ‘footprints’.
Adopted acquisitions substantially ‘footprints’ on bridge Shift alignment south to reduce
to the opposite side approaches impact on gymnasium & main entry
Feeder Road 2 [km 1.5 to
Location Feeder Road 3 [km 1.0 to end]
end]
Nature of Various roadside property
- none
Constraint impacts
Retain existing north side to
Solution restrict acquisitions Retain existing overall section width
-
Adopted substantially to the to eliminate any major acquisitions
opposite side

Table 6.3c: Vertical Alignment Constraints [CCORR & Feeders]

Feeder Road 2*
Route CCORR Feeder Road 1* Feeder Road 3*
Crossings of existing Crossings of existing
Crossings of existing
low areas, rail lines, Canal, Railway Line,
Nature of Crest elevation for canal and low lying
local & Port Toll low areas & Port Toll
Constraint flood defense needs areas. Connection to
roads. Connection to Road. Connection to
CCORR
CCORR CCORR
Culvert height & flood Bridge clearances & Bridge clearances &
Road Centre & Sea
freeboard flood freeboard flood freeboard
Solution Wall levels set at
requirements met. requirements met. requirements met.
Adopted 10.0 m & 11.0 m
Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at
above Datum
[beneath] CCORR [beneath] CCORR [above] CCORR
* Along each Feeder Road a number of overhead and underground utilities exist. The treatment at each
crossing is discussed elsewhere in Chapter 12 – Utilities and Lighting.
6.5 Alignment Details
6.5.1 Overall Objectives

As described above, the CCORR is intended to provide two main functions – to relieve
traffic congestion in the city by acting as a bypass [within the overall ring road concept
with selected radial connections to it] and at the same time, to help protect the city from
flooding caused by major cyclonic events.

Traffic Relief Function

In order to satisfy the road’s first function as a key part of the ring road system, the
alignment was required to provide a direct link outside of the CBD area, between the
two of the main regional traffic delivery routes:

o To the south, the riverside and international airport areas [and possibly a new
tunnel under the mouth of the Karnaphuli River that is 1 of 3 possible
locations presently under study];
o To the north, the strategically important arterial link between Chittagong and
Dhaka [itself the subject of present upgrading from 2-lane to 4-lane status].

In addition, the route must be directly connected to the main traffic generating regions
near the route, namely the central City’s crucial Export Processing Zones [EPZ] areas.
To enhance the functionality of the CCORR as a relief system, it was therefore
necessary to link it with other major arterial corridors handling traffic from these areas.
Among these, the most significant were identified as being the Port Access Road and
the relatively recently completed Port Toll Road both of which handle traffic flows to and
from the EPZs and the riverside port area near ???

Following a series of consultations with CDA staff and the Ministry of, the Consultant’s
suggestion to directly inter-connect the CCORR with the Toll Road [rather than to keep
them as two parallel but entirely separate routes] was approved at a joint meeting of the
concerned parties on November 24, 2011.This is a major change from the original
approach recommended and reported in the 2009 SAPROF publication and is seen as
an opportunity to gain a significant improvement in the area trunk road network to the
benefit of the CDA and to the road user community in the region as a whole. In the
same timeframe, the CDA has approved proposals and directed the Consultant to make
allowance in the preliminary design for the connection of some other roadways to the
CCORR lanes – these to be in addition to the three main Feeder Road corridor already
agreed [per the 2009 SAPROF report recommendations].

The outcome of the adoption of the new road network provisions was the updating of
the 2009 area traffic model [using also some mid-2011 on traffic count survey data]
from which ‘base year’ and future ‘design horizon year’ traffic projections emerged. This
work is contained elsewhere in Chapter 5 – Traffic Engineering of the present report.

Following a study of these candidate alignments and considerations of adjacent land

availability, property acquisition and compensation costs etc, the alignments of the main
Feeder Roads and other future connectors were established and included in the
preliminary design appropriately.

