A Study On The Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge PDF

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag
Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
In partial fulfilment of the course Project Study in the Program
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Prepared by:
Jadee A. Daquioag
Leomar D. Juliano
Blessy Grace G. Marquez
Frenalyn G. Villano
Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering
Cagayan State University
May 2018
APPROVAL SHEET
This project proposal entitled “A STUDY ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF

POBLACION-LIBAG BRIDGE IN TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN” prepared and
submitted by the following students in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering is hereby recommended by the Panel Committees.
1. JADEE A. DAQUIOAG 3. BLESSY GRACE G. MARQUEZ
2. LEOMAR D. JULIANO 4. FRENALYN G. VILLANO
ENGR. REYNALDO N. ROSAL JR.

(Adviser)
ENGR. ERNESTO D. MARALLAG

(Faculty-In-Charge)
APPROVED by the Panel Committee with remarks.
As members of the panel committee, we certify that we have examined this paper and
hereby recommended as a fulfilment for the degree Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
Arch. STELLA MARIE AQUINO Engr. NIKKI A. SUMER
Engr. JOEY T. PAREDES Engr. JOHN MICHAEL B. CASIBANG
This proposal is hereby approved and accepted.
AUDY R. QUEBRAL, PECE, MST

College Dean
A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

ii
To our loved ones and for our future.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to extend their utmost regards to the people and institutions that
made this endeavour possible.
Firstly, to our Almighty Father who gave us the strength and wisdom to pursue this study and
the people who helped us along the way.
Secondly, to our families who gave us undying support in every aspect of this experience and
motivated us to complete this study.
Thirdly, to our dear advisers who shared to us their broad knowledge with regards to our
objectives in the research and guidance in every phase and progress during the time the study was
conducted.
We also would like to thank our fellow classmates, who helped us acquire data that are
relevant in our study.
Lastly, is to our dear academe, The Cagayan State University – Carig Campus, specifically
the Department of Civil Engineering, for its vision and mission for the welfare of students like us.
THE STUDY TEAM

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
TABLE OF CONTENT v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABBREVIATIONS xiii
PROJECT LOCATION MAP xv
PROJECT PERSPECTIVE xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2
1.1 Background of the Study............................................................................................2
1.2 Necessity of the Project...............................................................................................3
1.3 Objective of the Study.................................................................................................3
1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study..............................................................................3
1.4.1 Collection of Data and Analysis for the Existing Conditions........................3
1.4.2 Traffic Demand Forecast................................................................................4
1.4.3 Establishment of Design Criteria....................................................................4
1.4.4 Road and Bridge Planning and Outline Design..............................................4
1.4.5 Environmental and Social Consideration........................................................4
1.4.6 Construction Planning and Cost Estimate.......................................................4
1.4.7 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................................................4
1.5 Study Area...................................................................................................................5
1.6 Study Methodology......................................................................................................6

v
1.6.1 Flow of Study..................................................................................................6
1.7 Definition of Key Terms..............................................................................................7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................................9
2.1 Overview of the Target Sectors of the Project............................................................9
2.1.1 Current Status of Traffic Infrastructure of the Cagayan Valley Region........ 9
2.2 Overview of the Project Site……………....................................................................10
2.2.1 Outline of Tuguegarao City...........................................................................10
2.2.2 Geomorphology……………………….........................................................11
2.2.3 Population......................................................................................................12
2.2.4 Regional Economy.........................................................................................13
2.3 Local Bridges...............................................................................................................15
2.2.1 Tallang Bridge in Baggao, Cagayan..............................................................15
2.2.2 Pigalo Bridge in Angadanan, Isabela….........................................................15
2.2.3 Sugpon Bridge in Ilocos Sur..........................................................................16
2.2.4 Lucban Bridge…...........................................................................................16
2.2.5 Study on the Project for Construction of Davao-Samal Bridge in Republic of

the Philippines…............................................................................................16
2.4 Foreign Bridges............................................................................................................17
2.4.1 The Feasibility Study on the Construction of a New Bridge across River Nile
at Jinja in the Republic of Uganda..................................................................17
3. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT............................................................20
3.1 Inventory of Existing Alternative Routes....................................................................20
3.2 Traffic Demand Forecast.............................................................................................21
3.3 Natural Conditions.......................................................................................................34
3.4 Design Conditions........................................................................................................38
3.5 Comparison of Alternative Routes..............................................................................41

vi
3.6 Alternatives of Bridge Type for the Project Bridge.....................................................43
4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS..............................49
4.1 Present Environmental and Social Conditions.............................................................49
4.1.1 Present Conditions..........................................................................................49
4.1.2 Future Forecast (Without Project Scenario)...................................................51
4.2 Comparative Study of Alternatives.............................................................................52
4.3 Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Environmental and Social Impacts..............53
4.3.1 Environmental Laws.......................................................................................53
4.3.1.1 Environmental Impact Assesment.....................................................53
4.3.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement................................................................56
4.4 Recommendations........................................................................................................57
4.4.1 Environmental Considerations............................................................................57
4.4.2 Social Consideratins...........................................................................................57
5. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION..............................................................60
5.1 Preliminary Project Cost..............................................................................................60
5.1.1 Estimated Project Cost...................................................................................60
5.2 Preliminary Economic Evaluation...............................................................................60
5.2.1 General...........................................................................................................60
5.2.2 Types of Benefits............................................................................................61
5.2.3 Calculation of Benefits...................................................................................62
5.2.4 Evaluation.......................................................................................................64
5.3 Preliminary Financial Evaluation................................................................................66
5.3.1 General................................................................................................................66
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................68
6.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................................68
6.1.1 Outline Design................................................................................................68

vii
6.1.1 Economic and Financial Analysis..................................................................68
6.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................69
6.2.1 Technical Considerations................................................................................69
6.2.2 Economic and Financial Considerations........................................................69
6.2.3 Environmental Considerations.......................................................................69
6.2.3 Social Considerations.....................................................................................70
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................71
APPENDIX A: COUNTED TRAFFIC VOLUME
TABLE I. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY PROPER (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE II. TUGUEGARAO CITY PROPER TO LIBAG (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE III. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE IV. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TABLE V. PTUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TABLE VI. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
APPENDIX B: AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC
TABLE VII. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE VIII. TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE IX. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE X. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TABLE XI. TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TABLE XII. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
APPENDIX C: PASSENGER CAR UNIT

TABLE XIII. COMPUTED PCU IN BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
TABLE XIV. COMPUTED PCU IN BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TABLE XV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO PER YEAR (EXISTING
ROUTE)
APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC FACTORS

viii
TABLE XV1. HOURLY FACTORS FOR 2013
TABLE XVII. DAILY FACTORS FOR 2013
TABLE XVIII. SEASONAL FACTORS FOR 2013
APPENDIX E: MULTI YEAR PROJECT
APPENDIX F: ESTIMATED COST
APPENDIX G: VEHICLE OPERATING COST
APPENDIX H: VOC VALUES ADJUSTED TO 2015 APPLYING 3.8% INFLATION RATE
APPENDIX I: EXISTING ROUTE
TABLE XIX: ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC
TABLE XX: FORCASTED TRAFFIC
TABLE XXI: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
TABLE XXII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST- WITHOUT THE PROJECT
TABLE XXIII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST- WITH THE PROJECT
TABLE XXIV: ESTIMATED TIME COST SAVINGS
TABLE XXV: PROJECT COST AND TRAFFIC COST NET BENEFITS
APPENDIX J: PEÑABLANCA ROUTE
TABLE XXVI: ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC
TABLE XXVII: FORCASTED TRAFFIC
TABLE XXVIII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
TABLE XXIX: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITHOUT THE PROJECT
TABLE XXX: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITH THE PROJECT
TABLE XXXI: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST SAVINGS
TABLE XXXII: PROJECT COST AND TRAFFIC COST NET BENEFITS
REFERENCE.................................................................................................................................123
LETTERS.......................................................................................................................................124
PROFILES.....................................................................................................................................128

ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 2.2.3-1 Top Ten Most Populous Cities of Cagayan Valley Region 16
Regional Shares to Total GDP (at Constant 2000 Prices, in
Table 2.2.4-1 17
Percent), 2014-2015
Table 3.1-1. Existing Road Condition of Peñablanca Route 20
Table 3.1-2. Existing Road Condition of Existing Route 20
Table 3.2-1 Types of Vehicles 24
Average Annual Daily Traffic crossing the Existing Route
Table 3.2-2 25
(Veh/day)
Average Annual Daily Traffic crossing the Peñablanca Route
Table 3.2-3 25
(Veh/day)
Table 3.2-4 Passenger Car Equivalent Factor per Vehicle Type 30
Table 3.2-5 Corresponding Level of Service for computed VCR Value 30
Table 3.2-6 Basic Capacities for Highways and Urban streets 31
Table 3.2-7 Traffic Growth Rate 31
Volume Capacity of the road section at existing route with
Table 3.2-8 32
corresponding Level of Service per year.
Table 3.2-9 Percentage Assumptions for Diverted Traffic Demand 34
Table 3.3-1 Normal Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological Normal) 36
Extreme Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological
Table 3.3-2 36
Extremes)
Table 3.3-3 Record of Major Earthquakes 38
Design speed of Primary (urban Arterial Road) of DPWH and
Table 3.4-1 39
AASHTO
Table 3.4-2 Minimum Radius of Horizontal Curve 39
Table 3.4-3 Maximum Gradient 39
Table 3.4-4 Cross Fall 39
Table 3.4-5 Maximum Super Elevation 40
Table 3.4-6 Geometric Design Standards for the Project 40
Table 3.5-1 Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge 42
Table 3.6-1 Alternative Bridge Type 43
Table 3.6-2 Slope Section Length Limit 46
Table 4.1.1-1 Protected Areas of Cagayan Valley Region 49
Table 4.1.1-2 Outline of Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition 51
Table 4.2-1 The Result of Comparative Study 52

x
Summary List of Environmentally Critical Project (ECP)
Table 4.3.1.1-1 55
Types and Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) Categories
Table 4.3.2 Land Acquisition Orders and Manuals of DPWH 56
Table 5.1.1 Cost Summary of Poblacion-Libag Bridge 60
Table 5.2.1 Assumptions for the Economic Evaluation 61
Table 5.2.2 Economic Effects of the Construction of Proposed Bridge 61
Travel Times for the ‘Without Project’ and ‘With Project’
Table 5.2.3-1 62
Cases
Table 5.2.3-2 Vehicle Operation Cost Ratio 63
Summary of Normal Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis
Table 5.2.4-1 65
considering Existing Route
Summary of Normal Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis
Table 5.3.4-2 65
considering Peñablanca Route
Table 5.3.1 Input Data for Financial Analysis 66

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
Figure 1.5-1 Study Area 5
Figure 1.6.1 Flow of the Study 6
Figure 2.1.1-1 Road Network of Cagayan Third District 10
Figure 2.2.1 Location of Growth Centers in Region 2 12
Figure 2.2.2-1 Elevation Map of Region 2 13
Figure 2.2.2-2 Slope Map of Region2 13
Figure 2.2.2-3 Risk to Typhoons 14
Figure 3.2-1 Traffic Count Survey Location 22
Figure 3.2-2 Travel Time Survey Location 23
Figure 3.2-3 Average Annual Daily Traffic 26
Hourly Variation of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Peñablanca
Figure 3.2-4 27
Route (January 20, 2018)
Hourly Variation of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Existing
Figure 3.2-5 28
Route (April 10, 2018)
Composition of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Peñablanca
Figure 3.2-6 29
Route (January 20, 2018)
Composition of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Existing Route
Figure 3.2-7 29
(April 10, 2018)
Figure 3.2-8 BHOC/Probable Diversion 33
Figure 3.3-1 Topographical Map 34
Figure 3.3-2 Risk to Typhoons 35
Figure 3.3-3 Active Fault in the Philippines 37
Figure 3.5-1 Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge 41
Figure 3.6-1 Typical Cross Section 46
Figure 3.6-2 Profile of the Project 47
Figure 4.3.2-1 EIA Procedure 54

xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
BHCC Basic Hourly Car Capacity
CAS-TS Cagayan-Apayao Road-Tuguegarao City
CNC Certificate of Non-Coverage
CVR Cagayan Valley Road
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DF Daily Factor
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
ECAs Environment Critical Areas
ECC Environmental Compliance Certificate
ECC Environmental Compliance Commitment
ECP Environmental Critical Projects
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Returns
EIS Environmental Impact State
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
EMoP Environmental Monitoring Plan
EMP Environmental Management Plan
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOP Government of the Philippines
HF Hourly Factor
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LGU Local Government Units
LOS Level Of Service
NPV Net Present Value
PAG-ASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration
PAPs Project Affected Persons
PCEF Passenger Car Equivalent Factors
PCU Passenger Car Unit
PD Presidential Decree
PEISS Philippine Environmental Statement System
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
ROW Right of Way

xiii
SF Seasonal Factor
TGR Traffic Growth Rate
TTC Travel Time Cost
TVC Traffic Volume Count
VCR Vehicle Capacity Ratio

xiv
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

xv
PROJECT PERSPECTIVE

xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xvii
(1) Introduction
1) Background of the Study
The Poblacion of Tuguegarao City is accessed through the Pinacanauan Overflow Bridge or
Capatan Overflow Bridge by residents of Capatan, LibagNorte, Peñablanca, and Northern
Areas of Isabela. The bridge is a shortcut made to access the city center where the hospital,
cathedral church, schools, and business establishments are found but availability of the bridge
is sometimes restricted because of flooding due to typhoons and heavy continuous raining. In
recent years, the bridge were closed off two to three times a year ranging from three days to a
week including the clean-ups after the storms. As a result, traffic is disrupted entirely thus,
giving inconvenience to the people especially during emergencies.
Large trucks are also not allowed to pass the overflow bridge due to its low load carrying
capacity. It usually takes about twenty seven minutes more to reach the city center using the
Cagayan valley Road and Cagayan-Apayao Road without traffic. However, that route is
already heavily congested. This causes delays in transportation of people and goods affecting
the economy of the city.
Moreover, the current road condition of the existing bypass route is considered mainly bad.
The length of the road along the Pan-Philippine Highway, also known as Maharlika Highway
or Cagayan Valley Road which conditions are considered good, fair, poor and bad are 1 km,
1.3 km,1.6 km, and 8.1 km, respectively. Such situations of the bridge and existing routes
cause constraint of the effective use of road assets and the difficulty of carrying machinery
and materials for rural development and local products. Thus, the bridge’s condition not only
causes a bottleneck for development but restricts the basic traffic demand of inhabitants.
In light of the foregoing, in order to cope with the situation, the team carried out a study on
the Construction of a New Poblacion-Libag bridge in Tuguegarao City.
2) Necessity of the Project
The inhabitants utilize the project bridge in their daily lives. This project will provide safe and
easy means of access to social facilities such as markets, schools, clinics, etc., at all times.
The city serves as commercial and institutional hub. Thus, trade and service establishments
together with industrial and tourism-related activities mushroom in the area. The realization
of the project is needed because of the fast development rate of Tuguegarao City.
Since the proposed bridge with high load carrying capacity will be constructed, large vehicles
will be able to pass. Furthermore, the travel distance will be shortened because of elimination

a
of making a detour. Thus, travel time and transport cost will be saved and efficiency of
transportation of people and goods will be improved.
Considering that the number of people and goods entering the city are remarkably increasing,
economic losses generated by the delays will also increase through the years. The bridge may
not be able to support the anticipated continuously increasing traffic in the future. That may
be a hindrance to the revitalization of the economy due to the increase of employment and
purchasing opportunities utilizing the development potential of Tuguegarao City.
3) Objective of the Study
The main objective of the study is to examine and evaluate the feasibility of the Project for
Construction of Poblacion-Capatan/Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Specifically,
it aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. To propose the best route for the project.

2. To determine the number of lanes for the propose bridge.
3. To propose the most viable bridge type for the project.
4. To determine the project’s economic and financial viability.
4) Scope and Limitations of the Study
a. Collection of Data and Analysis for the Existing Conditions
The Study commenced with the analysis of available data, the review of the foregoing study
reports and the generation of complementary data through field investigations including
traffic survey, road condition survey, topographic survey and the maximum flood level which
is 26.912 meters was obtained from DPWH-R02.
b. Traffic Demand Forecast
Future traffic volumes were forecasted based only on the flow data of vehicles from the traffic
surveys conducted by the team. The traffic growth rates used are shown in Table 3.2.2-7
obtained from the DPWH-R02. The vehicles passing the CVR and CAR-TS and the bridge
were assumed to enter and leave the city center.
c. Establishment of Design Criteria
Design standards, design criteria and other conditions necessary for the planning and design
of the road and bridge were discussed/consulted with relevant authorities and will be
established.
d. Road and Bridge Planning and Outline Design

b
The proposed location or route and alignment of the bridge was examined and decided by site
observation and using satellite images/aerial photographs and a structure type of the bridge is
proposed based on the comparison study. The Study will not include engineering design, only
typical designs obtained from DPWH-R02 based on minimum design standards.
e. Environmental and Social Consideration
The Team will confirm laws, standards, procedures related to environmental impact
assessment and necessary licenses in the Philippines. The necessary land acquisition area and
approximate number of resettlement houses will be determined by site survey, aerial
photographs.
f. Construction Planning and Cost Estimate
The preliminary project will be estimated based on collected data relating to linear meter cost
of different bridge type, slope protection and road.
g. Economic and Financial Analysis
Economic and financial evaluations were carried out based on the estimated construction cost
of the project, operation and maintenance costs, and economic benefits derived from savings
in Travel Time Cost, from the Vehicle Operating Cost Ratio and the implementation plan.

c
5) Study Area
The study covers the areas directly affected by the proposed development. Figure 1.5-1 shows
the location of the proposed New Poblacion-Libag Bridge and its surrounding Area.
Figure 1.5-1 Study Area
(2) Technical Feasibility of the Project
1) Type of Survey, Day, and Period

 Traffic Count Survey for vehicles using the existing route: April 10, 2018
(Tuesday) 06:00 AM to 06:00 PM, continuous 12 hour survey, and using the
Peñablanca route: January 20, 2018 (Tuesday) 06:00 A.M. to 06:00 P.M.,
continuous 12 hour survey.
 Travel Time Survey passing through the existing route (Tuguegarao City proper
to Capatan-Libag Area), and Peñablanca route (CVR and CAS-TS) on April 17,

d
2018 (Tuesday) 7:57 A.M. to 8.54 A.M., 10:35 A.M. to 11:35 P.M., 3:10 P.M. to
4:03 P.M., and 5:37 P.M. to 6:33 in the evening.
 Road Condition Survey or Roughness Survey on April 27, 2018 (Friday) 4:13
P.M. in the afternoon to 6:01 P.M in the evening.
2) Projected Traffic Demand
The traffic demand between Capatan-Libag Area and Centro of Tuguegarao city is made from
“Forecasted traffic”. The forecasted traffic is defined as the existing vehicle traffic which
would increase relatively with traffic growth rate.
Considering the converted traffic volume from the existing route, its level of service is
examined:

e
Figure i Projected Level of Service
0.90
0.79
0.80
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.61
0.60 0.58
0.54
VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO
0.51
0.50 0.48
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.40 0.37
0.35
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.30 0.27
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.10
0.00
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 2052 2054 2056 2058
TIME
As a result, the estimated VCR value for 2018 to 2044 along the existing route is
between0.21 to 0.50 that correspond to Relatively Free Flowing or LOS B and it only reached
LOS D or Moderate to Heavy Traffic by 2055 with a value of 0.72. However, the VCR of 2050
reached 0.61 which is greater than 0.60 thus, requiring a four (4) lane highway.

f
Table i Corresponding Level of Service for computed VCR Value
VCR LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION FLOW CONDITION
0 ≤ VCR < 0.20 A Free Flowing Traffic
0.21 ≤ VCR ≤ 0.50 B Relatively Free Flowing
0.51< VCR ≤ 0.70 C Moderate Traffic
Moderate to Heavy
0.71< VCR ≤ 0.85 D
Traffic
0.86< VCR ≤ 1.00 E Heavy Traffic
1.00 < VCR F Saturated; Stop and Go
3) Natural Conditions
a) Topography and Geology
Tuguegarao City, the capital of the province of Cagayan and the Regional Center of Cagayan
Valley (Region 02), lies between latitude of 17°36’47.45” N and longitude of
121°43’37.27”E, is located approximately 480.7 km from Manila by the Pan-Philippine
Highway (Maharlika Highway).
The City is almost surrounded by the Cagayan River in the western side and Pincanauan
River, a tributary of Cagayan River, in eastern part. The Pinacanauan River passes through the
municipality of Penablanca and Tuguegarao City.

g
Figure ii Topographical Map
b) Climate (temperature and wind)

The climate is tropical in Tuguegarao, with a dry season lasting only from one to three
months, either during period from December to February or from March to May. According
to KÖppen and Gieger climate classification, it is classified as “Aw”( topical wet-dry ). With a
precipitation less than 60 mm in driest month, the average temperature in Tuguegarao City is
27.2 °C and about 1756 mm of precipitation falls annually.
Along with Regions 1, 3 and CAR in Northern Luzon, Region 2 is highly vulnerable to heavy
rains and strong typhoons due to its geographical location and topography. These regions lie
along the country’s “typhoon belt”, which makes the area highly vulnerable to the occurrence
of typhoons that visit Northern Luzon at an average of 5 to 8 typhoons in a year.

h
Figure iii Risk to Typhoons
Source: Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disaster

i
Table iii Normal Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological Normal)
RAINFALL TEMPERATURE WIND

Average
MONTH Amount No. of Max Min Mean Direction
Wind Speed
(mm) Rainy Days (°C) (°C) (°C) (16pt)
(mps)
January 32.7 8 28.4 18.9 23.7 N 2

February 27.3 6 30.5 19.3 24.9 N 2
March 28.6 5 33.1 20.9 27 N 2
April 47.2 6 35.4 22.6 29 N 2
May 128.2 10 35.8 23.2 29.5 S 2
June 157.5 12 35.1 23.4 29.3 S 2
July 195.3 15 33.9 23.2 28.6 S 2
August 247.1 15 33.5 23.2 28.3 S 1
September 221.4 14 32.9 22.8 27.9 S 1
October 298.5 15 31.4 22 26.7 N 2
November 230 15 29.6 21 25.3 N 2
December 122.3 12 27.8 19.4 23.6 N 2
Annual 1736.2 134 32.3 21.7 27 N 2

Source: Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
Table iv Extreme Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological Extremes)

MONTH Amount Max Min AWS Dir
Date Date Date Date
(mm) (°C) (°C) (mps) (16pt)
January 126.0 01-25-2006 37.2 01-23-1964 12.0 01-09-2004 21 N 01-09-1978

February 62.8 02-17-2009 38.4 02-12-1961 12.9 02-05-1967 25 SE 02-27-1982
March 79.5 03-08-1933 40.0 03-24-1914 14.0 03-04-2002 23 WNW 03-01-1980
April 157.8 04-08-1967 42.2 04-22-1912 16.3 04-04-1963 47 SSE 04-08-1967
May 191.2 05-14-1980 42.2 05-11-1969 17.5 05-03-1903 40 NW 05-14-1980
June 263.0 06-29-2004 41.7 06-03-1963 17.0 06-16-2004 39 W 06-27-1980
July 275.4 07-31-2016 41.0 07-09-1915 17.0 07-23-2004 39 W 07-31-1979
August 345.4 08-01-1986 39.4 18-29-1960 19.0 08-24-2003 40 NW 08-13-1971
September 294.0 09-15-1977 38.9 09-01-1963 17.6 09-30-2003 57 SSE 09-15-1977

j
October 342.0 10-19-1997 38.5 10-17-1987 14.8 10-24-2003 65 N 10-19-2016
November 349.7 11-22-1973 37.8 11-15-1963 12.8 11-02-1905 36 SE 11-05-1980
December 186.3 12-10-1938 38.5 12-02-1905 12.0 12-22-2003 25 N 12-02-1977
349.7 11-22-1973 42.2 04-22-1912 12.0 01-09-2004 57 SSE 09-15-1977

Annual
42.2 05-11-1969 12.0 12-22-2003
Period o f
1902-2016 1903-2016 1966-2016
Record
4) Comparison of Alternative Routes

a) Comparison of Alternative Routes
The three alignment alternatives, which are the basis in formulating the comparative analysis
for selecting the optimum solution in the study, are shown in Figure iv and Table v hereunder.
Figure iv Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge

k
Table v Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge
Route Route Involuntary Resettlement

Bridge Construction Evalu
Route Length Connec Economic Centro 10 Capatan
Location Limit ation
(m) tivity Centro 11 Libag
At the
intersection
of
Approximat Aguinaldo-
ely Valenzuela
190 m near the
downstream new The route Approximately 6
from the Provincial length is residential building,
1 3400 None None Good
existing Museum shorter than 1 electric post and 2
bridge with and others streets lights
river width connecting
of 130 m with the
Provincial
Road near
Libag
Bridge
Along
Gonzaga
Approximat
Street near
ely
Centro 10
300 m The route
Barangay Approximately 15
upstream
Hall and crosses the residential building
2 3785 from the None Good
connecting existing and 7 commercial
existing
with the road. building
bridge with
Provincial
river width
Road near
of 110 m
Libag
Bridge
Approximat Connecting The
ely Rizal Street construction
910 m near cost is high Approximately 10
Difficult to
upstream Adrinel’s residential building,
construct due because Relatively large
from the and 20 commercial
3 4920 to relatively bridge length (more than 150 Very Bad
existing connecting building, 10 electric
large is longer than houses)
bridge with at the post, 8 light post and
resettlement. others and
river width intersection more than 20 trees.
of 95 m of Terisita resettlement
Boulevard – is large.

