Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Problem Setting
MODELING THE IMPACT OF ON-STREET
PARKING ON VEHICULAR TRAFFIC On–street parking in Metro Manila
– not monitored and regulated properly
(except for Makati CBD)
Marc Alvin Lim Disruption in the flow of traffic
Eriko Luis Hallare Contribute to causes of accidents
Jesus Gerard Briones
1
8/15/2012
2
8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Site A: Annapolis Street Video Length: 8 hours Site B: Aguirre Street Video Length: 10 hours
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
60 Degree Angled 1 (WB) 136 (EB)
Two-way 7649 31 30 1 (WB) 6 (EB)
to the Curb 2 (EB) 129 (WB) Parallel to the Curb Two-way 939 124 145
1 (EB) 19 (WB)
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound Eastbound
3
8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Site C: Chino Roces Avenue Video Length: 6 hours Site D: Roxas Boulevard Video Length: 8 hours
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Perpendicular 1 (WB) 78 (WB)
Parallel to the Curb One-way 4 (WB) 7218 375 (WB) 58 50 Two-way 3974 28 28
to the Curb 1 (EB) 47 (EB)
Westbound Eastbound
Eastbound Westbound
Figure 5.12 Trap Length for Chino Roces Avenue Figure 5.17 Trap Length for Roxas Boulevard
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Freeflow Time Site A: Annapolis Street Freeflow Time
Table 5.2 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
120 109 113 100.00% Table 5.18 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples
Samples Time (secs) Confidence
100 80.00% Westbound 113 9.38 9.04 < µ < 9.72 80 100.00%
68 No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
Eastbound 198 9.46 9.22 < µ < 9.70
Frequency
4
8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out
Site A: Annapolis Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
Table 5.4 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Table 5.20 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
12 35 33
10 M. In M. Out M. In M. In M. Out
M. Out 30
10 Mean 21.94 24.37 Mean 11.79 13.48
8 8 M. In M. Out
25
Frequency
1.90188
Frequency
8 F 20 F 0.36609
6 1.85429 20
6 F Critical one-tail F Critical one-tail 0.63032
4 4 4 4 15 11 12
4 3 3 3 10 7 8
2 Table 5.5 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
4 3 Table 5.21 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
2 1 1 M. Out M. In 5 2 1 2 1
M. Out M. In
0 Mean 24.37 21.94 0
6 13 20 27 34 More Mean 13.48 11.79
9 14 19 24 29 34 More t Stat 0.67810
Intervals (seconds) t Stat 0.99520
Intervals (seconds) t Critical one-tail 1.67303
t Critical one-tail 1.65992
Figure 5.5 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Figure 5.15 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out
Site B: Aguirre Street Table 5.12 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Site D: Roxas Boulevard
80 71 16 15
70 M. In M. In M. Out 14 M. In Table 5.28 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
60 53 M. Out Mean 20.27 10.61 12 M. In M. Out
M. Out
Frequency
Frequency
50 F 4.03845 10 Mean 25.2 18.04
40 34 8 7
F Critical one-tail 1.33231 6 F 2.44254
30 26 24 5 5 5
6 4 1.92994
14 16 3 F Critical one-tail
20 10 10 4
Table 5.13 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 2
10 3 3 1 2 1 Table 5.29 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0 M. In M. Out
0 M. In M. Out
5 13 21 29 37 More Mean 20.27 10.61 9 17 25 33 More
Mean 25.2 18.04
Intervals (seconds) t Stat 3.10543 Intervals (seconds)
t Stat 2.28641
t Critical one-tail 1.65381
Figure 5.10 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Figure 5.20 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out t Critical one-tail 1.68385
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Time Delay Time Delay
Site A: Annapolis Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
20 100.00%
17 Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis 10 100.00% Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis
15 80.00% 8
15 8 80.00% Time Delay (secs)
Frequency
6
6 60.00% Mean 20.5 6 60.00% Mean 14.78
4 40.00% Median 19 4 3 3 40.00% Median 15
2
2 20.00% Mode 12 2 20.00% Mode 15
0 0.00% Minimum 12 Minimum 4
0 0.00%
14 20 26 More Maximum 34 Maximum 34
6 12 18 24 More
Intervals (seconds) Count 30 Count 23
Intervals (seconds)
Figure 5.11 Histogram for Time Delay Confidence Level(95.0%) 2.63 Confidence Level(95.0%) 3.19
Figure 5.21 Histogram for Time Delay
5
8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time
Site A: Annapolis Street Site B: Aguirre Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue Site D: Roxas Boulevard
25.000
40.00 25 16.000 15.200
14.947
35.57
34.31 14.000
35.00 20.500 20.500
20.000 20.05
20
30.00 12.000
25.00 10.000
15.000
15
Seconds
Seconds
Seconds
20.00 8.000
9.61 10.93
10.000 9.43
15.00 10 6.000 5.44 5.20
0.000
0.00 0.000
Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average 0
Time Time Freeflow Freeflow
Time Delay Time Delay Freeflow Freeflow Time Delay Time Delay Freeflow Freeflow Average Average Time
Delay WB Delay EB time WB Time EB
WB EB Time EB Time WB EB WB Time EB Time WB Freeflow time Delay
Figure 5.3 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.8 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.13 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.18 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
y = Travel Time (seconds) x6 = 1, Sample Vehicle x13 = Site Considering Generated Equation Model:
x1 = Actual Number of Slowing Down due to a Tight Perpendicular Parking
Vehicles Maneuvering In Space along the Road = if both x14 and x15 has a
Site A:
x2 = Actual Number of = 0, Absence of a Sample value of 0, it automatically y = 9.5302 + 14.8674X6 + 13.6167X9
Vehicles Maneuvering Out Vehicle being Slowed Down means that the study area
x7 = Actual Number of
considers perpendicular
x3 = 1, Two-way parking
Pedestrians Crossing
= 0, One-way Site B:
x8 = Number of Sides of the x14 = 1, Site has Parallel
x4 = 1, Vehicle Obstruction Parking
Present
Road that has Parked y = 9.4880 + 2.5346X2 + 3.7178X4 + 5.2468X6 + 13.6167X9
Vehicles = 0, Site has No Parallel
= 0, No Vehicle x9 = Total Maneuvering
Parking
Obstruction Present (Maneuvering In + Out) x15 = 1, Site has Angled
Site C:
x5 = 1, Vehicle Maneuvering x10 = Actual Width of the Parking
In or Out with Attendant Road (meters) = 0, Site has No Angled y = 10.9505 + 5.3942X2 + 8.8538X4
= 0, No Attendant x11 = Number of Lanes for Parking
Moving Vehicles, Westbound x16 = Width of Road Used for
x12 = Number of Lanes for
Moving Vehicles (meters) Site D:
Moving Vehicles, Eastbound
y = 5.3762 + 8.2483X4 + 4.6181X5 + 2.0783X6 + 3.80X9
6
8/15/2012