Flood Protection Function

Given that a protective embankment is already in place along much of the shoreline, it
was clearly advantageous if the main CCORR alignment was able be similarly
alignment so that the earthworks forming the existing embankment could be
incorporated into the new layout. At the same time the Consultant was required under
the ToR, to study and make recommendations for the enhancement of the existing
defenses as may be necessary to cope with major cyclonic events. This work is
reported elsewhere in Chapter 7- Embankments and Sea Defenses.

The horizontal and vertical alignments for the main CCORR route were developed in
compliance with the above requirements.

6.5.2 Alignment Features

Based upon the relevant design standards, horizontal and vertical alignments for all
project roadways were developed to a preliminary design level of detail. The major
geometric features of each route have been included in the highway design model – a
summary of them is shown in Table 6.4 below:

Table 6.4: Summary of Geometric Features [CCORR & Feeders]

Feeder Road 2
Route CCORR Feeder Road 1 Feeder Road 3
Design Speed [km/h] 80 50 50 50
Overall Length [m] ?? ?? ?? ??
No. of Horiz Curves ?? ?? ?? ??
Min. Curve Radius [m] ?? ?? ?? ??
No. of VertCurves ?? ?? ?? ??
Maximum Gradient [%] ?? ?? ?? ??

6.6 Design Departures

There are some instances where it is considered necessary and therefore advisable, to
introduce ‘departures’ from the accepted Bangladeshi design standards. This in order to reduce
costs and/or minimize property acquisition needs while at the same time still giving an
acceptable geometric layout for operational purposes.

The departures proposed and incorporated into the preliminary design are indicated in the
following table. A rationale for each and some commentary on the likely consequence of
adopting them is given in each case:

Table 6.5: Departures from RHD Standards

Feeder Feeder Feeder

Area of Departure CCORR Rationale / Consequence
Road 1 Road 2 Road 3
Cross RoW
40-65 m 30-40 m CDA desirable width of 60 ft [18.3 m]
Sections Width
cannot accommodate earthworks,
Platform
benching and desired section
/ Crest - 32 m
features / Additional ROW needed
Width
Standard international barrier used
Median to minimize section width / Reduces
600 mm 600 mm
Width earthworks and land area, more
safely separates traffic flows
Earth Not included Shoulders to be surfaced for strength
Surface / Reduces maintenance demand
 Feeder Feeder Feeder
Area of Departure CCORR Rationale / Consequence
Road 1 Road 2 Road 3
CCORR N/B lanes are on 0% grades -
Left 1.8 m shoulder requires good drainage.
Shoulder including - - 0.5 m Feeder Road 3 shoulder design
Width drain matches existing / Reduced shoulder
availability for disabled vehicles.
No NMVs allowed on CCORR. Existing
Feeder Road 3 has no NMV provision
– design will match / CCORR none.
NMV No Standard Standard No
NMVs on Feeder Road 3 must use
Lanes provision 3.0 m 3.0 m provision
traffic lane but flow reduced if
CCORR & Toll Road corridors
combined.
Rounding ?? ?? Edge support for barriers, lighting ??
Minimum radii increased so that no
Min.
superelevation is required / Top of
Horiz.
2,000 m 250 m wall profile on CCORR level. Road
Curve
user operations & property access
Radius
Horizontal easier on Feeders.
& Vertical Max.
3.0 % [Consultant had proposed 5-5.5% RHD 3% standard retained / Requires
Alignment Vertical
originally] longer ramps and more land for RoW
Grades
Min. CCORR grade set as ‘flat’ / Avoids
Vertical 0% - undulations in roadside sea defense
Grades wall and associated walkway
*Source: RHD Guide, page ??

6.7 Typical Sections

Apart from the few design ‘departures’ listed above, the roadway cross sections have been
prepared in accordance with the Geometric Design Standards stipulated in the July 2001
Manual published by the Roads and Highways Department for type 2 roads. The dimensions
given were developed appropriately and presented to the CDA during the formal presentation
session convened on October 29, 2011.

For preliminary design purposes these have been retained intact and have now been
incorporated into the works completed to date – for the development of the design drawings
and the templates used to calculate earthworks volumes.

Subject to review and comment by the Client in due course, they are expected to be carried
forward to the detailed design stages at which time any modifications required by the CDA
and/or RHD can be addressed and included as necessary.