l
Pan-
Philippine
Highway,
LibagNorte.
b) Final Route of the Project Bridge

Three (3) base alignments were reviewed, identified/confirmed at site and assessed by field
investigation. Route No. 1 selected above, minimize the resettlement and the shortest route.
5) Alternative of Bridge Type for the Project Bridge
The following five bridge types were compared, and consideration was given to whether they
were applicable. As a result, it was found that the PC box girder bridge was able to meet the
subjective evaluation
i) Hybrid Cable-stayed
The maximum span length is 450m, this bridge type has never been constructed within the
region and reputable international contractors may have to be engaged
ii) PC Cable-stayed
The maximum span length is 240m, reputable international contractors may have to be
engaged
iii) Arch Bridge
The maximum span length is 180m, No major technical problems will be encountered in
adopting this type of superstructure but theres potential risk on the river bank erosion during
construction

m
iv) PC Box Girder Bridge
The maximum span length is 180m, and it satisfies the subjective evaluation.
v) Suspension Bridge
The maximum span length is 240m, reputable international contractors may have to be
engaged
(3) Outline of the Project
1) Design of the Project Bridge
The project is to construct an approximately 0.77 km bridge over the Pinacanuan River. The
main bridge is at elevation of 30.182m in height and 14.640m in width. The bridge approach
road connecting with Valenzuela Street and Maharlika Highway is proposed with 2% slopes.
The total project length including the main bridge, approach bridge and roads is
approximately 3.4km. As a result of the comparison of alternative bridges, PC Box Girder
Bridge was recommended. As the typical cross section, 4 lanes with a total width of 14.640
wide including together with 1.110m wide sidewalk at both side only.

n
Figure v Profile of the Project

o
Figure vi Topographic and Profile Plan View

p
(4) Present Environmental and Social Conditions
1) Natural Environment
The project will not affect these protected areas since the project location is far from any and
that Tuguegarao City or any part of the city is not listed in the Protected Areas List.
2) Social Environment
a) Centro Side
The proposed project site has commercial facilities along Rizal Street. Tuguegarao East
Central School, Rizal Park, Primark Mall, Tuguegarao City Cathedral, People’s Emergency
Hospital are located near the area. Also, beside the road is the rehabilitation of the former
Provincial Jail to a museum. The traffic volume of Rizal Street is not that heavy except during
Sundays. Therefore, it is necessary to consider appropriate measures to prevent the traffic
congestion and accidents. Further widening of the road networks might be required, hence
part of the structures, existing fences and shrubbery will be affected. Moreover, since the
proposed Bridge is a 4-lane highway, it is also necessary to study possible traffic problems
since Aguinaldo Street is a 2 lane road and without the provision of DPWH ROW.
b) Libag Side
The proposed project will mainly affect agricultural lands.
Outline of Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition
Barangay Centro, Tuguegarao Barangay Libag, Tuguegarao

City City
Land Acquisition 16m x 140m =2240 sq. m. of 19.1m x 2490m = 47559 sq. m.
ROW is required of ROW
Affected Structures Trees, shrubbery, fences, Trees, farmlands
approximately 6 residential
houses
Involuntary Resettlement About 5 houses (25-50 people)

q
2) Recommendations
-EIA study: Securing of ECC and EIA study for ECC application is required
-Tree cutting permit: Tree cutting permit inside construction site shall be acquired from
DENR
-Preparation of RAP: Preparation of RAP associated with land acquisition
-Implementation of RAP: Securing of the budget for RAP implementation, appropriate

implementation and monitoring of land acquisition and resettlement procedures
-Relocation of utility: Relocation of utilities in the project site
(5) Preliminary Economic and Financial Evaluation
1) Preliminary Project Cost
The proposed Poblacion-Libag Bridge which will be treated as a diversion route has a total
estimated cost of Php 2,151,178,000 (base cost), which is comprised of new construction of
2.63km road, 2.49km slope protection, 770m of pre-stresses concrete box girder
bridge(main bridge), and 47,559 sq.m. Right of Way Acquisition(ROW). Table vi shows the
cost summary of the proposed project.
Table vi Cost Summary of Poblacion-Libag Bridge
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY

Road Php 123,610,000.00
Slope Protection Php 1,008,450,000.00
Main Bridge Php 924,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL Php 2,056,060,000.00
Right of Way Acquisition Php 95,118,000.00
TOTAL Php 2,151,178,000.00
2) Preliminary Economic and Financial Evaluation
Economic Evaluation:
Major quantifiable economic benefits derived from the proposed project are mainly composed
of savings in vehicle operating cost and travel time cost. The economic analysis is made

r
considering the cash flow of benefits and costs during evaluation period years. The economic
indicators of the proposed bridge project are shown in Table vii
Table vii Results of Economic Evaluation
Existing Route Peñablanca Route

ECONOMIC INDICATORS
BASE COST BASE COST
NPV Php 1,145,249,898.17 Php 48,818,758.98
BCR 1.489866685 1.020881629
EIRR 15.73% 10.29%
Note: The Project Analysis of the Proposed Bridge is 40 years
The sensitivity analysis of the economic analysis is considered for the following:
Increase Project Cost by 20%
Decrease Cost Savings by 20%
Combined
The result of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table viii.
Table viii(1) Result of Sensitivity Analysis (Considering Existing Route)
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC Increase Decrease Cost
BASE
INDICATORS Project Cost Savings by Combined
by 20% 20%
Net Present Value Php Php Php (Php
(NPV) 1,145,249,898.17 677,673,746.33 448,623,766.69 18,952,385.15)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.489866685 1.241555571 1.191893348 0.993244457
(BCR)
Internal Rate of Return
15.73% 13.07% 12.49% 9.90%
(IRR)
Considering existing route, the project EIRR for the base case was estimated at 15.73%.
Sensitivity analysis, at increased project cost by 20 % and reduced traffic demand of 20 %,
resulted to an EIRR of 13.07% and 12.49% respectively and combined by 9.90% which
established the economic feasibility of the project.

s
Table viii( 2) Result of the Sensitivity analysis (Considering Peñablanca Route)
ECONOMIC
BASE Increase Project Decrease Cost
INDICATORS Combined
Cost by 20% Savings by 20%
Net Present Value Php (Php (Php (Php
(NPV) 48,818,758.98 418,757,392.86) 428,521,144.66) 896,097,296.50)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.020881629 0.850734691 0.857598912 0.680587753
(BCR)
10.29% 7.66% 7.05% 4.03%
(IRR)
Considering Peñablanca route, the project EIRR for the base case was estimated at 10.29%.
resulted to an EIRR of 7.66% and 7.05% respectively and combined by 4.03% which still
The result of the traffic analysis along the existing route and the proposed route yielding
values that indicate that there is a need for the diversion, since the result met the threshold
value for IRR of 10%, Benefit-Cost ratio of greater than 1 and a positive value of NPV. And
along Peñablanca route and proposed route because the base cost result met the threshold
value for IRR of 10%, Benefit-Cost ratio of greater than 1 and a positive value of NPV.
3) Financial Evaluation:
The Proposed Bridge Project will not be tolled so financial cash flows are not to be
considered. However, in terms of funding, there are no restrictions. The Government of the
Philippines (GOP) thru Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) will fund the
project using the multi-year project contract.

t
(6) Conclusion and Recommendation:
1) Conclusion
(a) Outline Design

 Based on the evaluation made in Chapter 3 Section 3.6, Route 1, which begins and
runs along Aguinaldo Street, passes Batang Road before crossing the river and
extends to Libag Sur, is considered the best alternative because it has the shortest
length of the three and has the most minimal number of resettlement.
 The new bridge with its approach roads will require four lanes, as resulted from the
Traffic analysis in Chapter 3 Section 3.2.
 The proposed bridge type for the main bridge is a Prestressed Concrete Box Girder
Bridge which is approximately 0.77 km long and 16.86 m wide with a centreline
elevation of 30.182 m.
(b) Economic and Financial Analysis

 Based on the result of economic evaluation made, it is concluded that the proposed
bridge project is economically feasible in considering both the existing overflow
bridge route and Peñablanca route.
 Based on the results of financial evaluation made, it is concluded that the proposed
bridge project is financially viable. The Proposed Bridge Project will not be tolled so
financial cash flows are not to be considered. There are no restrictions in terms of
funding. The Government of the Philippines (GOP) thru Department of Public Works
and Highway (DPWH) will fund the project using the multi-year project contract.
 In view therefore, the government thru DPWH shall carry out detailed feasibility
study for Poblacion-Libag Bridge Project.

u
2) Recommendations
(a) Technical Considerations

 As bicycle riders and joggers were observed at the existing bridge, the team
recommends that further study must be conducted for the pedestrian/bicycle lane/s.
 Traffic issues were expected at the city center side since the road connecting to the
proposed route is only two lanes. It is suggested to determine whether a road
widening or diversion roads are required.
(b) Economic and Financial Considerations

 The Study Team suggests to further analyze the savings in vehicle operating cost for
“with project” and “without project” case to determine in Pesos the savings of VOC.
 The Study Team separately considered the two existing alternative routes, existing
route and Peñablanca route, for the analysis of the diverted traffic. Future researchers
must try to consider the combined diverted traffic of both existing alternative routes
to see if the economic values will be higher or lower than the attained result.
 For future study, Origin and Destination Survey must be conducted for accurate
diverted traffic data and Household Survey (expenditures by tourist in Tuguegarao
City) for induced benefit data.
(c) Environmental Considerations

 EIA Study
It is recommended that in the succeeding studies, the documents necessary should be
prepared and submitted to Environmental Impact Assessment Division of the EMB
regional Offices. The outcome of the EIA Process within PEISS administered by the
EMB - DENR is the issuance of decision documents.
EMP and EMoP shall be prepared after enough consultation with the residents and
communities at the EIA study in order to address residents’ concerns over
environmental conservation and avoid negative impact to the environment caused by
the bridge construction.
 Tree cutting permit
Cutting or transplanting of trees inside the project sites are required before
commencement of the construction and tree cutting permit shall be acquired from
DENR. The planting of seedlings/ saplings is required as replacement for every tree
cut within or along the ROW of all DPWH-administered infrastructure projects with
regards to National Greening Program (Executive Order No. 26, 2011). Therefore,

v
planting activities for replacement for those trees that were cut shall be consistently
implemented.
(d) Social Considerations

 Preparation of RAP
RAP shall be prepared since the proposed project requires land acquisition. In
preparing a RAP, consultations must be held with the affected people and their
communities based on sufficient information made available to them in advance. In
addition, due consideration shall be given for not only the PAPs directly affected by
the project but also related persons who were not affected negatively at the
preparation of compensation policy.
 Land acquisition, resettlement, and Payment of compensation
DPWH shall secure the budget for RAP implementation based on the prepared RAP,
then appropriately implement and monitor the land acquisition and resettlement
procedures with cooperation of local government. The grievance process shall also be
formulated.
 Relocation of utilities
Close coordination with utility companies is necessary for the relocation of utilities in
project site. It is desirable to relocate the utilities with enough ROW considering the
implementation of the Project.

w
INTRODUCTION

1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Tuguegarao City is the main entry to the Province and is also a convergence area for the whole
province of Cagayan, Kalinga, Apayao and the northern part of Isabela [1]. The poblacion of
Tuguegarao City is accessed through the Pinacanauan Overflow Bridge or Capatan Overflow
Bridge by residents of Capatan, Libag, Peñablanca, and Northern Areas of Isabela. The bridge
is a shortcut made to access the city center where the hospital, cathedral church, schools, and
business establishments are found but availability of the bridge is sometimes restricted because
of flooding due to typhoons and continuous heavy raining. In recent years, the bridge were
closed off two to three times a year ranging from three days to a week including the clean-ups
after the storms. As a result, traffic is disrupted entirely thus, giving inconvenience to the
people especially during emergencies.
Large trucks are also not allowed to pass the overflow bridge due to its low load carrying
capacity. It usually takes about thirty minutes more to reach the city center using the Cagayan
valley Road and Cagayan-Apayao Road-Tuguegarao City without traffic. However, that route
is already heavily congested. This causes delays in transportation of people and goods hence,
affecting the economy of the city.
Moreover, the current road condition of the existing bypass route is considered mainly bad. The
length of the road along the Pan-Philippine Highway, also known as Maharlika Highway or
Cagayan Valley Road which conditions are considered good, fair, poor and bad are 1 km, 1.3
km,1.6 km, and 8.1 km, respectively [2]. Such bridge and existing road conditions provide for
the effective use of road assets and the difficulty in transporting machinery and materials for
rural development and local products. Thus, the condition of the bridge not only causes a
bottleneck for development but restricts the basic traffic needs of the inhabitants.
In the light of this, to cope with the situation, the team conducted a study on the Construction
of a New Poblacion-Libag bridge in Tuguegarao City.

2
1.2 Necessity of the Project
The inhabitants use bridge projects in their daily lives. This project will provide a safe and easy
way to access social facilities such as markets, schools, clinics, etc., at all times.
The city serves as commercial and institutional hub. Thus, trade and service establishments
together with industrial and tourism-related activities mushroom in the area [3]. The realization
of the project is needed because of the fast development rate of Tuguegarao City.
Because the proposed bridge with high load carrying capacity will be built, large vehicles can
be passed. Additionally, the distance of travel has been shortened due to the removal of a turn.
Thus, travel time and transportation costs will be saved and the transportation efficiency of
people and goods will be improved.
Considering that the number of people and commodities entering the city is enormous, the
economic losses generated by delays will also grow over the years. The bridge cannot support
the expected steady increase in traffic in the future. This could be a barrier to economic
revitalization due to increased employment and buying opportunities with the potential
development of Tuguegarao City.
1.3 Objective of the Study
The main objective of the study is to examine and evaluate the feasibility of the Project for
Construction of Poblacion-Capatan/Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Specifically, it
aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. To propose the best route for the project.

2. To determine the number of lanes for the propose bridge.
3. To propose the most viable bridge type for the project.
4. To determine the project’s economic and financial viability.
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study
1.4.1 Collection of Data and Analysis for the Existing Conditions
The Study commenced with the analysis of available data, the review of the foregoing study
reports and the generation of complementary data through field investigations including traffic
survey, road condition survey, topographic survey and the maximum flood level which is
26.912 meters was obtained from DPWH-R02.

3
1.4.2 Traffic Demand Forecast
Future traffic volumes were forecasted based only on the flow data of vehicles from the traffic
surveys conducted by the team. The traffic growth rates used are shown in Table 3.2.2-7
obtained from the DPWH-R02. The vehicles passing the CVR and CAR-TS and the bridge
were assumed to enter and leave the city center.
1.4.3 Establishment of Design Criteria
Design standards, design criteria and other conditions necessary for the planning and design of
the road and bridge were discussed/consulted with relevant authorities and will be established.
1.4.4 Road and Bridge Planning and Outline Design
The proposed location or route and alignment of the bridge was examined and decided by site
observation and using satellite images/aerial photographs and a structure type of the bridge is
proposed based on the comparison study. The Study will not include engineering design, only
typical designs obtained from DPWH-R02 based on minimum design standards.
1.4.5 Environmental and Social Consideration
The Team will confirm laws, standards, procedures related to environmental impact assessment
and necessary licenses in the Philippines. The necessary land acquisition area and approximate
number of resettlement houses will be determined by site survey, aerial photographs.
1.4.6 Construction Planning and Cost Estimate
The preliminary project will be estimated based on collected data relating to linear meter cost
of different bridge type, slope protection and road.
1.4.7 Economic and Financial Analysis
Economic and financial evaluations were carried out based on the estimated construction cost
of the project, operation and maintenance costs, and economic benefits derived from savings in
Travel Time Cost, from the Vehicle Operating Cost Ratio and the implementation plan.

4
1.5 Study Area
The study covers the areas directly affected by the proposed development. Figure 1.5-1 shows
the location of the proposed New Poblacion-Libag Bridge and its surrounding Area.
Figure 1.5-1 Study Area

5
1.6 Study Methodology
1.6.1 Flow of Study
The study flow is shown on Figure 1.6.1
Figure 1.6.1 Flow of the Study
Review of Related Studies
Data Collection
Identification of Route Alternatives and Bridge Type Alternatives
Traffic Demand Forecast
Establishment of Design Criteria
Evaluation of Alternatives with Relevant Authorities
Outline Design of Bridge and Road
Study on Social and Environmental Considerations
Cost Estimation
Economic and Financial Analysis
Verification of the Project Feasibility

6
1.7 Definition of Key Terms
In order to avoid confusion or ambiguity concerning the selection of alternatives, several of the
key terms are defined hereunder.
 [Route]: This term delineates the general location of the bridge and the approach roads as
a combined stretch drawn with some margin to allow possible adjustments of alignments
within the space provided for the route.
 [Bridge Location]: This term refers to a place where the bridge crosses the River Nile.
 [Alignment]: This term defines the centreline of the approach road drawn on the basis of
the adopted design standard, existing land use, environmental conditions along the route,
and connecting a point along the bridge location.
 [Bridge Type]: This term is used to discuss the structural types of the bridge to be
constructed along the bridge location.
 [Level of Service]: This term is qualitative measure of the highway’s operating conditions
under a given demand within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or
passengers.
 [Average Annual Daily Traffic]: This term defines the number of vehicles crossing a road
section per day.
 [Traffic]: This term refers to all vehicles that are moving along the roads in a particular
area.
 [Existing Route]: This term refers to the route along the Pinacanauan Overflow Bridge.
 [Peñablanca Route]: This term refers to the route along the CVR and CAS-TS.
 [Existing Alternative Routes]: This term refers to the route along the Pinacanauan
Overflow Bridge and the route along the CVR and CAS-TS.
 [Avenue]: It is a wide and straight road.
 [Primary Road]: Directly connect to major cities (at least around 100000 people).
 [Secondary Road]: Directly connects cities to Primary road, except Metropolitan Area.
 [Tertiary Road]: Roads which are perform a local function
 [Environmental Management Plan/Program]: It is a section in the EIS that details the
prevention, mitigation/management and monitoring measures to enhance positive impacts
and minimize negative impacts and risk of a proposed project undertaking. It also includes
contingency and compensation plan for environmental impacts and risks.
 [Environmental Monitoring Plan]: it is a apart if EMP which indicates specific
parameters to the monitored for identified environmental aspects and impacts, the sampling
and measurement plan and the corresponding management scheme.

7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

8
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Overview of the Target Sectors of the Project
2.1.1 Current Status of Traffic Infrastructure of the Cagayan Valley Region
(1) Land Transportation
The main mode of transportation to and from the region is on land. With the increasing demand
for mobility and the number of goods sent within and outside the region, volume of vehicles
also increase which contributes to the current condition of road network. The road condition of
the region is far from ideal with the constant focus on rehabilitation. Road widening of major
roads had also been given priority in the past two years to accommodate the increasing volume
of vehicles. Relatedly, preventive maintenance was deprioritized due to the emphasis on road
widening.
Figure 2.1.1-1 Road Network of Cagayan Third District
Source: DPWH

9
Rehabilitation, reconstruction and upgrading of roads improved for the past three years. The
two-pronged strategy on road widening and rehabilitation is expected to reduce travel time in
the long run.
Complementing the on-going rehabilitation of roads is the drainage and protection works
project that were also carried out along national roads and bridges. This reduces the
vulnerability of national roads from surface scouring, subgrade failure, deposition of soil and
rock materials due to erosion and landslide. It is also a response to the climate and disaster-
proofing of roads to increase its serviceability for the flow of people, goods and services to and
from the region.
Moreover, for the past three years, 6 bridges were translated into permanent bridges, 20 bridges
were rehabilitated, 14 bridges were maintained and 15 were new constructions along national
roads or in major locations needing access.
2.2 Overview of the Project Site
2.2.1 Outline of Tuguegarao City
Tuguegarao City is the main entry to the Province of Cagayan. Tuguegarao City is bounded by
Iguig, Cagayan on the north; by Peñablanca, Cagayan on the east; by the Province of Isabela
on the south; and by the Cagayan River on the southwest and west. Across the river, the towns
of Enrile and Solana are located to the southwest and west. Tuguegarao City is also a
convergence area for the whole province of Cagayan, Kalinga, Apayao and the northern part of
Isabela.
Figure 2.2.1 Location of Growth Centers in Region 2

10
Within the past three decades, its economy gradually shifted from agriculture to
secondary/tertiary economic activities such as trading, commerce and services. The shift was
ushered by Tuguegarao’s role as the Regional Government Center, as a Center of Excellence
in Education, Commerce, Trade and Culture and as the Economic Center of Region 2, and the
Center of Commerce of North Luzon. The city serves as commercial and institutional hub.
Thus, trade and service establishments together with industrial and tourism-related activities
mushroom in the area. And as the Economic Center of Region 02, banking, educational and
commercial entities proliferate in the city. Furthermore, Tuguegarao City is being eyed as a prospect
for growth and development.
2.2.2 Geomorphology
The region’s topography is generally sloping. About 40 percent of the land is mountainous or
with slopes greater than 30 degrees. This is followed by undulating to hilly terrain (8 to 30
degrees slope) and lowlands (below 8 degrees slope) at 31 and 29 percent of total area
respectively. Lands with elevation from 0 to 500 m. above sea level (ASL) represent about 92
percent of the total area while only 8 percent have an elevation between 500 to 1000 m. ASL.
Figure 2.2.2-1 Elevation Map of Region 2 Figure 2.2.2-2 Slope Map of Region2
Source: RDC2-Regional Geographic Information Network

11
2.2.3 Population
The trend on the population of the region is also a vital area in economic progress, this affecting
the economic activity, human resource capacity and extent of public services in the regional
economy.
From the period 2010 to 2015, the population of the region has been increasing by 1.27 percent
annually with more productive population at 64 percent of the total population. Growth and
expansion in the urban areas of the Cagayan Valley especially in its four cities (Tuguegarao
City, Ilagan City, Cauayan City and Santiago City) were registered over the years (see Table
2.2.4-1). The region contributes 3.4 percent of the country’s total population which is
significantly lower compared to other regions with higher population and correspondingly
greater GRDP contributions.
Table 2.2.3-1 Top Ten Most Populous Cities of Cagayan Valley Region
Rank City/Municipality Province Population
1 Tuguegarao City Cagayan 155,502
2 Ilagan City Isabela 145,568
3 City of Santiago Isabela 134,830
4 City of Cauayan Isabela 129,523
5 Baggao Cagayan 82,782
6 Solana Cagayan 82,502
7 Echague Isabela 79,094
8 Alicia Isabela 71,504
9 Tumauini Isabela 67,650
10 Aparri Cagayan 65,649
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority Region 02
The growing urban population, if appropriate development measures are in place, will support
the economic progress through more formal financial transactions, increased demand for goods
and services (consumption), increased labor force, hasten industry developments (i.e., tourism,
housing, and commercial trades). On the other hand, implementation of policies (i.e., human
capital development, utilization of resources, environment protection and conservation),
provision of infrastructure facilities, and efficiency of social services should be prioritized to
maximize opportunities brought by population growth. The only challenge is the strong
possibility of urban sprawl or unregulated development as demand for housing and commercial
development is increasing. The trend towards migration to urban centers is also growing
associated with economic opportunities that the urban centers provide in terms of livelihood
and employment.

