Visayas State University

College of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering Project Proposal

Improving the Safety at the Baybay City Diversion Road Intersection

Case Study

Team Transform

Alfante, Rhea Mae A.

Morata, Hannah Mae T.
Tan, Trisha Miccah B.

April 2019
 CHAPTER I

OBJECTIVES

The study generally aims to improve the safety at the Baybay City Diversion

Road Intersections. The primary objectives of this study are to:

1. Conduct a survey to identify the factors that might lead to the

accidents; and

2. Provide possible solutions to the problems

 CHAPTER II

THE CASE

Baybay City is situated on the western coast of Leyte, immediately

fronting the Camotes Islands bounded by the Camotes Sea of Cebu, where it lays

beyond the Queen City of the South, Cebu City. Based on the records provided by

the City Planning and Development Office, the City has an approximate land area of

46,050 hectares, and is known to be one of the largest in terms of land area in the

Eastern Visayas region next to Ormoc City. It is divided into ninety-two (92)

barangays, twenty-three (23) of which are in the poblacion area, with one (1)

barangay jointly located. The remaining sixty-nine (69) are rural barangays. Based

on the 2015 Population Census report by the Philippine Statistics Authority, the city

is inhabited by 109,432 people.

The Baybay City Diversion Road is a national road that serves as the trunk

line and the fundamental component of the road network of Baybay City from

Maasin City to Tacloban City and Maasin City to Ormoc City. The road, which was

completed on December 2015 and was inaugurated on April 18, 2019, also serves as

an access in going to and from the roll-on roll-off ports of the city with a total length

of 5.154 kilometers. The project has minimized traffic congestions in the city proper

by diverting vehicular traffic to the new diversion road, thereby reducing

convergence in the busy streets. The road stretches at junction Ormoc-Baybay Road

in Candadam village, passing through Cogon and Can-ipa villages, then crossing the

Tacloban-Baybay South Road in Gaas village and ends at junction Baybay-Maasin

Road in Hipusngo village. The road facilitates the transport of farm products from

the rice producing areas of Baybay like the villages of Candadam, Cogon, Gaas and
Hipusngo. It also serves as alternative road during emergency and disaster, according

to Department of Public Works and Highways.

Its main purpose is to decongest traffic but somehow it also caused a few car

crash. After it was inaugurated in 2016, various car crash has been reported up to the

present. From 2016 to 2019, a total of thirty-six (36) car crash has been recorded

from all three intersections, twenty-two (22) of which were from the main

intersection at Brgy. Gaas. As a result, the team proposed a study to determine the

cause of these car crash and improve the safety of the road’s intersections (Figure 1

and 2) to prevent more from happening.

Figure 1. Baybay City Diversion Road Intersections (Source: Google Map)

 Figure 2. Actual Site Location (Diversion-Gaas)

Figure 2. Actual Site Location (Diversion-Hipusngo)

 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 General Methodology

An intersection is defined as the general area where two or more highways

join or cross, including the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic movements

within the area. Each highway radiating from an intersection and forming part of it is

an intersection leg. The most common intersection at which two highways cross one

another has four legs. It is not recommended that an intersection have more than four

legs. The intersection in study has four legs.

Intersections are an important part of a highway facility because, to a great

extent, the efficiency, safety, speed, cost of operation, and capacity of the facility

depend on their design. Each intersection involves through- or cross-traffic

movements on one or more of the highways and may involve turning movements

between these highways. Such movements may be facilitated by various geometric

design and traffic control, depending on the type of intersection.

The framework of traffic safety will be based on the Engineering, Education,

and Enforcement, or commonly known as the 3Es approach.

The first E stands for Engineering. It aims to look at the existing

transportation infrastructure and factor in safety in the design. The study will look at

the existing infrastructure and compare it with design standards as stipulated in the

Road Safety Design Manual (Yellow book part 1) of the Department of Public

Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways

and Streets by the American Association of State Highways and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO). The audit will involve traffic considerations such as design

and actual capacities, size and operating characteristics of vehicles, variety of

movements, vehicle speeds, and past crash experience. The engineering part of the

study will also look on the physical elements of the design such as the character and

use of the abutting property, sight distances, geometric design features, and traffic

control devices.

The second and third E stands for Education and Enforcement. The study will

look at human factor of safety involving driver habits, ability of drivers to make

decisions, driver expectancy, and decision and reaction time. Enforcement of

existing laws related to transportation will also be studied.

Recommendations will be made based on the results and analysis.

POLICY TOOLS
(Engineering,
Education,
Enforcement)

IMPROVE
SAFETY
COMPONENETS
(Human,
Vehicles &
Equipment,
Environment)

Figure 4. Conceptualized Framework of the Study

3.1 Study Flow

Obtaining project background.

Finalizing the project title.
Conceptualizing objectives.
PROJECT
VISUALIZATIO
N

Data gathering of car crashes from the three (3) major

intersections.
Determination of major intersection.
Conducting traffic study.
PRELIMINARY Conducting road inventory survey.
SURVEY

Engineering Part
Gathering social review for Education and Enforcement Part.

DATA
COLLECTION

Determination of Level of Service (LOS)

Checking if the data from the road inventory survey conform
with the standard design of the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH).
DATA Analyzing the data gathered from the social review.
ANALYSIS

Determining the possible solutions.

ASSESSING
THE RESULTS
3.2 Preliminary Survey
3.2.1 Data Gathering of Car Crashes
A traffic collision, or popularly known as a car crash is the leading

cause of death by injury and the tenth-leading cause of all deaths globally.