The preliminary design includes the following cross sections which are shown in graphical form
in Appendix 6.?

o CCORR roadway, 4-lane width;

o CCORR roadway, 2-lane width;
o Feeder Road 1 & 2, 4-lane width
o Feeder Road 3, 4-lane width.
6.8 Standard Details
As with any major highway project, preliminary and detailed designs must define several
different engineering features to be installed along the various roadway sections. It is common
practice to standardize such details so that Contractors have the opportunity to repeat the
fabrication and installation processes several times. Through such ‘familiarization’ opportunity
to reduce time and therefore, cost is gained to the benefit of all concerned.

For the CCORR project, the Consultant has followed this approach and has assembled a
number of standard detail drawings for incorporation into the works – mainly at the future
detailed design stage. These have been gathered from a number of sources both locally and
from abroad and as a whole represent best practice form both a cost and a constructability
viewpoint.

The general disciplines in which the standard details are expected to fall and a preliminary list
of topics to be covered by them are recorded below in Table 6.6?

Table 6.6: Standard Details

Discipline Topics
Benching
Soft ground treatment
Earthworks
Sub-surface drainage systems
Side slope treatments
Pavement joints, repairs etc.
Roadways Minor junctions and property access provisions
Parking / rest area details, bus stops
Crash barriers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters
Speed humps and rumble strips, pedestrian crossings
Road signs and markings, sign mountings, edge delineators and reflectors
Street Furniture
Communications and directional signage
Pedestrian railings
Underground ducts
Pipe bedding details, roadside ditches and channels
Drainage Pipe systems, manholes and catch basins
Erosion and oil spillage containment controls
Bridge bearings and drainage provisions
Bridge parapets and ducting provisions
Structures Approach [run-on] slabs and abutment backfill details
Piling driving features
Culvert bedding and backfills, headwalls and railings
Lighting columns and base mounts and cabling
Street Lighting Solar panels and/or supply details, cabling and junction boxes
Cable systems, junction boxes
Traffic accommodation details
General Engineer’s offices, laboratory and housing
Project sign boards
6.9 Junctions
CCORR Corridor

For the CCORR to meet the requirement for it to help to relieve present and future high traffic
flows in the Chittagong area, it is important that it be conveniently connected to the local trunk
road systems. This has however, to be done within the constraint that it must at the same time,
be able to accommodate through traffic flows without significant detriment to its own capacity.

To achieve this balance the Consultant examined locations where connections to the route
should be made. These were selected in collaboration with the CDA and with due regard given
to the contents of the long term transportation strategy contained in the CDA’s Metropolitan
Master Plan and subsequent reports through to the 2009 SAPROF and 2011 DPP documents.

For the main junctions along the CCORR route a number of alternative layouts were initially
reviewed. These included ‘at-grade’ and ‘grade-separated’ types though the former were
subsequently discarded in view of the overall objective of providing the highest possible traffic
throughput capacity. It was considered that at-grade layouts would degrade the junction
capacity due to interruptions in traffic flow caused by traffic signal cycles and/or the presence of
local and NMV traffic components which would be difficult to eliminate. The focus therefore was
turned to grade separated options of which the following types were assessed:

1. Trumpet;
2. Diamond [with single roundabout terminal on crossing road];
3. Diamond [with twin roundabout terminals on crossing road].

In view of the requirement for ramp gradients to not exceed 3% [per RHD standards] and for
land acquisition to be minimized, Options 1 and 2 were eliminated from further consideration
during the preliminary design. Furthermore, trumpet layouts although offering the highest
capacity, was deemed to be more suitable for freeway and motorway conditions [where free
flowing traffic streams on semi-directional ramps are demanded] and inappropriate for an urban
arterial environment where access to beach facilities is likely to be needed.

Option 3 was considered to the best solution as it:

o provides grade separation for the predominant north-south through traffic

flows;
o allows for NMV and pedestrian access as far as the seashore while at the
same time restricting such movements to the separate, Feeder Road level;
o allows also for beach access by motorized vehicles from the Feeder Raod
level if this proves to be in demand at a later date.

It was therefore Option 1 that was adopted and incorporated into the preliminary design.