12
2.2.4 Regional Economy
(1) Overview
For 2010-2015, the region’s economy has sustained a positive though erratic growth pattern.
While it reflects a positive growth of 4.95 percent over the 5-year period, this is not enough to
change the position of the region as the fourth from the bottom in terms of contribution to the
total GDP. Location and physical attributes of the region are contributory factors to the current
economic performance of the region. The negative effects of climate change also pulls down
modest gains that have been achieved as production sectors especially those in agriculture are
very vulnerable to frequent weather disturbances such as typhoons, monsoon rains and drought.
Over the period, the structure of the regional economy is becoming more diversified as it slowly
shifts from the Agriculture Sector (more than half of the region’s GRDP in 2010 to 36.6% in
2015) to Services Sector. While there is already a significant shift in the share of the Services
Sector to the total economy, agriculture still remains as the major source of income and
livelihood to more than 50 percent of the population.
Table 2.2.4-1 Regional Shares to Total GDP (at Constant 2000 Prices, in Percent), 2014-2015
Region/Year 2014 2015 2014 Rank 2015 Rank
NCR 34.8 40.4 1 1
CAR 1.0 1.1 15 13
Ilocos 3.2 2.7 8 9
Cagayan Valley 2.1 1.1 12 14
Central Luzon 13.5 8.3 3 3
CALABARZON 14.3 17.3 2 2
MIMAROPA 2.2 0.5 10 16
Bicol 1.4 2.8 14 8
Western Visayas 3.3 5.5 7 4
Central Visayas 8.0 5.3 4 5
Eastern Visayas (0.9) 1.4 17 12
Zamboanga Peninsula 2.2 2.5 11 10
Northern Mindanao 4.3 3.5 6 7
Davao Region 5.7 5.3 5 6
SOCCSKSARGEN 2.7 1.5 9 11
CARAGA 1.9 0.9 13 15
ARMM 0.3 -0.1 16 17
Philippines 100 100
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority Region 02

13
Another emerging trend is the significant growth of Services Sector which increased by 12
percentage points in terms of its share in the GRDP; the share of Agriculture and Industry
sectors showed a downtrend in the past 15 years, most prominent was the shift in the past five
years. The shift was a welcome development as the rest of the world is gearing towards
knowledge economy which has significantly benefitted the services sector.
While the growth of the Services Sector had been phenomenal – this is now the main contributor
to the domestic economy in the past six years, there was a slowdown in industry development
at the regional level, particularly in manufacturing. Its growth also cushioned the poor
performance of the Agriculture Sector primarily due to its vulnerability to climate change.
This emphasizes the need for the region to embrace and migrate to this new paradigm on
knowledge economy. However, the region still lacks the support infrastructure, facilities and
quality services to migrate and actively adapt to this trend. The region is still highly dependent
on its Agriculture Sector and the limited capability of farmers to understand and take advantage
of the benefits of new technologies in increasing productivity are among the concerns that have
to be dealt with. There is also the need for the processing sector to explore the use of modern
technology to improve product quality and production efficiency including the utilization of the
internet for product advertising and marketing.
Growth in the Services Sector was manifested through the increase in the number of malls,
banks, gasoline stations, fast food chains, and other similar establishments in fast growing urban
areas in the region. It is also a manifestation of increasing demand for service-related activities
and attract in-migration. It is for the same reason that the region remains steadfast in pursuing
processing industries under manufacturing sub-sector because of the potential domestic and
external trade. This will bring in opportunities for the region to attract investments, spur the
growth of small and medium scale industries and create a substantial number of quality jobs.

14
2.3 Local Bridges
2.3.1 Tallang Bridge in Baggao, Cagayan

A 270-meter bridge project that will facilitate countryside development in Cagayan Province is
now in progress.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region II Director Melanio C. Briosos
said construction operation has started for the Tallang Bridge project located in Baggao, a town
located in the heart of Cagayan, “We are implementing the Php 182-million Tallang Bridge
along Baybayog-Baggao-Dalin-Sta. Margarita Road which will connect less developed
barangays of Baggao to nearby urban centers,” said Director Briosos. The bridge will be
completed and opened to the public by May 2018. It will be built to have nine (9) spans, with
a 7.32 meters carriageway width and with abutments, and eight (8) piers utilizing bored piles
as foundation.
The bridge will be an all-weather structure, meaning it can withstand such strong winds and
stream of water during typhoons.
The project will provide convenience in transporting agricultural and commercial products
from the countryside to major economic hubs in urban areas and other neighboring provinces
of Cagayan. It also aimed to promote peace and development in the area of Baggao by
improving its rural road connectivity.
2.3.2 Pigalo Bridge in Angadanan, Isabela
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) is constructing a new bridge to
replaces a typhoon-ravaged bridge in Isabela that has long been closed to traffic.
The construction of 450-meter Pigalo Bridge located along Alicia-Angadanan-San Guillermo

Road Crossing Cagayan River in Barangay Pigalo, Angadanan, Isabela that was damaged by
typhoons Pedring and Quiel in 2011 have started according to the DPWH Region 2 Director
Melanio C. Briosos.
The cost of the project is Php 482 million, with 10-span and approach spanning 450 lineal
meters with carriageway width of 7.32 meters both abutments and nine (9) piers rest on bored
piles.
“This is going to be a better, more durable bridge that will benefit those who have been risking
their lives and properties crossing the old ravaged bridge,” said Director Briosos. The
replacement of Pigaolo Bridge will shorten the travel time between barangays on both sides of
the town of Angadanan and San Guillermo, Isabela.

15
“With the construction of a new bridge , residents will no longer be burdened in transporting
their agricultural products to commercial, centers nearby that would result to better agricultural
output and productivity of the province”, added Director Briosos.
2.3.3 Sugpon Bridge in Sugpon, Ilocos Sur
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has been completed the 665-linear
meter bridge that is seen to support livelihood and tourism in the southern part of Ilocos Sur.
According to the DPWH Region I Director Ronnel M. Tan, the cost of the Sugpon Bridge is
Php 273 million along Alilem-Sugpon-Sudipen Road in the municipality of Sugpon and it was
opened to the motoring public in time for the Lenten Season.
“The newly-built Sugpon Bridge which is designed as an all-weather bridge now allows safer
and faster link between the town of Sugpon, Ilocos Sur and to the outer towns of La Union,
crossing Amburayan River. The local residents and tourists won’t have to resort to small boats
or rafts just to cross the river during rainy season’” said Director Tan.
2.3.4 Lucban Bridge
The newly completed Lucban Bridge was opened on February 24, 2017 that serves as a
replacement to an old bridge along Manila North Road (MNR) in the municipality of Abulug,
Cagayan Province.
With a cost of Php 631 million, the 825-linear meter new Lucban Bridge crossing over the
Cagayan River is seen to boost trade and tourism in Region 2.
The new Lucban Bridge was constructed 15 meters upstream of the old Lucban Bridge to
guarantee that general public will have safer and more efficient access to and from the regions
of Cagayan Valley, Ilocos and the Cordilleras.
Other than the construction of the bridge replacement the project includes provision for
shoulders, guard rails, parapet walls, signages, pavement markings, and solar-powered
pavement studs in the approaches to ensure safety of commuters.
2.3.5 Study on the Project for Construction of Davao-Samal Bridge in Republic of the
Philippines
The cities of Davao and Island Garden of Samal are located near to each other where the
Pakiputan Strait is placed in between. The main means of transportation is by ferries and boats
but is limited by the operation schedules and weather which gives inconvenience to inhabitants
especially those on the island. Recently, waiting time for the ferry is too long at peak times

16
because travelers to Samal Island has been rapidly increasing due to the upsurge development
of the island because of the numerous beach resorts and high class residential areas.
Past studies were carried out regarding the proposed construction of the bridge. “The Study on
the Davao Integrated Development Program (DIDP) Master Planning” in March 1999
commends to connect IGACOS and Davao due to the cities high potential for high-grade
residential development, environmental friendly industrial estate, and cultural and financial
centers under the BIMP-EAGA scheme as well as resort development due to its adjacency to
Davao City and well preserved environment. Also, “Davao Gulf Area Development Plan 2011-
2030” aimed at creating employment and wealth by direct effects generated from promotion of
trades and commercial activities to LGUs in Davao Gulf Area, a project (Davao City-Samal
Bridge) is listed in the Programs and Activities of the development plan. Furthermore,
“Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2008-2017” mentions Samal-Davao Bridge as an economic
development strategy, improvement of accessibility to enhance economic productivity.
The project is to construct an approximately 1km bridge over the Pakiputan Strait. The main
bridge is to clear the navigational height limit of 58.91m from the highest sea elevation of 1.55m
in height and 100m in width. Furthermore, aeronautical height limit because of Davao Airport
forces the main bridge structure to be lower than 74m in altitude. The bridge approach roads to
the main bridge need to be viaducts to connect with Davao-Panabo Road and Samal
Circumferential Road with 6% or less slopes. The total project road length including the main
bridge, approach viaducts and approach roads is approximately 4.4km. As a result of the
comparison of alternative schemes, 3-span steel truss main bridge and PC hollow slab bridge
and steel box girder bridge approach viaducts were proposed. As the typical cross section, 2
lanes of 3.5m wide travel way and 2.5m wide shoulders for slow speed vehicles and broken-
down vehicles are proposed together with 1.5m wide sidewalk at one side only.
2.4 Foreign Bridges
2.4.1 The Feasibility Study on the Construction of a New Bridge across River Nile at Jinja in
the Republic of Uganda
Upon request from the Government of Republic of Uganda, the Government of Japan
conducted the Feasibility Study on the Construction of a New Bridge across River Nile at
Jinja and entrusted the Study to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
The capital city of Uganda, Kapala, is known as the cargo traffic generating source and the
centre of distribution of goods and considered as the hub of the national road network. The
Northern Corridor route runs through Kampala in parallel with the northern coast of Lake
Victoria. This route constitutes a major strategic link from Uganda and other inland

17
neighbouring countries (Rwanda, Burundi and the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of
Congo) to Mombasa Port in Kenya. The Northern Corridor route crosses the River Nile
through the existing Nalubaale Dam Bridge at Jinja, located about 80 km to the east of
Kampala. Currently, the bridge is the bottleneck for the transport of goods and passengers,
due to the narrow width, plate deck deterioration and exfoliation of the concrete surface of the
bridge piers. Also, the increasing traffic volume coupled with overloaded heavy vehicles is
increasingly causing the structural deteriorations of the bridge. In order to handle the
situation, the Government of Uganda requested the Government of Japan to carry out a
Feasibility Study on the Construction of A New Bridge across River Nile at Jinja. In response
to the official request, the Government of Japan through the Japan International Cooperation
Agency deployed a Study Team in November 2008.
The objectives of the Study were to conduct a feasibility study on the construction of A New
Bridge across River Nile at Jinja including the construction of approach roads on both sides of
the bridge and to transfer relevant expertise, skills and technologies to Ugandan personnel
concerned relative to the development of the Project.
The project was concluded technically and economically feasible and environmentally sound.
Hence, it is justified to implement the project for national and people’s benefits. It is
recommended to select Alignment A which is located close to Nytil Textile Factory. It is
recommended to adopt PC Cable-stayed bridge with inverted Y-shape Pylon and Single Plane
Stayed-Cable. Preparation and execution of RAP in adequate, fair and prompt manner is most
anticipated to expedited the land acquisition process. Introduction of Toll System to the
Project should be carefully examined again during the Detailed Design stage involving
stakeholders not only the service providers but also users.

18
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT

19
3. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT
3.1 Inventory of existing Road
The condition is determined through distress surveys or roughness surveys and the data from
the assessment are stored in the Roads and Bridges Inventory Application (RBIA) show in
Table 3.1-1 and Table 3.1-2 was done by subjective assessment.
Table 3.1-1 summarizes the 2018 road condition of the existing road segment, of the Cagayan
Valley Road (S04161LZ) and Cagayan-Apayao Road (S04170LZ) and Table 3.1-2 summarizes
the 2018 road condition of the existing road segment.
Table 3.1-1. Existing Road Condition of Peñablanca Route
LENGTH IN PEÑABLANCA ROUTE (IN METERS)

SECTION ROAD SURFACE
GOOD FAIR POOR BAD N.A. TOTAL
ID NAME TYPE
Cagayan-
Valley Rd
Mixed
S04161LZ and
Asphalt
and Cagayan- 1000 1300 1600 8100 250 12250
and
S04170LZ Apayao Rd
Concrete
(Tuguegarao
Section)
Table 3.1-2. Existing Road Condition of Existing Route
LENGTH IN EXISTING ROUTE (IN METERS)

SECTIOIN ROAD SURFACE
GOOD FAIR POOR BAD N.A. TOTAL
ID NAME TYPE
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN Concrete N/A N/A N/A 3530 N/A 3530

20
3.2 Traffic Demand Forecast
(1) Survey conducted in this Study
In order to grasp the traffic characteristics between Tuguegarao City Center, Capatan,
Libag, Peñablanca and Northern Isabela, the following surveys were conducted in this
study:
a) Type of Survey, Day, and Period
 Traffic Count Survey for vehicles using the existing route: April 10, 2018
(Tuesday) 06:00 AM to 06:00 PM, continuous 12 hour survey, and using the
Peñablanca route: January 20, 2018 (Tuesday) 06:00 A.M. to 06:00 P.M.,
continuous 12 hour survey.
 Travel Time Survey passing through the existing route (Tuguegarao City proper to
Capatan-Libag Area), and Peñablanca route (CVR and CAS-TS) on April 17, 2018
(Tuesday) 7:57 A.M. to 8.54 A.M., 10:35 A.M. to 11:35 P.M., 3:10 P.M. to 4:03
P.M., and 5:37 P.M. to 6:33 in the evening.
 Road Condition Survey or Roughness Survey on April 27, 2018 (Friday) 4:13 P.M.
in the afternoon to 6:01 P.M in the evening.

21
b) Survey Sites (See Figure 3.2-1)
Figure 3.2-1 Traffic Count Survey Location
The Traffic Count Survey was carried out at point 1.a which is the intersection at Batang Road
–Gonzaga Street and at point 1.b which is the intersection at Libag Norte.
c) Travel Time Survey

22
Figure 3.2-2 Travel Time Survey Location
Travel time Survey along the existing route (From Centro of Tuguegarao City to Libag Sur
and Vice Versa), and at Peñablanca route (CVR and CAS-TS, and Vice Versa).
(2) Traffic Characteristics
The characteristics of vehicle traffic between Tuguegarao City Center and Capatan, Libag,
Peñablanca and Northern Isabela using the existing route and Peñablanca route are given
as follows, (assuming that all the vehicles surveyed crossing the Peñablanca route are going
to Centro of Tuguegarao City):

23
a) Definition of Vehicle Types
The illustrated definitions of vehicle types in Table 3.2-1 were adopted in the survey.
The definition of vehicle types were included in the traffic survey for projection of
AADT for 40 years.
Table 3.2-1 Types of Vehicles
Vehicle Type Sample Vehicle Type Sample
Small Bus
(Capacity of
Motorcycle
30 to 40 seats
only)
Rigid Truck
Motorcycle
2-Axle
Passenger Rigid Truck

Cars 3-Axle
Large Bus
(Capacity of
Goods Utility
40 seats and
Above)
Articulated
Cargo
Passenger
Trucks/Rigid
Utility
Truck 4-5
Axle

24
b) Average Annual Daily Traffic between Tuguegarao City Center and Capatan, Libag,
Peñablanca and Northern Isabela.
AADT = TVC x HF x DF x SF Eq. 01.
Where: TVC – traffic volume count (in Appendix A)
HF – hourly factor (in Appendix D. Table XVI)
DF – daily factor (in Appendix D. Table XVII)
SF – seasonal factor (in Appendix D. Table XVIII)
The Average Annual Daily Traffic Data are shown in Table 3.2-2 and Table 3.2-3.
Table 3.2-2 Average Annual Daily Traffic crossing the Existing Route (Veh/day)
DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2
Capatan-Libag Centro of
Area to Centro of Tuguegarao City BOTH Percentage
TYPE
Tuguegarao City to Southern area DIRECTION (%)
(Crossing the (Crossing the
existing route) existing route)
MOTORCYCLE/TRICYCLE 9679 9560 19239 75.06

PASSENGER CARS 2717 2595 5312 20.72
PASSENGER/GOODS
387 416 803
UTILITY/SMALL BUS 3.13
BIG TRUCKS OR BUSES 85 193 278 1.08
VEHICLE TRAFFIC 12868 12764 25631 100.00
Table 3.2.2-3 Average Annual Daily Traffic crossing the Peñablanca Route (Veh/day)
DIRECTION 2
DIRECTION 1
Centro of
Capatan – Libag
Tuguegarao City
Area to Centro of BOTH
TYPE to Capatan – Percentage
Tuguegarao City DIRECTION
Libag Area
(Peñablanca
(Peñablanca
route)
route)
MOTORCYCLE/TRICYCLE 6689 5174 11863 67.46%

PASSENGER CARS 1798 1876 3674 20.89%
PASSENGER/GOODS
388 469 857 4.88%
UTILITY/PUJ/SMALL BUS
BIG TRUCKS/BUSES 524 666 1190 6.77%
VEHICLE TRAFFIC 9399 8185 17585 100.00%
The AADT for the existing route is 25631 veh/day and the Peñablanca route is 17585 veh/day.

25
Figure 3.2-3 Average Annual Daily Traffic
CROSSING PEÑABLANCA ROUTE CROSSING THE EXISTING BRIDGE

30000
25631
25000
20000 19239
17585
NYMBER OF VEHICLES
15000
11863
10000
5312
5000
3674 857
1190
803 278
0
TYPES OF VEHICLES
The AADT was computed using the data from Traffic Volume Survey (See Appendix A)
conducted on the two (2) routes (CVR and CAS-TS and Existing Route). The existing route
has a greater number of motorcycle/tricycle and passenger cars than the Peñablanca route
because it is a shortcut from Capatan-Libag Area to Centro of Tuguegarao City. While
passenger/goods utility/PUJ and big trucks/bus crossing the Peñablanca route is greater than
the existing overflow bridge because big trucks/bus are not allowed to cross the bridge.

26
c) Hourly Variation of Vehicle Traffic
 Hourly variation of vehicle traffic between the Capatan-Libag Area and Centro
of Tuguegarao City (Peñablanca Route) is shown in Figure 3.2-4. Peak hour
traffic from Capatan-Libag Area and Centro of Tuguegarao City (Peñablanca
Route) can be observed from 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning at 1174 vehicles per
hour. While the peak hour traffic that of Centro of Tuguegarao City to Capatan-
Libag Area (Peñablanca Route) is 1099vehicles per hour concentrated from
5:00 in the afternoon to 6:00 in the evening.
Figure 3.2-4 Hourly Variation of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Peñablanca Route
(January 20, 2018)
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FROM CAPATAN - LIBAG

ARAE CENTRO OF TUGUEGARAO CITY
(PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
1400
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
1200 LARGE BUS

1000
800 ARTICULATED CARGO
600 TRUCK
400
RIGID TRUCK 3+axles
200
0
PASSENGER CAR
RIGID TRUCK 2axles
PASSENGER/GOODS
TIME UTILITY/SMALL BUS/PUJ
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FROM CENTRO OF

TUGUEGARAO CITY TO CAPATAN - LIBAG AREA
(PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
1200 LARGE BUS
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
1000
800 ARTICULATED CARGO TRUCK
600
400 RIGID TRUCK 3+axles
200
0 PASSENGER CAR
RIGID TRUCK 2axles
PASSENGER/GOODS
UTILITY/SMALL BUS/PUJ
MOTORCYCLE/TRICYCLE
TIME

27
 Hourly variation of vehicle traffic between the Capatan-Libag Area and Centro
of Tuguegarao City (Crossing the existing route) is shown in Figure 3.2-5. Peak
hour traffic from Capatan-Libag Area and Centro of Tuguegarao City
(Crossing the existing route) can be observed from 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning
at 1664 vehicles per hour. While the peak hour traffic that of Centro of
Tuguegarao City to Capatan-Libag Area is 1680 vehicles per hour concentrated
from 5:00 in the afternoon to 6:00 in the evening.
Figure 3.2-5 Hourly Variation of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Existing Route (April 10, 2018)
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FROM CAPATAN - LIBAG AREA

TO CENTRO OF TUGUEGARAO CITY
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
1600 TRUCK
1400
1200 RIGID TRUCK 3+axles
1000
800
PASSENGER CAR
600
400
200 RIGID TRUCK 2axles
0
PASSENGER/GOODS
UTILITY/SMALL BUS/PUJ
MOTORCYCLE/TRICYCLE
TIME
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC FROM CENTRO OF

TUGUEGARAO CITY TO CAPATAN - LIBAG AREA

1600 TRUCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
1400
RIGID TRUCK 3+axles
1200
1000
800 PASSENGER CAR
600
400 RIGID TRUCK 2axles
200
0
PASSENGER/GOODS
UTILITY/SMALL
BUS/PUJ
MOTORCYCLE/TRICYCL
E
TIME

28
d) Vehicle Composition
 The composition of vehicle traffic of the Peñablanca route is illustrated in
Figure 3.2-6. The highest share is motorcycles/tricycles, with a modal share of
67.46%, passenger cars make up 20.89%, passenger utility/goods utility have
a share of 4.88% and trucks/bus have a share of 6.77%.
Figure 3.2-6 Composition of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Peñablanca Route (January 20,
2018)
PASSENGER/GOODS TRUCKS/BUS
UTILITY/PUJ/SMALL 6.77%
BUS
4.88%
PASSENGER
CARS
20.89%
MOTORCYCL
E/TRICYCLE
67.46%
 The composition of vehicle traffic of the existing route is illustrated in Figure

3.2-7. The highest share is motorcycles/ tricycles, with a modal share of
75.06%, passenger cars make up 20.72%, passenger/goods utility/PUJ/small
bus has a share of 3.13 and trucks/bus share a 1.08%.
Figure 3.2-7 Composition of Vehicle Traffic crossing the Existing Route (April 10, 2018)
PASSENGER/GOODS
UTILITY/PUJ/SMALL TRUCKS/BUS
BUS 1.08%
3.13%
PASSENGER
CARS
20.72%
MOTORCYCLE
/TRICYCLE
75.06%

29
e) Forecasted Traffic
Table 3.2-4 Passenger Car Equivalent Factor per Vehicle Type
PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT

VEHICLE TYPE
FACTOR
Motor Cycle/Tricycle 2.5
Passenger car 1
Passenger and goods utility and small bus 1.5
Large bus 2
Rigid truck, 2 axles 2
Rigid truck, 3 axles 2.5
Truck semi-trailer, 3 and 4 axles 2.5
Truck semi-trailer, 5+ axles 2.5
Truck trailer, 4 axles 2.5
Truck trailer, 5+ axles 2.5
PCU = AADT x PCEF Eq. 02.
To analyze further the traffic condition along the existing route, the Volume Capacity Ratio
(VCR) should be established which will reflect the corresponding Level-of-Service (LOS) or
the efficiency of the road.
Table 3.2-5 Corresponding Level of Service for computed VCR Value
VCR LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION FLOW CONDITION

SERVICE
0 ≤ VCR < 0.20 A Free Flowing Traffic
0.21 ≤ VCR ≤ 0.50 B Relatively Free Flowing
0.51 < VCR ≤ 0.70 C Moderate Traffic
Moderate to Heavy
0.71 < VCR ≤ 0.85 D
Traffic
0.86 < VCR ≤ 1.00 E Heavy Traffic
1.00 < VCR F Saturated; Stop and Go

30
Assuming that the peak hour traffic is 9%, from the K value ranges from 7% to 15%, of the
PCU and the Basic Hourly Car Capacity (BHCC) depends on the carriageway width (See
Table 3.2-6), using formula
.
VCR = Eq. 03.
.
Two lanes VCR = < 0.6
.
Four lanes VCR = > 0.6
The existing route is characterized by the VCR for the existing route with equivalent Level of
Service (LOS).
Table 3.2-6 Basic Capacities for Highways and Urban streets
Basic hourly capacity

Road Type Carriageway width Roadside Friction in pcu in both
directions
≤4.0 None or Light 600
4.1 – 5.0 None or Light 1,200
5.1 – 5.5 None or Light 1,800
Highway 5.6 – 6.1 None or Light 1,900
6.2 – 6.5 None or Light 2,000
6.6 – 7.3 None or Light 2,400
2 x 7.0 None or Light 7,200 (expressway)
6.0 Heavy 1,200
6.1 – 6.5 Heavy 1,600
Urban street
6.6 – 7.3 Heavy 1,800
2 x 7.0 Heavy 6,700
Source: Department of Public Works and Highways Region II
Table 3.2-7 Traffic Growth Rate
PASSENGER/GOODS RIGID RIGID

MOTORCYCLE/ PASSENGER ARTICULATED
UTILITY/PUJ/SMALL TRUCK TRUCK
MOTORTRICYCLE CARS CARGO TRUCK
BUS 2-axles 3-axles
3.25% 3.50% 4% 3% 3% 3.10%
Source: Department of Public Works and Highways Region II.
The total volume of traffic (in terms of PCU) is projected applying the corresponding Traffic
Growth Rate (TGR) form DPWH-R02 with the purpose of determining the Level of Service
for 40 years and the result is shown in Table 3.2-8.

31
Table 3.2-8 Volume Capacity of the road section at existing Overflow Bridge with
corresponding Level of Service per year.
VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY

YEAR LOS YEAR LOS
RATIO RATIO
2018 0.22 B 2039 0.43 B
2019 0.23 B 2040 0.45 B
2020 0.23 B 2041 0.46 B
2021 0.24 B 2042 0.48 B
2022 0.25 B 2043 0.49 B
2023 0.26 B 2044 0.51 C
2024 0.27 B 2045 0.52 C
2025 0.28 B 2046 0.54 C
2026 0.29 B 2047 0.56 C
2027 0.29 B 2048 0.58 C
2028 0.30 B 2049 0.60 C
2029 0.31 B 2050 0.61 C
2030 0.32 B 2051 0.63 C
2031 0.34 B 2052 0.65 C
2032 0.35 B 2053 0.68 C
2033 0.36 B 2054 0.70 C
2034 0.37 B 2055 0.72 D
2035 0.38 B 2056 0.74 D
2036 0.39 B 2057 0.77 D
2037 0.41 B 2058 0.79 D
2038 0.42 B 2059 0.82 D
As a result, the estimated VCR value for 2018 to 2044 along the existing route is between 0.21
to 0.50 that correspond to Relatively Free Flowing or LOS B and it only reached LOS D or
Moderate to Heavy Traffic by 2055 with a value of 0.72. However, the VCR of 2050 reached
0.61 which is greater than 0.60 thus, requiring a four (4) lane highway.