According to Heidi Worley, an editorial director of Population Reference

Bureau, an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year,

and as many as 50 million are injured, occupying 30% to 70% of orthopedic

beds in developing country’s hospitals; and if present trends continue, road

traffic injuries are predicted to be the third-leading contributor to the global

burden of disease and injury by 2020.

A 1985 study by K. Rumar, 57% of crashes were due solely to driver

factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined

vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined

roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors, and 1% to

combined roadway and vehicle factors.

In Baybay City, multiple counts of traffic collision occurred

especially at the Baybay City Diversion Road. This road is popular for it

serves as the trunk line and the fundamental component of the road network

of Baybay City from Maasin City to Tacloban City and Maasin City to

Ormoc City, but is more popularly known for the number of accidents that

occurred in some parts.

Thus, the proponents decided to gather data of car crashes at the

Baybay City Diversion Road’s three (3) major intersections from the start of

its service up to the present. These data were collected from the Philippine

National Police of Baybay City. This is to evaluate what major intersection

needs to be improved and be observed by the traffic enforcers as well as

pedestrians and motorists.

Figure 5. Data Collection of Car Crashes

3.2.2 Location Determination

Determining the location is necessary to ensure and assess the

targeted results of a certain project. This is of great importance to identify

and measure the factors involved.

The location of the project is at the intersection from Baybay City to

Tacloban City. The location determined by the proponents was based on the

gathered data of car crashes at the Baybay City Diversion Road’s major
 intersections. The major intersection with the greatest number of traffic

collision served as the location of the said project.

Figure 6. Location of the Project

3.2.3. Traffic Study

Traffic Study or also known as the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) is an

elaborate investigation and meticulous analysis of the transportation system in a

specific area, which is supported by an expansive collection of data. The impacts are

primarily congestion or safety related.

According to the news of JLBWorks, the purpose of traffic assessment

is to support sustainable development by protecting the overall integrity of the

transportation system for the benefit of all users. Neither public nor private
interests are served if transportation systems are needlessly degraded due to

poor development planning and control. An efficient, reliable and safe

transportation system will in fact unlock and enhance land development

potential.

In relation, a Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) footage was collected to help

with the manual counting of vehicular flow at the location of the project. The

proponents collected the footage at the Brgy. Gaas, Baybay City. The dates taken

were March 26, 2019 (Tuesday), April 03, 2019 (Wednesday), April 05, 2019

(Friday), and April 06, 2019 (Saturday); four (4) weekdays and one (1) weekend.

The proponents performed an 8-hour straight manual traffic count using the Closed-

circuit Television (CCTV) footage starting from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM at the BayBay

City Diversion Road intersection from Baybay City to Tacloban City.

The intersection is four-legged having twelve (12) directions. The team

conducted a volume count survey with the use of the collected CCTV footage.

Figure 7. CCTV Footage

3.2.4 Road Inventory Survey

The proponents conducted a road inventory survey to evaluate the

engineering aspect of the Baybay City Diversion Road and to determine the possible

cause of the car crash reports since the beginning of its operation. Road Inventory is

conducted to collect descriptive and statistical data on all roadway systems. The

proponents went to the Baybay City Diversion Road and measured the road width

and channelization. The proponents also asked for assistance from a BSGE graduate

in order to determine the sight distance, the grade, and the radius of curvature.

Figure 8. Measuring the road distances

Figure 9. Conducting Road inventory Survey

3.3.3 Engineering Part
3.3.1 Traffic Considerations
3.3.1.1. Design and actual capacities
Capacity and level-of-service analysis is one of the most considerations in the

design of intersections. The Level of Service (LOS) is the qualitative measure of

describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by

motorists and passengers. It is used to analyze roadways and intersections by

categorizing traffic flow and assigning quality levels of traffic based on performance

measure like vehicle speed, density, congestion, etc.

The table below was used as a guide to determine the Level of Service.

Figure 10. Reserve Capacity

3.3.1.2. Size and operating characteristics

Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) or Passenger Car Unit (PCU) is a metric

used in Transportation Engineering, to assess traffic-flow rate on a highway. A

Passenger Car Equivalent is essentially the impact that a mode of transport has on

traffic variables (such as headway, speed, density) compared to a single car.

The Passenger Car Equivalent Factors shown in Table 1 is considered in

order to determine the passenger car unit.

 Passenger Car Equivalent Factors
Vehicle Tax Jee
Bike Bus Car Motorcycle Truck SUV
Type i p
PCEF 1 0.5 1.4 2.2 1 0.5 2.2 1.2
Table 3. Passenger Car Equivalent Faxtors
3.3.1.3. Variety of Movements
Conflicts often occur at intersections. The more the number of legs an

intersection has, the more the number of conflicts it has. Conflicts may be classified

as merging, diverging, or crossing conflicts.

A four-legged intersection type has a total of 32 conflicts. 8 minor conflicts

(diverging) and 24 major conflicts (8 merging and 16 crossing).

Using the gathered volume count data, the turning movements of the

intersection was determined. Thus, a turning movement pattern (Figure 11) was

created.

Figure 11. Turning movement pattern

 3.3.1.4. Crash Experience
Car crash is a collision that occurs when a vehicle collides with another

vehicle, a stationary object, a pedestrian, or an animal. (See Chapter 3.2.1)

3.3.2 Physical Elements

3.3.2.1. Character and use of abutting property
Abutting property shall mean the property that is immediately adjacent or

contiguous to property that is subject to review under these regulations.

The site location was surrounded by rice fields, trees and houses. Some trees

and houses make it hard for the motorists to see the upcoming vehicles from the

intersecting lane, thus making it somehow unsafe especially some drivers don’t

follow the designated speed limit.

