Feasibility and Design of the Proposed

Multicab and Van Terminal in Baybay City

A Feasibility and Design Study

presented to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
College of Engineering
Visayas State University
Visca, Baybay City, Leyte

In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the course
CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT (CEng 156)

ARRA GEAN D. GERMINA

BEATRIZ NICOLLE A. OPPUS

FRANCELLE BLANCHE G. TORCINO

MARLO P. URGEL

CHRISTINE GIAN A. YCOY

June 2018
 ii

APPROVAL

This undergraduate Civil Engineering Project entitled “Feasibility and Design

of the Proposed Multicab and Van Terminal in Baybay City” under the category

Feasibility and Design Study, proposed and accomplished by ARRA GEAN D.

GERMINA, BEATRIZ NICOLLE A. OPPUS, FRANCELLE BLANCHE G.

TORCINO, MARLO P. URGEL, and CHRISTINE GIAN A. YCOY has been

recommended for and subjected to Oral deliberation, and approved by the Panel of Oral

Deliberation of the Department of Civil Engineering.

GERALD P. GOGO
Member

DINDO L. SACAY
Member

ANDY PHIL D. CORTES

Member
 iii

TRANSMITTAL

This undergraduate Civil engineering Project Manuscript entitled “Feasibility

and Design of the Proposed Multicab and Van Terminal in Baybay City” prepared

and submitted by ARRA GEAN D. GERMINA, BEATRIZ NICOLLE A. OPPUS,

FRANCELLE BLANCHE G. TORCINO, MARLO P. URGEL, and CHRISTINE

GIAN A. YCOY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course Civil

Engineering Project (CEng 156) of the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil

Engineering is hereby recommended for acceptance and approval.

HANZEL N. MEJIA DINDO L. SACAY

Primary Adviser Secondary Adviser

________________ ________________
Date Date

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

EPIFANIA G. LORETO
Head, DCE

_______________
Date
 iv

ABSTRACT

The study aims to assess the feasibility of the proposed Baybay Multicab and

Van Terminal, a project in collaboration with City Engineering Office of Baybay City.

Furthermore, the study also aims to conduct a design study and presents a revised design

of the terminal if proven feasible. Otherwise, presents a recommendation to be

submitted to the City Engineering Office. The feasibility of the propose structure was

determine through criterions set by the proponents and was evaluated and analyzed

through the conduct of: (1) Traffic Study, to foresee and provide a technical appraisal

of the traffic and safety implications relating to the proposed project after several years;

(2) Accessibility Study, in order to evaluate the accessibility of the proposed project

from the surrounding establishments; (3) Socio Impact Study which pertains to the

development of actions and satisfaction of the people prior to the proposed project; (4)

Economic Impact Study which seeks to ensure sustainability in terms of economic

level; (5) Road Safety which represents an equally important consideration in decision-

making on infrastructure; and (6) Environmental Impact Assessment which seeks to

implement environmental management and development control to help mitigate

measures and alternatives to optimize positive impacts while reducing negative impacts

of the generated pollution from the construction period up to the operation period.

The proposed project was proven feasible by the assessment of the proponents.

A design study with the used of Civil Engineering knowledge and techniques was

conducted to produce detailed plans of the structure. A revised plan which conforms to

National Building Codes of the Philippines, National Structural Codes of the

Philippines (NSCP), American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC) and Uniform

Building Code (UBC) 1997 was submitted to the City Engineering Office.
 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to extend their heartfelt thanks to the following

individuals who have been part of the proponent journey throughout the conduct of the

Civil Engineering Project.

To the proponents’ parents, Amalia Germina and Arniel Germina; Faustino

Torcino and Blanchie Torcino; Evelinda Oppus and Apolonio Oppus; Danilo Urgel

and Virgilia Urgel; and Celestino Ycoy and Angie Ycoy for their unending support,

care, and love and for investing time, effort and money.

To Torcino's residence, for the accommodation and foods during the making

of manuscript.

To the CE Project Coordinator, Engr. Andy Phil Cortes for assisting all the

teams and for imparting his technical expertise that are hard to comprehend, and for his

surprise snacks during the making of manuscript.

To our respective advisers, Engr. Hanzel N. Mejia and Engr. Dindo Sacay for

sharing their expertise, skills, knowledge and advices.

To the City Engineers of Baybay City, Engr. Ranulfo Tagolgol, Engr.

Giovannie Ngalot and Engr Arvin Dañas for entrusting and giving the proponents the

chance to evaluate the feasibility and the structural integrity of the proposed project.

To Prof. Epifania G. Loreto, the Department Head of Civil Engineering for

giving the proponents the opportunity to experience, explore, and apply the proponents’

knowledge in the actual field of civil engineering.

And most importantly, to our Almighty GOD for giving the proponents

guidance, courage, wisdom and hope to have a successful project through the presence

of the persons mentioned above.

 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT Page

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL ii

TRANSMITTAL iii

ABSTRACT iv

ACNOWLEDGEMENT v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

CHAPTER I. OBJECTIVES 1

CHAPTER II. PROPOSED PROJECT 2

CHAPTER III. FEASIBILITY CRITERIA AND METHODS

3.1 Study Flow 3

3.2 Feasibility Method 4
3.2.1 Accessibility 4
3.2.2 Traffic Study 5
3.2.3 Social Impact 6
3.2.4 Economic Impact 9
3.2.5 Road Safety 10
3.2.6 Environmental Impact 11

CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY CRITERIA

4.1 Accessibility 13
4.2 Traffic Study 15
4.2.1 Future Traffic Volume 22
4.2.2 Future Traffic with Rerouting 24
4.3 Social Impact 28
4.4 Economic Impact 40
4.4.1 Net Present Value 41
4.4.2 Internal Rate of Return 41
4.4.3 Benefit-cost Ratio 41
4.5 Environmental Impact 42
 vii

4.6 Road Safety 44

4.7 Summary of Feasibility Analysis 45

CHAPTER V. DESIGN PROCESS

5.1 Loads and Load Combinations 46

5.2 Design Considerations 48

CHAPTER VI. PROPOSED DESIGN

6.1 Features 52
6.2 SAP 2000 Structural Analysis Results 52
6.3 Project Plan and Details 54
6.4 Computations 54
6.4.1 Computation for Steel Column to RC Column Connections 55
6.4.2 Computation for Design Strength of Weld 56

CHAPTER VII. RECOMMENDATION 58

APPENDICES 59

REFERENCES 117
 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1 Traffic Volume Counts (Video Taking) 6

2 Giving of Questionnaire for Random Passengers 7

3 Conducting Interview for Drivers 8

4 Data Gathering from BTTMO at Baybay Terminal 9

5 Proponents conducting Road Inventory Survey 11

6 The location of the terminal and neighboring establishments 14

7 Location and Direction of Traffic Movements 16

8 New Entrance and Exit Route for Van and Multicab 25

9 Percent Distribution of Drivers’ Answer to Question No.1 29

10 Percent Distribution of Drivers’ Answer to Question No. 2 30

Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Food Stalls

11 31
at the Current Terminal

Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Restrooms at

12 32
the Current Terminal

Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Parking Area

13 33
at the Current Terminal

Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Ticketing

14 34
Booth at the Current Terminal

15 Percentage Distribution of Passengers’ Answer to Question No.1 35

16 Percentage Distribution of Passengers’ Answer to Question No.2 36

Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Food

17 37
Stalls at the Current Terminal
 ix

Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the

18 38
Restrooms at the Current Terminal

Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Waiting

19 39
Area at the Current Terminal

20 Vehicles Illegally Parked beside the Roadway 44

21 Perspective View of the Proposed Terminal 50

22 Top View of the Proposed Terminal 51

23 Side View of the Proposed Terminal 51

24 Rear View of the Proposed Terminal 52

25 SAP 2000 results for Waiting Area 53

26 SAP 2000 results for Parking Area (Section A-A) 53

27 SAP 2000 results for Parking Area (Section A’-A’) 54

 x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Distance of the establishment from the terminal location 15

and its corresponding walking time

2 A.M. and P.M. Peak hour per traffic 16

3 Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekday – A.M.) 17

4 Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekday – P.M.) 17

5 Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekend – A.M.) 18

6 Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekend – P.M.) 18

7 Passenger Car Equivalent Factors 19

8 Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekday – A.M.) 19

9 Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekday – P.M.) 20

10 Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekend – A.M.) 20

11 Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekend – P.M.) 21

12 Growth Rate in Region VIII 21

13 Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekday – A.M.) 22

14 Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekday – P.M.) 23

15 Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekend– A.M.) 23

16 Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekend– P.M.) 24

17 Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekday – A.M.) 25

18 Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekday – P.M.) 26

19 Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekend – A.M.) 26

20 Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekend – P.M.) 27

21 Number Respondents for Multicab 28

 xi

22 Number Respondents for Van 28

23 Summary of Economic Analysis Results 40

(15 years, 14% discount rate)

24 Pollution Mitigation Methods and Practices 43

25 Result of Feasibility Study 45

26 Seismic Considerations 47

27 Wind Consideration 47

28 Combination Definitions 48

29 Design Consideration for Connections 49

30 Design Consideration for Column 49

31 Design Consideration for Footing 49

32 Sample Input for Column Details 55

33 Sample Input for Material Details 55

34 Sample Output from Connection Solver 56

 xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Title Page

A Project Plans and Details 60

B Computations 76

C Survey Questionnaires 89

D Traffic Volume Count and Vehicle Classification Data 92

E Pertinent Documents 97

F Request for Adviser and Acceptance Note 109

G Evidence of Submission of Set of Plans to Client 114

 CHAPTER I

OBJECTIVES

The project specifically aims the following:

1. Determine whether the proposed multicab and van terminal in Baybay City

is feasible.

2. If the proposed multicab and van terminal in Baybay City is feasible,

conduct a design study and present a revised design of the terminal.

Otherwise, present a recommendation to be submitted to the City Engineers

Office.
 CHAPTER II

PROPOSED PROJECT

Baybay City is the point of intersection of nearby cities, and is now becoming a

new tourist destination, thus resulting in an increase in demand for transportation. Due

to this increase in demand, the team in collaboration with the City Engineers proposed

a terminal exclusive for multicabs and vans. The Proposed Multicab and Van Terminal

Station is planned to be constructed at Zone 10, Poblacion, Baybay City beside Andok’s

Litson Manok building. The location has a lot area of 4745 sq. m. The proposed

multicab and van terminal is another government project that will be constructed in

order to isolate and to organize the multicabs and vans. The project would also provide

a sufficient space to accommodate the increasing number of multicabs and vans in the

city. The structure will be constructed using mostly steel and will be completely

different from the old terminal.