32
f) Forecasted Traffic Volume for Diverted Traffic Demand
COST RATIO = C2 / C1 Eq. 04.
Where:
C1 – BHOC along the existing route; and
C2 – BHOC along the proposed Diversion.
Figure 3.2-8 BHOC/Probable Diversion
In the graph:
P1 – traffic volume that will be left using the existing route; and
P2 – traffic volume that will use the proposed Diversion.
Table 3.2-9 shows the assumed probable diverted traffic based on Equation 04 and Figure 3.2-
8.
The future traffic demand was forecasted under differing road network conditions of “With”
and “Without” project cases. “With” case scenario, assumes that number of motorized vehicles
would use the Poblacion-Libag Bridge, while “Without” case scenario assumes that al; the
motorized vehicles would use the existing route and Peñablanca route (CVR and CAS-TS).
Table 3.2-9 shows the percentage assumptions for the Diverted Traffic Demand.

33
Table 3.2-9 Percentage Assumptions for Diverted Traffic Demand
Vehicle Type Peñablanca Route Existing Route
Motorcycle/Motor Tricycle 70% 50%
Passenger Cars 70% 98%
Passenger/Goods Utility/Small
50% 98%
Bus/PUJ
Large Bus 50% 98%
Trucks 50% 98%
3.3 Natural Conditions
(1) Topography and Geology
Tuguegarao City, the capital of the province of Cagayan and the Regional Center of Cagayan
Valley (Region 02), lies between latitude of 17°36’47.45” N and longitude of 121°43’37.27”E,
is located approximately 480.7 km from Manila by the Pan-Philippine Highway (Maharlika
Highway).
The City is almost surrounded by the Cagayan River in the western side and Pincanauan River,
a tributary of Cagayan River, in eastern part. The Pinacanauan River passes through the
municipality of Penablanca and Tuguegarao City.
Figure 3.3-1 Topographical Map

34
(2) Climate (temperature and wind)
The climate is tropical in Tuguegarao, with a dry season lasting only from one to three months,
either during period from December to February or from March to May. According to Köppen
and Gieger climate classification, it is classified as “Aw”( topical wet-dry ). With a
precipitation less than 60 mm in driest month, the average temperature in Tuguegarao City is
27.2 °C and about 1756 mm of precipitation falls annually.
Along with Regions 1, 3 and CAR in Northern Luzon, Region 2 is highly vulnerable to heavy
rains and strong typhoons due to its geographical location and topography. These regions lie
along the country’s “typhoon belt”, which makes the area highly vulnerable to the occurrence
of typhoons that visit Northern Luzon at an average of 5 to 8 typhoons in a year.
Figure 3.3-2 Risk to Typhoons
Source: Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters

35
Table 3.3-1 Normal Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological Normal)

MONTH Average
Amount No. of Max Min Mean Direction
Wind Speed
(mm) Rainy Days (°C) (°C) (°C) (16pt)
(mps)
January 32.7 8 28.4 18.9 23.7 N 2
February 27.3 6 30.5 19.3 24.9 N 2
March 28.6 5 33.1 20.9 27 N 2
April 47.2 6 35.4 22.6 29 N 2
May 128.2 10 35.8 23.2 29.5 S 2
June 157.5 12 35.1 23.4 29.3 S 2
July 195.3 15 33.9 23.2 28.6 S 2
August 247.1 15 33.5 23.2 28.3 S 1
September 221.4 14 32.9 22.8 27.9 S 1
October 298.5 15 31.4 22 26.7 N 2
November 230 15 29.6 21 25.3 N 2
December 122.3 12 27.8 19.4 23.6 N 2
Annual 1736.2 134 32.3 21.7 27 N 2
Table 3.3-2 Extreme Climate in Tuguegarao City (Climatological Extremes)

MONTH Amount Max Min AWS Dir
Date Date Date Date
(mm) (°C) (°C) (mps) (16pt)
January 126.0 01-25-2006 37.2 01-23-1964 12.0 01-09-2004 21 N 01-09-1978
February 62.8 02-17-2009 38.4 02-12-1961 12.9 02-05-1967 25 SE 02-27-1982
March 79.5 03-08-1933 40.0 03-24-1914 14.0 03-04-2002 23 WNW 03-01-1980
April 157.8 04-08-1967 42.2 04-22-1912 16.3 04-04-1963 47 SSE 04-08-1967
May 191.2 05-14-1980 42.2 05-11-1969 17.5 05-03-1903 40 NW 05-14-1980
June 263.0 06-29-2004 41.7 06-03-1963 17.0 06-16-2004 39 W 06-27-1980
July 275.4 07-31-2016 41.0 07-09-1915 17.0 07-23-2004 39 W 07-31-1979
August 345.4 08-01-1986 39.4 18-29-1960 19.0 08-24-2003 40 NW 08-13-1971
September 294.0 09-15-1977 38.9 09-01-1963 17.6 09-30-2003 57 SSE 09-15-1977
October 342.0 10-19-1997 38.5 10-17-1987 14.8 10-24-2003 65 N 10-19-2016
November 349.7 11-22-1973 37.8 11-15-1963 12.8 11-02-1905 36 SE 11-05-1980
December 186.3 12-10-1938 38.5 12-02-1905 12.0 12-22-2003 25 N 12-02-1977
349.7 11-22-1973 42.2 04-22-1912 12.0 01-09-2004 57 SSE 09-15-1977
Annual
42.2 05-11-1969 12.0 12-22-2003
Period o f
1902-2016 1903-2016 1966-2016
Record

36
(2) Earthquake
Active Fault Lines are shown in the Figure below:
Figure 3.3-3 Active Fault in the Philippines

37
Record of major earthquakes in the Philippines:
Table 3.3-3 Record of Major Earthquakes
Date Magnitude Earthquakes

November 30, 1945 7.5 Nueva Ecija
August 02, 1968 7.3 Casigura, Aurora
March 17,1973 7.0 Ragay Gulf, Bicol
August 17,1976 8.0 Mindanao
August 17,1983 6.5 Ilocos Norte
February 08, 1990 6.8 Bohol
June 14, 1990 7.1 Panay
July 16, 1990 7.8 Northern and Central Luzon
November 15,1994 7.1 Mindoro
March 05, 2002 7.5 Central and Southern Mindanao
February 15, 2003 6.2 Masbate
Februry 06, 2012 6.9 Central Visayas
August 31, 2012 7.6 Guiuan, Eastern Samar
October 15,2013 7.2 Tacloban City
3.4 Design Conditions
(1) Road Design Criteria
(a) Design Standards and Criteria
 The following design specifications of DPWH are basically applied to the project. As necessary,
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
specifications are referred to and compared to establish the most suitable design standards and
criteria for the project.
 Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards for Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
 Highway Safety Design Standards 2012 (DPWH)
 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011, AASHTO
(b) Design Speed

The comparison of design speed in DPWH and AASHTO specifications are shown in Table
3.4-1
The design speed of the project bridge is proposed to be 60 km/h with the following reasons:
 Primary or Arterial Roads such as Pan-Philippine highway or also known as Maharlika

Highway as per DPWH must have a design speed of 30-70 km/h.
 Since the proposed project will be connected to Pan-Philippine highway or also known as
Maharlika Highway have a design speed of 30-70 km/h.

38
Table 3.4-1 Design speed of Primary (urban Arterial Road) of DPWH and AASHTO
DPWH AASHTO
Road class
(Arterial) (Urban Arterial)
Primary ( UrbanArterial
30-70 km/h 50-100 km/h
Road)
(c) Radius
A comparison of minimum radius for horizontal curves is shown in Table 3.4-2
Table 3.4-2 Minimum Radius of Horizontal Curve

Design Speed DPWH AASHTO
(km/h) (m) (m)
40 50 41
50 80 73
60 125 113
70 175 168
80 230 229
(d) Gradient
A comparison of the specifications regarding maximum gradient is shown in Table 3.4-3
Table 3.4-3 Maximum Gradient

Design Speed
Topography DPWH AASHTO
(km/h)
Flat 7%
40 Rolling 8% 10%
Mountainous 11%
Flat 8%
50 Rolling 7% 9%
Mountainous 11%
Flat 7%
60 Rolling 6% 8%
Mountainous 10%
(e) Cross Fall

The cross fall is proposed to be 2% based on the design criteria of DPWH
Table 3.4-4 Cross Fall

DPWH AASHTO
1.5%-2.0% 1.5%-2.0%

39
(f) Maximum Superelevation
According to the specification of DPWH, maximum superelevation is 10%.
Table 3.4-5 Maximum Superelevation

DPWH AASHTO
10%(12%) 10%(12%)
(g) Geometric Design Standards

As the result of the above comparison, the geometric design standard as shown in Table 3.2.4-
6 was proposed for the project
Table 3.4-6 Geometric Design Standards for the Project

Description Unit Value Remarks
Design Speed Km/h 60
Stopping Sight
m 85 Table 3-34, Page 3-155 AASHTO 2011
Distance
Passing Sight
m 180 Table 3-35, Page 3-157 AASHTO 2011
Distance
Normal Cross Chapter 3.6.1.2. Page 105 Design of Highway
% 2
Fall DPWH
Maximum
% 10 AASHTO 2011
Superelevation
Maximum Table 3-5, Chapter 3.5.2.1, Page 46 Design of
m 125
Radius Highway DPWH
Maximum Grade % 6 BOD-DPWH Requirements
Minimum
Chapter 3.5.3.2 Page 71, Design of Highway
Vertical m 60
DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standard
Curve Length

40
3.5 Comparison of Alternative Routes
(1) Comparison of Alternative Routes
The three alignment alternatives, which are the basis in formulating the comparative analysis
for selecting the optimum solution in the study, are shown in Figure 3.5.-1and Table 3.5-1
hereunder.
Figure 3.5-1 Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge

41
Table 3.5-1 Alternative Routes of the Project Bridge
Route Involuntary Resettlement

Route
Rout Lengt Bridge Constructio Evalu
Connec Economic Centro 10 Capatan
e h Location n Limit ation
Tivity Centro 11 Libag
(m)
At the
intersecti
Approxim
on of
ately
Aguinald
190 m
o-Rizal
downstrea
near the Approximately 6
m from The route
former None residential
the length is
1 3400 Provincial building, 1 None Good
existing shorter than
Jail and electric post and
bridge others
connectin 2 streets lights
with river
g with the
width of
Provincial
130 m
Road near
Libag
Bridge
Along
Gonzaga
Approxim
Street
ately
near The route
300 m
Centro 10 crosses the Approximately
upstream
Barangay existing 15 residential
from the
2 3785 Hall and road. building and 7 None Fair
existing
connectin commercial
bridge
g with the building
with river
Provincial
width of
Road near
110 m
Libag
Bridge
Connectin
g Rizal
Street
Approxim
near
ately The
Adrinel’s Approximately
910 m construction
and Difficult to 10 residential
upstream cost is high
connectin construct building, 20
from the because
g at the due to commercial Relatively large
existing bridge
3 4920 intersecti relatively building, 10 (more than 150 Very Bad
bridge length is
on of large electric post, 8 houses)
with river longer than
Terisita resettlemen light post and
width of others and
Boulevar t. more than 20
95 m resettlement
d – Pan- trees.
is large.
Philippine
Highway,
LibagNor
te.

42
(2) Final Route of the Project Bridge
Three (3) base alignments were reviewed, identified/confirmed at site and assessed by field
investigation. Route No. 1 selected above, minimize the resettlement and the shortest route.
3.6 Alternative of Bridge Type for the Project Bridge

(1) Alternative Bridge Type
Table 3.6-1 Alternative Bridge Type
Hybrid Cable-stayed
Bridge Length 782m
Bridge Profile
Construction Risk This bridge type has never been constructed in Region 2. To ensure good
quality and completion schedule reputable international contractors may have
to be engaged
Environment impact Temporary water quality degradation.

Worsened roadside noise and air quality during/after construction phase.
Maintenance Periodic inspection work will be required for the stay cables and anchorages.
Maintenance work might be required for the stay cables and anchorages for
possible corrosion and cable cut if found
Aesthetic Viewpoint It can be a symbol and landmark.
Evaluation NOT RECOMENDED
PC Cable-stayed
Bridge Length 800m

43
Bridge Profile
Construction Risk To ensure good quality and completion schedule reputable international
contractors may have to be engaged

Maintenance Periodic inspection work is required for the structural steel deck, stay cables
and anchorages.
Maintenance work might be required for stay cables and anchorages for any
defects such as corrosion and cable cut if found.
Aesthetic Viewpoint It can be a symbol and landmark. However, it has the same bridge type as
Dondoyan Bridge.
Arch Bridge
Bridge Length 800m
Bridge Profile
Construction Risk No major technical problems will be encountered in adopting this type of
superstructure.

Potential risk on the river bank erosion during construction
Maintenance Less maintenance work

Normal inspection will be required
Aesthetic Viewpoint Harmonize with surroundings environment.
PC Box Girder Bridge
Bridge Length 770m

44
Bridge Profile
Construction Risk This type is commonly used nationwide. No major technical problems will be
encountered for adopting this type of superstructure.

Maintenance Compared to other types of bridges, maintenance is not much required
Aesthetic Viewpoint Harmonize with surroundings environment.
Evaluation RECOMENDED
Suspension bridge
Bridge Length 795m
Bridge Profile
Construction Risk To ensure good quality and completion schedule reputable international
contractors may have to be engaged
Social Environment Temporary water quality degradation.

impact Worsened roadside noise and air quality during/after construction phase.
Maintenance Periodic inspection work will be required for the cables and anchorages.
Maintenance work might be required for the stay cables and anchorages for
possible corrosion and cable cut if found
Aesthetic Viewpoint It can be a symbol and landmark.

45
(2) Typical Cross Section
The typical cross section shown in Figure 3.6-1., as the result of the comparison of alternative
Bridge Type the Study Team adopted a PC Box Cross Section with 4 lane with a total width of
14.640 m and a 1.110m wide sidewalk to be installed.
Figure 3.6-1 Typical Cross Section
(3) Vertical Alignment (Profile)

The vertical alignment was proposed as shown in Figure 3.6-2. The elevation gap between the
center line of the main bridge and proposed approached road in Libag is about 2 m, the slope
of 2% was proposed. Gentle slope sections were proposed within the slope as shown in Table
3.6-2.
Table 3.6-2 Slope Section Length Limit
Design Speed Grade (%) Length Limiting (m)
60km/h 2% 60

46
Figure 3.6-2 Profile of the Project

47
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL
IMPACTS

48
4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
4.1 Present Environmental and Social Conditions
4.1.1 Present Conditions
(1) Project Components Concerned with Environmental and Social Impacts
In Chapter 3, alternatives to the routes were evaluated from aspects of economic efficiency,
construction limit, site condition, and social impact. Eventually, the alternative route 1 in Figure
3.2.5-1 was determined as the best location was selected as the final proposed route considering
road alignment. In light of this, this chapter discusses environmental and social impacts
concerning the proposed project. Issues were identified in consideration of any adverse
environmental and social impacts that could be foreseen, should be examined further by
succeeding study.
(2) Protected Area
Table 4.1.1-1 Protected Areas of Cagayan Valley Region
Name of Protected Areas Area (Ha.) Location

Batanes
Batanes Protected Landscape and Seascape 193,255 Whole Province of Batanes
(BPLS)
Cagayan
Baua Watershed Forest Reserve (BWFR) 8,955 Gonzaga and Lallo, Cagayan
Wangag Watershed Forest Reserve (WWFR) 6,992 Gonzaga and Lallo, Cagayan
Magapit Protected Landscape (MPL) 3,403.62 Gattaran and Lallo, Cagayan
Palaui Island Protected Landscape and 7,415.48 Sta. Ana, Cagayan
Seascape (PIPLS)
Peñablanca Protected Landscape and 118,781.58 Peñablanca, Cagayan
Seascape (PPLS)
Isabela
Fuyot Spring National Park (FSNP) 819 Ilagan City, Isabela

49
Tumauini Watershed Forest Reserve 17,670 San Pablo, Cabagan, Maconacon,
(TWFR) Divilacan, Isabela
Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park 359,486 Dinapigue, Divilacan, Maconacon,
(NSMNP) Palanan, Ilagan, San Pablo, Cabagan,
San Mariano and Tumauini, Isabela
Quirino
Quirino Protected Landscape (QPL) 164,364.46 Diffun, Cabarroguis, Aglipay,
Maddela, Quirino and Dipaculao,
Aurora
Nueva Vizcaya
Bangan Hill National Park (BHNP) 13 Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Casecnan Protected Landscape (CPL) 88,846.80 Dupax del Norte, Dupax del Sur,
Nueva Vizcaya; Maddela, Quirino and
Dipaculao, Aurora
Dupax Watershed Forest Reserve (DWFR) 424.80 Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya
Salina Natural Monument (SNM) 6,675.56 Bambang, Kayapa and Aritao, Nueva
Vizcaya
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region 02
The project will not affect these protected areas since the project location is far from any and
that Tuguegarao City or any part of the city is not listed in the Protected Areas List.
(3) Social Environment
a) Centro Side
The proposed project site has commercial facilities along Aguinaldo and Rizal Street.
Tuguegarao East Central School, Rizal Park, Primark Mall, Tuguegarao City Cathedral,
People’s Emergency Hospital are located near the area. Also, beside the road is the
rehabilitation of the former Provincial Jail to a museum. The traffic volume of Rizal Street is
heavy during Sundays as the St. Peter and Paul Cathedral is nearby. Additionally, traffic is also
heavy every morning (7:00 – 8:00 am) and afternoon (4:00 – 5:00 pm). Therefore, it is
necessary to consider appropriate measures to prevent the traffic congestion and accidents.
Further widening of the road networks might be required, hence part of the structures, existing
fences and shrubbery will be affected. Moreover, since the proposed Bridge is a 4-lane
highway, it is also necessary to study possible traffic problems since Aguinaldo Street is a 2
lane road and without the provision of DPWH ROW.

50
b) Libag Side
The proposed project will mainly affect agricultural lands.
Table 4.1.1-2 Outline of Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition
Barangay Centro, Tuguegarao Barangay Libag, Tuguegarao

City City
Land Acquisition 15m x 140m =2100 sq. m. of 19.1m x 2490m = 47559 sq. m.
ROW is required of ROW
Affected Structures Trees, shrubbery, fences, Trees, farmlands
approximately 6 residential
houses
Involuntary Resettlement About 5 houses (25-50 people)
4.1.2 Future Forecast (Without Project Scenario)
In considering the current situation of the proposed project sites, an assessment has been
made of the impacts in case the project is not implemented (“without project scenario”). Both
positive and negative impacts are foreseen.
Positive impacts would be as follows:
 The resettlement and tree-cutting would not be required as land acquisition would not be
necessary.
 The current landscape would be maintained.
Negative impacts would be as follows:
 The traffic condition in the existing route will not be improved. Moreover, the access to
medical and educational facilities during typhoons will be hindered.
 Considering that the number of people and goods entering the city are remarkably
increasing, economic losses generated by the delays will also increase through the years.
The bridge may not be able to support the anticipated continuously increasing traffic in the
future. That may be a hindrance to the revitalization of the economy due to the increase of
employment and purchasing opportunities utilizing the development potential of
Tuguegarao City.
 Large trucks are also not allowed to pass the overflow bridge due to its low load carrying
capacity. It usually takes about twenty seven minutes more to reach the city center using
the Cagayan valley Road and Cagayan-Apayao Road without traffic. However, that route

51
is already heavily congested. This causes delays in transportation of people and goods
affecting the economy of the city.
4.2 Comparative Study of Alternatives
The result of comparative study from the environmental and social point of view are shown in
Table 4.2-1.
Table 4.2-1 The Result of Comparative Study
Eval
Capatan
Route Centro uatio
Libag
n
Approxima
No
tely 6
residents
residential
and less
buildings, 1
structures
electric
are
1 post and 2 Good
observed.
streets
Lands are
lights.
mainly
Some trees
agricultur
will also be
al
cut.
Approxima
tely 15
residential
building
and 7
No
commercial
residents
buildings.
and less
Many
structures
structures
are
2 will be Good
observed.
affected
Lands are
especially
mainly
businesses.
agricultur
Street
al
lights may
be affected
and some
trees may
be cut.

52
Approxima
tely 10
residential
building,
Relatively
20
large
commercial Very
3 (more
building, Bad
than 150
10 electric
houses)
post, 8
light post
and many
trees.
4.3 Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Environmental and Social Impacts
4.3.1 Environmental Laws
The establishment of the Philippine Environmental Statement System (PEISS) marked the
beginning of the realization of the importance of considering environmental concerns as early
as the project planning stage. Presidential Decree (PD) 1586, Establishing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) System in 1978, states that under Section 4 of PD 1151, Philippines’
Environmental Code, all agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government, including
Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and
entities, for every proposed project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of
the environment.
(1) Responsible Government Authorities
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the government unit
responsible for the environmental administration. Environmental Management Bureau,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR - EMB) is responsible for the
issuance of decision making documents such as Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
and Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for PEISS. EMB Regional Offices in respective
regions are primarily responsible for the consultation and supervision of development projects.
4.3.1.1 Environment Impact Assessment
The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is used to enhance planning and guide decision
making. EIA is predominantly presented in the framework of a requirement to incorporate
environmental concerns in the planning process of projects at the feasibility stage. Through this
process, adverse environmental impacts of proposed projects are reduced by a review process
of project siting, design and other alternatives, and the succeeding preparation of environmental
management and monitoring plans. A positive determination by the DENR-EMB results to the

53
issuance of an Environmental Compliance Commitment (ECC) document which shall be
conformed to by the proponent and represents the project’s Environmental Compliance
Certificate. The release of the ECC allows the project to proceed to the next stage of project
planning, which is the acquisition of approvals from other government agencies and LGUs,
after which the project can start implementation.
(1) Environment Impact Assessment Procedure
The Philippine EIA Process has six sequential stages 1) Screening, 2) Scoping, 3) EIA Study
and Report Preparation, 4) EIA Review and Evaluation, 5) Decision Making, and 6) Post
ECC Monitoring, Validation and Evaluation/Audit stage. The promoter initiates the first three
stages while Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) takes the lead in the last three
stages. A summary flowchart of the complete process is presented in Figure 4.3.2.1-1.
Figure 4.3.2-1 EIA Procedure
Source: Environmental Management Bureau

54
(2) Projects Covered by PEISS
Projects which have been originally declared as Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) or
projects in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) may pose significant impacts on the quality
of the environment are subject to PEISS. The four (4) ECP project types and twelve (12) ECA
categories have been declared through Proclamation No. 2146 (1981) and Proclamation No.
803 (1996), as shown in Table 4.3.2-1.
Table 4.3.1.1-1 Summary List of Environmentally Critical Project (ECP) Types and
Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) Categories
List of Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs)

- As declared by Proclamation No. 2146 (1981)
1 Heavy Industries – Non-ferrous Metal Industries, Iron and Steel Mills, Petroleum and
Petro-chemical Industries including Oil & Gas, Smelting Plants
2 Resource Extractive Industries – Major Mining & Quarrying Projects, Forestry Projects
(logging, major wood processing projects, introduction of fauna (exotic animals) in
public and private forests, forest occupancy, extraction of mangrove products, grazing),
Fishery Projects (dikes for/ and fishpond development projects)
3 Infrastructure Projects – Major Dams, Major Power Plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled,
hydroelectric or geothermal), Major Reclamation Projects,
- As declared by Proclamation No. 803 (1996)
4 All golf course projects
List of Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs)
1 All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves,
sanctuaries
2 Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots
3 Areas which constitute the habitat of any endangered or threatened species of Philippine
wildlife (flora and fauna)
4 Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests
5 Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes
6 Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods,
typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.)
7 Areas with critical slopes
8 Areas classified as prime agricultural lands
9 Recharged areas of aquifers
10 Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:
tapped for domestic purposes; within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by
appropriate authorities; which support wildlife and fishery activities
11 Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:
with primary pristine and dense young growth; adjoining mouth of major river systems;
near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds; areas which act as
natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods; areas on which
people are dependent for their livelihood.
12 Coral reefs characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions: With
50% and above live coralline cover; Spawning and nursery grounds for fish; Act as
natural breakwater of coastlines

55
4.3.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement
DPWH has the largest number of projects which require land acquisition among other
departments. Therefore, DPWH makes its own stipulation regarding the procedure of land
acquisition by following Department Order and manuals.
Table 4.3.2 Land Acquisition Orders and Manuals of DPWH
Source: Environmental and Social Consideration Profile of the Philippines, JICA
(1) Preparation of RAP
As described in 4.1.1(3), land acquisition and involuntary resettlement will be required to

secure the ROW for approach road and bridge. Therefore, the preparation of RAP including
the following information is necessary at the succeeding study:
• The number of affected persons

• Expected impacts of the project (especially loss of land, other assets and income)
• Avoidance, preventive and mitigation measures to minimize the expected impact
• Appropriate compensation and entitlements
• Replacement cost
• Institutional arrangement and implementation schedule
• Grievance process
• Monitoring and evaluation
Preparation of RAP and land acquisition procedure shall be implemented according to the legal
framework of the Philippines described in Department Order and guidelines/manuals of

56
DPWH. In preparing RAP, consultations must be held with the affected people and their
communities and project outlines and compensation policy shall be explained and discussed
with PAPs.
(2) Estimated Compensation Policy
Compensation and assistance guideline of this project compiling type of loss, entitlement and
compensation package shall be formulated at the succeeding study based on the population
census survey covering all PAPs in project site, asset inventory and socioeconomic survey.
The basic policy for compensation is intended for direct loss caused by the project.
Compensation for income loss would be basically provided for the decrease of income directly
caused by the resettlement and it shall be considered case to case.
4.4 Recommendations
4.4.1 Environmental Considerations
(1) EIA Study
It is recommended that in the succeeding studies, the documents necessary should be prepared
and submitted to Environmental Impact Assessment Division of the EMB regional Offices. The
outcome of the EIA Process within PEISS administered by the EMB - DENR is the issuance of
decision documents.
EMP and EMoP shall be prepared after enough consultation with the residents and communities
at the EIA study in order to address residents’ concerns over environmental conservation and
avoid negative impact to the environment caused by the bridge construction.
(2) Tree cutting permit
Cutting or transplanting of trees inside the project sites are required before commencement of
the construction and tree cutting permit shall be acquired from DENR. The planting of
seedlings/ saplings is required as replacement for every tree cut within or along the ROW of all
DPWH-administered infrastructure projects with regards to National Greening Program
(Executive Order No. 26, 2011). Therefore, planting activities for replacement for those trees
that were cut shall be consistently implemented.
4.4.1 Social Considerations
RAP shall be prepared since the proposed project requires land acquisition. In preparing a RAP,
consultations must be held with the affected people and their communities based on sufficient

57
information made available to them in advance. In addition, due consideration shall be given
for not only the PAPs directly affected by the project but also related persons who were not
affected negatively at the preparation of compensation policy.
(2) Land acquisition, resettlement, and payment of compensation
DPWH shall secure the budget for RAP implementation based on the prepared RAP, then
appropriately implement and monitor the land acquisition and resettlement procedures with
cooperation of local government. The grievance process shall also be formulated.
(3) Relocation of utilities
Close coordination with utility companies is necessary for the relocation of utilities in project
site. It is desirable to relocate the utilities with enough ROW considering the implementation
of the Project.