Figure 12. Top View of the Site Location (Souce: Google Map)

3.3.2.2. Sight distance

The driver’s ability to see the road is of utmost importance in the safe and

efficient operation of a vehicle on a highway. The sight distance needs to allow the
driver time to perceive and react to any hazardous situation. It needs to enable the

driver to avoid any object or come to a complete stop before colliding with the object

or vehicle. Adequate sight distance should be provided in both the horizontal and

vertical directions. Clear signing and pavement marking systems should be provided

to indicate locations where the sight distance is inadequate for safe overtaking.

3.3.2.3. Angle of intersection

Intersecting streets should meet at approximately a 90° angle. The alignment

design should be adjusted to avoid an angle of intersection of less than 60°. Closely

spaced offset intersections are undesirable.

3.3.2.4. Geometric design features

The studied intersection has a channelization and islands. Channelization is

the separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movement into definite paths of

travel by traffic islands or pavement marking to facilitate the orderly movements of

both vehicles and pedestrians. Proper channelization increases capacity, provides

maximum convenience, and instills driver confidence. Improper channelization has

the opposite effect and may be worse than none at all. Over channelization should be

avoided because it could create confusion and worsen operations. In some cases, a

simple channelization improvement can result in dramatic operational efficiencies.

Most of these cases involve some type of left-turn treatment. Left-turn lanes at

intersections reduce rear-end exposure and provide a comfortable means for making

a left turn.

Channelization at an intersection involves the control of traffic by provision

of traffic islands or pavements markings to direct the traffic into predetermined

paths. The shape of an intersection layout and channelization depends on the layout
of the approaching roadways, the traffic patterns and control strategy, traffic

volumes including turning movements, pedestrian needs, parking arrangements and

access to abutting properties.

3.3.2.5. Traffic Control Devices

Highway users are dependent on traffic control devices for information,

warning, and guidance. So great is the dependence of highway users on such

information that uniform, high-quality traffic control devices are necessary for safe,

efficient use and public acceptance of any highway regardless of its excellence in

width, alignment, and structural design.

All traffic control devices should have the following characteristics: (1)

fulfill an important need, (2) command attention, (3) convey a clear, simple

meaning, (4) command respect of road users, and (5) provide adequate response

time.

Traffic Signs are device mounted on a fixed support (permanent signs) or

portable support (temporary signs) whereby a specific message is conveyed by

means of words or symbols placed or erected for the purpose of regulating, warning

or guiding traffic. It warn the road users the possible dangers and provide

information. They tell what the rules are and what the road conditions are like.

There are different classification of road signs. Some of which are:

Regulatory Signs. Regulatory signs describe a range of sign that are used to indicate or

reinforce traffic laws, regulations or requirements which apply either at all times or at

specified times or places upon a street or highway, the disregard of which may constitute a

violation, or signs in general that regulate public behavior in places open to the public. 
 Warning Signs. Warning signs are used to warn motorists of potentially

hazardous conditions on or adjacent to the road. Warning signs advise motorists of

road conditions that require caution and may call for a reduction in speed, in the

interest of safety and that of other users.

Guide Signs or Information Signs. Guide signs inform road users about the

direction and distances of destinations on the route they are following or along other

roads that intersecr their route. They also supply information to identify points of

geographical or historical interest and give directions to rest areas, camping or

parking areas.

3.3.3. EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT PART

3.3.3 Social Impact

Social impact refers how a certain activity, project or program affects the

community and the people living in it. This can be positive or negative. In order to

determine this, the proponents of the team conducted a survey on both public and

private transportations. The group prepared a questionnaire (Figure 14) with

translated questions for it to become easier to understand. For the public

transportation drivers, the proponents conducted the survey at the Baybay City

terminal and questionnaires were given to those motorcycle, tricycle, and van drivers

that usually pass at the Baybay City Diversion Road as part of their routes. For the

private transportation drivers, the proponents went at the Baybay City Diversion

Road and courteously stopped some of the drivers if they were up for the survey.

Some did but unfortunately, some also didn’t since the proponents weren’t able to
ask for assistance from the municipality. This prompted the proponents to go to the

nearby houses for alternate solution.

Figure 13. Conducting interviews for drivers

Figure 14. Interviewing Private Road Users

 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DUSCUSSION

After gathering the necessary data, the proponents evaluated the three (3) E’s,

which were the Engineering Part, Education Part, and Enforcement Part. The results

of the analysis were as follows:

4.1 Data Gathering of Car Crashes

With the help of the PNP officer, the team collected the reported car crashes

data (Table 1) that occurred from the start of its service up to the present (November

2015 – April 2019). The table shows that the intersection along the Diversion Road

at Brgy. Gaas, Baybay City has the most car crashes reported having 22 crashes.

Given this data, the team decided to focus their study in the said location.

No. of
Date Place Accidents
November 2015-December 2015 Hipusngo 3
Candadam 5
January 2016 - December 2016 Gaas 7
Hipusngo 2
Candadam 1
January 2017 - December 2017 Gaas 4
Hipusngo 2
Candadam 1
January 2018 - December 2018 Gaas 6
Hipusngo 0
Candadam 0
January 2019 - April 2019 Gaas 5
Hipusngo 0
Table 2. Tabulated car crashes data collected from the PNP
4.2 Traffic Considerations
A traffic study was conducted at the Baybay City Diversion Road

intersection from Baybay City to Tacloban City. In order to determine and measure

its traffic conditions or known as the Level of Service (LOS). The number and

classification of the vehicles passing the intersection was recorded.