The proposed multicab and van terminal has been planned out a long time ago

by the city’s government officials together with the City Engineers of Baybay City

headed by Engr. Ranulfo Tagolgol and assisted by Engr. Ray Giovanni Ngalot. The

government officials came up with the idea of constructing a new terminal exclusive

for vans and multicabs to address the need of the drivers and commuters, and to provide

them comfort while waiting for their trip. The project is also a part of the development

of the city since it is now becoming a tourist destination.

The estimated budget for the proposed project is Php.15 Million and is planned

to be constructed on June 2018.

 CHAPTER III

FEASIBILITY CRITERIA AND METHODS

3.1 Study Flow

START

• Acquiring a benefactor
• Obtaining project background
PROJECT VISUALIZATION
• Finalizing project title
• Conceptualizing objectives

• Conducting Traffic Study

DATA COLLECTION FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• Gaining social review
• Conducting road inventory
survey
• Determining accessibility of
nearby establishments
• Determining road safety
• Determining project's
environmental impact

CHECKING OF PROJECT • Evaluating the feasibility

FEASIBILITY criteria set

DESIGN STUDY/ PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION

END
 4

In order to determine the feasibility of the proposed multicab and van terminal,

the proponents, with the help of their advisers, formulated a feasibility criteria. At least

50% of the criteria should be met and satisfied in order for the project to be considered

feasible. The criteria includes Accessibility, Traffic Impact, Social Impact, Economic

Impact, Road Safety, and Environmental Impact. The result of the feasibility study

dictates whether or not the proponents should proceed to design study.

3.2 Feasibility Method

3.2.1 Accessibility

Walking accessibility is defined as how easy it is to access public

transport terminals by walking. Walking effort instead of walking distance or

walking time is used to represent the utility of walking as access mode to public

transport terminals. This effort is expressed by an equivalent walking distance,

which consists of actual walking distance and generalized walking effort.

Most of public transport studies assumed that walking as an access mode

occurred up to 400 to 1200 meters of walking distance or 10 to 15 minutes of

walking time (Mitchell and Stokes, 1982; Stringham, 1982; O’Sullivan and

Morrall, 1996; Halden et al. 2000). However, since walking accessibility is

defined as the effort to reach public transport terminal, the characteristics of

walking route may take into account to walking accessibility assessment

(Wibowo, 2005).

Thus, based on the related concept employed, the farthest establishment

from the proposed location is approximately 400 to 1200 meters and the

accessibility of a particular establishment is measured through radius with

equivalent walking time of 10 to 15 minutes. With that, if it exhibits the desired

 5

measurements and basis, the proposed location for the project is accessible from

all the other establishments gathered.

To determine the accessibility of the proposed project, the team seek the

advice of an expert. He suggested the use of Open-Map Street to determine the

distances of relevant establishments from the location of the proposed terminal.

Heeding the advice, the team downloaded the said software application and used

it to measure the distance and time of travel of the relevant establishment from

the proposed location of the van and multicab terminal.

3.2.2 Traffic Study

A traffic study or traffic impact study (TIA) is a technical appraisal of

the traffic and safety implications relating to a specific development. A traffic

study is done in order to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the

transportation system and not merely an avenue for a developer getting planning

and building approval. If there will be future traffic problems resulting from the

proposed development (either directly caused by the development or by the

level of detail in the area) then this needs to be objectively presented in the TIA.

Last February 9, 2018 (Friday) and February 17, 2018 (Saturday) the

proponents performed a 12-hour straight manual traffic count and vehicle

classification starting from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm at the intersections of Baybay-

Inopacan Road and Andres Bonifacio St., and Baybay-Inopacan Road and Tres

Martires St. It was the chosen location since it is where the vehicles most likely

enters and exits the terminal. The team was divided into two groups. One was

stationed at Baybay-Inopacan Road and Andres Bonifacio St. intersection while

the other group was at Baybay-Inopacan Road and Tres Martires St.
 6

intersection. Each group monitored and recorded the number and type of every

vehicles passing their assigned stations. Due to the lack of electronic devices

necessary for the study, the team performed a manual tally. Videos were also

taken using the proponents’ cellular phones during peak hours to ensure

accuracy of data.

Figure 1. Traffic Volume Counts (Video Taking)

3.2.3 Social Impact

The Inter-Organizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for

Social Assessment (1994) (cited in Glasson 2000) defined social impacts as ‘the

consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter

the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to

meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society’. Social Impact

Assessment (SIA) can help to ensure that the needs and voices of diverse groups

and people in a community are taken into account.

 7

To evaluate this criterion, an interview of random people (passengers

and drivers) was the decided approach. A questionnaire (Appendix A) was

outlined and prepared by the team. A statistician also assisted the team on how

to acquire the sample size and analyze the data.

Figure 2. Giving of Questionnaire for Random Passengers

 8

Figure 3. Conducting Interview for Drivers

From the Bus Terminal and Traffic Management Office (BTTMO), the

team was able to get the number of registered driver in the terminal. The number

was used as the population for the sampling. Stratified random sampling, a

population sample that requires the population to be divided into smaller group,

was used. The drivers were divided into smaller groups depending on their

designated route. Slovin’s formula was used in computing the sample size,
𝑁
where 𝑛 = and the error used is 10%. By percentage, the number of
1+𝑁𝑒 2
 9

drivers are defined. The team set an assumption that the number of random

passengers are equal to the number of drivers since there is no known data on

the number of passengers on the terminal.

Figure 4. Data Gathering from BTTMO at Baybay Terminal

3.2.4 Economic Impact

Economic impact refers to the effects on the level of economic activity

in a given area as a result of some form of external intervention in the economy.

The intervention can be in the form of new investment in, for example, transport

facilities, social developments, housing, and business development, the

establishment of a new or the expansion of existing production capacity. If a

certain proposed project is not intended for business purposes or a government

project, it is not a requirement that the budget will be paid back. On the other

hand, it is necessary to ensure sustainability in terms of economic level if a

certain project is income generating, thus, a collection of revenue is required.

Its purpose is to mainly provide satisfaction and comfort to the public who will
 10

gain the benefits of the project. Collected revenues from the income will be used

for maintenance and improvement of the project without the government’s

assistance at all.

There are a number of alternative criteria for the assessment of the

economic value of projects. Economic assessment criteria such as Net Present

Value, Benefit Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Return should be calculated.

Through several computations and analysis of data, a project is said to

be economically feasible if the benefit-cost ratio is greater than 1, which means

a peso investment/cost on the project, there is a return of about a certain amount

greater than peso benefit.

For this criterion, the team consulted an economist. She suggested the

team to conduct cost-benefit analysis. However, the said method will take 2 – 3

years to analyze if done manually, so to ease the burden and to cope up with

time requirements, she offered the team an excel program for the analysis.

The necessary data for economic impact assessment was gathered. It

was found out that the budget for the proposed terminal is 15 Million as

estimated by the City Engineering Office. The team also asked the person in

charge of BTTMO on the average daily income of the current terminal and it

was found out to be 14,000 to 15,000 pesos, this includes the collection from

the ticket as terminal fee, the use of restrooms, and rent for food stalls.

3.2.5 Road Safety

Road Safety or Road Traffic Safety refers to methods and measures for

reducing the risk of a person using the road network being killed or seriously

injured. Road safety survey aims to identify factors affecting the efficiency of
 11

the road such as its physical characteristics (e.g. pavement structure and

geometry) as well as accident-inducing factors such as existence/absence of

traffic control (signs, signals, road markings, and parking restrictions), and non-

traffic activities which encroach upon road space ( like builder’s materials and

market stalls).

Last April 20, 2018 the team conducted Road Inventory Survey along

Domingo Veloso St., Andress Bonifacio, and Tres Martires St. Possible factors

that may induce accidents were looked into during the survey.

Figure 5. Proponents conducting Road Inventory Survey

3.2.6 Environmental Impact

Environment Impact or Environmental Impact Assessment aims to

identify the effects, both beneficial and adverse, of the proposed project from

the construction period up to the operation period, to the environment. It is also

intended to help reveal mitigating measures and alternatives to optimize positive

impacts while reducing or limiting negative impacts. Environmental Impact

 12

Assessment is an instrument for environmental management and development

control.

Since the proponents do not have the means to determine the exact effect

of the construction of the project to the environment, the proponents just

suggested methods in order to mitigate the negative effect of the proposed

project.
 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF FEASIBILITY CRITERIA

After gathering the necessary data, the proponents evaluated each feasibility

criterion. The results of the analysis were as follows:

4.1 Accessibility

With the use of Open Street Maps, the distance and walking time of relevant

establishments around the proposed location of the terminal were taken. Each distance

and walking time are listed in Table 1. In the said table, the farthest establishment from

the proposed location of the terminal is the Franciscan College of Immaculate

Conception with a distance of 1.1 kilometers and a walking time of 13 minutes. The

said establishment is still within the assumed 1.2 kilometers accessible radius. It means

to say that the proposed location of the terminal is accessible from all the other

establishments listed. Therefore, the proposed van and multicab terminal is considered

accessible by any form of transportation.

THIS SITE

Figure 6. The location of the terminal and neighboring establishments

14
 15

Table 1. Distance of the establishment from the terminal location and its
corresponding walking time

Distance Walking time

Name of establishment
(meter) (min.)
Western Leyte Provincial Hospital 757 7
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 915 11
Baybay City North Elementary School 870 10
GV Hotel Baybay 634 8
Palermo Hotel 574 7
Pedro’s Café 550 5
Land Bank of the Philippines 402 5
BPI Baybay Leyte Branch 341 4
Uptown Plaza 274 3
Immaculate Conception Parish Church 459 6
Baybay City Hall 253 3
Andok’s Baybay Branch 160 2
Jollibee 133 2
Prince Hypermart 258 3
Petron Gas Station 292 4
Baybay City Public Market 177 2
Port of Baybay 198 2
Metro Bank 307 4
Pany’s Bakeshop 414 5
Baybay National High School 1100 13
Franciscan College of Immaculate
Conception 1100 13

4.2 Traffic Study

Traffic study was conducted at the intersections of Baybay-Inopacan Road and

Andres Bonifacio St., and Baybay-Inopacan Road and Tres Martires St. in order to

determine the traffic impact of the proposed terminal. The proponents recorded the

number and classifications of the vehicles passing the designated traffic route. In figure

7, the location and direction of the traffic being studied is seen.

 16

rip

Figure 7. Location and Direction of Traffic Movements

Based from the data gathered from the manual traffic count, the peak hour in

each traffic route during the morning and afternoon is enumerated in table 2.