58
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION

59
5. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION
5.1 Preliminary Project Cost
5.1.1 Estimated Project Cost
The proposed Poblacion-Libag Bridge which will be treated as a diversion route has a total
estimated cost of Php 2,151,178,000 (base cost), which is comprised of new construction of
2.63km road, 2.49km slope protection, 770m of prestressed concrete box girder bridge(main
bridge), and 47,559 sq.m. Right of Way Acquisition (ROW). Table 5.1.1 shows the cost
summary of the proposed project.
Table 5.1.1 Cost Summary of Poblacion-Libag Bridge
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY

Road Php 123,610,000.00
Slope Protection Php 1,008,450,000.00
Main Bridge Php 924,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL Php 2,056,060,000.00
Right of Way Acquisition Php 95,118,000.00
TOTAL Php 2,151,178,000.00
5.2 Preliminary Economic Evaluation

5.2.1 General
The primary objective of the economic analysis is to examine the effects of the project
investment. The economic analysis was done to evaluate whether or not the project investment
will be beneficial for the national economy by analyzing the required expenditure of the
national economy resources. Table 5.2.1 shows the key assumptions that were explicitly made
to conduct the economic analysis.

60
Table 5.2.1 Assumptions for the Economic Evaluation
Item Condition Remarks

1. Economic Indicators  Economic Internal Rate of
Return (EIRR)
 Benefit Cost (B/C) Ratio
 Net Present Value (NPV)
2. Analysis Period 40 years Start of Construction:
35 years after opening to the 2020
public Start of Operation: 2025
3. Social Discount Rate 10% Social discount rate in

(Opportunity Cost of Philippines by NEDA
Capital) SDR will be used to
compute B/C ratio and
NPV
5.2.2 Types of Benefits
By implementing the proposed bridge, a variety of benefits in the short and long term is
expected. Among these, the following tangible benefits are considered in this study as shown
in Table 5.2.2.
Table 5.2.2 Economic Effects of the Construction of Proposed Bridge
Construction of
Items of Benefits Notes
Bridge
Savings in Vehicle Operation Cost (VOC) ●
Savings in Travel Time Cost (TTC) ●
Direct
Savings in Transportation Cost ●
Benefit
Comfort and Convenience (Punctuality,
X
Flexibility, etc.)
Induced Benefits ▲
Indirect Impact to the Environment ▲
Benefits Regional Development X
Tourism Development X
Note: ● : Tangible benefit
▲ : Not included in this study
X: Not included items due to intangible benefits

61
5.2.3 Calculation of Benefits
1) Bridge Project in cases of “With Project” and “Without Project”
‘With Project’ is defined as the situation where the proposed new bridge construction is
implemented while ‘Without Project’ is defined as the situation where the existing bridge
operation is continued and no investment takes place. The quantified economic benefits,
which would be realized from the implementation of the project, are defined as savings in
travel time cost (TTC) which can all be derived from the difference between ‘With Project’
and ‘Without Project ‘situations and savings in vehicle operation cost(VOC) which was
derived by cost ratio between ‘With Project’ and ‘Without Project ‘situations.
2) Benefits Considered
Savings are derived from the comparison between costs (“With” case scenario) of road
users who would have passed over the project bridge and costs (“Without” case scenario)
of those who have crossed the Pinacanauan river by the existing Bridge or used the CVR
and CAR-TS going to and from City Center. The following benefits are considered and
calculated in this study:
a) Savings in Travel Time Cost
In the ‘Without Project’ case, the existing bridge will continue operation between Libag
and Tuguegarao City Center where heavy/big vehicles are not allowed. As such, the
travel time between Libag and Tuguegarao City Center using Cagayan Valley Road
and Cagayan-Apayao Road (Tuguegarao Section) also known as Peñablanca Route is
also considered. The travel time between Libag and Tuguegarao City Center consist of
travel time on peak hours and off-peak hours of the day (A.M. and P.M) of the existing
route and Penablanca route.
Table 5.2.3-1 Travel Times for the ‘Without Project’ and ‘With Project’ Cases
Item Value
‘Without Project’ Case: Going to City Center Away from City Center
Using the Peñablanca Route 28 min and 19sec 28min and 15sec
1 A.M. Peak Hour 31min and 4sec 29min and 10sec
2 A.M. Off-peak Hour 29min and 12sec 27min and 14sec
3 P.M. Off-peak Hour 25min and 36sec 27min and 27sec
4 P.M. Peak Hour 27min and 22sec 29min and 10sec
Using the Existing Route 7min and 33sec 9min and 40sec
1 A.M. Peak Hour 8min and 30sec 9min and 55sec
2 A.M. Off-peak Hour 8min and 10sec 9min and 43sec
3 P.M. Off-peak Hour 7min and 3sec 9min and 29sec

62
4 P.M. Peak Hour 8min and 9sec 9min and 31sec
‘With Project’ Case:
Proposed Bridge 3min and 15sec
1 Road and Slope Protection 2min and 38sec= 2630m/ 60km/h
2 Main Bridge section 47sec= 770m/ 60km/h
b) Savings in Vehicle Operating Cost

In general, savings in the vehicle operating cost is one significant benefit among
various benefits in a highway project. This new bridge project, Poblacion-Libag
Bridge, vehicle operating cost gives positive benefits because the “with project” case
noted as C1 has lower cost than the “without project” case noted as C2. Table 5.2.3-2
shows the cost ratio result using existing route and using Peñablanca route.
Table 5.2.3-2 Vehicle Operation Cost Ratio

PASSENGER CAR
GOODS UTILITY/
RIGID TRUCK 3+
SMALL BUS/ PUJ
ARTICULA-TED
MOTORCYCLE/
CARGO TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK -
PASSENGER/
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
2AXLE
AXLE
Using the Existing Route
C1 373335.08 334239.33 47343.88 0.00 18204.28 4516.14 1868.75
C2 657417.53 605211.01 88338.02 0.00 27689.37 6870.89 2843.13
C2/C1 1.76 1.81 1.87 0.00 1.52 1.52 1.52
Using the Peñablanca Route
C1 230202.92 231173.82 50527.65 58743.01 30340.47 60111.43 19466.14
C2 1240790.91 1279041.51 286237.81 336323.81 146813.91 290925.47 94211.62
C2/C1 5.39 5.53 5.66 5.73 4.84 4.84 4.84
c) Uneconomical Benefit of Disruption for Traffic

It may be possible to disrupt the vehicle traffic on Poblacion-Libag road by the
construction of the bridge access road. However, Poblacion-Libag road which will be
a 4-lane road in the future will be maintained during construction, the existing bridge
operation will still continue and the proposed project is recommended to have
alternative routes connected to the Aguinaldo St. so the disruption for traffic for big
vehicles entering the city will be avoided and the disruption for traffic by construction

63
work will only be with little effect. Therefore the uneconomical benefit of the
disruption of traffic is not taken into account.
5.2.4 Evaluation
The evaluation procedure for the Poblacion-Libag Bridge was done by assessing the project’s
computed Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Internal Rate of
Return(IRR). These values were evaluated considering the Road Condition, Travel Time and
Running costs.
1) Estimation of Project Benefits

Evaluation for the proposed diversion road is done by determining the potential benefits of
the project. These benefits can be accrued from the proposed project are the differences in
total Travel Time Costs(TCC) for with and without project case which is considering
savings from the improvement of Road Condition, Running and Time Cost(basic vehicle
operating cost). Running Cost highly depends on two factors: 1) the condition of the
existing road segment(s) under investigation and 2) traffic or the number of vehicles using
or passing through the road segment(s).
2) Economic Evaluation
The Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) and Economic Internal Rate of
Return (EIRR) are the economic indicators to be established. In Table 5.2.4-1, the results
of the normal evaluation and sensitivity analysis are shown. From the normal evaluation,
the IRR produced met the requirement of 10% to merit feasibility of the proposed diversion.
Given that the result of the normal evaluation is feasible, sensitivity analysis was performed
for the following conditions:
Condition 1: applying 20% increase in project cost

Condition 2: applying 20% decreased cost savings
Condition 3: combination of Condition 1 and 2
And as indicated from the results in the Table 5.2.4-1, values are above the hurdle rate even
on the best case scenario, thus the given conditions were concluded feasible.

64
Table 5.2.4-1 Summary of Normal Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis considering
Existing Route
BASE
by 20% 20%
Net Present Value Php Php Php (Php
(NPV) 1,145,249,898.17 677,673,746.33 448,623,766.69 18,952,385.15)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.489866685 1.241555571 1.191893348 0.993244457
(BCR)
15.73% 13.07% 12.49% 9.90%
(IRR)
Considering existing route, the project EIRR for the base case was estimated at 15.73%.
resulted to an EIRR of 13.07% and 12.49% respectively and combined by 9.9% which
And as indicated from the results in the Table 5.2.4-2, values are below the hurdle rate even on
the best case scenario, thus the given conditions were concluded not feasible.
Table 5.3.4-2 Summary of Normal Evaluation and Sensitivity Analysis considering

Peñablanca Route
BASE
by 20% 20%
(Php (Php (Php
Net Present Value Php
418,757,392. 428,521,144.6 896,097,296.
(NPV) 48,818,758.98
86) 6) 50)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.020881629 0.850734691 0.857598912 0.680587753
(BCR)
Internal Rate of
10.29% 7.66% 7.05% 4.03%
Return (IRR)
Considering Peñablanca route, the project EIRR for the base case was estimated at 10.29%.

65
resulted to an EIRR of 7.66% and 7.05% respectively and combined by 4.03% which still
The result of the traffic analysis along the existing route and the proposed route yielding values
that indicate that there is a need for the diversion, since the result met the threshold value for
IRR of 10%, Benefit-Cost ratio of greater than 1 and a positive value of NPV. And along
Peñablanca route and proposed route because the base cost result met the threshold value for
IRR of 10%, Benefit-Cost ratio of greater than 1 and a positive value of NPV.
5.3 Preliminary Financial Evaluation

5.3.1 General
The purpose of the financial analysis is to examine the financial viability of the investment for
the “Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge” from the viewpoint of the implementation body.
The financial performance of the proposed bridge project is usually examined based on the
financial cash flow of the project implementation. The major works for the financial evaluation
involve the preparation of the input data for the financial statements and other necessary
external variables such as construction costs, operation/maintenance costs, revenues and
financial parameters. Financial statements usually include cash flow statement, which consist
of cash-inflow and cash-outflow to estimate the annual surplus or deficit including loan and
application of funds. The major input data for the financial evaluation is shown in Table5.3.1.
Table 5.3.1 Input Data for Financial Analysis
Item Condition Notes

Construction Construction starts in 2020
5 years: construction period
Schedule Operation starts in 2025
Evaluation Period 35 years after completion
Inflation Rate Inflation is considered at 3.8%
Traffic Volume Demand Forecast under Chapter 3
Construction Cost 2015 prices
Using Multi-year Project
Fund GOP
Contract
The Proposed Bridge Project will not be tolled so financial cash flows are not to be considered.
However, in terms of funding, there are no restrictions. The Government of the Philippines
(GOP) thru Department of Public Works and Highway(DPWH) will fund the project using the
multi-year project contract.

66
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

67
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
6.1.1 Outline Design
(1) Based on the evaluation made in Chapter 3 Section 3.6, Route 1, which begins and runs along
Aguinaldo Street, passes Batang Road before crossing the river and extends to Libag Sur, is
considered the best alternative because it has the shortest length of the three and has the most
minimal number of resettlement.
(2) The new bridge with its approach roads will require four lanes, as resulted from the Traffic
analysis in Chapter 3 Section 3.2.
(3) The proposed bridge type for the main bridge is a Prestressed Concrete Box Girder Bridge
which is approximately 0.77 km long and 16.86 m wide with a centreline elevation of 30.182
m.
6.1.2 Economic and Financial Analysis
(1) Based on the result of economic evaluation made, it is concluded that the proposed bridge
project is economically feasible in considering both the existing overflow bridge route and
Peñablanca route.
(2) Based on the results of financial evaluation made, it is concluded that the proposed bridge
project is financially viable. The Proposed Bridge Project will not be tolled so financial cash
flows are not to be considered. There are no restrictions in terms of funding. The Government
of the Philippines (GOP) thru Department of Public Works and Highway (DPWH) will fund
the project using the multi-year project contract.
(3) In view therefore, the government thru DPWH shall carry out detailed feasibility study for
Poblacion-Libag Bridge Project.

68
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 Technical Considerations
(1) As bicycle riders and joggers were observed at the existing bridge, the team recommends that
further study must be conducted for the pedestrian/bicycle lane/s.
(2) Traffic issues were expected at the city center side since the road connecting to the proposed
route is only two lanes. It is suggested to determine whether a road widening or diversion roads
are required.
6.2.2 Economic and Financial Considerations
(1) The Study Team suggests to further analyze the savings in vehicle operating cost for “with
project” and “without project” case to determine in Pesos the savings of VOC.
(2) The Study Team separately considered the two existing alternative routes, existing route and
Peñablanca route, for the analysis of the diverted traffic. Future researchers must try to consider
the combined diverted traffic of both existing alternative routes to see if the economic values
will be higher or lower than the attained result.
(3) For future study, Origin and Destination Survey must be conducted for accurate diverted traffic
data and Household Survey (expenditures by tourist in Tuguegarao City) for induced benefit
data.
6.2.3 Environmental Considerations
(1) EIA Study
It is recommended that in the succeeding studies, the documents necessary should be prepared
and submitted to Environmental Impact Assessment Division of the EMB regional Offices. The
outcome of the EIA Process within PEISS administered by the EMB - DENR is the issuance of
decision documents.
EMP and EMoP shall be prepared after enough consultation with the residents and communities
at the EIA study in order to address residents’ concerns over environmental conservation and
avoid negative impact to the environment caused by the bridge construction.
(2) Tree cutting permit
Cutting or transplanting of trees inside the project sites are required before commencement of
the construction and tree cutting permit shall be acquired from DENR. The planting of
seedlings/ saplings is required as replacement for every tree cut within or along the ROW of all
DPWH-administered infrastructure projects with regards to National Greening Program

69
(Executive Order No. 26, 2011). Therefore, planting activities for replacement for those trees
that were cut shall be consistently implemented.
6.2.4 Social Considerations
RAP shall be prepared since the proposed project requires land acquisition. In preparing a RAP,
consultations must be held with the affected people and their communities based on sufficient
information made available to them in advance. In addition, due consideration shall be given
for not only the PAPs directly affected by the project but also related persons who were not
affected negatively at the preparation of compensation policy.
(2) Land acquisition, resettlement, and Payment of compensation
DPWH shall secure the budget for RAP implementation based on the prepared RAP, then
appropriately implement and monitor the land acquisition and resettlement procedures with
cooperation of local government. The grievance process shall also be formulated.
(3) Relocation of utilities
Close coordination with utility companies is necessary for the relocation of utilities in project
site. It is desirable to relocate the utilities with enough ROW considering the implementation
of the Project.

70
APPENDICES

71
APPENDIX A: COUNTED TRAFFIC VOLUME
TABLE I. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY PROPER (EXISTING ROUTE)
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
UTILITY VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
MOTORCYCLE
ARTICULATED
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
9 207 100 44 4 4 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 374
A.M.
6:00-7:00
23 427 243 126 9 17 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 854
A.M.
7:00-8:00
1 573 278 153 8 32 23 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1071
A.M.
8:00-9:00
13 323 256 187 4 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 843
A.M.
9:00-10:00
2 199 205 144 4 22 22 0 0 6 1 0 1 4 610
A.M.
10:00-
11:00 1 144 184 140 1 23 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 517
A.M.
11:00-
12:00 3 180 166 129 0 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 517
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 98 147 107 2 13 17 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 389
P.M.
1:00-2:00
0 115 183 135 2 19 36 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 491
P.M.
2:00-3:00
0 171 199 108 0 16 28 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 527
P.M.
3:00-4:00
1 207 163 123 0 18 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 3 527
P.M.
4:00-5:00
3 219 151 131 3 12 23 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 550
P.M.
5:00-6:00
14 331 155 172 6 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 696
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
1 303 123 124 2 12 15 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 588
P.M.
TOTAL 71 3497 2553 1823 45 231 261 0 2 50 3 1 3 14 8554

72
TABLE II. TUGUEGARAO CITY PROPER TO LIBAG (EXISTING ROUTE)
UTILITY VAN/PICK-UP
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
ARTICULATED
MOTORCYCLE
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
7 106 78 44 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 242
A.M.
6:00-7:00
7 240 99 83 1 11 12 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 459
A.M.
7:00-8:00
3 280 175 165 4 10 20 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 663
A.M.
8:00-9:00
1 153 187 117 0 12 26 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 505
A.M.
9:00-10:00
5 215 187 101 0 19 23 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 557
A.M.
10:00-
11:00 1 201 228 165 2 16 23 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 642
A.M.
11:00-
12:00 2 108 228 135 10 12 28 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 534
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 129 189 113 4 20 19 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 477
P.M.
1:00-2:00
3 149 171 141 1 12 20 0 0 11 4 0 1 2 515
P.M.
2:00-3:00
7 190 171 129 2 19 32 0 0 20 2 0 1 0 573
P.M.
3:00-4:00
3 220 238 133 1 17 32 0 0 7 1 4 0 2 658
P.M.
4:00-5:00
12 374 236 134 3 23 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 803
P.M.
5:00-6:00
18 628 291 201 6 16 20 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1187
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
4 448 239 151 2 112 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 967
P.M.
TOTAL 73 3441 2717 1812 36 301 287 0 0 88 15 4 4 4 8782

73
TABLE III. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
UTILITY VAN/PICK-UP
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
ARTICULATED
MOTORCYCLE
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
16 313 178 88 4 6 6 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 616
A.M.
6:00-7:00
30 667 342 209 10 28 21 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 1313
A.M.
7:00-8:00
4 853 453 318 12 42 43 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1734
A.M.
8:00-9:00
14 476 443 304 4 32 63 0 0 7 2 0 2 1 1348
A.M.
9:00-10:00
7 414 392 245 4 41 45 0 0 10 3 0 2 4 1167
A.M.
10:00-
11:00 2 345 412 305 3 39 41 0 0 9 1 0 0 2 1159
A.M.
11:00-
12:00 5 288 394 264 10 35 44 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 1051
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 227 336 220 6 33 36 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 866
P.M.
1:00-2:00
3 264 354 276 3 31 56 0 0 12 4 0 1 2 1006
P.M.
2:00-3:00
7 361 370 237 2 35 60 0 0 24 2 0 1 1 1100
P.M.
3:00-4:00
4 427 401 256 1 35 32 0 0 19 1 4 0 5 1185
P.M.
4:00-5:00
15 593 387 265 6 35 43 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 1353
P.M.
5:00-6:00
32 959 446 373 12 16 35 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 1883
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
5 751 362 275 4 124 23 0 2 8 0 0 0 1 1555
P.M.
TOTAL 144 6938 5270 3635 81 532 548 0 2 138 18 5 7 18 17336

74
TABLE IV. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TRAILER 4axles
MOTORCYCLE
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
/TRICYCLE
TRAILER
UTILITY
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
GOODS
TOTAL
3+axles
5+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 345 53 17 4 0 9 3 2 1 0 434

7:00-8:00 A.M. 568 119 31 8 0 15 5 6 1 0 753
8:00-9:00 A.M. 342 128 28 10 0 11 7 4 0 1 531
9:00-10:00 A.M. 306 140 27 7 0 8 10 10 2 3 513
10:00-11:00 A.M. 216 137 19 5 0 7 7 11 0 0 402
11:00-12:00 NOON 227 120 17 4 0 5 8 8 1 1 391
12:00-1:00 P.M. 240 102 22 4 0 4 10 10 0 1 393
1:00-2:00 P.M. 276 108 20 7 0 3 11 8 1 0 434
2:00-3:00 P.M. 223 86 17 8 0 4 9 6 3 2 358
3:00-4:00 P.M. 244 90 13 6 0 3 14 7 1 2 380
4:00-5:00 P.M. 329 101 15 6 0 5 9 8 2 0 475
5:00-6:00 P.M. 352 105 16 5 0 2 13 4 0 1 498
TOTAL 3668 1289 242 74 0 76 106 84 12 11 5562
TABLE V. PTUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)

MOTORCYCLE/T
TRAILER 5+axles
TRAILER 4axles
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
RICYCLE
GOODS U
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
TILITY
TOTAL
3+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 170 75 14 11 0 7 6 3 0 1 287

7:00-8:00 A.M. 240 88 18 15 0 8 8 6 0 2 385
8:00-9:00 A.M. 200 89 19 12 0 6 6 11 0 0 343
9:00-10:00 A.M. 195 100 13 15 0 5 12 12 2 0 354
10:00-11:00 A.M. 175 95 25 10 0 8 20 11 3 0 347
11:00-12:00 NOON 165 115 17 7 0 7 11 9 3 0 334
12:00-1:00 P.M. 169 110 19 7 0 6 8 8 0 1 328
1:00-2:00 P.M. 178 125 21 12 0 6 9 14 0 1 366
2:00-3:00 P.M. 180 124 25 13 0 9 12 9 1 0 373
3:00-4:00 P.M. 245 112 26 5 0 11 14 8 0 2 423
4:00-5:00 P.M. 435 135 28 8 0 13 17 11 2 1 650

75
5:00-6:00 P.M. 522 168 29 9 0 15 20 7 0 0 770
TOTAL 2874 1336 254 124 0 101 143 109 11 8 4960
TABLE VI. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
MOTORCYCLE/TR
PASSENGER CAR
TRUCK TRAILER
TRUCK TRAILER
GOODS UTILITY
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
UTILITY
ICYCLE
TOTAL
3+axles
5+axles
2axles
4axles
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 515 128 31 15 0 16 9 5 1 1 721

7:00-8:00 A.M. 808 207 49 23 0 23 13 12 1 2 1138
8:00-9:00 A.M. 542 217 47 22 0 17 13 15 0 1 874
9:00-10:00 A.M. 501 240 40 22 0 13 22 22 4 3 867
10:00-11:00 A.M. 391 232 44 15 0 15 27 22 3 0 749
11:00-12:00 NOON 392 235 34 11 0 12 19 17 4 1 725
12:00-1:00 P.M. 409 212 41 11 0 10 18 18 0 2 721
1:00-2:00 P.M. 454 233 41 19 0 9 20 22 1 1 800
2:00-3:00 P.M. 403 210 42 21 0 13 21 15 4 2 731
3:00-4:00 P.M. 489 202 39 11 0 14 28 15 1 4 803
4:00-5:00 P.M. 764 236 43 14 0 18 26 19 4 1 1125
5:00-6:00 P.M. 874 273 45 14 0 17 33 11 0 1 1268
TOTAL 6542 2625 496 198 0 177 249 193 23 19 10522