For a four-legged intersection, there are twelve (12) directions that will be

considered, three (3) directions for each, but there will be only four (4) minor

movements for the minor road that will be analyzed as a basis for the determination,

as shown in Figure 15. The minor movements are as follows: (a) Right turns into the

major road, (b) Left turns off the major road, (c) Traffic crossing the major road, and

(d) Left turns into the major road.

Figure 15. Minor Movements Considered

The proponents created a turning pattern for the intersection as a guide to

which direction the vehicles were heading (see Figure 11). The gathered volume

count on March 26, 2019, April 3, 2019, April 5, 2019, and lastly April 6, 2019,

three (3) weekdays and one (1) weekend was prepared in order to evaluate the level

of service of the intersection. The table for the complete volume count as well as the

junction diagram is found in the Appendix A.

 For the minor movements, the proponents created another diagram to

serve as a guide. There are two (2) analysis performed, analysis 1 (Figure 16) and

analysis 2 (Figure 17), since it was a four-legged intersection with two minor roads.

Movement 1 (M1) was labeled for vehicles that turned right into the major road,

movement 2 (M2) was for vehicles that turned left off the major road, movement 3

(M3) was for vehicles that crossed the major road, and lastly, movement 4 (M4) for

vehicles that turned left into the major road. These minor movements was used to

determine the total volume of vehicles per hour and its level of service.

Figure 16. Minor Movements for Analysis 1

Figure 17. Minor Movements for Analysis

2
 Below are the tables that show the summary for determining the level of

service for each day. The Level of Service (LOS) was stated in terms of letters from

A to F as shown in Figure 10, which was based on an appropriate parameter. As seen

on the tables for the Level of Service (LOS), the LOS assessment ranges from A to

D only which denotes that the road is not highly congested and does not contain

worst traffic measures.

The determination for the traffic measurement was dependent with the

volume count per hour and converted to the Passenger Car Unit (PCU) to adjust

existing minor volume for vehicle mix using the Passenger Car Equivalent Factor

(PCEF) (see Table 3).

For both analysis for the 1st and 2nd movement (right turns into the major road

and left turns off the major road), it shows that for eight (8) hours the LOS was A

and was the same all throughout the days surveyed. This means that the level of

service was free flow and not congested. For the 3 rd movement (traffic crossing the

major road), the LOS taken was A, for the early part of the day, but mostly B for the

rest of the day which denotes stable flow and steady traffic flow for vehicles

crossing the major road. The 4th movement (left turns into the major road), which

was considered as the critical movement since it has many other movement that

needs to be observed, represents an LOS C or LOS C to D for the peak hour-time

which means it has a stable flow with short traffic delay and an average traffic delay.

The LOS of every hour for every day varies with time and as observed during

peak hours, the LOS lowered one step, but still it was considerable and has less

significant deterioration. LOS A to D was still considered, but deterioration from D

to E or F would already require formulation of mitigation.

Date: March 26, 2019 (Weekday-Tuesday)
Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

Analysis 1

Table 3. Level of Service (Weekday)

LEVEL OF SERVICE
TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
TIME
M1 M2 M3 M4
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C TO D
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C to D
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

Table 4. Volume without PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 68 296 177 170
TRICYCLE 16 67 5 14
MULTICAB 0 1 1 4
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 37 50 34 40
VAN/ PICK - UP 23 33 28 32
BUS 0 1 0 3
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 36 25 48 55
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 5 14 1 1
OTHERS : (e.g BIKE,
8 13 0 0
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 193 500 294 319
 TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 34 148 88.5 85
TRICYCLE 8 33.5 2.5 7
MULTICAB 0 1.2 1.2 4.8
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 37 50 34 40
VAN/ PICK - UP 27.6 39.6 33.6 38.4
BUS 0 2.2 0 6.6
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 79.2 55 105.6 121
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 2.5 7 0.5 0.5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
4 6.5 0 0
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 192.3 343 265.9 303.3
Table 5. Volume with PCU

Table 6. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6143 6800 3748 2287

Analysis 2

Table 7. Level of Service (Weekday)

LEVEL OF SERVICE
TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
TIME
M1 M2 M3 M4
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C TO D
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
 TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 104 58 213 351
TRICYCLE 12 22 8 19
MULTICAB 0 1 1 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 26 56 48 22
VAN/ PICK - UP 20 55 26 18
BUS 3 0 1 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 38 35 52 14
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 1 8 3 7
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
2 6 5 8
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 206 241 357 439
Table 8. Volume without PCU

Table 9. Volume with PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 52 29 106.5 175.5
TRICYCLE 6 11 4 9.5
MULTICAB 0 1.2 1.2 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 26 56 48 22
VAN/ PICK - UP 24 66 31.2 21.6
BUS 6.6 0 2.2 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 83.6 77 114.4 30.8
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 0.5 4 1.5 3.5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
1 3 2.5 4
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 199.7 247.2 311.5 266.9

Table 10. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6350 7270 3785 2464

Date: April 03, 2019 (Weekday-Wednesday)

Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

Analysis 1
Table 11. Level of Service (Weekday)

LEVEL OF SERVICE
TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
TIME
M1 M2 M3 M4
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

Table 12. Volume without PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 195 160 157 152
TRICYCLE 27 25 12 12
MULTICAB 2 1 0 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 42 60 41 60
VAN/ PICK - UP 21 24 22 17
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 16 23 23 29
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 3 2 3 5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
3 4 4 4
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 309 299 262 279