Table 2. A.M. and P.M. Peak hour per traffic

Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4

AM 7:30 - 8:30 10:30 - 11:30 7:30 - 8:30 11:30 - 12:30

Weekday
PM 1:30 - 2:30 12:30 - 1:30 5:30 - 6:30 5:30 - 6:30

AM 9:30 - 10:30 11:30 - 12:30 9:30 - 10:30 9:30 - 10:30

Weekend
PM 4:30 - 5:30 3:30 - 4:30 4:30 - 5:30 4:30 - 5:30

Below are the tables showing the modal split of vehicles during the peak hours.

The corresponding percentage of each vehicle is also show in the table.

 17

Table 3. Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekday – A.M.)

WEEKDAY VOLUME PERCENTAGE

(A.M. - PEAK HOUR) (vehicle/hr) (%)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
Rickshaw 139 460 463 510 25.18 40.21 34.71 41.84
Multicab 4 34 38 47 0.72 2.97 2.85 3.86
Tricycle 166 228 347 258 30.07 19.93 26.01 21.16
Truck 14 19 13 23 2.54 1.66 0.97 1.89
Bike 11 10 41 20 1.99 0.87 3.07 1.64
Private Vehicle 55 117 49 60 9.96 10.23 3.67 4.92
Van 2 27 22 26 0.36 2.36 1.65 2.13
Motorcycle 161 245 361 273 29.17 21.42 27.06 22.40
Bus 0 4 0 2 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.16

Table 4. Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekday – P.M.)

WEEKDAY VOLUME PERCENTAGE

(P.M. - PEAK HOUR) (vehicle/hr) (%)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
Rickshaw 148 265 370 426 34.82 28.01 24.82 28.31
Multicab 3 82 76 45 0.71 8.67 5.10 2.99
Tricycle 76 234 283 381 17.88 24.74 18.98 25.32
Truck 7 26 7 7 1.65 2.75 0.47 0.47
Bike 7 9 43 33 1.65 0.95 2.88 2.19
Private Vehicle 60 92 61 63 14.12 9.73 4.09 4.19
Van 4 31 29 30 0.94 3.28 1.95 1.99
Motorcycle 113 203 622 515 26.59 21.46 41.72 34.22
Bus 7 4 0 5 1.65 0.42 0.00 0.33
 18

Table 5. Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekend – A.M.)

WEEKEND VOLUME PERCENTAGE

(A.M. - PEAK HOUR) (vehicle/hr) (%)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
Rickshaw 384 84 299 623 54.24 43.69 41.41 47.56
Multicab 23 20 18 28 3.25 2.28 2.49 2.14
Tricycle 137 166 127 262 19.35 18.89 17.59 20.00
Truck 8 15 21 22 1.13 1.71 2.91 1.68
Bike 0 9 10 17 0.00 1.02 1.39 1.30
Private Vehicle 27 96 88 98 3.81 10.92 12.19 7.48
Van 0 8 17 25 0.00 3.19 2.35 1.91
Motorcycle 129 60 141 230 18.22 18.20 19.53 17.56
Bus 0 1 1 5 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.38

Table 6. Vehicle Volume per Peak Hour (Weekend – P.M.)

WEEKEND VOLUME PERCENTAGE

(P.M. - PEAK HOUR) (vehicle/hr) (%)
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
Rickshaw 389 298 265 467 44.92 38.75 38.69 42.15
Multicab 144 12 27 29 16.63 1.56 3.94 2.62
Tricycle 126 152 132 234 14.55 19.77 19.27 21.12
Truck 3 26 20 13 0.35 3.38 2.92 1.17
Bike 13 10 13 15 1.50 1.30 1.90 1.35
Private Vehicle 31 64 63 50 3.58 8.32 9.20 4.51
Van 1 19 20 29 0.12 2.47 2.92 2.62
Motorcycle 159 188 145 264 18.36 24.45 21.17 23.83
Bus 0 0 0 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63
 19

The corresponding Passenger Car Unit (PCU) equivalent of the vehicle volume

per peak hour was determined. The PCU volume was then used to estimate the future

traffic volume in each route for the next 15 years. The growth rates used for the future

traffic forecasting was derived from the number of motor vehicles registered in Region

VIII for the year 2015 since it is the only latest data available. Linear growth rate was

also assumed during the future traffic forecasting.

Table 7. Passenger Car Equivalent Factors

Vehicle Type Taxi Bike Jeep Bus Car Motorcycle Truck SUV
PCEF 1 0.5 1.4 2.2 1 0.5 2.2 1.2

Table 8. Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekday – A.M.)

WEEKDAY
PCU EQUIVALENT
(A.M. - PEAK VOLUME WITHOUT PCU
VOLUME
HOUR)
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Rickshaw 139 460 463 510 69.50 230.00 231.50 255.00

Multicab 4 34 38 47 4.80 40.80 45.60 56.40
Tricycle 166 228 347 258 83.00 114.00 173.50 129.00
Truck 14 19 13 23 30.80 41.80 28.60 50.60
Bike 11 10 41 20 5.50 5.00 20.50 10.00
Car 55 117 49 60 55.00 117.00 49.00 60.00
Van 2 27 22 26 2.40 32.40 26.40 31.20
Motorcycle 161 245 361 273 80.50 122.50 180.50 136.50
Bus 0 4 0 2 0.00 8.80 0.00 4.40
TOTAL 552 1144 1334 1219 331.5 712.3 755.6 733.1
 20

Table 9. Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekday – P.M.)

WEEKDAY PCU EQUIVALENT

VOLUME WITHOUT PCU
(P.M. - PEAK HOUR) VOLUME

VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Rickshaw 148 265 370 426 74.00 132.50 185.00 213.00

Multicab 3 82 76 45 3.60 98.40 91.20 54.00
Tricycle 76 234 283 381 38.00 117.00 141.50 190.50
Truck 7 26 7 7 15.40 57.20 15.40 15.40
Bike 7 9 43 33 3.50 4.50 21.50 16.50
Car 60 92 61 63 60.00 92.00 61.00 63.00
Van 4 31 29 30 4.80 37.20 34.80 36.00
Motorcycle 113 203 622 515 56.50 101.50 311.00 257.50
Bus 7 4 0 5 15.40 8.80 0.00 11.00
TOTAL 425 946 1491 1505 271.2 649.1 861.4 856.9

Table 10. Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekend – A.M.)

WEEKEND
VOLUME WITHOUT
(A.M. - PEAK PCU EQUIVALENT VOLUME
PCU
HOUR)
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Rickshaw 384 384 299 623 192.00 192.00 149.50 311.50

Multicab 23 20 18 28 27.60 24.00 21.60 33.60
Tricycle 137 166 127 262 68.50 83.00 63.50 131.00
Truck 8 15 21 22 17.60 33.00 46.20 48.40
Bike 0 9 10 17 0.00 4.50 5.00 8.50
Car 27 96 88 98 27.00 96.00 88.00 98.00
Van 0 28 17 25 0.00 33.60 20.40 30.00
Motorcycle 129 160 141 230 64.50 80.00 70.50 115.00
Bus 0 1 1 5 0.00 2.20 2.20 11.00
TOTAL 708.0 879.0 722.0 1310.0 397.2 548.3 466.9 787
 21

Table 11. Passenger Car Unit Equivalent Volume (Weekend – P.M.)

WEEKEND VOLUME WITHOUT

PCU EQUIVALENT VOLUME
(P.M. - PEAK HOUR) PCU

VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

Rickshaw 389 298 265 467 194.50 149.00 132.50 233.50

Multicab 144 12 27 29 172.80 14.40 32.40 34.80
Tricycle 126 152 132 234 63.00 76.00 66.00 117.00
Truck 3 26 20 13 6.60 57.20 44.00 28.60
Bike 13 10 13 15 6.50 5.00 6.50 7.50
Car 31 64 63 50 31.00 64.00 63.00 50.00
Van 1 19 20 29 1.20 22.80 24.00 34.80
Motorcycle 159 188 145 264 79.50 94.00 72.50 132.00
Bus 0 0 0 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.40
TOTAL 866.0 769.0 685.0 1108.0 555.1 482.4 440.9 653.6

Table 12. Growth Rate in Region VIII

VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION 2018 – 2023 2023 - 2033

Rickshaw 5.00 10.00

Multicab 3.31 8.31
Tricycle 40.28 45.28
Truck 0.45 0.45
Bike 2.00 2.00
Car 11.15 11.15
Van 3.31 8.31
Motorcycle 40.28 40.28
Bus 0.14 5.14
 22

4.2.1 Future Traffic Volume

The future traffic volume in each traffic movement for the next 15 years

is listed in table 13. The traffic volumes are assumes to occur if no rerouting

will be done for the proposed van and multicab terminal.

Table 13. Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekday – A.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

Movement Movement Movement Movement
DIRECTION
1 2 3 4
2018 331.5 712.3 755.6 733.1
2019 407.4446 834.8184 918.1338 862.8036
2020 483.3892 957.3368 1080.668 992.5073
2021 559.3337 1079.855 1243.201 1122.211
2022 635.2783 1202.374 1405.735 1251.915
2023 711.2229 1324.892 1568.269 1381.618
2024 835.0775 1575.21 1873.903 1654.122
2025 919.007 1719.029 2060.286 1807.625
2026 1002.937 1862.847 2246.67 1961.129
2027 1086.866 2006.665 2433.054 2114.633
2028 1170.796 2150.484 2619.438 2268.136
2029 1254.725 2294.302 2805.821 2421.64
2030 1338.655 2438.121 2992.205 2575.144
2031 1422.584 2581.939 3178.589 2728.647
2032 1506.514 2725.757 3364.973 2882.151
2033 1590.444 2869.576 3551.356 3012.158
 23

Table 14. Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekday – P.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

Movement Movement Movement Movement
DIRECTION
1 2 3 4
2018 271.2 649.1 861.4 856.9
2019 320.0888 758.8309 1064.364 1058.4
2020 368.9776 868.5618 1267.329 1259.899
2021 417.8665 978.2927 1470.293 1461.399
2022 466.7553 1088.024 1673.257 1662.898
2023 515.6441 1197.755 1876.221 1864.398
2024 605.2729 1425.655 2214.936 2217.247
2025 660.9518 1555.081 2440.525 2443.972
2026 716.6306 1684.507 2666.114 2670.696
2027 772.3094 1813.933 2891.703 2897.421
2028 827.9882 1943.359 3117.293 3124.145
2029 883.6671 2072.785 3342.882 3350.87
2030 939.3459 2202.211 3568.471 3577.594
2031 995.0247 2331.637 3794.06 3804.319
2032 1050.704 2461.063 4019.65 4031.043
2033 1106.382 2590.489 4245.239 4257.768

Table 15. Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekend– A.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