76
APPENDIX B: AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC
AADT = CTV x HF x DF x SF where:

CTV – counted traffic volume DF – daily
factors
HF – hourly factors SF – seasonal
factors
TABLE VII. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (EXISTING ROUTE)
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
UTILITY VAN/PICK-
SMALL MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
MOTORCYCLE
ARTICULATED
EXPRESS)/FX
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
3-AXLE.35
BICYCLE
KALESA
HOV(UV
2-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
9 575 278 162 15 15 7 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1067
A.M.
6:00-7:00
23 822 468 257 18 35 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1639
A.M.
7:00-8:00
1 918 445 209 11 44 32 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1665
A.M.
8:00-9:00
13 562 445 255 5 27 47 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1359
A.M.
9:00-10:00
2 332 342 197 5 30 27 0 0 11 2 0 1 4 954
A.M.
10:00-11:00
1 253 323 198 1 33 23 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 842
A.M.
11:00-12:00
3 383 353 183 0 33 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 977
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 205 307 161 3 20 25 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 728
P.M.
1:00-2:00
0 257 409 203 3 29 50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 952
P.M.
2:00-3:00
0 351 408 160 0 24 36 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 987
P.M.
3:00-4:00
1 409 322 181 0 27 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 3 967
P.M.
4:00-5:00
3 382 263 182 4 17 30 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 896
P.M.
5:00-6:00
14 489 229 215 8 0 20 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 978
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
1 487 198 170 3 16 23 0 4 16 0 0 0 1 920
P.M.
TOTAL 71 6425 4792 2733 77 347 358 0 4 100 5 2 3 14 14931

77
TABLE VIII. TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (EXISTING ROUTE)
UTILITY VAN/PICK-UP
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
ARTICULATED
MOTORCYCLE
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
7 295 217 162 0 7 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 703
A.M.
6:00-7:00
7 462 191 169 2 22 23 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 887
A.M.
7:00-8:00
3 449 280 225 5 14 28 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1015
A.M.
8:00-9:00
1 266 325 160 0 16 33 0 0 12 6 0 0 0 819
A.M.
9:00-10:00
5 359 312 138 0 26 28 0 0 8 4 0 1 0 881
A.M.
10:00-11:00
1 353 401 234 3 23 29 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 1054
A.M.
11:00-12:00
2 230 485 192 14 17 38 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 998
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 269 395 170 6 30 28 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 903
P.M.
1:00-2:00
3 333 382 212 2 18 28 0 0 20 6 0 1 2 1006
P.M.
2:00-3:00
7 390 351 192 3 28 41 0 0 34 3 0 1 0 1049
P.M.
3:00-4:00
3 435 471 196 1 25 40 0 0 14 1 10 0 2 1198
P.M.
4:00-5:00
12 653 412 186 4 32 26 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1326
P.M.
5:00-6:00
18 927 430 251 8 20 27 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 1698
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
4 721 384 207 3 153 13 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1494
P.M.
TOTAL 73 6141 5035 2692 51 432 394 0 0 168 27 10 4 4 15031

78
TABLE IX. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
UTILITY VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
MOTORCYCLE
ARTICULATED
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
16 870 495 325 15 22 20 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 1770
A.M.
6:00-7:00
30 1283 658 426 20 57 41 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 2526
A.M.
7:00-8:00
4 1367 726 435 16 57 59 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 2681
A.M.
8:00-9:00
14 828 771 415 5 44 81 0 0 12 6 0 2 1 2178
A.M.
9:00-10:00
7 691 654 335 5 56 55 0 0 19 6 0 2 4 1835
A.M.
10:00-11:00
2 606 724 432 4 55 51 0 0 17 2 0 0 2 1896
A.M.
11:00-12:00
5 613 838 375 14 50 59 0 0 19 1 0 0 0 1975
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 474 702 330 9 50 52 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1631
P.M.
1:00-2:00
3 590 791 414 5 47 77 0 0 22 6 0 1 2 1958
P.M.
2:00-3:00
7 741 759 352 3 52 77 0 0 41 3 0 1 1 2037
P.M.
3:00-4:00
4 844 793 377 1 52 40 0 0 37 1 10 0 5 2165
P.M.
4:00-5:00
15 1035 675 368 8 49 56 0 0 15 0 2 0 0 2222
P.M.
5:00-6:00
32 1416 658 466 15 20 46 0 0 21 0 0 0 2 2676
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
5 1208 582 376 5 170 36 0 4 26 0 0 0 1 2414
P.M.
TOTAL 144 12566 9827 5425 128 779 752 0 4 268 32 12 7 18 29962

79
TABLE X. LIBAG TO TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
GOODS UTILITY
TRAILER 5+axles
MOTORCYCLE/
TRAILER 4axles
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
TOTAL
3+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 958 190 51 20 0 15 4 4 2 0 1244

7:00-8:00 A.M. 1092 236 54 20 0 26 7 16 4 0 1455
8:00-9:00 A.M. 548 170 35 15 0 18 10 14 0 4 813
9:00-10:00 A.M. 532 186 31 9 0 14 14 31 8 14 838
10:00-11:00 A.M. 360 182 21 6 0 11 11 24 0 0 615
11:00-12:00 NOON 399 165 19 5 0 8 13 14 3 3 627
12:00-1:00 P.M. 510 141 27 5 0 6 15 16 0 3 723
1:00-2:00 P.M. 576 158 26 8 0 5 15 14 2 0 804
2:00-3:00 P.M. 498 126 21 9 0 6 13 10 7 4 694
3:00-4:00 P.M. 500 130 15 6 0 5 20 10 2 5 693
4:00-5:00 P.M. 650 145 17 6 0 8 14 13 4 0 857
5:00-6:00 P.M. 614 142 19 6 0 3 20 7 0 2 813
TOTAL 7237 1970 334 115 0 124 157 173 32 34 10176
TABLE XI. TUGUEGARAO CITY CENTER TO LIBAG (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)

GOODS UTILITY
TRAILER 5+axles
MOTORCYCLE/
TRAILER 4axles
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
TOTAL
3+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 472 269 42 56 0 12 8 6 0 3 867

7:00-8:00 A.M. 461 174 31 38 0 14 10 16 0 7 752
8:00-9:00 A.M. 320 118 23 18 0 10 9 38 0 0 536
9:00-10:00 A.M. 339 133 15 18 0 9 17 37 8 0 576
10:00-11:00 A.M. 292 127 27 12 0 12 31 24 10 0 535
11:00-12:00 NOON 290 158 19 8 0 11 17 15 9 0 528
12:00-1:00 P.M. 359 152 23 9 0 9 12 13 0 3 581
1:00-2:00 P.M. 371 183 27 14 0 10 13 25 0 2 645
2:00-3:00 P.M. 402 181 31 14 0 14 18 15 2 0 678
3:00-4:00 P.M. 502 162 30 5 0 17 20 12 0 5 752
4:00-5:00 P.M. 859 193 32 9 0 20 27 18 4 3 1164
5:00-6:00 P.M. 910 227 34 10 0 24 31 13 0 0 1249
TOTAL 5579 2077 334 211 0 161 214 231 33 22 8863

80
TABLE XII. SUMMATION OF BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
TRAILER 5+axles
MOTORCYCLE/
TRAILER 4axles
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
UTILITY
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
GOODS
TOTAL
3+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 1430 459 93 76 0 27 12 9 2 3 2111

7:00-8:00 A.M. 1554 410 85 58 0 40 17 32 4 7 2207
8:00-9:00 A.M. 868 288 58 32 0 27 19 52 0 4 1349
9:00-10:00 A.M. 871 319 46 27 0 23 31 68 16 14 1414
10:00-11:00 A.M. 652 309 48 18 0 23 42 47 10 0 1150
11:00-12:00 NOON 688 324 38 13 0 19 30 29 12 3 1155
12:00-1:00 P.M. 869 293 50 14 0 15 28 29 0 6 1304
1:00-2:00 P.M. 947 340 53 23 0 14 28 39 2 2 1449
2:00-3:00 P.M. 900 307 52 23 0 20 31 25 10 4 1372
3:00-4:00 P.M. 1003 292 45 11 0 21 39 22 2 10 1445
4:00-5:00 P.M. 1510 338 48 15 0 27 41 31 8 3 2021
5:00-6:00 P.M. 1524 368 52 16 0 27 52 21 0 2 2062
TOTAL 12816 4047 669 326 0 285 371 404 65 56 19039

81
APPENDIX C: PASSENGER CAR UNIT
PCU = AADT x PCEF where:

AADT – average annual daily traffic
PCEF – passenger car equivalent factors
TABLE XIII. COMPUTED PCU IN BOTH DIRECTION (EXISTING ROUTE)
UTILITY VAN/PICK-UP
HOV(UV EXPRESS)/FX
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
CAR/SUV VAN/PICK-
SMALL (MINI BUS)
CARGO TRUCK
MOTORCYCLE
ARTICULATED
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
BICYCLE
KALESA
2-AXLE
3-AXLE
TOTAL
PUJ
UP
TIME
5:00 - 6:00
16 2174 1237 325 22 22 30 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 3844
A.M.
6:00-7:00
30 3209 1645 426 31 57 61 0 0 10 12 0 1 0 5481
A.M.
7:00-8:00
4 3417 1815 435 25 57 89 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 5874
A.M.
8:00-9:00
14 2070 1927 415 8 44 121 0 0 24 14 0 2 1 4639
A.M.
9:00-10:00
7 1727 1636 335 8 56 82 0 0 38 14 0 2 4 3910
A.M.
10:00-
11:00 2 1516 1810 432 6 55 77 0 0 34 4 0 0 2 3939
A.M.
11:00-
12:00 5 1532 2095 375 21 50 89 0 0 38 4 0 0 0 4209
NOON
12:00-1:00
0 1185 1754 330 14 50 79 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 3439
P.M.
1:00-2:00
3 1476 1979 414 7 47 116 0 0 44 15 0 1 2 4102
P.M.
2:00-3:00
7 1852 1899 352 4 52 116 0 0 82 6 0 1 1 4372
P.M.
3:00-4:00
4 2111 1982 377 2 52 60 0 0 74 4 24 0 5 4695
P.M.
4:00-5:00
15 2587 1688 368 13 49 83 0 0 30 0 5 0 0 4838
P.M.
5:00-6:00
32 3540 1646 466 23 20 70 0 0 41 0 0 0 2 5839
P.M.
6:00 - 7:00
5 3020 1456 376 8 170 54 0 8 52 0 0 0 1 5150
P.M.

82
TABLE XIV. COMPUTED PCU IN BOTH DIRECTION (PEÑABLANCA ROUTE)
GOODS UTILITY
TRAILER 5+axles
MOTORCYCLE/
TRAILER 4axles
RIGID TRUCK
RIGID TRUCK
PASSENGER
PASSENGER
SMALL BUS
LARGE BUS
TRICYCLE
UTILITY
TRUCK
TRUCK
TOTAL
3+axles
2axles
CAR
TIME
6:00-7:00 A.M. 3575 459 140 114 0 54 24 23 4 6 4400

7:00-8:00 A.M. 3884 410 128 87 0 80 34 81 11 17 4731
8:00-9:00 A.M. 2169 288 87 49 0 55 39 130 0 10 2826
9:00-10:00 A.M. 2177 319 69 40 0 46 62 171 39 34 2957
10:00-11:00 A.M. 1630 309 72 27 0 46 85 118 25 0 2312
11:00-12:00 NOON 1721 324 57 19 0 38 59 73 30 6 2328
12:00-1:00 P.M. 2173 293 74 21 0 31 56 72 0 14 2735
1:00-2:00 P.M. 2369 340 80 34 0 29 56 97 4 6 3015
2:00-3:00 P.M. 2251 307 78 35 0 40 63 63 25 9 2870
3:00-4:00 P.M. 2507 292 67 17 0 43 78 54 5 25 3088
4:00-5:00 P.M. 3774 338 73 22 0 55 83 77 19 7 4448
5:00-6:00 P.M. 3810 368 78 23 0 55 103 52 0 6 4495
TOTAL 32040 4047 1003 489 0 570 742 1010 162 140 40205

83
TABLE XV. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO PER YEAR (EXISTING
ROUTE)
VOLUME Level VOLUME Level

PASSENGER PASSENGER
YEAR DHV CAPACITY Of YEAR DHV CAPACITY Of
CAR UNIT CAR UNIT
RATIO Service RATIO Service
2018 5874 529 0.22 B 2035 11441 1030 0.43 B
2019 6109 550 0.23 B 2036 11899 1071 0.45 B
2020 6353 572 0.24 B 2037 12375 1114 0.46 B
2021 6607 595 0.25 B 2038 12870 1158 0.48 B
2022 6871 618 0.26 B 2039 13385 1205 0.50 B
2023 7146 643 0.27 B 2040 13920 1253 0.52 C
2024 7432 669 0.28 B 2041 14477 1303 0.54 C
2025 7729 696 0.29 B 2042 15056 1355 0.56 C
2026 8039 723 0.30 B 2043 15658 1409 0.59 C
2027 8360 752 0.31 B 2044 16285 1466 0.61 C
2028 8694 783 0.33 B 2045 16936 1524 0.64 C
2029 9042 814 0.34 B 2046 17613 1585 0.66 C
2030 9404 846 0.35 B 2047 18318 1649 0.69 C
2031 9780 880 0.37 B 2048 19051 1715 0.71 D
2032 10171 915 0.38 B 2049 19813 1783 0.74 D
2033 10578 952 0.40 B 2050 20605 1854 0.77 D
2034 11001 990 0.41 B 2051 21430 1929 0.80 D

84
APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC FACTORS
TABLE XV1. HOURLY FACTORS FOR 2013
Truck Truck
Rigid Rigid Truck Truck
Semi- Semi-
Motor- Passenger Passenger Goods Small Large Truck Truck Semi- Semi-
Hour Trailer Trailer
Tricycle Car Utility Utility Bus Bus 2 3+ Trailer 4 Trailer 5+
3&4 5+
Axles Axles Axles Axles
Axles Axles
0000-0100 4.3545 7.2595 6.5795 6.7789 10.3719 2.8884 3.9707 2.2757 1.8300 1.6396 1.6396 1.6396
0100-0200 4.5027 9.2020 8.0093 9.3698 13.5340 2.8564 4.0805 1.7961 1.2706 1.2672 1.2672 1.2672
0200-0300 4.6627 9.2747 7.5746 11.4568 7.6740 2.2810 2.1819 1.8338 1.7923 1.0397 1.0397 1.0397
0300-0400 5.4705 8.2235 6.8790 12.8586 5.7151 2.1976 2.0597 1.9081 1.8218 1.0581 1.0581 1.0581
0400-0500 3.3655 6.5857 5.1312 10.1347 4.4597 2.0432 2.0153 1.6780 1.3065 1.0982 1.0982 1.0982
0500-0600 2.4855 3.5961 3.4362 5.7110 2.5091 1.8418 1.3707 1.9980 1.5935 2.5383 2.5383 2.5383
0600-0700 1.7211 1.9856 1.9822 2.8352 1.4753 1.9014 1.3259 2.9094 4.1420 3.3853 3.3853 3.3853
0700-0800 1.4331 1.3326 1.4090 1.6643 1.0909 1.7642 1.5092 3.7406 3.6971 3.8428 3.8428 3.8428
0800-0900 1.5559 1.3308 1.3076 1.3761 1.1571 1.9516 1.4299 3.3630 3.5881 4.5462 4.5462 4.5462
0900-1000 1.4927 1.3352 1.2388 1.3584 1.1844 1.7001 1.5887 2.3124 3.1189 3.2141 3.2141 3.2141
1000-1100 1.5721 1.3802 1.2761 1.3137 1.2992 1.7313 1.5861 1.8603 2.7920 2.5021 2.5021 2.5021
1100-1200 1.9026 1.3864 1.3789 1.4600 1.4177 1.6796 1.5718 1.7194 2.4994 2.8711 2.8711 2.8711
1200-1300 1.8680 1.4646 1.4829 1.3589 1.4429 1.7427 1.4180 1.9046 1.5695 2.3303 2.3303 2.3303
1300-1400 1.9998 1.4632 1.4078 1.2492 1.4576 1.6821 1.5193 1.8252 2.2821 1.8417 1.8417 1.8417
1400-1500 1.8358 1.4477 1.3115 1.1589 1.4212 1.6856 1.4184 1.5667 1.7020 2.4659 2.4659 2.4659
1500-1600 1.7686 1.4367 1.2854 1.2040 1.3949 1.6675 1.6113 1.7631 1.7645 2.7470 2.7470 2.7470
1600-1700 1.5607 1.3525 1.3194 1.2572 1.4151 1.7710 1.5835 2.0256 3.6785 2.3993 2.3993 2.3993
1700-1800 1.3205 1.2181 1.3548 1.2853 1.4039 1.7545 2.1487 2.1856 2.3302 2.1991 2.1991 2.1991
1800-1900 1.4389 1.3339 1.5942 1.3825 1.6520 2.1076 2.7139 2.7080 2.3680 3.1333 3.1333 3.1333
1900-2000 1.4948 1.7273 2.0558 1.8065 2.1544 2.1534 3.8883 2.0539 1.9277 2.1488 2.1488 2.1488

85
2000-2100 1.8783 2.2027 2.4571 2.1463 2.9315 2.0782 4.0116 1.5539 1.2382 1.7441 1.7441 1.7441
2100-2200 1.9768 2.9133 3.2705 2.6450 4.7671 2.3637 4.2701 1.7324 1.9714 1.5909 1.5909 1.5909
2200-2300 2.3407 3.7837 4.1535 3.2589 6.5702 2.9127 4.3155 1.8162 2.0593 1.9910 1.9910 1.9910
2300-2400 3.0729 5.2497 5.6700 4.6868 7.5548 3.0375 5.1454 1.9201 1.5998 2.2080 2.2080 2.2080
HR (12 Hr Ave) 1.7663 1.6260 1.5697 1.8289 1.4388 1.7599 1.4944 2.2490 2.7023 2.8903 2.8903 2.8903
TABLE XVII. DAILY FACTORS FOR 2013

Truck
Rigid Rigid Truck Semi- Truck Semi- Truck Semi-
Motor- Passenger Passenger Goods Small Large Semi-
Day Truck 2 Truck Trailer 3 & Trailer 5+ Trailer 5+
Tricycle Car Utility Utility Bus Bus Trailer
Axles 3+ Axles 4 Axles Axles Axles
4 Axles
Sunday 1.0637 1.0832 1.2489 1.1765 1.1028 1.1882 1.0345 1.6648 1.7414 1.7936 1.7936 1.7936
Monday 0.8795 0.9620 0.9045 0.9293 0.8999 0.9510 1.0695 0.9969 1.1576 1.1266 1.1266 1.1266
Tuesday 1.1204 1.0057 0.9403 0.9696 0.9189 0.9225 1.0759 0.9042 0.9015 0.9512 0.9512 0.9512
Wednesday 1.0942 1.0200 1.0633 1.0742 1.0735 1.0723 1.1593 1.0012 0.9939 0.9437 0.9437 0.9437
Thursday 0.9477 0.9850 0.9418 0.9500 0.8875 0.8801 1.0536 0.8194 0.7324 0.8221 0.8221 0.2738
Friday 0.9538 0.9849 0.9675 0.9781 1.0667 1.0349 0.8580 0.9252 1.0502 0.8836 0.8836 0.0000
Saturday 0.9875 0.9689 1.0058 0.9646 1.1136 1.0122 0.8392 1.0098 0.8858 0.9127 0.9127 0.2987
TABLE XVIII. SEASONAL FACTORS FOR 2013

Truck
Rigid Rigid Truck Semi- Truck Semi- Truck Semi-
Motor- Passenger Passenger Goods Small Large Semi-
Month Truck 2 Truck Trailer 3 & Trailer 5+ Trailer 5+
Tricycle Car Utility Utility Bus Bus Trailer
Axles 3+ Axles 4 Axles Axles Axles
4 Axles
January 0.9971 0.9919 0.9330 0.9134 0.9829 0.9875 0.9164 1.0229 1.2000 1.0539 1.2000 1.2000
February 0.8709 1.0192 0.9801 1.0240 1.0240 0.9870 0.8831 1.0280 1.0843 0.8938 1.0627 0.9407
March 0.8120 0.8906 0.9825 1.1671 0.8549 1.0847 0.9837 0.9261 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000
April 0.9979 1.0196 1.0425 1.0756 1.2000 1.0088 1.1160 0.9051 0.8813 0.9291 1.0720 0.9173
May 0.8501 0.8161 0.9637 1.0470 0.9143 1.0958 1.0555 1.0579 0.8000 0.8000 0.8009 0.8085
June 0.9499 1.0785 1.0106 0.9949 0.8000 1.0269 1.1342 1.1454 0.9258 1.1492 1.0274 0.8000

86
July 1.0239 0.9341 1.0298 0.9269 0.8731 0.9183 0.9449 0.8935 0.9321 0.9098 1.0211 1.1073
August 0.9887 1.0055 0.9164 0.9092 0.8000 0.9716 0.9379 0.9815 0.8430 1.2000 1.1531 1.2000
September 1.0714 0.9226 0.9981 0.8194 0.8274 0.9228 0.9151 0.9312 0.9481 0.9625 0.9172 0.8911
October 1.2000 1.1568 1.0942 1.0752 1.2000 0.9973 1.0516 1.0087 1.2000 1.2000 0.8000 1.2000
November 1.0528 1.0299 1.0060 0.9663 1.2000 0.9914 1.1092 1.1323 0.8947 0.9865 0.9401 0.8000
December 1.2000 1.1353 1.0433 1.0812 1.2000 1.0080 0.9526 0.9676 1.2000 1.0632 1.1136 1.2000
APPENDIX E: MULTI YEAR PROJECT

87
88
APPENDIX F: ESTIMATED COST
Project Component Length Width Unit Cost Financial Cost Economic Cost
Slope Protection 2.49 KM. 15 M Php 405,000,000.00 Php 1,008,450,000.00 Php 826,929,000.00
Main Bridge 0.77 KM. 15 M Php 1,200,000,000.00 Php 924,000,000.00 Php 757,680,000.00
Road 2.63 KM. 15 M Php 47,000,000.00 Php 123,610,000.00 Php 101,360,200.00
Road Right of Way 47,559.00 SQ.M. 19.1 M Php 2,000.00 Php 95,118,000.00 Php 95,118,000.00
Total Php 2,151,178,000.00 Php 1,781,087,200.00
APPENDIX G: VEHICLE OPERATING COST
Semi-
Public Rigid Rigid
Motor Motor Passenger Goods Small Large Trailer
Utility Truck 2- Truck 3-
Tricycle cycle Cars Utility Bus Buses Truck
Jeepney axle axle
4+axle
Running
Economic P/km 2.346 1.467 8.220 6.719 7.185 15.957 21.996 16.759 27.847 33.961
BVOC 2008 Time
Price Level P/min 1.418 1.374 6.807 7.443 2.569 12.589 27.820 1.024 1.456 2.095
S Pavement Type
CON & Condition Total Vehicle Operating Cost (P/km)
1 Paved Good 4.473 2.841 14.503 13.590 9.556 27.578 47.676 17.705 29.191 35.895
Paved
2 Good/Fair 4.590 3.039 15.438 14.498 10.113 29.344 50.916 18.621 30.695 37.754
3 Paved Fair 5.175 3.365 17.043 15.981 11.209 32.403 56.085 20.726 34.169 42.020
4 Paved Fair/Bad 5.862 19.680 37.864

89
4.640 18.592 12.694 37.370 65.468 22.985 46.603
5 Paved Bad 7.609 6.219 25.368 24.495 15.413 47.997 87.095 26.014 42.733 52.754
Paved Bad/Very
6 Bad 9.378 7.812 29.324 28.480 17.518 55.426 101.522 28.938 47.492 58.686
7 Paved Very Bad 12.942 11.015 35.956 35.029 21.287 67.926 125.033 34.747 56.998 70.471
8 Gravel Good 5.457 3.541 17.411 16.111 11.838 33.174 56.195 22.644 37.378 45.905
Gravel
9 Good/Fair 5.738 3.900 19.016 17.594 12.933 36.233 61.364 24.748 40.852 50.171
10 Gravel Fair 6.589 4.407 21.320 19.682 14.579 40.639 68.578 28.044 46.302 56.852
Gravel
11 Fair/Bad 7.438 5.270 24.349 22.722 16.212 46.330 79.563 30.362 50.080 61.556
12 Gravel Bad 8.641 6.864 28.985 27.451 18.574 55.018 96.773 33.388 54.985 67.697
Gravel
13 Bad/Very Bad 10.387 8.443 32.859 31.369 20.608 62.288 110.980 36.144 59.466 73.290
Gravel Very
14 Bad 13.669 11.469 38.505 37.112 23.514 72.873 131.852 39.943 65.631 80.999
Very Bad stone
15 pavement 23.421 20.489 63.282 63.003 35.030 119.097 226.970 51.897 84.757 105.284
16 Earth Bad 13.669 11.469 38.505 37.112 23.514 72.873 131.852 39.943 65.631 80.999
17 Earth Very Bad 23.022 20.239 61.885 61.861 33.809 116.384 223.230 49.048 80.023 99.510
18 Impassable
SCON - Surface Condition, 18 Levels by Pavement