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
 MOTORCYCLE 97.5 80 78.5 76
TRICYCLE 13.5 12.5 6 6
MULTICAB 2.4 1.2 0 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 42 60 41 60
VAN/ PICK - UP 25.2 28.8 26.4 20.4
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 35.2 50.6 50.6 63.8
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 1.5 1 1.5 2.5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
1.5 2 2 2
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 218.8 236.1 206 230.7
Table 13. Volume with PCU

Table 14. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6630 7365 4415 2855

Analysis 2

Table 15. Level of Service (Weekday)

LEVEL OF SERVICE
TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
TIME
M1 M2 M3 M4
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 165 135 128 249
 TRICYCLE 16 10 12 41
MULTICAB 0 0 3 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 29 21 43 19
VAN/ PICK - UP 32 26 11 18
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 19 23 31 5
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 2 0 3 1
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
3 0 3 2
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 266 215 234 335
Table 16. Volume without PCU

Table 17. Volume with PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 82.5 67.5 64 124.5
TRICYCLE 8 5 6 20.5
MULTICAB 0 0 3.6 0
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 29 21 43 19
VAN/ PICK - UP 38.4 31.2 13.2 21.6
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 41.8 50.6 68.2 11
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 1 0 1.5 0.5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
1.5 0 1.5 1
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 202.2 175.3 201 198.1

Table 18. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6610 7410 4422 2785

Date: April 05, 2019 (Weekday-Friday)

Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm
Analysis 1

Table 19. Level of Service (Weekday)

ANALYSIS 1:
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Right turn
TIME Left turn off Crossing Left turn into
into major
major road Major road major road
road
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS D
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

Table 20. Volume without PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 262 239 181 209
TRICYCLE 61 57 4 7
MULTICAB 1 2 0 2
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 42 51 49 65
VAN/ PICK - UP 6 11 18 23
BUS 0 0 0 1
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 23 16 43 38
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 1 7 0 2
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
8 10 7 4
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 404 393 302 351

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 131 119.5 90.5 104.5
 TRICYCLE 30.5 28.5 2 3.5
MULTICAB 1.2 2.4 0 2.4
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 42 51 49 65
VAN/ PICK - UP 7.2 13.2 21.6 27.6
BUS 0 0 0 2.2
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 50.6 35.2 94.6 83.6
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 0.5 3.5 0 1
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
4 5 3.5 2
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 267 258.3 261.2 291.8
Table 21. Volume with PCU

Table 22. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6435 7040 3965 2275

Table 23. Level of Service (Weekday)

ANALYSIS 2:
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Right turn Left turn
TIME Left turn off Crossing
into major into major
major road Major road
road road
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C TO D
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 366 282 355 469
TRICYCLE 64 23 18 34
MULTICAB 2 1 0 1
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 79 62 52 39
 VAN/ PICK - UP 27 18 10 8
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 40 30 22 26
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 4 2 5 6
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
13 4 4 8
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 595 422 466 591
Table 24. Volume without PCU

Table 25. Volume with PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 183 141 177.5 234.5
TRICYCLE 32 11.5 9 17
MULTICAB 2.4 1.2 0 1.2
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 79 62 52 39
VAN/ PICK - UP 32.4 21.6 12 9.6
BUS 0 0 0 0
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 88 66 48.4 57.2
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 2 1 2.5 3
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
6.5 2 2 4
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 425.3 306.3 303.4 365.5

Table 26. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6482 7279 3965 2320

Date: April 06, 2019 (Weekend-Saturday)

Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

Analysis 1

Table 27. Level of Service (Weekend)

 ANALYSIS 1:
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Right turn
TIME Left turn off Crossing Left turn into
into major
major road Major road major road
road
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

TableTYPE
28. Volume without PCU
OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 154 112 149 171
TRICYCLE 61 47 12 9
MULTICAB 1 0 2 2
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 65 47 67 36
VAN/ PICK - UP 18 15 43 22
BUS 2 0 1 4
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 18 12 49 57
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 7 2 1 1
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
5 5 1 1
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 331 240 325 303

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

M1 M2 M3 M4

MOTORCYCLE 77 56 74.5 85.5

TRICYCLE 30.5 23.5 6 4.5
MULTICAB 1.2 0 2.4 2.4
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 65 47 67 36
VAN/ PICK - UP 21.6 18 51.6 26.4
 BUS 4.4 0 2.2 8.8
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 39.6 26.4 107.8 125.4
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 3.5 1 0.5 0.5
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE,
2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5
CONST. EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 245.3 174.4 312.5 290
Table 29. Volume with PCU

Table 30. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
  M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6568 7240 4420 2765

Analysis 2

Table 31. Level of Service (Weekday)

ANALYSIS 2:
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Right turn Left turn
TIME Left turn off Crossing
into major into major
major road Major road
road road
6:007:00 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B
7:00-8:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
8:00-9:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS C
9:00-10:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
10:00-11:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
11:00-12:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
12:00-1:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B
1:00-2:00 LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 105 44 223 264
TRICYCLE 9 17 10 28
MULTICAB 1 0 0 5
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 41 57 73 17
VAN/ PICK - UP 24 24 36 13
BUS 0 0 3 1
 MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 22 23 55 7
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 1 2 2 6
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
3 4 5 6
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 206 171 407 347

Table 32. Volume without PCU

Table 33. Volume with PCU

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS

  M1 M2 M3 M4
MOTORCYCLE 52.5 22 111.5 132
TRICYCLE 4.5 8.5 5 14
MULTICAB 1.2 0 0 6
PASSENGER CAR/SUV 41 57 73 17
VAN/ PICK - UP 28.8 28.8 43.2 15.6
BUS 0 0 6.6 2.2
MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS 48.4 50.6 121 15.4
RICKSHAW/POTPOT 0.5 1 1 3
OTHERS : (e.g. BIKE, CONST.
1.5 2 2.5 3
EQUIPMENTS)
TOTAL 178.4 169.9 363.8 208.2