The location and configuration of the main junctions that emerged from this part of the design
process and that were consequently included in the traffic model created to simulate the future
road network are shown in Table 6.7 below. In each case appropriate commentary is given:

Table 6.7: Junctions [CCORR]

Location [km] Configuration Remarks

Start Point [0] 3-leg roundabout at To accept the projected traffic flows in the area [including those
Airport Perimeter road from a possible tunnel under the Karnaphuli River] the
Consultant has recommended provision of a straight north-
 Location [km] Configuration Remarks
south movement.
An alternative, curvilinear version [prepared by the CDA in late
October, 2011] is reported upon elsewhere in this report.
3-leg roundabout at
?? [??]
MA Aziz road
Feeder Road 1* Diamond interchange This layout features a grade separation with the CCORR passing
[4.2] with twin roundabouts over the Feeder Road.
?? [??] ?? ??
This layout features a grade separation with the CCORR passing
Feeder Road 2* Diamond interchange over the Feeder Road. Due to cost constraints, the CDA has
[??] with twin roundabouts directed that only the interchange be included in the design.
The connecting road may be added in future by others.
Existing Toll Road
?? ??
[??]
?? [??] ?? ??
Feeder Road 3* Diamond interchange This layout features a grade separation with the CCORR passing
[??] with twin roundabouts beneath the Feeder Road.
?? [??] ?? Brick yard??
Northern This junction is beyond the limit of the present CCORR design
By others
Extension assignment but must be designed suitably

Feeder Road Corridors

In conjunction with the above, the Consultant identified needs for new or improved junctions
along the Feeder Road corridors.

The location and configuration of the junctions that emerged from this second part of the
process are as shown in Table 6.8 below with appropriate remarks added:
Table 6.8: Junctions [Feeder Roads]

Location [km] Configuration Remarks

Eastern end of
4-leg roundabout at MA Aziz road Details to be developed during detailed design
Feeder Road 1
Eastern end of Future roundabout or signalized Due to cost constraints, Feeder Road 2 is
Feeder Road 2 layout excluded from the present design work.
Eastern end of
4-leg roundabout at MA Aziz road Details to be developed during detailed design
Feeder Road 3
Some intersections with minor Layouts to be developed during detailed design
Minor Intersections
roads occur along the Feeder Roads using one or more ‘standard’ layouts
* Layouts at seaward end may include NMV parking area and beach access arrangements – to be
defined during detailed design.

Design Vehicles

An important area of junction design relates to the selection of an appropriate vehicle[s] to be

safely and conveniently accommodated within it.

Given the industrial nature of the area and the expected high proportion of heavy vehicles in the
present and future traffic fleet, the following approach was adopted for the preliminary design:
 o Major junctions [e.g. along the CCORR and at the east ends of the Feeder Roads]
- 19.0 m Articulated Truck

o Minor junctions [e.g. with local roads in Feeder corridors]

- 12.5 m Single Unit Truck

The above vehicles are defined in the relevant AustRoads publications and were judged to be
representative of the truck component of the fleet likely to utilize the proposed roadways. The
articulated truck was found to be equivalent to the vehicles that presently carry the larger
shipping containers and which are expected to be more common in future years. The single unit
category was found to be representative of the smaller trucks and the buses commonly found in
the Chittagong area. In all cases however, the layouts will be finalized during detailed design
following checks that they will also accommodate the next largest category of vehicle in each
case – although under perhaps less ‘free-flowing’ operational conditions with some lane
encroachment involved.

6.10 Property Access

An important element of any major highway development project is for consideration to be given
to the issue of property access after construction is complete. For the subject project, this was
addressed in two parts:

CCORR Corridor

Given the need for the route to be elevated for sea defense reasons, property access cannot be
provided practically. Further, in order to retain the route’s ability to carry heavy through traffic
volumes efficiently, access to local traffic must be restricted and is only permitted through the
major junctions described in the preceding section of this report.

Accordingly, property access [other than to and from the beach areas by means of pedestrian
over bridges as described more fully in Chapter 13 - Landscaping] is not addressed herein.