Type and Condition

90
APPENDIX H: VOC VALUES ADJUSTED TO 2015 APPLYING 3.8% INFLATION RATE
Semi-
Public Rigid Rigid
Motor Motor Passenge Goods Small Large Trailer
Utility Truck Truck 3-
Tricycle cycle r Cars Utility Bus Buses Truck
Jeepney 2-axle axle
4+axle
Running
P/km 3.045 1.904 10.672 8.723 9.328 20.718 28.558 21.759 36.154 44.092
Economic BVOC 2008
Price Level Time P/min 1.841 1.784 8.838 9.664 3.336 16.344 36.119 1.329 1.890 2.720
S Pavement Type &
CON Condition Total Vehicle Operating Cost (P/km)
1 Paved Good 5.81 3.69 18.83 17.64 12.41 35.80 61.90 22.99 37.90 46.60
2 Paved Good/Fair 5.96 3.95 20.04 18.82 13.13 38.10 66.11 24.18 39.85 49.02
3 Paved Fair 6.72 4.37 22.13 20.75 14.55 42.07 72.82 26.91 44.36 54.56
4 Paved Fair/Bad 7.61 6.02 25.55 24.14 16.48 48.52 85.00 29.84 49.16 60.51
5 Paved Bad 9.88 8.07 32.94 31.80 20.01 62.32 113.08 33.77 55.48 68.49
6 Paved Bad/Very Bad 12.18 10.14 38.07 36.98 22.74 71.96 131.81 37.57 61.66 76.19
7 Paved Very Bad 16.80 14.30 46.68 45.48 27.64 88.19 162.33 45.11 74.00 91.49
8 Gravel Good 7.08 4.60 22.60 20.92 15.37 43.07 72.96 29.40 48.53 59.60
9 Gravel Good/Fair 7.45 5.06 24.69 22.84 16.79 47.04 79.67 32.13 53.04 65.14
10 Gravel Fair 8.55 5.72 27.68 25.55 18.93 52.76 89.04 36.41 60.11 73.81
11 Gravel Fair/Bad 9.66 6.84 31.61 29.50 21.05 60.15 103.30 39.42 65.02 79.92

91
12 Gravel Bad 11.22 8.91 37.63 35.64 24.12 71.43 125.64 43.35 71.39 87.89
13 Gravel Bad/Very Bad 13.49 10.96 42.66 40.73 26.76 80.87 144.09 46.93 77.21 95.15
14 Gravel Very Bad 17.75 14.89 49.99 48.18 30.53 94.61 171.19 51.86 85.21 105.16
15 Very Bad stone pavement 30.41 26.60 82.16 81.80 45.48 154.63 294.68 67.38 110.04 136.69
16 Earth Bad 17.75 14.89 49.99 48.18 30.53 94.61 171.19 51.86 85.21 105.16
17 Earth Very Bad 29.89 26.28 80.35 80.32 43.89 151.10 289.82 63.68 103.90 129.20
18 Impassable
APPENDIX I: EXISTING ROUTE

TABLE XIX: ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC
ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC

PASSENGER/
STATION GOODS RIGID RIGID ARTICULATED TOTAL
MOTORCYCLE/ PASSENGER LARGE
UTILITY/ TRUCK TRUCK - CARGO
TRICYCLE CAR BUS
SMALL -2AXLE 3+AXLE TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 19,239 5,312 803 0 237 29 12 25,632
EST. Diverted Traffic 9,620 5,206 787 0 232 28 12 15,885

92
TABLE XX: FORCASTED TRAFFIC
FORCASTED TRAFFIC
PASSENGER/
GOODS RIGID RIGID ARTICULATED TOTAL
MOTORCYCLE/ PASSENGER LARGE
YEAR UTILITY/ TRUCK - TRUCK - CARGO
TRICYCLE CAR BUS
SMALL 2AXLE 3+AXLE TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 9620 5206 787 0 232 28 12 15885
2 2020 9909 5388 818 0 239 29 12 16395
3 2021 10206 5577 851 0 246 30 13 16922
4 2022 10512 5772 885 0 254 31 13 17467
5 2023 10827 5974 921 0 261 32 14 18028
6 2024 11152 6183 958 0 269 32 14 18608
7 2025 11487 6400 996 0 277 33 14 19207
8 2026 11831 6623 1036 0 285 34 15 19825
9 2027 12186 6855 1077 0 294 35 15 20463
10 2028 12552 7095 1120 0 303 37 16 21122
11 2029 12928 7344 1165 0 312 38 16 21803
12 2030 13316 7601 1212 0 321 39 17 22505
13 2031 13716 7867 1260 0 331 40 17 23230
14 2032 14127 8142 1310 0 341 41 18 23979
15 2033 14551 8427 1363 0 351 42 18 24752
16 2034 14988 8722 1417 0 361 44 19 25551
17 2035 15437 9027 1474 0 372 45 19 26375
18 2036 15900 9343 1533 0 383 46 20 27226

93
19 2037 16377 9670 1594 0 395 48 20 28105
20 2038 16869 10009 1658 0 407 49 21 29012
21 2039 17375 10359 1724 0 419 51 22 29949
22 2040 17896 10721 1793 0 432 52 22 30917
23 2041 18433 11097 1865 0 445 54 23 31916
24 2042 18986 11485 1940 0 458 55 24 32947
25 2043 19555 11887 2017 0 472 57 24 34013
26 2044 20142 12303 2098 0 486 59 25 35113
27 2045 20746 12734 2182 0 500 60 26 36249
28 2046 21369 13179 2269 0 515 62 27 37422
29 2047 22010 13641 2360 0 531 64 27 38633
30 2048 22670 14118 2454 0 547 66 28 39884
31 2049 23350 14612 2553 0 563 68 29 41175
32 2050 24051 15124 2655 0 580 70 30 42509
33 2051 24772 15653 2761 0 597 72 31 43886
34 2052 25515 16201 2871 0 615 74 32 45309
35 2053 26281 16768 2986 0 634 76 33 46778
36 2054 27069 17355 3106 0 653 79 34 48295
37 2055 27881 17962 3230 0 672 81 35 49862
38 2056 28718 18591 3359 0 693 84 36 51480
39 2057 29579 19241 3493 0 713 86 37 53151
40 2058 30467 19915 3633 0 735 89 38 54876
41 2059 31381 20612 3778 0 757 91 39 56658

94
TABLE XXI: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
Proposed Poblacion-Libag Bridge
Total Survey
Total Survey
3.73 Length 3.73
Length (km.):
(km.):
STATION STATION
Travel Travel Ave. Est.
Number of From To From To
Traffic Condition Time Time Time
Run
Tuguegarao City Difference Tuguegarao Difference (minutes)
Libag Sur Libag Sur
Center City Center
AM PEAK 1 7:47:51 7:57:34 0:09:43 8:58:11 9:06:41 0:08:30 0:09:07
Travel Time per Direction 0:09:07
PM PEAK 1 5:27:54 5:37:23 0:09:29 6:37:27 6:45:36 0:08:09 0:08:49
Average Travel Time (AM and PM Peak): Directional Flow = Decreasing Chainage 0:08:58
say 9
Total Survey
Total Survey
3.73 Length 3.73
Length (km.):
(km.):
STATION Travel STATION Travel Ave. Est.

Number of
Traffic Condition From To Time From To Time Time
Run
Sta.1(km248.98) Sta. 2(km Difference Sta.2(km Sta.1(km Difference (minutes)

95
251.3) 251.3) 248.98)
AM OFF-PEAK 1 10:25:16 10:35:11 0:09:55 11:51:50 12:00:00 0:08:10 0:09:03
Travel Time per Direction 0:09
PM OFF-PEAK 1 3:00:57 3:10:28 0:09:31 4:03:48 4:10:51 0:07:03 0:08:17
Average Travel Time (AM and PM): Directional Flow = Increasing Chainage 0:08:40
say 9
Average Travel Time (AM and PM Off-Peak) Both Direction 9.00
Total Travel Distance (km.) From: 0 To: 3.73 3.73
Estimated Average Travel Speed along the Normal Route (Without the Project Scenario) = (Length in km. /Ave. Travel Time in Min)x 60 24.87
Assumed Average Travel Speed @ Proposed Bypass Road Project (With the Project Scenario) = 60.00
Total Length of the Project (km.) From: 0 To: 3.41 3.41
Estimated Travel Time @ the Proposed Bypass Project = Total Length / Travel Speed x60 (minutes) 3.41
Esitmated Travel Time Savings per Vehicle (Improved Condition) = Travel Time @ Normal Route - Travel Time @
21.46
Bypass

96
TABLE XXII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST- WITHOUT THE PROJECT
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITHOUT THE PROJECT

PASSENGER/
ARTICULA
YEAR MOTOR- GOODS RIGID RIGID TOTAL
LARGE TED
CYCLE/ PASSENGER CAR UTILITY/ TRUCK - TRUCK -
BUS CARGO
TRICYCLE SMALL 2AXLE 3+AXLE
TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 106,837,765.87 277,535,296.14 45,877,716.44 - 1,860,557.35 459,405.45 196,888.05 432,767,629.29
2 2020 110,042,898.84 287,249,031.50 47,712,825.10 - 1,916,374.07 473,187.61 202,794.69 447,597,111.81
3 2021 113,344,185.81 297,302,747.61 49,621,338.10 - 1,973,865.29 487,383.24 208,878.53 462,938,398.58
4 2022 116,744,511.38 307,708,343.77 51,606,191.63 - 2,033,081.25 502,004.74 215,144.89 478,809,277.65
5 2023 120,246,846.72 318,478,135.80 53,670,439.29 - 2,094,073.68 517,064.88 221,599.23 495,228,159.62
6 2024 123,854,252.13 329,624,870.56 55,817,256.86 - 2,156,895.90 532,576.83 228,247.21 512,214,099.48
7 2025 127,569,879.69 341,161,741.03 58,049,947.14 - 2,221,602.77 548,554.13 235,094.63 529,786,819.38
8 2026 131,396,976.08 353,102,401.96 60,371,945.02 - 2,288,250.86 565,010.75 242,147.47 547,966,732.14
9 2027 135,338,885.36 365,460,986.03 62,786,822.83 - 2,356,898.38 581,961.08 249,411.89 566,774,965.57
10 2028 139,399,051.92 378,252,120.54 65,298,295.74 - 2,427,605.33 599,419.91 256,894.25 586,233,387.69
11 2029 143,581,023.48 391,490,944.76 67,910,227.57 - 2,500,433.49 617,402.51 264,601.07 606,364,632.88
12 2030 147,888,454.19 405,193,127.83 70,626,636.67 - 2,575,446.50 635,924.58 272,539.11 627,192,128.87

97
13 2031 152,325,107.81 419,374,887.30 73,451,702.14 - 2,652,709.89 655,002.32 280,715.28 648,740,124.74
14 2032 156,894,861.05 434,053,008.36 76,389,770.22 - 2,732,291.19 674,652.39 289,136.74 671,033,719.94
15 2033 161,601,706.88 449,244,863.65 79,445,361.03 - 2,814,259.92 694,891.96 297,810.84 694,098,894.28
16 2034 166,449,758.08 464,968,433.88 82,623,175.47 - 2,898,687.72 715,738.72 306,745.17 717,962,539.04
17 2035 171,443,250.83 481,242,329.06 85,928,102.49 - 2,985,648.35 737,210.88 315,947.52 742,652,489.13
18 2036 176,586,548.35 498,085,810.58 89,365,226.59 - 3,075,217.80 759,327.21 325,425.95 768,197,556.48
19 2037 181,884,144.80 515,518,813.95 92,939,835.66 - 3,167,474.34 782,107.02 335,188.72 794,627,564.49
20 2038 187,340,669.14 533,561,972.44 96,657,429.08 - 3,262,498.57 805,570.23 345,244.39 821,973,383.85
21 2039 192,960,889.22 552,236,641.47 100,523,726.24 - 3,360,373.53 829,737.34 355,601.72 850,266,969.52
22 2040 198,749,715.90 571,564,923.93 104,544,675.29 - 3,461,184.73 854,629.46 366,269.77 879,541,399.08
23 2041 204,712,207.37 591,569,696.26 108,726,462.31 - 3,565,020.27 880,268.34 377,257.86 909,830,912.42
24 2042 210,853,573.59 612,274,635.63 113,075,520.80 - 3,671,970.88 906,676.40 388,575.60 941,170,952.90
25 2043 217,179,180.80 633,704,247.88 117,598,541.63 - 3,782,130.01 933,876.69 400,232.87 973,598,209.87
26 2044 223,694,556.23 655,883,896.55 122,302,483.30 - 3,895,593.91 961,892.99 412,239.85 1,007,150,662.82
27 2045 230,405,392.91 678,839,832.93 127,194,582.63 - 4,012,461.73 990,749.78 424,607.05 1,041,867,627.02
28 2046 237,317,554.70 702,599,227.09 132,282,365.93 - 4,132,835.58 1,020,472.27 437,345.26 1,077,789,800.83

98
29 2047 244,437,081.34 727,190,200.04 137,573,660.57 - 4,256,820.64 1,051,086.44 450,465.62 1,114,959,314.65
30 2048 251,770,193.78 752,641,857.04 143,076,606.99 - 4,384,525.26 1,082,619.03 463,979.59 1,153,419,781.69
31 2049 259,323,299.59 778,984,322.03 148,799,671.27 - 4,516,061.02 1,115,097.60 477,898.97 1,193,216,350.50
32 2050 267,102,998.58 806,248,773.30 154,751,658.12 - 4,651,542.85 1,148,550.53 492,235.94 1,234,395,759.33
33 2051 275,116,088.54 834,467,480.37 160,941,724.45 - 4,791,089.14 1,183,007.05 507,003.02 1,277,006,392.56
34 2052 283,369,571.20 863,673,842.18 167,379,393.43 - 4,934,821.81 1,218,497.26 522,213.11 1,321,098,338.99
35 2053 291,870,658.33 893,902,426.66 174,074,569.16 - 5,082,866.47 1,255,052.18 537,879.50 1,366,723,452.30
36 2054 300,626,778.08 925,189,011.59 181,037,551.93 - 5,235,352.46 1,292,703.74 554,015.89 1,413,935,413.69
37 2055 309,645,581.42 957,570,627.00 188,279,054.01 - 5,392,413.03 1,331,484.85 570,636.37 1,462,789,796.68
38 2056 318,934,948.87 991,085,598.94 195,810,216.17 - 5,554,185.43 1,371,429.40 587,755.46 1,513,344,134.26
39 2057 328,502,997.33 1,025,773,594.91 203,642,624.81 - 5,720,810.99 1,412,572.28 605,388.12 1,565,657,988.44
40 2058 338,358,087.25 1,061,675,670.73 211,788,329.81 - 5,892,435.32 1,454,949.45 623,549.76 1,619,793,022.32
41 2059 348,508,829.87 1,098,834,319.20 220,259,863.00 - 6,069,208.38 1,498,597.93 642,256.26 1,675,813,074.64

99
TABLE XXIII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST- WITH THE PROJECT
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITH THE PROJECT
PASSENGER/
ARTICULA
PASSENGER LARGE TED
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ TRUCK - TRUCK -
CAR BUS CARGO
TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 16,979,188.21 44,107,287.24 7,291,114.48 - 295,689.01 73,010.99 31,290.43 68,777,580.36
2 2020 17,488,563.85 45,651,042.29 7,582,759.06 - 304,559.68 75,201.32 32,229.14 71,134,355.35
3 2021 18,013,220.77 47,248,828.77 7,886,069.42 - 313,696.47 77,457.36 33,196.01 73,572,468.81
4 2022 18,553,617.39 48,902,537.78 8,201,512.20 - 323,107.37 79,781.09 34,191.89 76,094,747.71
5 2023 19,110,225.91 50,614,126.60 8,529,572.69 - 332,800.59 82,174.52 35,217.65 78,704,117.96
6 2024 19,683,532.69 52,385,621.03 8,870,755.60 - 342,784.60 84,639.75 36,274.18 81,403,607.86
7 2025 20,274,038.67 54,219,117.77 9,225,585.82 - 353,068.14 87,178.95 37,362.41 84,196,351.75
8 2026 20,882,259.83 56,116,786.89 9,594,609.25 - 363,660.19 89,794.31 38,483.28 87,085,593.75
9 2027 21,508,727.63 58,080,874.43 9,978,393.62 - 374,569.99 92,488.14 39,637.78 90,074,691.59
10 2028 22,153,989.45 60,113,705.04 10,377,529.37 - 385,807.09 95,262.79 40,826.91 93,167,120.65

100
11 2029 22,818,609.14 62,217,684.71 10,792,630.54 - 397,381.31 98,120.67 42,051.72 96,366,478.09
12 2030 23,503,167.41 64,395,303.68 11,224,335.76 - 409,302.74 101,064.29 43,313.27 99,676,487.16
13 2031 24,208,262.43 66,649,139.31 11,673,309.19 - 421,581.83 104,096.22 44,612.67 103,101,001.65
14 2032 24,934,510.31 68,981,859.18 12,140,241.56 - 434,229.28 107,219.11 45,951.05 106,644,010.49
15 2033 25,682,545.62 71,396,224.25 12,625,851.23 - 447,256.16 110,435.68 47,329.58 110,309,642.51
16 2034 26,453,021.99 73,895,092.10 13,130,885.27 - 460,673.84 113,748.75 48,749.46 114,102,171.42
17 2035 27,246,612.64 76,481,420.32 13,656,120.68 - 474,494.06 117,161.21 50,211.95 118,026,020.88
18 2036 28,064,011.02 79,158,270.04 14,202,365.51 - 488,728.88 120,676.05 51,718.31 122,085,769.81
19 2037 28,905,931.35 81,928,809.49 14,770,460.13 - 503,390.75 124,296.33 53,269.86 126,286,157.91
20 2038 29,773,109.30 84,796,317.82 15,361,278.54 - 518,492.47 128,025.22 54,867.95 130,632,091.30
21 2039 30,666,302.57 87,764,188.94 15,975,729.68 - 534,047.25 131,865.98 56,513.99 135,128,648.41
22 2040 31,586,291.65 90,835,935.56 16,614,758.87 - 550,068.66 135,821.96 58,209.41 139,781,086.10
23 2041 32,533,880.40 94,015,193.30 17,279,349.22 - 566,570.72 139,896.62 59,955.69 144,594,845.95
24 2042 33,509,896.81 97,305,725.07 17,970,523.19 - 583,567.84 144,093.51 61,754.36 149,575,560.79
25 2043 34,515,193.72 100,711,425.44 18,689,344.12 - 601,074.88 148,416.32 63,606.99 154,729,061.47
26 2044 35,550,649.53 104,236,325.33 19,436,917.88 - 619,107.13 152,868.81 65,515.20 160,061,383.89

101
27 2045 36,617,169.01 107,884,596.72 20,214,394.60 - 637,680.34 157,454.87 67,480.66 165,578,776.21
28 2046 37,715,684.09 111,660,557.61 21,022,970.38 - 656,810.75 162,178.52 69,505.08 171,287,706.42
29 2047 38,847,154.61 115,568,677.12 21,863,889.20 - 676,515.07 167,043.88 71,590.23 177,194,870.11
30 2048 40,012,569.25 119,613,580.82 22,738,444.77 - 696,810.52 172,055.19 73,737.94 183,307,198.49
31 2049 41,212,946.32 123,800,056.15 23,647,982.56 - 717,714.84 177,216.85 75,950.08 189,631,866.79
32 2050 42,449,334.71 128,133,058.12 24,593,901.86 - 739,246.29 182,533.35 78,228.58 196,176,302.90
33 2051 43,722,814.75 132,617,715.15 25,577,657.93 - 761,423.67 188,009.35 80,575.44 202,948,196.30
34 2052 45,034,499.20 137,259,335.18 26,600,764.25 - 784,266.38 193,649.63 82,992.70 209,955,507.35
35 2053 46,385,534.17 142,063,411.91 27,664,794.82 - 807,794.38 199,459.12 85,482.48 217,206,476.88
36 2054 47,777,100.20 147,035,631.33 28,771,386.61 - 832,028.21 205,442.90 88,046.96 224,709,636.20
37 2055 49,210,413.20 152,181,878.42 29,922,242.08 - 856,989.05 211,606.18 90,688.36 232,473,817.31
38 2056 50,686,725.60 157,508,244.17 31,119,131.76 - 882,698.72 217,954.37 93,409.02 240,508,163.64
39 2057 52,207,327.37 163,021,032.72 32,363,897.03 - 909,179.69 224,493.00 96,211.29 248,822,141.09
40 2058 53,773,547.19 168,726,768.86 33,658,452.91 - 936,455.08 231,227.79 99,097.62 257,425,549.45
41 2059 55,386,753.61 174,632,205.77 35,004,791.03 - 964,548.73 238,164.62 102,070.55 266,328,534.31

102
TABLE XXIV: ESTIMATED TIME COST SAVINGS
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST SAVINGS

PASSENGER/
ARTICULA
PASSENGER LARGE TED
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ TRUCK - TRUCK -
CAR BUS CARGO
TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 89,858,577.66 233,428,008.90 38,586,601.96 - 1,564,868.33 386,394.45 165,597.62 363,990,048.93
2 2020 92,554,334.99 241,597,989.21 40,130,066.04 - 1,611,814.38 397,986.29 170,565.55 376,462,756.46
3 2021 95,330,965.04 250,053,918.83 41,735,268.68 - 1,660,168.82 409,925.88 175,682.52 389,365,929.76
4 2022 98,190,893.99 258,805,805.99 43,404,679.43 - 1,709,973.88 422,223.65 180,952.99 402,714,529.94
5 2023 101,136,620.81 267,864,009.20 45,140,866.60 - 1,761,273.10 434,890.36 186,381.58 416,524,041.66
6 2024 104,170,719.44 277,239,249.53 46,946,501.27 - 1,814,111.29 447,937.07 191,973.03 430,810,491.62
7 2025 107,295,841.02 286,942,623.26 48,824,361.32 - 1,868,534.63 461,375.18 197,732.22 445,590,467.63
8 2026 110,514,716.25 296,985,615.07 50,777,335.77 - 1,924,590.67 475,216.44 203,664.19 460,881,138.39
9 2027 113,830,157.74 307,380,111.60 52,808,429.20 - 1,982,328.39 489,472.93 209,774.11 476,700,273.97
10 2028 117,245,062.47 318,138,415.51 54,920,766.37 - 2,041,798.24 504,157.12 216,067.34 493,066,267.04
11 2029 120,762,414.34 329,273,260.05 57,117,597.03 - 2,103,052.19 519,281.83 222,549.36 509,998,154.80
12 2030 124,385,286.77 340,797,824.15 59,402,300.91 - 2,166,143.75 534,860.29 229,225.84 527,515,641.71

103
13 2031 128,116,845.38 352,725,748.00 61,778,392.94 - 2,231,128.07 550,906.10 236,102.61 545,639,123.09
14 2032 131,960,350.74 365,071,149.18 64,249,528.66 - 2,298,061.91 567,433.28 243,185.69 564,389,709.45
15 2033 135,919,161.26 377,848,639.40 66,819,509.81 - 2,367,003.76 584,456.28 250,481.26 583,789,251.77
16 2034 139,996,736.10 391,073,341.78 69,492,290.20 - 2,438,013.88 601,989.97 257,995.70 603,860,367.62
17 2035 144,196,638.18 404,760,908.74 72,271,981.81 - 2,511,154.29 620,049.67 265,735.57 624,626,468.26
18 2036 148,522,537.33 418,927,540.54 75,162,861.08 - 2,586,488.92 638,651.16 273,707.64 646,111,786.67
19 2037 152,978,213.45 433,590,004.46 78,169,375.52 - 2,664,083.59 657,810.69 281,918.87 668,341,406.58
20 2038 157,567,559.85 448,765,654.62 81,296,150.54 - 2,744,006.10 677,545.01 290,376.43 691,341,292.56
21 2039 162,294,586.64 464,472,452.53 84,547,996.57 - 2,826,326.28 697,871.36 299,087.73 715,138,321.11
22 2040 167,163,424.24 480,728,988.37 87,929,916.43 - 2,911,116.07 718,807.50 308,060.36 739,760,312.97
23 2041 172,178,326.97 497,554,502.96 91,447,113.08 - 2,998,449.55 740,371.73 317,302.17 765,236,066.47
24 2042 177,343,676.78 514,968,910.57 95,104,997.61 - 3,088,403.04 762,582.88 326,821.23 791,595,392.11
25 2043 182,663,987.08 532,992,822.44 98,909,197.51 - 3,181,055.13 785,460.37 336,625.87 818,869,148.40
26 2044 188,143,906.70 551,647,571.22 102,865,565.41 - 3,276,486.78 809,024.18 346,724.65 847,089,278.94
27 2045 193,788,223.90 570,955,236.21 106,980,188.03 - 3,374,781.39 833,294.90 357,126.39 876,288,850.82
28 2046 199,601,870.61 590,938,669.48 111,259,395.55 - 3,476,024.83 858,293.75 367,840.18 906,502,094.40