Movement Movement Movement Movement
DIRECTION
1 2 3 4
2018 397.2 548.3 466.9 733.1
2019 464.3691 636.3995 539.8566 862.8036
2020 531.5381 724.499 612.8132 992.5073
2021 598.7072 812.5985 685.7698 1122.211
2022 665.8762 900.698 758.7264 1251.915
2023 733.0453 988.7975 831.683 1381.618
2024 886.6444 1177.337 981.7996 1654.122
2025 968.2184 1282.177 1067.616 1807.625
2026 1049.792 1387.016 1153.433 1961.129
2027 1131.367 1491.856 1239.249 2114.633
2028 1212.941 1596.695 1325.066 2268.136
2029 1294.515 1701.535 1410.883 2421.64
2030 1376.089 1806.374 1496.699 2575.144
2031 1457.663 1911.214 1582.516 2728.647
2032 1539.237 2016.053 1668.332 2882.151
2033 1620.811 2120.893 1754.149 3030.955
 24

Table 16. Future Traffic Volume without Rerouting (Weekend– P.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

Movement Movement Movement Movement
DIRECTION
1 2 3 4
2018 555.1 482.4 440.9 653.6
2019 631.5895 567.043 512.5252 773.7387
2020 708.079 651.6861 584.1503 893.8775
2021 784.5684 736.3291 655.7755 1014.016
2022 861.0579 820.9722 727.4006 1134.155
2023 937.5474 905.6152 799.0258 1254.294
2024 1143.487 1068.918 947.1209 1505.082
2025 1241.551 1166.671 1031.491 1646.996
2026 1339.616 1264.424 1115.861 1788.91
2027 1437.68 1362.177 1200.231 1930.824
2028 1535.745 1459.93 1284.602 2072.737
2029 1633.809 1557.683 1368.972 2214.651
2030 1731.874 1655.437 1453.342 2356.565
2031 1829.938 1753.19 1537.712 2498.479
2032 1928.003 1850.943 1622.082 2640.392
2033 2026.067 1948.696 1706.452 2798.754

4.2.2 Future Traffic with Rerouting

In order to lessen the effect on traffic of the construction of the van and

multicab terminal, the proponents recommend to the pertinent authorities the

opening of Domingo Veloso St. for rerouting purpose. The said street is 6.7

meter wide and will then be used as the entrance and exist route of the vans and

multicabs. In figure 8 is the proposed entrance and exit route of multicabs and

vans for the new terminal. The red line represents the proposed entrance and the

green line for the proposed exit route.

 25

THIS SITE

Figure 8. New Entrance and Exit Route for Van and Multicab

If the recommendation of the proponents will be followed, the traffic

volume in each route under study will be lessen. The new traffic volume is listed

in the following tables.

Table 17. Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekday – A.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

DIRECTION Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4
2018 326.7 671.5 683.6 645.5
2019 402.4858 792.6686 843.7518 772.3056
2020 478.2716 913.8372 1003.904 899.1113
2021 554.0573 1035.006 1164.056 1025.917
2022 629.8431 1156.174 1324.207 1152.723
2023 705.6289 1277.343 1484.359 1279.528
2024 827.8847 1514.072 1766.011 1522.854
2025 911.4155 1654.5 1946.413 1669.079
2026 994.9462 1794.929 2126.815 1815.305
2027 1078.477 1935.358 2307.217 1961.531
2028 1162.008 2075.786 2487.618 2107.756
2029 1245.539 2216.215 2668.02 2253.982
2030 1329.069 2356.643 2848.422 2400.208
2031 1412.6 2497.072 3028.824 2546.433
2032 1496.131 2637.501 3209.226 2692.659
2033 1579.662 2777.929 3389.628 2838.885
 26

Table 18. Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekday – P.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

DIRECTION Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4
2018 267.6 550.7 735.4 766.9
2019 316.3697 657.1756 934.1959 965.4221
2020 365.1395 763.6512 1132.992 1163.944
2021 413.9092 870.1269 1331.788 1362.466
2022 462.6789 976.6025 1530.584 1560.989
2023 511.4486 1083.078 1729.38 1759.511
2024 599.8784 1278.204 2026.125 2082.383
2025 655.2581 1399.454 2241.246 2301.63
2026 710.6378 1520.705 2456.367 2520.877
2027 766.0176 1641.956 2671.488 2740.124
2028 821.3973 1763.206 2886.609 2959.371
2029 876.777 1884.457 3101.73 3178.618
2030 932.1567 2005.707 3316.851 3397.866
2031 987.5365 2126.958 3531.972 3617.113
2032 1042.916 2248.209 3747.093 3836.36
2033 1098.296 2369.459 3962.214 4055.607

Table 19. Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekend – A.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

DIRECTION Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4
2018 369.6 524.3 424.9 723.4
2019 435.856 611.6055 496.4672 849.3828
2020 502.112 698.9111 568.0343 975.3655
2021 568.368 786.2166 639.6015 1101.348
2022 634.624 873.5221 711.1686 1227.331
2023 700.88 960.8277 782.7358 1353.314
2024 845.286 1141.373 918.8629 1615.347
2025 924.567 1244.219 1001.19 1764.004
2026 1003.848 1347.064 1083.517 1912.662
2027 1083.129 1449.91 1165.844 2061.32
2028 1162.41 1552.755 1248.172 2209.978
2029 1241.691 1655.601 1330.499 2358.636
2030 1320.972 1758.446 1412.826 2507.293
2031 1400.253 1861.292 1495.153 2655.951
2032 1479.534 1964.138 1577.48 2804.609
2033 1558.815 2066.983 1659.807 2953.267
 27

Table 20. Future Traffic Volume with Rerouting (Weekend – P.M.)

TRAFFIC VOLUME (PCU/hr)

DIRECTION Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4
2018 382.3 468 384.5 584
2019 453.0729 552.1667 454.2593 701.8362
2020 523.8458 636.3333 524.0186 819.6725
2021 594.6186 720.5 593.778 937.5087
2022 665.3915 804.6666 663.5373 1055.345
2023 736.1644 888.8333 733.2966 1173.181
2024 884.5473 1047.34 862.6059 1400.787
2025 968.2552 1143.897 942.2903 1536.919
2026 1051.963 1240.453 1021.975 1673.05
2027 1135.671 1337.01 1101.659 1809.181
2028 1219.379 1433.567 1181.343 1945.312
2029 1303.087 1530.123 1261.028 2081.443
2030 1386.795 1626.68 1340.712 2217.575
2031 1470.502 1723.237 1420.396 2353.706
2032 1554.21 1819.793 1500.081 2489.837
2033 1637.918 1916.35 1579.765 2625.968

Comparing the traffic volume with and without rerouting, the following

conclusion was made:

1. Traffic volume on traffic 3 and 4 were reduced by 4.55% and 5.75%,

respectively during the A.M. weekday traffic volume count.

2. Traffic volume on traffic 3 and 4 were reduced by 6.67% and 4.75%,

respectively during the P.M. weekday traffic volume count.

3. Traffic volume on traffic 3 and 4 were reduced by 5.38% and 2.56%,

respectively during the A.M. weekend traffic volume count.

4. Traffic volume on traffic 3 and 4 were reduced by 7.42% and 6.17%,

respectively during the P.M. weekend traffic volume count.

 28

Traffic 3 and 4 was the main traffic analyzed since it is where vehicles enter and

exit to and from the terminal. The two routes are also the routes greatly affected by the

construction of the new terminal.

From the analysis of the proponents, given that the pertinent authorities will

heed the given suggestion, the construction of the proposed van and multicab terminal

is feasible in terms of traffic impact.

4.3 Social Impact

From the survey conducted by the proponents, the following data for the number

of respondents were determined. The data were listed on table 21 and table 22.

Table 21. Number Respondents for Multicab

MULTICAB
Route Registered Driver Sample Size
Baybay- Caridad 65 33
Baybay - Inopacan 15 8
Baybay-Pomponan 3 1
Baybay- Plaridel 15 8
Total 98 50

Table 22. Number Respondents for Van

VAN
Route Registered Driver Sample Size
Ormoc- Maasin 52 24
Maasin- Tacloban 63 29
Total 115 53

After the conduct of data collection, the proponents with the assistance of a

statistician analyze the obtained data. A graphical presentation from the analysis is

shown as follows.
 29

Figure 9. Percent Distribution of Drivers’ Answers to Question No.1

Baybay Proper to Caridad has a population size of 33 drivers, 93.94% of which

was in agreement for a new terminal. Baybay Proper to Inopacan has a population size

of 8 drivers, 100% answered yes. The population for the Baybay Proper to Pomponan

was dissolved and was merge with the population of Baybay Proper to Plaridel which

results to a population of 9 drivers, 100% answered yes. Ormoc City to Maasin City

has 24 drivers, 87.50% answered yes. Maasin City to Tacloban City has a population

size of 29, 93.10% said yes. From the total of 103 drivers, 93.1% agreed for a need of

a new terminal at Baybay City.

 30

Figure 10. Percent Distribution of Drivers’ Answers to Question No. 2

From the population size of Baybay to Caridad, Inopacan, and Plaridel, 100%

agreed that the location of the new terminal is accessible. 95.83% of the population

from Ormoc City to Maasin City, 96.55% of the population from Maasin City to

Tacloban City agreed that the location of the new terminal is accessible. 98% of the

total sample population of drivers agreed that the location of the new terminal is

accessible.
 31

Figure 11. Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Food Stalls at the Current
Terminal

42.42% of Baybay-Caridad respondents rated poor, 50% of Baybay-Inopacan

respondents rated poor and satisfactory. 55.56% of Baybay-Plaridel respondents rated

satisfactory, 33.33% Ormoc-Maasin respondents rated satisfactory and 34.48% of

Maasin-Tacloban respondents rated satisfactory for the level of satisfaction to the food

stalls at the current terminal. 37% of total sample population of drivers rated

satisfactory for the food stalls at the current terminal.

 32

Figure 12. Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Restrooms at the Current
Terminal

54.55% of Baybay-Caridad drivers rated poor, 75% of Baybay-Inopacan drivers

rated poor, 100% of Baybay-Plaridel drivers rated poor, 58.33% Ormoc-Maasin drivers

rated poor and 24.14% of Maasin-Tacloban drivers rated poor and satisfactory for the

level of satisfaction to the restrooms at the current terminal. 51.76% of the total sample

population of drivers rated poor for the restrooms at the current terminal.
 33

Figure 13. Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Parking Area at the Current
Terminal

45.45% of Baybay-Caridad drivers interviewed rated poor, 75% of Baybay-

Inopacan drivers rated poor, 77.78% of Baybay-Plaridel drivers rated poor, 50%

Ormoc-Maasin drivers rated poor and 44.83% of Maasin-Tacloban drivers rated

outstanding for the level of satisfaction to the parking area at the current terminal.