Table 34. Basic Capacity

TYPE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
M1 M2 M3 M4
Mno 6900 7600 4575 3013

4.3 Physical Elements

Table 35. Design Comparison

Geometric Standard Does it
Consderations Actual Design Design conform
to the
standard?
Design Speed 20 kph 20 kph Yes
 51.6965 m (Candadam – Tacloban)
50.9802 m (Candadam – Baybay) 15.24 m Yes
Radius
29.9442 m (Hipusngo – Baybay)
26.2577 m (Hipusngo – Tacloban)
Shoulder 1.5 m (Baybay - Hipusngo) Yes
Width 1.9 m (Baybay - Candadam) 1.2 m Yes

3.13 m, 3.4 m. 3.4 m, 3.10 m Yes

(Hipusngo) 2.7 m –
Traffic Lane 3.6 m, 3.35 m, 3.4m, 3.2 m 3.6 m Yes
Width (Candadam)
3.35 m, 3.4 m, 3.35 m, 3.4 m (Baybay)
3.35 m, 3.4 m, 3.35 m, 3.4 m
(Tacloban)
148.30 m (Candadam – Tacloban) Yes
Intersection 93.41 m (Candadam – Baybay) 45 m Yes
Sight Distance 107.75 m (Hipusngo - Baybay) Yes
68.33 m (Hipusngo – Tacloban) Yes
68° (Hipusngo - Tacloban) No
Channelization 38° (Hipusngo - Baybay) 70° No
57° (Candadam – Baybay) No
42° (Candadam – Tacloban) No
2000 mm
Pedestrian by 300
Crossing 2000 mm by 300 mm mm Yes
100 mm edge line 100 mm
edge line

69° (Baybay - Candadam) Yes

Angle of 111° (Baybay - Hipusngo) 60°-90° No
Intersection 112° (Tacloban - Candadam) No
69° (Tacloban - ) Yes

After the proponents gathered the necessary data, the standard dimensions

and measurements were then obtained in order to make the comparison whether or

not the actual design of the site location conforms to the standards set by the

authorities. After thorough observation, the proponents observed that there are some

geometric design features that do not conform to the standards. (See Table 3)
4.4 Traffic Signs

The traffic signs that are present in the intersection are shown in Table 36.

The

proponents make a record of the existing road signs and assessed it if it conforms to

the standard design provided by the Department of Public Works and Highways

(DPWH).

Table 36. Traffic Signs

REGULATORY SIGNS
PRIORITY SIGNS
Stop Does it conforms to the
standard design?
 *Reflectorized white Yes
legend and border
* Reflectorized red
background and octagon
in shape

Give Way Yes

*Black legend
reflectorized red border
*Reflectorized white
background

DIRECTION SIGNS
Direction to be followed
*Reflectorized white
arrow symbols
*Reflectorized white Yes
background on plate
* Reflectorized blue
background on disc
*Black Legend
SPEED SIGNS
Speed Restriction
*Black numerals
*Reflectorized red annular Yes
symbol
*Reflectorized white
background
PARKING SIGN
Do Not Block Intersection Sign
*Rectangular in shape
*Black legend
Yes

RESTRICTION SIGN
*Reflectorized red annular
border
*Black symbol and legend
Yes

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN

 *Black symbol and border
circular disc
*Reflectorized fluorescent Yes
yellow background

WARNING SIGN
Slow Down Accident Prone Area
* Rectangular in Shape
*Black legend on a white Yes
reflectorized background

GUIDE SIGN
Diagrammatic Direction Signs
*Rectangular in shape
*Reflectorized white Yes
legend, symbols and
border on reflectorized
green background

4.4 Social Impact

 From the proponent’s gathered data for the public type of transportation as

well as for the private type of transportation the number of respondents were

determined. Thus, for the private type of transportation, the total number of sampling

size and the total population was assumed and set to a minimum which was 30 since

the number of populations was dependent on how many vehicles passed by on the

location. For the listed data for the public and private type of transportation, see

Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 37. Number of Public Respondents

PUBLIC TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle Type Registered Driver Sampling Size
Motorcycle 89 30
Tricycle 64 30
Van 76 30
TOTAL 229 90

Table 38. Number of Private Respondents

PRIVATE TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle Type Registered Driver Sampling Size
Motorcycle 30 30
Van 30 30
TOTAL 60 60
 Percentage Distribution of the type of
vehicles used
Motorcycle Van
Tricycle Passenger Car/SUV

20% Passenger 40% Motorcycle

Car/SUV

20% Tricycle

20% Van

Figure 18. Percentage Distribution of the type of vehicle used

For the distribution of the type of vehicle used, a total of 40% motorcycle

respondents, and 20% for the tricycle, passenger car/SUV, and van responded to the

survey.

4.2.1 EDUCATION REVIEW

The proponents evaluated the knowledge of the drivers whether they know

anything or something about the things present on the road, around the road, and

what to do at the road. After the conduct of the survey, the team consulted a

statistician who helped with the analyzation of data. The results were tabulated in

overall combining the Public Type and Private Type of Transportation. They’re

represented by a graph as seen below.

 Do you understand and follow the road
signs?

9%

yes
sometimes

91%

Figure 19. Number of Drivers’ Answer to Q8

Do you look into the rear-view mirror before

starting to overtake?

15%
yes
no
18% sometimes

67%

Figure 20. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q10

Do you use your signal when turning?