Feeder Road Corridors

In the case of the Feeder Roads however, they lie within areas of existing urban development
that are expected to be further expanded when the coastal route is in place. Directly relevant to
this, is the requirement to develop some lands adjacent to the route as resettlement areas for
populations affected by construction of the CCORR route along the existing embankment - see
details outlined in Chapter 15 – Resettlement of this report.

An important function of all of the Feeder Roads is therefore to collect and distribute local traffic
for which access to adjacent properties must be provided. This should accommodate
motorized, non-motorized and pedestrian components of the traffic flow.

At certain points, the Feeder Roads must be raised to pass over existing facilities such as
canals e.g. on Feeder Roads 1 and 3 and the main north-south railway lines e.g. on Feeder
Road 3. Elsewhere the road surfaces will be at or slightly above, the existing road level and
access to residual properties [i.e. those remaining after additional RoW areas have been
acquired] must be provided. This is considered to be a detailed design task and development of
the details was accordingly deferred for future attention.

6.11 Contract Limits, Construction Staging and Site Access

Although not a critical part of this the preliminary design stage, several issues that relate to the
future construction works phase, were taken up by the Consultant during design development
with the intent of identifying the tasks needing to be undertaken in subsequent work. This was
done in three areas as outlined below

Contract Limits

The limits within which the Contractor must work must be defined in the future contract
documentation in order to ensure that land areas to remain in private or other public ownership
are not encroached upon during construction operations. Conventionally, the work limits are
coincident with those for which the Contractor is required to provide insurance coverage or
indemnity in favor of the Client, against claims for damage to persons and property. Clearly
these limits must be defined and rigidly enforced.

In general terms, the contract limits will be those within the then-existing road rights of way.
These should include all additional areas that have been acquired by the Client - with all
compensation responsibilities already having been discharged.

In some cases however, such additional land area[s] may not have been formally acquired [e.g.
where compensation levels and/or resettlement arrangements have been disputed by the
landowner] so that entry for construction purposes is denied. If those circumstances arise within
the CCORR or Feeder Road corridors, they must be clearly identified in the tender documents
so that the bidding Contractor is aware of the access restrictions. Failure to do so will inevitably
lead to claims from the Contractor for ‘downtime’.

The precise status of land acquisition and of compensation acceptance is not something likely
to be known until immediately before the tender call is issued. As a result this issue is one to be
addressed in the later stages of the process.

Construction Staging

The sequence in which the Contractor will conduct the construction work is normally left to the
Contractor’s discretion. This is in order that his rate of progress and order of work is not
constrained to the extent that additional cost to the client is incurred.

However in the case of the subject project, there are a number of factors that might lead to the
need for the CDA to prescribe at least some part of the work sequence. Although precise
definition of possible issues must necessarily be deferred until later in the design process, a
preliminary list of issues that might affect the order of works is given in Table 6.9 below:

Table 6.9: Effects on Construction Staging

Issues Implications and Remarks

Land Availability Denial of access to some areas of land may affect the construction sequence
The need to place fill material in advance of other road building works to allow
Embankments in Soft Areas
for ground settlement to occur, may affect construction operations.
Requirements to provide access through the site [e.g. for a major sporting
Public Access event] may mean that certain parts of the work must be completed out of
order.
The relocation of public utility apparatus is often time consuming and/or
require the road Contractor to collaborate with the owning Agency. Time
Utilities
frames, schedules and payment transfers may impact on the progress of the
main contract.
Site Access

The route[s] by which the Contractor wants to access the work site is again something normally
left to him to determine. This is done in order that claims do not arise in the event that any route
that has been prescribed by the Owner proves to be a problem for the Contractor’s operations.

For this reason it is customary for the Contractor to be mandated to show his access route
requirements in a formal plan [e.g. a traffic management plan] to be submitted to the Owner for
approval. During the review of such a plan, the Owner is free to indicate any restrictions that
apply [e.g. upkeep of any public roadway surfaces involved] together within any public
awareness advertising needed. However, it is necessary for the Owner to forewarn the
Contractor of such restrictions [at least in outline form] during the tender process again in order
to reduce the risk of claims.