42.01% of the total sample population of drivers rated poor for the parking area at the

current terminal.
 34

Figure 14. Distribution of Drivers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Ticketing Booths at the
Current Terminal

54.55% of Baybay-Caridad drivers rated outstanding, 75% of Baybay-Inopacan

drivers rated satisfactory, 44.44% of Baybay-Plaridel drivers rated satisfactory, 50%

Ormoc-Maasin drivers rated satisfactory and 37.93% of Maasin-Tacloban drivers rated

outstanding for the level of satisfaction to the ticketing booths at the current terminal.

32.18% of the total sample population of drivers rated satisfactory for the ticketing

booth at the current terminal.

 35

Figure 15. Percentage Distribution of Passengers’ Answers to Question No.1

Baybay Proper to Caridad has a population size of 33 passengers, 81.82% was

in agreement for a new terminal. Baybay Proper to Inopacan has a population size of 8

passengers, in which 37.50% answered yes. The population for the Baybay Proper to

Pomponan was dissolved and was merge with the population of Baybay Proper to

Plaridel which results to a population of 9 passengers, where 88.89% of which answered

yes. Ormoc City to Maasin City has 24 passengers, 75% answered yes to the question.

Maasin City to Tacloban City has a population size of 29, and 79.31% said yes. There

can be no estimates for the overall response of passengers as it was stated that a

purposive sampling was performed, specifically termed as quota sampling.

 36

Figure 16. Percentage Distribution of Passengers’ Answers to Question No.2

Baybay Proper to Caridad has a population size of 33 passengers, 87.50% was

in agreed that the location is accessible. Baybay Proper to Inopacan has a population

size of 8 passengers, 50% answered yes. The population for the Baybay Proper to

Pomponan was dissolved and was merge with the population of Baybay Proper to

Plaridel which results to a population of 9 passengers, 62.50% answered yes. Ormoc

City to Maasin City has 24 passengers, 83.33% answered yes. Maasin City to Tacloban

City has a population size of 29, 96.55% agreed that the location of the proposed

terminal is accessible.
 37

Figure 17. Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Food Stalls at the Current
Terminal

43.75% of Baybay-Caridad passengers rated fair, 50% of Baybay-Inopacan

passengers rated outstanding, 33.33% of Baybay-Plaridel passengers rated fair, 50%

Ormoc-Maasin passengers rated fair and 24.14% of Maasin-Tacloban passengers rated

fair, satisfactory, and highly satisfactory for the level of satisfaction to the food stalls at

the current terminal.

 38

Figure 18. Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Restrooms at the Current
Terminal

37.93% of Baybay-Caridad respondents rated poor, 37.50% of Baybay-

Inopacan respondents rated outstanding, 33.33% of Baybay-Plaridel respondents rated

fair, 41.67% of Ormoc-Maasin respondents rated poor and 37.93% of Maasin-Tacloban

respondents rated satisfactory for the level of satisfaction to the restrooms at the current

terminal.
 39

Figure 19. Distribution of Passengers’ Level of Satisfaction to the Waiting Area at the Current
Terminal

33.33% of Baybay-Caridad respondents rated fair, 37.50% of Baybay-Inopacan

respondents rated outstanding, 44.44% of Baybay-Plaridel respondents rated

satisfactory, 39.13% of Ormoc-Maasin respondents rated fair and 34.48% of Maasin-

Tacloban respondents rated highly satisfactory for the level of satisfaction to the

waiting area at the current terminal.

 40

4.4 Economic Impact

For the analysis of the economic impact, the following assumptions were made:

1. The budget in constructing the structure is Php. 15M.

2. A discount rate of 14%.

For baseline data, an increase of 10% of the present data collected from the

current terminal was assumed to forecast the annual revenue and cost within 15 years.

1. An average of 108 multicab and 88 van will be guaranteed to operate.

2. An average ticket fee for multicab and van are Php. 25.00 and Php.

50 pesos respectively.

3. An average number of food stalls and eatery with an average rate of

Php. 60.00 with common area.

4. An overhead cost like the wages of the assumed number of personnel

in managing the terminal and who are assigned on the ticketing booth.

5 Ticketing officer, Php. 15000/ month

5 Maintenance Personnel, Php. 6000.00/month

5. An overhead cost of maintenance which will be realize starting at the

4th yr of the structure.

Table 23. Summary of Economic Analysis Results (15 years, 14% discount rate)

Nominal Real (2018 Php)

Net Benefit Discounted Discounted Discounted Net
Year Benefit Costs
Flow Benefits Costs Benefits
2018 0 15,000,000.00 (15,000,000) - 15,000,000.00 (15,000,000.00)
2019 1 3,540,500 1,260,000 2,280,500 3,105,701.75 1,105,263.16 2,000,438.60
2020 2 3,611,310 1,285,200 2,326,110 2,778,785.78 988,919.67 1,789,866.11
2021 3 3,683,536 1,310,904 2,372,632 2,486,282.01 884,822.86 1,601,459.15
2022 4 3,757,207 1,387,122 2,370,085 2,224,568.12 821,287.63 1,403,280.49
2023 5 3,832,351 1,413,865 2,418,487 1,990,403.05 734,316.93 1,256,086.12
2024 6 3,908,998 1,441,142 2,467,856 1,780,886.94 656,564.82 1,124,322.12
2025 7 3,987,178 1,468,965 2,518,213 1,593,425.16 587,053.10 1,006,372.06
 41

2026 8 4,066,922 1,522,344 2,544,578 1,425,696.19 533,671.45 892,024.74

2027 9 4,148,260 1,551,291 2,596,969 1,275,622.91 477,034.25 798,588.66
2028 10 4,231,225 1,580,817 2,650,409 1,141,346.81 426,415.50 714,931.31
2029 11 4,315,850 1,635,933 2,679,917 1,021,205.04 634,114.88 387,090.17
2030 12 4,402,167 1,666,652 2,735,515 913,709.78 567,781.06 345,928.72
2031 13 4,490,210 1,697,985 2,792,225 817,529.80 508,378.77 309,151.03
2032 14 4,580,014 1,729,944 2,850,070 731,474.03 455,184.64 276,289.39
2033 15 4,671,615 2,909,071 2,909,071 654,476.77 407,550.66 246,926.11

Internal Rate Return: 14. 20%

Benefit cost ratio: 1.01

4.4.1 Net Present Value

Net Present Value is the contribution of the project to the economic

wealth. Since the project is not intended for business purposes, NPV is expected

to be lower since the contribution mainly of the project is in terms of the

satisfaction and comfort of the passengers and as well as of the drivers which

are not accounted for this study. A positive NPV would mean that the project is

viable, hence, in this case, an NPV of Php 159,974 for a public infrastructure

after 15 years operation is economically viable.

4.4.2 Internal Rate of Return

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the discount rate at which the

project is at break-even profit. Given the assumptions, the IRR is at 14.20%;

0.20% higher on the assumed discount rate.

4.4.3 Benefit-Cost Ratio

Since the project is a government project and it is for public used, it is

then understandable that the budget is not required to be paid back. But in order
 42

for a public good to sustain for several years, it has to have collection of

revenues which will be used for maintenance and other overhead costs essential

to finance the infrastructure without needing government’s intervention. The

proposed terminal is economically feasible since benefit-cost ratio is greater

than 1 (1.01), which means a peso investment on the project, there is a return of

about 1.01 peso.

4.5 Environmental Impact

Through the traffic study, it is predicted that in the next 15 years, the vehicle

volume will increase. This increase would also mean higher emission of smoke from

the vehicles, thus resulting to a more polluted air. To mitigate air pollution due to smoke

emission of vehicles, the proponents incorporated in the design plant boxes around the

vicinity of the proposed terminal where plants and trees will be planted.

The construction and operation phase of the proposed terminal will also

contribute to air, solid waste, water, and noise pollution. To mitigate these effects, the

following methods and practices are recommended by the proponents.

 43

Table 24. Pollution Mitigation Methods and Practices

Significant
Group
Environme Impacts Phase Counter Measure
Involved
ntal Impact

 Use low-emission
equipment
 Control dust by constantly
Construction
damping the site
Air Phase
Air Quality  Use non-toxic paints Contractor
Pollution
 Avoid burning materials
on site
Operation  Planting of trees and
Phase plants
 Post schedules of using
heavy equipment causing
Noise Noise Construction
loud noise to inform Contractor
Disturbance pollution Phase
people living near the
construction vicinity
Pollution Construction
 Proper waste disposal Contractor
and Phase
Solid Waste Potential  Proper waste disposal
Operation Terminal
Health
Phase  Provide adequate garbage Management
Hazard bins
Construction
 Provide adequate drainage Contractor
Phase
Water Water
 Constantly clean the
Quality Pollution Operation Terminal
drainage Management
Phase
 Proper waste disposal

Given that the above recommendations are followed by the contractor during

the construction phase of the proposed project, and the terminal management during the

operation of the terminal, less pollution will be contributed by the terminal to the

environment. Therefore, based on environmental aspect, the terminal can be considered

feasible.
 44

4.6 Road Safety

During the Road Inventory Survey, the proponents identified factors that may

cause hazards to the road users. The following include vehicles illegally parked beside

the roadways which may obstruct the view of the drivers, and construction materials

stocked beside the roadway covering the entire pedestrian lane. Also, no adequate

traffic controls such as regulatory signs and traffic signals were seen along the roads

that were surveyed.

The construction of the proposed multicab and van terminal will result in the

increase in vehicle volume in the future years, thus increasing the risks of the road users

if no action will be taken. In order to reduce the risks, the proponents suggest that

roadways be cleared of obstructions. It is also suggested that traffics controls such as

regulatory, directional, and warning signs, traffic signals, road markings, and parking

restrictions be placed on high risk areas such as on intersections. Addition of traffic

safety personnel will also help in mitigating the risks of the road users.

Figure 20. Vehicles Illegally Parked beside the Roadway

 45

If the suggestions of the proponents will be put into action by the pertinent

authorities, the proposed multicab and van terminal will be feasible in terms of road

safety.

4.7 Summary of Feasibility Analysis

The table below shows the summary of the results of the criteria presented by

the proponents.

Table 25. Result of Feasibility Study

Criteria Result
Accessibility Feasible
Traffic Impact Feasible
Social Impact Feasible
Economic Impact Feasible
Environmental Impact Feasible
Road Safety Feasible

The proposed van and multicab terminal satisfied all the feasibility criteria, and

based on the judgment of the proponents, the construction of the proposed van and

multicab terminal in Baybay City is feasible. Therefore, the proponents should present

a proposed design of the terminal.

 CHAPTER V

DESIGN PROCESS

From the result of the feasibility study conducted by the proponents, the

construction of new terminal exclusive for van and multicab is feasible, so the

proponents proceed to design study. Changes were made from the preliminary design

of the terminal given by an engineer in the City Engineering’s Office.