31% yes
37%
no
sometimes

32%
 Figure 21. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q11

Is it a good practice to blow a horn as a

warning when you want to overtake?

21% yes
sometimes

79%

Figure 22. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q12

When drivers of vehicles ahead of you give a

right turn signal, is it confusing?

13% no
sometimes
13% yes

74%

Figure 23. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q16

Do you find hand signals from other drivers

confusing?

no
19%
yes
sometimes
23% 58%
 Figure 24. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q17

When getting on to the main road to the left,

do you look for vehicles coming from the
right?

yes
29% sometimes

71%

Figure 24. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q18

The tables represent the responses of the drivers for both private and public

type of transportation. The results were merged by the statistician to be able to delete

unnecessary and erroneous data. These questions evaluated the drivers whether they

know and understand the basic methods in driving and the basic needs to achieve

safety in driving.

There were one-hundred and fifty (150) number of respondents and ninety

(90) of them belongs to the public type of transportation and the remaining sixty (60)

belongs to the private type of transportation. The sampling size was thirty (30) each

for the five (5) assigned vehicles who usually pass by the proposed location. The

selected questions above were the ones that was highly related to the education

portion of the study.

There are seven (7) questions and when translated to percentile, it showed

that in Q8 , 91% from the number of respondents answered “Yes” and only 9% of
them answered “Sometimes” which means that most of them understand and

followed the traffic control systems. For Q10 , only 67% of the respondents

answered “Yes” which means that out of a hundred (100) there were 33% percent

who does not look and sometimes do not look or look at the rear-view mirrors. For,

37% of the drivers agreed that it was a good practice while 31% agreed sometimes

and sometimes do not, and lastly 32% did not agree. For Q12, 79% agreed that it was

a good practice while the remaining 21% answered sometimes which could mean

sometimes yes or sometimes no. For Q16, 74% answered “No” which means that

they’re not confused while 13% of them answered “Yes” and “Sometimes”, because

they supposed that other drivers give a signal to turn right, but turned out it would go

on the opposite direction. For Q17, 58% do not agree and 23% agreed while 19%

answered sometimes, because as they said some drivers would go on the opposite

direction. For Q18, 71% said “Yes” while 29% said “No” they do not.
4.4.2 ENFORCEMENT REVIEW

The proponents also evaluated the driver’s response to the enforcement of

laws; this is to ensure if they comply with the laws, rules, and standards while

they’re driving and while they’re at the road.

After obtaining the data, the following results were analyzed and observed.

Below were the graphical representation of the outcomes.

Do you wear safety gears while driving? Like

helmets, seatbelts, and such.

yes
20%
sometimes
n/a
57%
23%

Figure 25. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q5

Do you also require your passengers to wear safety

gears?

19% yes
no
41% n/a
sometimes
20%

20%

Figure 24. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q6

 Do you follow the speed limit indications?
8%

yes
sometimes

92%

Figure 25. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q7

Have you used a mobile phone while driving?

27% no
sometimes

73%

Figure 26. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q9

The presented results were for both public and private types of transportation;

this served as a basis if they complied with the basic rules and standards of driving.

In terms of percentage, Q5 showed that 57% wore safety gears while driving, 23%
answered “Sometimes” which would mean sometimes yes or sometimes no, and

lastly, 20% for vehicles which do not require safety gears like in tricycles. For Q6,

41% of the drivers require their passengers to wear safety gears, 19% required their

passenger sometimes, and the other percentage was for vehicles which do not use

safety gears. For Q7, 92% claimed that they followed the speed limits indicated on

major roads and minor roads, then 8% said that they followed the speed limits

sometimes. Lastly, for Q9, 73% responded “No” while 27% responded “Sometimes”

because as they said some important calls from clients, superiors, or emergencies

must be answered.

4.4.3 EVALUATION

The proponents checked whether the drivers have already passed by the

Baybay City Diversion Road intersection from Baybay City to Tacloban City or not.

Similar to the data for the Education Review and Enforcement Review, the data for

the evaluation was also analyzed by a statistician and the following results were

observed. As shown below, the results were presented by a graph.

How many times have you passed there?

5 times
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%3% everyday
3%
4% 4 times
sometimes
5%
7 times
7% 3 times
2 times
64% 8% 1 time
Many times
 Do you see a traffic enforcer when you pass
by?
Figure 27. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q19_1

no
30% sometimes

70%

Figure 28. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q19_2

Number of Drivers' Answers to Q19_3

Q19_3: Do you take note of the traffic signs
or traffic signals that is present there?

yes
24% sometimes

76%

Figure 27. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q19_3

What do you think are the causes of the car

crashes as the Baybay City Diversion Road
Intersection?
no lamp posts at night road design and lack
of road signs
all drunk driving
1%
2%
5%
11% overtaking/overspeed- irresponsible driving
41% ing
39%

Figure 28. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q20

 What do you think are the causes of the car
crashes at the BayBay City Diversion Road
Intersection?

very safe
5% very unsafe
20% somewhat safe
40% somewhat unsafe

35%

Figure 27. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q21

Number of Drivers' Answers to Q22

Q22: What do you think should be improved
at the BayBay City Diversion Road Intersec-
tion?

overpass preventive measures

more road signs and reflectors
make them more vis-
ible
round about redesigning the road
1%
1%
1%
3%
25% 5% 7% Stop light add traffic enforcers
9% Discipline add traffic lights
12% no comment/none
23%
13%

Figure 28. Number of Driver’s Answer to Q22

 The table above presented the response of the motorists for the evaluation of

their suggestions and opinions to the Baybay City Diversion Road intersection from

Baybay City to Tacloban City. Alike the Education and Enforcement Review, the

results gathered was in overall combining both types of transportation.