The roof in the preliminary design of the terminal was gable type. The

proponents changed it to curved shed-type roof to add aesthetics to the terminal. The

proponents also changed the parking area for the vehicles. The new design of the

parking area is covered to give protection to the parked vehicles. The location of the

public restroom inside the waiting area was also changed so that it would be more

accessible. Addition facilities such as breast feeding area and ticketing booth were also

added in the new design.

To analyze the structural integrity of the new terminal design, the proponents

used SAP2000, which stands for Structural Analysis Program. SAP200 is a general

purpose finite element program which performs the static or dynamic, linear or

nonlinear analysis of structural systems. This was the chosen computer software

program since the terminal is composed mostly of steel and SAP200 is, based on the

proponents’ judgment, the best computer software for analyzing steel structures.

5.1 Loads and Load Combinations

The structural codes used in the structural design analysis of the van and

multicab terminal conforms to the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)

2015 Vol. 1 (Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures) and American Institute
 47

of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC). No live load was considered during the analysis.

Dead load is automatically computed by SAP2000 based on the weight of the material

used. SAP also conforms to Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 in evaluating seismic

load. Wind load is user defined and was applied perpendicular to the roof area to cause

maximum effect on the material.

Table 26. Seismic Considerations

PARAMETERS
Numeric Coefficient, 𝐶𝑡 0.0853
Over Strength Factor, R 6
Soil Profile Type SD
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4
Seismic Source Type A
Distance to Seismic Source 15km
Na 1
Nv 1
Importance Factor, I 1

Table 27. Wind Consideration

Zone Region VIII

Category III
Velocity 300 kph
 48

Table 28. Combination Definitions

ComboName ComboType CaseName ScaleFactor

DSTL1 Linear Add DEAD 1.3
DSTL2 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
windx 1.35
DSTL3 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
windx -1.35
DSTL4 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
windx 1.35
DSTL5 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
windx -1.35
DSTL6 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
windx 1.35
DSTL7 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
windx -1.35
DSTL8 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
quakex 0.9
DSTL9 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
quakex -0.9
DSTL10 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
quakey1 0.9
DSTL11 Linear Add DEAD 1.1
quakey1 -0.9
DSTL12 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
quakex 0.9
DSTL13 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
quakex -0.9
DSTL14 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
quakey1 0.9
DSTL15 Linear Add DEAD 0.9
quakey1 -0.9
DSTL16 Linear Add DEAD 1.

5.2 Design Considerations

Listed in the following tables are the sections on NSCP 2015 which were

followed and conformed during the design of the van and multicab terminal.
 49

Table 29. Design Consideration for Connections

SECTION TITLE
Section 417.4.2 Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Tension
Section 417.4.3 Pullout Strength of Cast-In, Post Installed Expansion and Undercut
Anchors in Tension
Section 510.2.4 Strength
Section 510.3.6 Tension and Shear Strength of Bolts and Threaded Parts
Section 510.4.2 Strength of Element in Shear
Section 510.8 Column Bases and Bearing on Concrete

Table 30. Design Consideration for Column

SECTION
Section 410.6.1.1 Minimum and Maximum Longitudinal Reinforcement
Section 425.2
Section 425.7.2
Section 418.4.3.3
Section 418.4.3.4
Section 418.7.5.3
Section 422. 5.1.1
Section 409.6.3
Section 421.2.1
Section422.5.10.3
Section 420.6.1.3
TITLE
Limitations for Minimum spacing
Limitations for Maximum spacing
Seismic Requirements
Location of the first hoop not more than So/2
Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement
Strength Design
Minimum reinforcement
Reduction Factor
Shear reinforcement
Specified Concrete Cover

Table 31. Design Consideration for Footing

SECTION TITLE
Section 422.5.5.1 Vc from non prestressed members without Axial Force
Section 422.6.5.2 Two way Shear strength provided by Concrete
Section 413.3.3.3 Two way Isolated footing
Section 422.5.1.1 One way Shear Strength (Cross sectional Dimensions)
Section 420.6.1.3 Specified Concrete Cover
 CHAPTER VI

PROPOSED DESIGN

In collaboration with the Engineering Office of Baybay City, the proposed

project is a terminal exclusive for multicab and van at Baybay City, situated in Leyte,

Region 8, Philippines, its geographic coordinates are 11° 4’ 34” North, 124° 52’ 31”

East. The proposed terminal is located near the intersection of Rizal Blvd and Andres

Bonifacio Street. An eight (8) meter wide road separates the proposed terminal from

the existing terminal. The proposed terminal has a lot area of 4745 square meters.

Figure 21. Perspective View of the Proposed Terminal

 51

Figure 22. Top View of the Proposed Terminal

Figure 23. Side View of the Proposed Terminal

 52

Figure 24. Rear View of the Proposed Terminal

6.1 Features

The proposed multicab and van terminal is equipped with facilities such as

parking area, waiting area, comfort rooms, ticketing booth, food stalls, and breast

feeding area. The terminal is also surrounded with plant boxes where plants are to be

planted to provide additional shade to the terminal users. Ramps and comfort rooms

intended for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) were also taken into the design.

6.2 SAP 2000 Strurctural Analysis Results

The results of structural analysis using SAP 2000 is shown in the figures below.

Based on the SAP analysis results, most of the members are color cyan which indicate

that their capacity ratio are between 0 and 0.5. These also mean that the members are

structurally safe. It can also be seen in Figure 25 that few members are color red which

means that the members capacity ratio are beyond 1, and that these members failed

during the SAP analysis. However, during the proponents’ investigation, it was found

out that the members who failed have a capacity ratio within an acceptable range, that

is from 1 to 1.2. Thus, from overall aspect, the structures are still structurally safe.
 53

Figure 25. SAP 2000 results for Waiting Area

Figure 26. SAP 2000 reslts for Parking Area (Section A-A)
 54

Figure 27. SAP 2000 results for Parking Area (Section A’-A’)

6.3 Project Plan and Details

From the preliminary design given by the City Engineer’s Office, the

proponents revised the project plan. The new design conforms to standards such as the

NSCP and AISC. The new terminal is composed of wide flange columns for the parking

area and steel pipe columns for the waiting area. Each column is supported by a concrete

pedestal and footing. Angle bars were also used for the trusses. A detailed drawing of

the terminal’s structural plans is found in Appendix A. The project’s structural schedule

can also be seen in Appendix A.

6.4 Computations

For the computations of pedestal and footing, a trial design was first assumed.

After a trial design was established, it was then checked for conformation to NSCP

2015 specifications. The detailed computations for pedestal and footing is found in
 55

Appendix B. For the steel column to reinforced concrete connections, an excel program

was used.

6.4.1 Computation for Steel Column to RC Column Connections

For the computation of steel to RC concrete connection, the proponents

used an excel program.

Table 32. Sample Input for Column Details

DETAILS
Location: Parking Area
Column: W 6 x 20
Load Combination: DSTL 8
Pu 304.945 kN
Mu 7.326 kN-m
Vu 1.487 kN
ASSUMED VALUES
f'c 21 MPa
B (B = N) 250 mm
Bolt Dia 20 mm
R 31 mm

Table 33. Sample Input for Material Details

MATERIAL
COLUMN BOLTS WELD
bw 52.9 mm Material A490M Material E60XX ELECTRODE
df 157.5 mm Fnv 457 MPa Fu 345 MPa
tw 6.6 mm Fnt 780 MPa t 10 Mm
tf 9.3 mm Eh 90 mm Aw 6022 mm^2
Area 3787 mm.sq Hef 300 mm
BASE PLATE ca1 100 mm
Material A36 ca2 60 mm
Fy 248 MPa s1 140 mm
Fu 400 MPa s2 62 mm
N 4 bolts
 56

Table 34. Sample Output from Connection Solver

REMARK MATERIAL
A36 steel
Base plate
20 mm thick 250mm x 250mm
A490M heavy hex nut bolt
Bolts 4- 20 mm dia. Bolt
300 mm depth of embedment
E70XX ELECTRODE
Weld
10 mm thick weld

6.4.2 Computation for Design Strength of Weld

Considering the welded single angle L75x75x10 tension member made

from A36 steel.

An = Ag = 1411 𝑚𝑚2

Ae = U x An
𝑋
U=1-
𝐿

22.11
U=1- 75

Ae= 0.7052 x 1411 = 995. 0732 𝑚𝑚2

Yield Strength

Tension on gross area = Allowable yield stress x Gross Area

=∅𝐹𝑦 𝑥 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

=(0.9)(248)𝑥 1411

=314.93 𝑘𝑁
 57

Fracture Strength

Tension on effective area = Allowable tensile x Net Area

=∅𝐹𝑡 𝑥 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎

=(0.75)(400)𝑥 1411

=298.509𝑘𝑁

Therefore, the design strength is 298.509𝑘𝑁 > 85.71𝑘𝑁 the actual

strength.
 CHAPTER VII

RECOMMENDATION

During the conduct of the social impact study, it is highly recommended that

cluster sampling is used instead of purposive sampling in order to minimize bias in data.

A more reliable growth rates can also be obtained if traffic study is done at least twice

in a month for at least three consecutive months.

For the design analysis, the proponents recommend that before using any

software application, the user should master it first so that accurate data and results will

be obtained.
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

PROJECT PLANS AND DETAILS

 61

A.1 Project Structural Plans

62
 63

A.2 Project Structural Sections

64
65
 66

A.3 Project Structural Details

67
68
69
 70

A.4 Project Structural Spot Details

71
 72

A.5 Project Structural Connection Details

73
 74

A.6 Project Structural Schedule

Table 32. Schedule of Steel Columns

Table 33. Schedule of Base Plates and Heavy Hex Nut

Table 34. Schedule of Reinforced Concrete Column

 75

Table 35. Schedule of Footings

Table 36. Schedule of C-Channels

Table 37. Schedule of Truss Accessories

 APPENDIX B

COMPUTATIONS
 77

B.1 Footing Computation

Location : Parking Area

A square footing is to be designed to transmit the following loads from

a column.

Pu = 609.89 Kn

My = 7.326 Kn.m

Mx = 1.487 Kn.m

The design has the following description :

Bx = 1.50 m

By= 1.50 m

Thickness of the footing = 300 mm

Column size : 540 mm x 540 mm

Concrete cover = 75 mm

𝑓′𝑐 = 21 MPA

𝑓′𝑌 = 345 MPA

𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 =320 KPA

 Checking for Geotechnical Engineering Adequacy

o 𝑊𝑠 = 𝛾 ∗ ℎ ∗ 𝑏𝑥 ∗ 𝑏𝑦
𝑊𝑠 = 16.8 ∗ 0.75 ∗ 1.2 ∗ 1.2

𝑊𝑠 = 18.144 𝑘𝑁

Load Combination : 1.1 DL

Factored 𝑊𝑠 = 1.1 (18.144) = 19.9584 𝑘𝑁

o ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0
𝑊𝑠 + 𝑃 − 𝑅 = 0
 78

19.9584 + 609.98 − 𝑅 = 0

𝑅 = 629.9384 𝑘𝑁

𝑅 𝑀𝑥𝑐 𝑀𝑦𝑐
o 𝑞= + +
𝐴 𝐼𝑥 𝐼𝑦
1.5 1.5
629.9384 7.326( ) 0.313( )
2 2
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = + 1.5((1.53 )
+ 1.5((1.53 )
= 200.22 𝑘𝑃𝐴
1.5(1.52 )
12 12

𝑃 628.124
o 𝑞𝑢 = = = 271.1 𝑘𝑃𝐴
𝐴 1.5(1.5)

 Check by RC Design
 One way Shear

Sec (408. 3.2)

Critical Section @ d distance from the face of the support

1
d= 300 mm -75mm- 2(28 mm)

d=211 mm

o Vu = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥𝑞𝑢

o Vu =0.271(1500)(269)
Vu = 109.389 Kn

o Vc =0.17𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑤𝑑
Vc =0.17(1)√21(1500)(211)

Vc =246.56 Kn

 Check Case
0.5ØVc = 0.5(0.75)( 246.56)

= 92.46 Kn

ØVc = 0.75(246.56)

=184.92 Kn
 79

𝑻𝒉𝒖𝒔, 𝑽𝒖 > 𝟎. 𝟓Ø𝐕𝐜 , Minimum Reinforcement Required(See Sec. 422.5.101)

o Solving for Spacing

𝐴𝑣,𝑚𝑖𝑛
, greater of :
𝑠

𝑏𝑤
 0.062√𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑓𝑦𝑡 = 1.235
𝑏𝑤
 0.35 𝑓𝑦𝑡 = 1.527
𝜋
(122 )(2)
4
= 1.527
𝑠

𝒔 = 𝟏𝟒𝟖. 𝟏𝟑mm

 Based on Two-way Shear / Punching Shear

o Vu = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 𝑞𝑢
Vu =0.271[(15002 ) − 751(471)]

Vu =513.891 𝑘𝑁

 𝑉𝑐 = least of (Sec 422.6.5.2)

a. Vc =0.33 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = 393.86 𝑘𝑁
2
b. Vc =0.17 (1 + 𝛽) 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = 394.30 𝑘𝑁
𝛼𝑠𝑑
c. Vc=0.083(2 + )( 𝜆)√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = 873.49 𝑘𝑁
𝑏𝑜

𝑻𝒉𝒖𝒔, 𝑽𝒖 > 𝟎. 𝟓Ø𝐕𝐜, 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧(See Sec. 422.5.101)

 Solving for spacing

𝑉𝑢 = Ø(𝑉𝑐 + 𝑉𝑠)

513.891 = 0.75(393. 86+ 𝑉𝑠)

𝑉𝑠= 291.323 < 0.33 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑤𝑑

𝐴𝑣
𝑉𝑠 = ∗ 𝑓𝑦𝑡 ∗ 𝑑
𝑠
𝜋
4 (122 )
𝑆= ∗ 345 ∗ 300
291.323
 80

𝑆 = 80.36 𝑚𝑚

 Maximum spacing :
least of :

𝑑 300
 = = 150 𝑚𝑚
2 2
 600 mm
Spacing shall :

𝟖𝟎. 𝟑𝟔 mm <148 mm<150mm

Note : Thus, use 1.5 m by 1.5 m footing with an effective depth of 211

mm (Total depth of 300 mm) with 10-28 bars on each side of the footing.

Location : Waiting Area for footing

A square footing is to be designed to transmit the following loads from

a column.

Pu = 263.989 kN

My = 77.793 Kn.m

Mx = 19.108 Kn.m

The design has the following description :

Bx = 1.50 m

By= 1.50 m

Thickness of the footing = 300 mm

Column size : 540 mm x 540 mm

Concrete cover = 75 mm
 81

𝑓′𝑐 = 21 MPA

𝑓′𝑌 = 345 MPA

𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙 =320 KPA

 Checking for Geotechnical Engineering Adequacy

o 𝑊𝑠 = 𝛾 ∗ ℎ ∗ 𝑏𝑥 ∗ 𝑏𝑦
𝑊𝑠 = 16.8 ∗ 0.75 ∗ 1.5 ∗ 1.5

𝑊𝑠 = 28.35 𝐾𝑛

Load Combination : 1.1 DL

Factored 𝑊𝑠 = 1.1 (28.35) = 31.185 𝑘𝑁

o ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0
𝑊𝑠 + 𝑃 − 𝑅 = 0

31.185 + 263.989 − 𝑅 = 0

𝑅 = 295.174 𝑘𝑁

𝑅 𝑀𝑥𝑐 𝑀𝑦𝑐
o 𝑞= + +
𝐴 𝐼𝑥 𝐼𝑦
1.5 1.5
295.174 77.798( ) 19.108( )
o 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.5(1.5) + 3
2
1.5(1.5 )
+ 3
2
1.5(1.5 )
= 303.46 𝑘𝑃𝐴
12 12
𝑃 263.989
o 𝑞𝑢 = 𝐴 = 1.5(1.5)= 117.328 KPA

 Check by RC Design
 One way Shear
Sec (408. 3.2)

Critical Section @ d distance from the face of the support

1
d= 300 mm -75mm- 2(28 mm)

d=211 mm
 82

 Based on wide – beam shear

Vu = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 𝑞𝑢

Vu = 0.117328 (1500-211)(1500)

Vu = 226.854

Vc =0.17𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑤𝑑

Vc =0.17(1)√21(1500)(211)

Vc = 246.565 Kn

 Check Case
0.5ØVc = 0.5(0.75)(246.565)

= 92.462 kN

ØVc = 0.75(246.565)

=184.924 kN

𝑽𝒖 < 𝟎. 𝟓Ø𝐕𝐜 < Ø𝐕𝐜 , Minimum Reinforcement Required

𝑏𝑤 1500
a. 0.062 ∗ √𝑓′𝑐 𝑓𝑦𝑡 = 0.062 ∗ √21 ( 345 ) = 1.235 𝑚𝑚
1500
b. 0.35 ( 345 ) = 1.522 𝑚𝑚

𝜋
1.522 (122 )
4
Spacing = = = 148.812 𝑚𝑚
𝑠 𝑠

 Based on Punching Two-Way Shear Strength

Vu = qu * Acritical section

Vu = 0.117328 (15002 − (540 + 211)2 )

Vu = 197.663 kN
 83

1 1
a. 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = (1)√21 (1804)(211)
3 3

= 581.443 kN

2
b. 0.17 (1 + 𝛽) 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = 0.17 (1 +
2
) (1)√21(1804)(211)
1
= 1744.33 𝑘𝑁

𝛼𝑠 𝑑
c. 0.083 (2 + ) 𝜆√𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑜𝑑 = 0.083 (2 +
𝑏𝑜
40 (211)
) (1)√21(1804)(211)
1804

= 3883.165 kN

𝑽𝒖 < 𝟎. 𝟓Ø𝐕𝐜 , No Reinforcement Required

Thus, use 1.5 m by 1.5 m footing with an effective depth of 211 mm

(Total depth of 300 mm) with 10-28 bars on each side of the footing.
 84

B.2 Pedestal Computation

LOCATION : PARKING AREA

Dimensions: 540 mm x 260 mm

Longitudinal main bars :8- 28 mm

Ties : 12 mm

Concrete cover : 40 mm

𝑓′𝑐 = 21 MPA

𝑓′𝑌 = 345 MPA

Pn,max = 0.8 PO

π
Ast = (d 2 )x no. of bars
4 b

PO = 0.85 f ′ c (Ag − Ast ) + fy (Ast )

PO = 0.85(21)(540 x 260 − 1568π) + 345(1568π) = 𝟑𝟐𝟗𝟒. 𝟏𝟓 𝐤𝐍

Pu = 7.326 kN

PO > Pusap ok!

1. Check (Sec 410.6.1.1 )

Ast = area of longitudinal reinforcement

0.01Ag ≤ As ≤ 0.08Ag

0.01Ag = 0.01x260x540 = 1404 mm2

0.08Ag = 0.08x260x540 = 11232 mm2

 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝐀 𝐠 ≤ 𝐀𝐬 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝐀𝐠
 Limitation for minimum spacing (Sec. 425.2)
greatest of :

a. 50 mm

b. db = 28 mm

4 4
c. 3 dagg = 3 (2.54) = 33.333 mm
 85

Minimum clear spacing = 50 mm

 Limitation for maximum spacing

least of :

a.16db = 16 (28) = 448 mm

b.48 db = 48 (12) = 576 mm

c. Smallest. dimension = 260 mm

Maximum clear spacing =260 mm

 Length lo shall not be less than the largest of :

1 1
a. 6 ln = 6 (1.6m) = 267 mm
b. Max cross section = 540 mm
c. 450 mm
𝐥𝐨 ≥ 𝟓𝟒𝟎 𝒎𝒎

 So ≤ least of
a. 8db = 8 (28 mm) = 224 mm

b. 24db = 24 (12 mm) =288 mm

1 1
c. 2 least dimension =2 (260mm) = 130 mm

d. 300 mm

𝐒𝐨 ≤ 𝟏𝟑𝟎 𝒎𝒎

 Spacing of transverse reinforcement shall not exceed the smallest of :

1 1
a. (minimum col dim) = x260 = 65mm
4 4

b. 6db = 6 (28 mm) = 168 mm

350−hx 350−234
c. 100 + ( ) = 100 + ( ) = 139 mm
3 3

𝐒𝐨 ≤ 𝟔𝟓 𝒎𝒎

 Check compliance with section 418. 7.5.4

 86

Rectilinear ties greater of :

0.3Ag f′c = 0.3 x 260 x 540 x 21 = 884. 52 Kn

Ag f′c
a. n = 0.3 + (A − 1) x
ch fyt
260 x 540 21
n = 0.3 (460 x 180 − 1) x = 0.0127
345

f′ 21
b. 0.09 fytc = 0.09 345 = 0.05478

Ash
=n
s∗bc

π
(122 )(2)
4
= 0.0127
s x 180

s = 98.95 mm

Thus, 𝐒𝐨 = 𝟔𝟓 𝒎𝒎 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝐥𝐨 = 𝟓𝟒𝟎 𝒎𝒎

LOCATION : WAITING AREA

Dimensions: 540 mm x 540 mm

Longitudinal main bars :8- 28 mm

Ties : 12 mm

Concrete cover : 40 mm

𝑓′𝑐 = 21 MPA

𝑓′𝑌 = 345 MPA

Pn,max = 0.8 PO
π
Ast = 4 (db 2 )x no. of bars =1568π

PO = 0.85 f ′ c (Ag − Ast ) + fy (Ast )

PO = 0.85(21)(540x540 − 1568π) + 345(1568π) = 𝟔𝟖𝟏𝟔. 𝟔𝟏 𝐤𝐍

 87

Pu = 7.326 kN

𝐏𝐎 > 𝐏𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐩 𝐨𝐤!