There were six (6) questions that were related to the evaluation and

sentiments of the motorists. Translating the graphical data to percentage, it showed

that for Q19_1, 64% claimed that they have passed by the road for many times, and

some had a lower percentage of passing by at the location especially the private

vehicles. For Q19_2, 70% said that they haven’t seen any traffic enforcer at the

location while 30% have seen them. For Q19_3, 76% said that they took note of the

road signs and 24% responded “Sometimes” which means sometimes yes or

sometimes no. For Q20, 41% of the respondents responded irresponsible driving,

40% claimed that it was over speeding/overtaking, 11% said that the cause was

drunk driving while others responded for all the reasons found in the questionnaire

(see Appendix B). For Q21, the respondents rated the safety at the said intersection;

5% said that it was very safe, 35% rated somewhat safe, 40% claimed it was

somewhat unsafe, and 20% for very unsafe. For their judgment, Q22 was created,

disregarding the drivers who did not comment, there were 32% of drivers suggested

traffic lights (merged with the suggested stop light), 13% claimed to discipline the

drivers, 12% suggested the placement of traffic enforcers, 7% said that the road

should be re-designed, 5% suggested round abouts, and 6% for other suggestions

(e.g. preventive measures, reflectors, overpass, and such).

For Actual Observations

It is important the road users must know and follow the rules and regulations

in driving them to be safe. The proponents have observed that some of the drivers

don’t know where the right path is when turning to the other direction (see Figure 29

and Figure 30); and some of them don’t wear protective helmets (Figure 31 ).

The proponents observed that the drivers tend not to follow the traffic rules

and regulation when passing in the intersection because there is no traffic enforcer in

the location.

Figure 29. Observation 1 (Actual)

Figure 30. Observation 2 (Actual)

Figure 31. Observation 3 (Actual)

 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Based on the gathered data, the proponents came up with the possible

solutions to avoid or minimize the car crash rate at the Baybay City Diversion Road

Intersection at Brgy. Gaas and improve its safety as well. The group concluded that

the channelization needs to be redesigned, as it does not conform the standards

provided by the authorities. The two (2) angles of intersection needs also to be

redesigned since it exceed the maximum standards making it less safe. Based on the

survey on the drivers, the group also observed, that some irresponsible motorists lack

discipline when it comes to abiding the traffic laws, thus causing a disturbance or

worse, car crash. More seminar campaign for the drivers and a proper

implementation of the traffic laws should be done.

 CHAPTER V

RECOMMENDATION

The survey at the site location must be done as early as possible since the

tabulation and analyzation of data take too much time.

APPENDIX : JUNCTION DIAGRAM AND TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNT
Date: March 26, 2019
Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

DIRECTION
TIME
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6:007:00 135 35 42 24 8 33 185 13 8 54 79 14
7:00-8:00 222 76 85 54 19 50 336 46 19 86 127 36
8:00-9:00 219 65 28 42 26 59 323 17 26 41 48 35
9:00-10:00 224 66 40 22 29 39 245 23 29 54 58 29
10:00-11:00 175 79 34 37 35 48 204 32 35 38 35 23
11:00-12:00 163 65 37 29 36 29 165 44 36 38 34 36
12:00-1:00 186 52 41 35 17 36 183 33 17 18 29 16
1:00-2:00 162 62 37 29 23 25 189 33 23 28 29 17
Date: April 3, 2019
Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

DIRECTION
TIME
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6:007:00 92 20 29 18 29 22 101 16 24 25 36 24
7:00-8:00 90 31 35 26 38 27 105 22 34 23 33 41
8:00-9:00 130 33 40 28 28 30 135 26 36 32 40 41
9:00-10:00 139 34 41 23 33 30 146 24 33 18 39 33
10:00-11:00 185 29 35 38 39 44 173 37 62 27 45 41
11:00-12:00 210 52 49 31 46 48 209 26 59 47 43 39
12:00-1:00 211 57 71 40 59 41 183 32 60 26 58 32
1:00-2:00 207 43 57 58 37 37 204 32 44 36 41 15
Date: April 5, 2019
Time: 6:00 am – 2:00 pm

DIRECTION
TIME
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6:007:00 111 34 31 42 36 44 134 14 61 36 64 50
7:00-8:00 155 60 55 52 62 48 284 43 47 42 89 44
8:00-9:00 201 75 63 46 70 51 170 53 42 56 51 77
9:00-10:00 125 43 61 40 39 35 158 97 50 45 57 49
10:00-11:00 187 56 47 30 51 53 176 45 46 64 87 44
11:00-12:00 234 62 41 27 54 54 259 62 80 110 93 187
12:00-1:00 187 29 31 40 55 43 197 62 52 74 100 90
1:00-2:00 107 34 29 25 38 22 134 46 55 39 50 54
April 6, 2019
Time: 6:00 am– 2:00 pm

DIRECTION
TIME
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6:007:00 79 21 19 27 28 27 123 14 21 53 38 18
7:00-8:00 119 32 43 45 42 49 214 28 29 69 66 25
8:00-9:00 170 34 49 50 53 49 243 29 28 47 70 40
9:00-10:00 216 21 55 45 39 41 226 10 34 42 58 37
10:00-11:00 179 38 54 57 53 40 190 20 32 73 34 28
11:00-12:00 154 23 48 41 30 25 128 25 34 41 29 20
12:00-1:00 128 36 58 31 35 41 154 15 17 28 29 19
1:00-2:00 155 35 26 29 51 31 146 30 31 54 23 19