Check Sec 410.6.1.1

Ast = area of longitudinal reinforcement

0.01Ag ≤ As ≤ 0.08Ag

0.01Ag = 0.01x540x540 = 1404 mm2

0.08Ag = 0.08x540x540 = 11232 mm2

 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝐀 𝐠 ≤ 𝐀𝐬 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝐀𝐠
 Limitation for minimum spacing (Sec. 425.2)
a. 50 mm

b. db = 28 mm
4 4
c. 3 dagg = 3 (2.54) = 33.333 mm

Minimum clear spacing = 50 mm

 Limitation for maximum spacing

a.16db = 16 (28) = 448 mm

b.48 db = 48 (12) = 576 mm

c. Smallest dimension = 540 mm

Maximum clear spacing =540 mm

 Length lo shall not be less than the largest of :

1 1
d. ln = (1.6m) = 267 mm
6 6
e. Max cross section = 540 mm
f. 450 mm
𝐥𝐨 ≥ 𝟓𝟒𝟎 𝒎𝒎

 So ≤ least of
a. 8db = 8 (28 mm) = 224 mm

b. 24db = 24 (12 mm) =288 mm

 88

1 1
c. 2 least dimension =2 (540mm) = 270 mm

d.300 mm

𝐒𝐨 ≤ 𝟏𝟑𝟎 𝒎𝒎

 Spacing of transverse reinforcement shall not exceed the smallest of :

1 1
a. 4 (minimum col. dim) = 4 x 540mm = 135mm

b. 6db = 6 (28 mm) = 168 mm

350−hx 350−244
c. 100 + ( ) = 100 + ( ) = 135.333 mm
3 3

𝐒𝐨 ≤ 𝟏𝟑𝟓𝒎𝒎

 Check compliance with section 418. 7.5.4

Rectilinear ties greater of :

0.3Ag f′c = 0.3(540)2 (21) = 1837.08 kN

Ag f′c
n = 0.3 ( − 1) x
Ach fyt

5402 21
n = 0.3 (4602 − 1) x = 0.006904
345

f′ 21
a. 0.09 fytc = 0.09 345 = 0.005478

Ash
=n
sbc

π 2
4 (12 )(3) = 0.0069
s x 460

s = 106.90

Thus, 𝐒𝐨 = 𝟏𝟎𝟕 𝒎𝒎 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝐥𝐨 = 𝟓𝟒𝟎 𝒎𝒎

 APPENDIX C

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
 90

C.1 Passenger Questionnaire

 91

C.2 Driver Questionnaire

 APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT AND VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION DATA

 93

D.1 Weekday Traffic Volume Count and Vehicle Classification Data

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 1
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 42 139 115 152 136 142 106 148 136 148 117 77
Multicab 3 4 4 4 0 2 1 3 3 0 1 3
Tricycle 58 166 86 69 52 66 50 76 56 59 67 52
Truck 4 14 4 6 12 11 4 7 14 12 7 4
Bike 13 11 2 6 5 3 1 7 8 4 11 10
Car 14 55 50 55 43 57 39 60 66 50 46 55
Van 1 2 2 0 2 3 2 4 2 0 1 2
Motorcycle 79 161 141 120 93 39 60 113 107 106 120 194
Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 0
TOTAL 214 552 404 412 343 323 263 425 395 379 370 397

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 2
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 204 242 91 382 460 211 265 234 201 210 241 209
Multicab 38 22 13 36 34 6 82 3 11 13 35 62
Tricycle 172 218 65 216 228 145 234 126 128 127 197 166
Truck 5 12 9 32 19 11 26 13 16 18 22 10
Bike 13 27 4 18 10 4 9 2 10 38 16 28
Car 59 57 18 80 117 51 92 44 57 33 55 65
Van 22 30 12 29 27 18 31 19 19 23 21 27
Motorcycle 218 229 49 179 245 169 203 135 119 168 196 343
Bus 3 1 1 4 4 0 4 1 1 0 1 1
TOTAL 734 838 262 976 1144 615 946 577 562 630 784 911
 94

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 3
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 156 463 524 624 635 465 331 397 421 473 560 370
Multicab 34 38 34 39 43 27 45 24 30 36 51 76
Tricycle 149 347 212 297 241 222 204 172 209 216 319 283
Truck 4 13 7 21 16 9 15 9 14 16 21 7
Bike 17 41 28 22 14 13 16 14 16 29 36 43
Car 16 49 37 43 56 43 41 43 33 39 50 61
Van 24 22 13 27 27 14 21 19 16 21 20 29
Motorcycle 203 361 201 217 253 172 135 117 161 160 285 622
Bus 3 0 1 2 2 0 2 8 10 0 1 0
TOTAL 606 1334 1057 1292 1287 965 810 803 910 990 1343 1491

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 4
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 127 263 292 260 403 510 414 305 301 315 435 426
Multicab 28 26 25 28 45 47 34 26 30 43 56 45
Tricycle 115 166 152 124 184 258 215 157 159 212 330 381
Truck 8 15 16 8 37 23 12 15 12 18 18 7
Bike 15 12 13 4 13 20 13 16 9 9 25 33
Car 18 20 42 30 23 60 40 45 31 47 66 63
Van 22 21 22 14 26 26 26 20 22 20 32 30
Motorcycle 147 80 108 68 156 273 225 235 111 135 263 515
Bus 2 4 4 2 6 2 7 3 13 4 9 5
TOTAL 482 607 674 538 893 1219 986 822 688 803 1234 1505
 95

D.2 Weekend Traffic Volume Count and Vehicle Classification Data

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 1
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 103 167 272 384 400 424 303 349 298 325 389 250
Multicab 1 2 1 23 21 20 15 23 13 21 144 97
Tricycle 24 27 41 137 92 117 101 147 10 106 126 87
Truck 2 6 4 8 7 4 14 31 9 7 3 4
Bike 11 5 6 0 12 7 15 27 5 7 13 15
Car 4 14 21 27 21 28 19 38 29 22 31 22
Van 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 2
Motorcycle 25 56 44 129 148 66 121 159 120 124 159 120
Bus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 170 278 389 708 704 666 589 779 486 612 866 597

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 2
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 128 230 290 340 321 384 221 187 202 298 250 210
Multicab 14 21 30 21 18 20 12 7 11 12 7 5
Tricycle 79 83 189 169 145 166 135 129 143 152 156 120
Truck 15 16 21 21 17 15 19 14 19 26 20 10
Bike 7 11 10 14 8 9 9 6 7 10 15 22
Car 48 54 63 100 69 96 68 40 58 64 64 65
Van 22 20 24 20 18 28 19 15 17 19 23 19
Motorcycle 98 199 223 167 169 160 147 139 126 188 165 167
Bus 2 2 3 2 4 1 4 0 1 0 0 2
TOTAL 413 636 853 854 769 879 634 537 584 769 700 620
 96

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 3
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 64 115 220 299 279 284 210 134 159 226 265 214
Multicab 12 15 17 18 14 15 12 7 6 11 27 9
Tricycle 92 118 148 127 101 137 122 83 103 116 132 105
Truck 20 17 21 21 21 19 21 11 23 21 20 19
Bike 19 8 15 10 7 4 7 4 17 10 13 16
Car 20 43 50 88 63 74 46 40 33 56 63 54
Van 18 28 21 17 18 20 15 11 16 14 20 18
Motorcycle 87 153 192 141 99 137 167 109 114 164 145 152
Bus 0 1 2 1 0 0 13 5 2 0 0 0
TOTAL 332 498 686 722 602 690 613 404 473 618 685 587

TRAFFIC MOVEMENT 4
TIME
VEHICLE 10:30 11:30
TYPE 6:30 - 7:30 - 8:30 - 9:30 - 12:30 1:30 - 2:30 - 3:30 - 4:30 - 5:30 -
- -
7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 - 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
11:30 12:30
Rickshaw 115 219 366 623 404 585 375 269 318 469 467 419
Multicab 13 17 29 28 27 35 27 19 27 32 29 13
Tricycle 101 169 247 262 192 243 213 153 146 203 234 189
Truck 8 11 12 22 18 24 19 20 17 20 13 9
Bike 21 15 30 17 14 17 11 14 12 20 15 7
Car 19 32 47 98 91 102 58 62 37 46 50 43
Van 22 21 21 25 26 21 29 19 17 17 29 24
Motorcycle 89 162 250 230 156 177 213 189 127 191 264 245
Bus 1 2 3 5 3 4 2 5 3 5 7 4
TOTAL 389 648 1005 1310 931 1208 947 750 704 1003 1108 953
 APPENDIX E

PERTINENT DOCUMENTS
 98

E.1 Memorandum of Agreement

99
100
 101

E.2 Parental Consent

102
103
104
105
 106

E.3 Project Plan

107
 108

E.4 Project Progress Chart

 APPENDIX F

REQUEST FOR ADVISER AND ACCEPTANCE NOTE

 110

F.1 Request for Adviser

111
 112

F.2 Acceptance Note

113
 APPENDIX G

EVIDENCE OF SUBMISSION OF SET OF PLANS TO CLIENT

115
116
 REFERENCES

Naivasha District Development Plan (2004-2008). Ministry of Planning and National

Development. Government printers, Nairobi

Yuen Long, N.T. Proposed Residential Development within “Recreation” Zone and

“Residential (Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104

Jingtang Port International Container Terminal Co., Ltd. (2008). EnvironmetalImpact

Assessment Report on Construction Projects. Printed by Ministry of

Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China

Wegman, F.C.M., et al. Road Safety Impact Assessment: RIA, 1994. SWOV Institute

for Road Safety Research, The Netherlands

Stover, V.G. and F.J. Koepke. (2002). Transportation and Land Development, 2nd

ed. ITE, Washington, D.C.

Institute of Traffic Engineers. (1991). Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site

Development. A Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C.

Diaz, R.M., et al. (2014). A Design for Silver Star Integrated Green Terminal. Mapua

Institute of Technology

Department of Transportation, State of Florida. (2014, April). Transportation Site

Impact Handbook. Retrieved from www.dot.state.fl.us/planning

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2015, October). 2015 Philippine Statistics Yearbook