104
29 2047 205,589,926.73 611,621,522.91 115,709,771.37 - 3,580,305.57 884,042.56 378,875.38 937,764,444.54
30 2048 211,757,624.53 633,028,276.21 120,338,162.23 - 3,687,714.74 910,563.84 390,241.65 970,112,583.20
31 2049 218,110,353.27 655,184,265.88 125,151,688.72 - 3,798,346.18 937,880.76 401,948.90 1,003,584,483.70
32 2050 224,653,663.87 678,115,715.19 130,157,756.27 - 3,912,296.57 966,017.18 414,007.36 1,038,219,456.43
33 2051 231,393,273.79 701,849,765.22 135,364,066.52 - 4,029,665.46 994,997.69 426,427.58 1,074,058,196.26
34 2052 238,335,072.00 726,414,507.00 140,778,629.18 - 4,150,555.43 1,024,847.62 439,220.41 1,111,142,831.64
35 2053 245,485,124.16 751,839,014.75 146,409,774.34 - 4,275,072.09 1,055,593.05 452,397.02 1,149,516,975.42
36 2054 252,849,677.88 778,153,380.26 152,266,165.32 - 4,403,324.25 1,087,260.84 465,968.93 1,189,225,777.50
37 2055 260,435,168.22 805,388,748.57 158,356,811.93 - 4,535,423.98 1,119,878.67 479,948.00 1,230,315,979.38
38 2056 268,248,223.27 833,577,354.77 164,691,084.41 - 4,671,486.70 1,153,475.03 494,346.44 1,272,835,970.62
39 2057 276,295,669.96 862,752,562.19 171,278,727.78 - 4,811,631.30 1,188,079.28 509,176.83 1,316,835,847.36
40 2058 284,584,540.06 892,948,901.87 178,129,876.89 - 4,955,980.24 1,223,721.66 524,452.14 1,362,367,472.86
41 2059 293,122,076.27 924,202,113.43 185,255,071.97 - 5,104,659.65 1,260,433.31 540,185.70 1,409,484,540.33

105
TABLE XXV: PROJECT COST AND TRAFFIC COST NET BENEFITS
Project Cost Traffic Cost
Traffic Cost
Year Maintenance ROW Total Net Benefits Remarks
Without the Project With the Savings
Construction
Case Project Case
Routine Periodic
2019 Planning Period

Php Php Php Php Construction
2020 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2021 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2022 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2023 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2024 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
Php Php Php
2025 50,579,076.00 50,579,076.00 495,228,159.62 78,704,117.96 416,524,041.66 365,944,965.66 Opening
Php Php Php
2026 52,349,343.66 52,349,343.66 512,214,099.48 81,403,607.86 430,810,491.62 378,461,147.96
Php Php Php
2027 54,181,570.69 54,181,570.69 529,786,819.38 84,196,351.75 445,590,467.63 391,408,896.94
Php Php Php
2028 56,077,925.66 56,077,925.66 547,966,732.14 87,085,593.75 460,881,138.39 404,803,212.73
Php Php Php Php
2029 58,040,653.06 433,965,710.51 492,006,363.57 566,774,965.57 90,074,691.59 476,700,273.97 (15,306,089.60)
Php Php Php
2030 60,072,075.92 60,072,075.92 586,233,387.69 93,167,120.65 493,066,267.04 432,994,191.13
Php Php Php
2031 62,174,598.57 62,174,598.57 606,364,632.88 96,366,478.09 509,998,154.80 447,823,556.22
Php Php Php
2032 64,350,709.52 64,350,709.52 627,192,128.87 99,676,487.16 527,515,641.71 463,164,932.19
Php Php Php
2033 66,602,984.36 66,602,984.36 648,740,124.74 103,101,001.65 545,639,123.09 479,036,138.73
Php Php Php Php
2034 68,934,088.81 515,415,131.50 584,349,220.31 671,033,719.94 106,644,010.49 564,389,709.45 (19,959,510.85)
Php Php Php
2035 71,346,781.92 71,346,781.92 694,098,894.28 110,309,642.51 583,789,251.77 512,442,469.85
2036 Php Php Php

106
73,843,919.29 73,843,919.29 717,962,539.04 114,102,171.42 603,860,367.62 530,016,448.33
Php Php Php

2037 76,428,456.46 76,428,456.46 742,652,489.13 118,026,020.88 624,626,468.26 548,198,011.80
Php Php Php
2038 79,103,452.44 79,103,452.44 768,197,556.48 122,085,769.81 646,111,786.67 567,008,334.23
Php Php Php Php
2039 81,872,073.27 612,151,493.40 694,023,566.67 794,627,564.49 126,286,157.91 668,341,406.58 (25,682,160.09)
Php Php Php
2040 84,737,595.84 84,737,595.84 821,973,383.85 130,632,091.30 691,341,292.56 606,603,696.72
Php Php Php
2041 87,703,411.69 87,703,411.69 850,266,969.52 135,128,648.41 715,138,321.11 627,434,909.42
Php Php Php
2042 90,773,031.10 90,773,031.10 879,541,399.08 139,781,086.10 739,760,312.97 648,987,281.87
Php Php Php
2043 93,950,087.19 93,950,087.19 909,830,912.42 144,594,845.95 765,236,066.47 671,285,979.28
Php Php Php Php
2044 97,238,340.24 727,043,945.69 824,282,285.94 941,170,952.90 149,575,560.79 791,595,392.11 (32,686,893.83)
Php Php Php
2045 100,641,682.15 100,641,682.15 973,598,209.87 154,729,061.47 818,869,148.40 718,227,466.25
Php Php Php
2046 104,164,141.02 104,164,141.02 1,007,150,662.82 160,061,383.89 847,089,278.94 742,925,137.91
Php Php Php
2047 107,809,885.96 107,809,885.96 1,041,867,627.02 165,578,776.21 876,288,850.82 768,478,964.86
Php Php Php
2048 111,583,231.97 111,583,231.97 1,077,789,800.83 171,287,706.42 906,502,094.40 794,918,862.43
Php Php Php Php
2049 115,488,645.09 863,500,137.90 978,988,782.99 1,114,959,314.65 177,194,870.11 937,764,444.54 (41,224,338.45)
Php Php Php
2050 119,530,747.67 119,530,747.67 1,153,419,781.69 183,307,198.49 970,112,583.20 850,581,835.54
Php Php Php
2051 123,714,323.83 123,714,323.83 1,193,216,350.50 189,631,866.79 1,003,584,483.70 879,870,159.87
Php Php Php
2052 128,044,325.17 128,044,325.17 1,234,395,759.33 196,176,302.90 1,038,219,456.43 910,175,131.26
Php Php Php
2053 132,525,876.55 132,525,876.55 1,277,006,392.56 202,948,196.30 1,074,058,196.26 941,532,319.71
Php Php Php Php
2054 137,164,282.23 1,025,567,288.71 1,162,731,570.94 1,321,098,338.99 209,955,507.35 1,111,142,831.64 (51,588,739.30)
Php Php Php
2055 141,965,032.11 141,965,032.11 1,366,723,452.30 217,206,476.88 1,149,516,975.42 1,007,551,943.31
Php Php Php
2056 146,933,808.23 146,933,808.23 1,413,935,413.69 224,709,636.20 1,189,225,777.50 1,042,291,969.27
2057 Php Php Php

107
152,076,491.52 152,076,491.52 1,462,789,796.68 232,473,817.31 1,230,315,979.38 1,078,239,487.86
Php Php Php

2058 157,399,168.72 157,399,168.72 1,513,344,134.26 240,508,163.64 1,272,835,970.62 1,115,436,801.90
Php Php Php Php
2059 162,908,139.63 1,218,052,224.32 1,380,960,363.95 1,565,657,988.44 248,822,141.09 1,316,835,847.36 (64,124,516.60)
APPENDIX J: PEÑABLANCA ROUTE

TABLE XXVI: ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC
ESTIMATED DIVERTED TRAFFIC

PASSENGER/
STATION MOTOR- GOODS RIGID RIGID TOTAL
PASSENGER LARGE ARTICULATED
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ TRUCK TRUCK -
CAR BUS CARGO TRUCK
TRICYCLE SMALL -2AXLE 3+AXLE
BUS/PUJ
2 11,863 3,674 857 284 395 386 125 17,584
EST. Diverted Traffic 8,304 2,572 429 142 198 193 63 11,901

108
TABLE XXVII: FORCASTED TRAFFIC
FORCASTED TRAFFIC
PASSENGER/
YEAR MOTOR- RIGID RIGID TOTAL
PASSENGER GOODS LARGE ARTICULATED
CYCLE/ TRUCK - TRUCK -
CAR UTILITY/ BUS CARGO TRUCK
TRICYCLE 2AXLE 3+AXLE
SMALL BUS/PUJ
1 2019 8304 2572 429 142 198 193 63 11901

2 2020 8553 2662 446 147 204 199 65 12276
3 2021 8810 2755 464 152 210 205 67 12663
4 2022 9074 2852 483 157 216 211 69 13062
5 2023 9346 2951 502 163 223 217 71 13473
6 2024 9627 3055 522 169 230 224 73 13898
7 2025 9915 3162 543 175 236 230 75 14337
8 2026 10213 3272 565 181 244 237 77 14789
9 2027 10519 3387 587 187 251 244 80 15255
10 2028 10835 3505 611 194 258 252 82 15737
11 2029 11160 3628 635 200 266 259 85 16233
12 2030 11495 3755 660 207 274 267 87 16746
13 2031 11840 3886 687 215 282 275 90 17275
14 2032 12195 4022 714 222 291 283 93 17820
15 2033 12561 4163 743 230 299 292 95 18383
16 2034 12937 4309 773 238 308 301 98 18964
17 2035 13325 4460 804 246 318 310 101 19564
18 2036 13725 4616 836 255 327 319 104 20182
19 2037 14137 4777 869 264 337 329 107 20820

109
20 2038 14561 4945 904 273 347 338 110 21479
21 2039 14998 5118 940 283 358 349 114 22158
22 2040 15448 5297 978 292 368 359 117 22859
23 2041 15911 5482 1017 303 379 370 121 23583
24 2042 16389 5674 1057 313 391 381 124 24329
25 2043 16880 5873 1100 324 402 392 128 25100
26 2044 17387 6078 1144 336 415 404 132 25895
27 2045 17908 6291 1189 347 427 416 136 26715
28 2046 18446 6511 1237 359 440 429 140 27562
29 2047 18999 6739 1286 372 453 442 144 28435
30 2048 19569 6975 1338 385 467 455 148 29337
31 2049 20156 7219 1391 399 481 468 153 30267
32 2050 20761 7472 1447 413 495 483 158 31227
33 2051 21383 7733 1505 427 510 497 162 32218
34 2052 22025 8004 1565 442 525 512 167 33240
35 2053 22686 8284 1628 457 541 527 172 34295
36 2054 23366 8574 1693 473 557 543 177 35384
37 2055 24067 8874 1761 490 574 559 183 36508
38 2056 24789 9185 1831 507 591 576 188 37667
39 2057 25533 9506 1904 525 609 593 194 38864
40 2058 26299 9839 1980 543 627 611 200 40099
41 2059 27088 10183 2060 562 646 630 206 41374

110
TABLE XXVIII: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
Proposed Poblacion-Libag Road
Total Survey Length Total Survey Length

12.25 12.25
(km.): (km.):
STATION STATION Ave.

Travel Travel
Traffic Est.
From To Time From To Time
Conditio Number of Run Time
Differen Differen
n Tuguegarao City Libag Tuguegarao City (minute
ce Libag Sur ce
Center Sur Center s)
AM
1 7:57:34 8:26:46 0:29:12 8:26:46 8:54:00 0:27:14 0:28:13
PEAK
PM
1 5:37:23 6:04:45 0:27:22 6:04:45 6:33:55 0:29:10 0:28:16
PEAK
Average Travel Time (AM and PM Peak): Directional Flow = Decreasing Chainage 0:28:15
say 29
Total Survey Length Total Survey Length

12.25 12.25
(km.): (km.):
STATION Travel STATION Travel Ave.

Traffic
From To Time From To Time Est.
Conditio Number of Run
Differen Differen Time
n Tuguegarao City Libag Libag Sur Tuguegarao City
ce ce (minute

111
Center Sur Center s)
AM
OFF- 1 10:35:11 11:06:15 0:31:04 11:06:15 11:35:25 0:29:10 0:30:07
PEAK
Travel Time per Direction 0:30
PM
OFF- 1 3:10:28 3:36:04 0:25:36 3:36:04 4:03:31 0:27:27 0:26:31
PEAK
Average Travel Time (AM and PM): Directional Flow = Increasing Chainage 0:28:19
say 29
Average Travel Time (AM and PM Off-Peak) Both Direction 29.00
Total Travel Distance (km.) From: 0 To: 12.25 12.25
Estimated Average Travel Speed along the Normal Route (Without the Project Scenario) = (Length in km. /Ave. Travel Time in Min)x 60 25.34
Assumed Average Travel Speed @ Proposed Bypass Road Project (With the Project Scenario) = 60.00
Total Length of the Project
From: 0 To: 3.41 3.41
(km.)
Estimated Travel Time @ the Proposed Bypass Project = Total Length / Travel Speed x60 (minutes) 3.41
Esitmated Travel Time Savings per Vehicle (Improved Condition) = Travel Time @ Normal Route - Travel Time @ Bypass 21.93

112
TABLE XXIX: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITHOUT THE PROJECT
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITHOUT THE PROJECT

PASSENGER/
YEAR MOTOR- GOODS RIGID RIGID ARTICULATE TOTAL
PASSENGER
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ LARGE BUS TRUCK - TRUCK - D CARGO
CAR
TRICYCLE SMALL 2AXLE 3+AXLE TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 94,277,712.57 140,170,620.04 25,565,619.64 31,628,117.25 1,623,275.51 3,237,184.03 1,056,697.38 297,559,226.43
2 2020 97,106,043.95 145,076,591.74 26,588,244.43 32,735,101.35 1,671,973.77 3,334,299.55 1,088,398.30 307,600,653.10
3 2021 100,019,225.27 150,154,272.45 27,651,774.20 33,880,829.90 1,722,132.99 3,434,328.54 1,121,050.25 317,983,613.60
4 2022 103,019,802.03 155,409,671.99 28,757,845.17 35,066,658.95 1,773,796.98 3,537,358.39 1,154,681.76 328,719,815.27
5 2023 106,110,396.09 160,849,010.51 29,908,158.98 36,293,992.01 1,827,010.89 3,643,479.15 1,189,322.21 339,821,369.83
6 2024 109,293,707.97 166,478,725.88 31,104,485.34 37,564,281.73 1,881,821.21 3,752,783.52 1,225,001.87 351,300,807.53
7 2025 112,572,519.21 172,305,481.28 32,348,664.75 38,879,031.59 1,938,275.85 3,865,367.03 1,261,751.93 363,171,091.65
8 2026 115,949,694.79 178,336,173.13 33,642,611.34 40,239,797.70 1,996,424.13 3,981,328.04 1,299,604.49 375,445,633.61
9 2027 119,428,185.63 184,577,939.19 34,988,315.79 41,648,190.62 2,056,316.85 4,100,767.88 1,338,592.62 388,138,308.58
10 2028 123,011,031.20 191,038,167.06 36,387,848.43 43,105,877.29 2,118,006.35 4,223,790.91 1,378,750.40 401,263,471.65
11 2029 126,701,362.14 197,724,502.91 37,843,362.36 44,614,582.99 2,181,546.55 4,350,504.64 1,420,112.91 414,835,974.50
12 2030 130,502,403.00 204,644,860.51 39,357,096.86 46,176,093.40 2,246,992.94 4,481,019.78 1,462,716.30 428,871,182.79

113
13 2031 134,417,475.09 211,807,430.63 40,931,380.73 47,792,256.67 2,314,402.73 4,615,450.37 1,506,597.79 443,384,994.01
14 2032 138,449,999.34 219,220,690.70 42,568,635.96 49,464,985.65 2,383,834.81 4,753,913.89 1,551,795.72 458,393,856.08
15 2033 142,603,499.32 226,893,414.87 44,271,381.40 51,196,260.15 2,455,349.86 4,896,531.30 1,598,349.60 473,914,786.50
16 2034 146,881,604.30 234,834,684.39 46,042,236.66 52,988,129.25 2,529,010.35 5,043,427.24 1,646,300.08 489,965,392.28
17 2035 151,288,052.43 243,053,898.35 47,883,926.12 54,842,713.78 2,604,880.66 5,194,730.06 1,695,689.09 506,563,890.49
18 2036 155,826,694.00 251,560,784.79 49,799,283.17 56,762,208.76 2,683,027.08 5,350,571.96 1,746,559.76 523,729,129.52
19 2037 160,501,494.82 260,365,412.26 51,791,254.49 58,748,886.07 2,763,517.89 5,511,089.12 1,798,956.55 541,480,611.21
20 2038 165,316,539.67 269,478,201.69 53,862,904.67 60,805,097.08 2,846,423.43 5,676,421.79 1,852,925.25 559,838,513.58
21 2039 170,276,035.86 278,909,938.75 56,017,420.86 62,933,275.48 2,931,816.13 5,846,714.45 1,908,513.01 578,823,714.53
22 2040 175,384,316.94 288,671,786.60 58,258,117.70 65,135,940.12 3,019,770.62 6,022,115.88 1,965,768.40 598,457,816.25
23 2041 180,645,846.44 298,775,299.13 60,588,442.40 67,415,698.02 3,110,363.74 6,202,779.36 2,024,741.45 618,763,170.54
24 2042 186,065,221.84 309,232,434.60 63,011,980.10 69,775,247.45 3,203,674.65 6,388,862.74 2,085,483.69 639,762,905.07
25 2043 191,647,178.49 320,055,569.81 65,532,459.30 72,217,381.11 3,299,784.89 6,580,528.62 2,148,048.20 661,480,950.43
26 2044 197,396,593.85 331,257,514.76 68,153,757.68 74,744,989.45 3,398,778.44 6,777,944.48 2,212,489.65 683,942,068.29
27 2045 203,318,491.66 342,851,527.77 70,879,907.98 77,361,064.08 3,500,741.79 6,981,282.81 2,278,864.34 707,171,880.44
28 2046 209,418,046.41 354,851,331.25 73,715,104.30 80,068,701.33 3,605,764.04 7,190,721.30 2,347,230.27 731,196,898.89

114
29 2047 215,700,587.80 367,271,127.84 76,663,708.47 82,871,105.87 3,713,936.96 7,406,442.94 2,417,647.18 756,044,557.06
30 2048 222,171,605.44 380,125,617.31 79,730,256.81 85,771,594.58 3,825,355.07 7,628,636.22 2,490,176.59 781,743,242.03
31 2049 228,836,753.60 393,430,013.92 82,919,467.09 88,773,600.39 3,940,115.72 7,857,495.31 2,564,881.89 808,322,327.92
32 2050 235,701,856.21 407,200,064.41 86,236,245.77 91,880,676.40 4,058,319.20 8,093,220.17 2,641,828.35 835,812,210.50
33 2051 242,772,911.90 421,452,066.66 89,685,695.60 95,096,500.08 4,180,068.77 8,336,016.77 2,721,083.20 864,244,342.97
34 2052 250,056,099.25 436,202,888.99 93,273,123.42 98,424,877.58 4,305,470.84 8,586,097.28 2,802,715.69 893,651,273.05
35 2053 257,557,782.23 451,469,990.11 97,004,048.36 101,869,748.29 4,434,634.96 8,843,680.20 2,886,797.16 924,066,681.31
36 2054 265,284,515.70 467,271,439.76 100,884,210.29 105,435,189.48 4,567,674.01 9,108,990.60 2,973,401.08 955,525,420.93
37 2055 273,243,051.17 483,625,940.15 104,919,578.71 109,125,421.12 4,704,704.23 9,382,260.32 3,062,603.11 988,063,558.80
38 2056 281,440,342.70 500,552,848.06 109,116,361.85 112,944,810.86 4,845,845.36 9,663,728.13 3,154,481.20 1,021,718,418.16
39 2057 289,883,552.98 518,072,197.74 113,481,016.33 116,897,879.24 4,991,220.72 9,953,639.97 3,249,115.64 1,056,528,622.62
40 2058 298,580,059.57 536,204,724.66 118,020,256.98 120,989,305.01 5,140,957.34 10,252,249.17 3,346,589.11 1,092,534,141.85
41 2059 307,537,461.36 554,971,890.03 122,741,067.26 125,223,930.68 5,295,186.06 10,559,816.65 3,446,986.78 1,129,776,338.82

115
TABLE XXX: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITH THE PROJECT
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST - WITH THE PROJECT

PASSENGER/
ARTICULA
PASSENGER TED
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ LARGE BUS TRUCK - TRUCK -
CAR CARGO
TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 14,656,463.50 21,790,999.38 3,974,444.87 4,916,923.98 252,355.28 503,254.36 164,274.74 46,258,716.10
2 2020 15,096,157.40 22,553,684.36 4,133,422.66 5,089,016.32 259,925.94 518,351.99 169,202.98 47,819,761.65
3 2021 15,549,042.13 23,343,063.31 4,298,759.57 5,267,131.89 267,723.71 533,902.55 174,279.07 49,433,902.23
4 2022 16,015,513.39 24,160,070.53 4,470,709.95 5,451,481.51 275,755.42 549,919.62 179,507.44 51,102,957.87
5 2023 16,495,978.79 25,005,673.00 4,649,538.35 5,642,283.36 284,028.09 566,417.21 184,892.67 52,828,811.47
6 2024 16,990,858.16 25,880,871.55 4,835,519.89 5,839,763.28 292,548.93 583,409.73 190,439.45 54,613,410.98
7 2025 17,500,583.90 26,786,702.05 5,028,940.68 6,044,155.00 301,325.40 600,912.02 196,152.63 56,458,771.68
8 2026 18,025,601.42 27,724,236.63 5,230,098.31 6,255,700.42 310,365.16 618,939.38 202,037.21 58,366,978.52
9 2027 18,566,369.46 28,694,584.91 5,439,302.24 6,474,649.93 319,676.11 637,507.56 208,098.32 60,340,188.55
10 2028 19,123,360.54 29,698,895.38 5,656,874.33 6,701,262.68 329,266.40 656,632.79 214,341.27 62,380,633.40
11 2029 19,697,061.36 30,738,356.72 5,883,149.30 6,935,806.88 339,144.39 676,331.77 220,771.51 64,490,621.93
12 2030 20,287,973.20 31,814,199.20 6,118,475.28 7,178,560.12 349,318.72 696,621.73 227,394.66 66,672,542.90
13 2031 20,896,612.40 32,927,696.18 6,363,214.29 7,429,809.72 359,798.28 717,520.38 234,216.50 68,928,867.74
14 2032 21,523,510.77 34,080,165.54 6,617,742.86 7,689,853.06 370,592.23 739,045.99 241,242.99 71,262,153.44
15 2033 22,169,216.09 35,272,971.34 6,882,452.57 7,958,997.92 381,710.00 761,217.37 248,480.28 73,675,045.57
16 2034 22,834,292.57 36,507,525.33 7,157,750.68 8,237,562.85 393,161.30 784,053.89 255,934.69 76,170,281.31
17 2035 23,519,321.35 37,785,288.72 7,444,060.70 8,525,877.55 404,956.14 807,575.51 263,612.73 78,750,692.70
18 2036 24,224,900.99 39,107,773.83 7,741,823.13 8,824,283.26 417,104.82 831,802.77 271,521.11 81,419,209.91
19 2037 24,951,648.02 40,476,545.91 8,051,496.06 9,133,133.17 429,617.97 856,756.85 279,666.75 84,178,864.73

116
20 2038 25,700,197.46 41,893,225.02 8,373,555.90 9,452,792.83 442,506.51 882,459.56 288,056.75 87,032,794.03
21 2039 26,471,203.39 43,359,487.89 8,708,498.14 9,783,640.58 455,781.70 908,933.35 296,698.45 89,984,243.50
22 2040 27,265,339.49 44,877,069.97 9,056,838.06 10,126,068.00 469,455.15 936,201.35 305,599.40 93,036,571.42
23 2041 28,083,299.67 46,447,767.42 9,419,111.58 10,480,480.38 483,538.81 964,287.39 314,767.39 96,193,252.64
24 2042 28,925,798.66 48,073,439.28 9,795,876.05 10,847,297.20 498,044.97 993,216.01 324,210.41 99,457,882.57
25 2043 29,793,572.62 49,756,009.65 10,187,711.09 11,226,952.60 512,986.32 1,023,012.49 333,936.72 102,834,181.49
26 2044 30,687,379.80 51,497,469.99 10,595,219.53 11,619,895.94 528,375.91 1,053,702.86 343,954.82 106,325,998.86
27 2045 31,608,001.20 53,299,881.44 11,019,028.31 12,026,592.30 544,227.19 1,085,313.95 354,273.47 109,937,317.85
28 2046 32,556,241.23 55,165,377.29 11,459,789.45 12,447,523.03 560,554.00 1,117,873.37 364,901.67 113,672,260.04
29 2047 33,532,928.47 57,096,165.49 11,918,181.02 12,883,186.34 577,370.62 1,151,409.57 375,848.72 117,535,090.23
30 2048 34,538,916.32 59,094,531.29 12,394,908.26 13,334,097.86 594,691.74 1,185,951.86 387,124.18 121,530,221.51
31 2049 35,575,083.81 61,162,839.88 12,890,704.60 13,800,791.28 612,532.49 1,221,530.41 398,737.91 125,662,220.38
32 2050 36,642,336.33 63,303,539.28 13,406,332.78 14,283,818.98 630,908.47 1,258,176.33 410,700.04 129,935,812.20
33 2051 37,741,606.42 65,519,163.15 13,942,586.09 14,783,752.64 649,835.72 1,295,921.62 423,021.05 134,355,886.68
34 2052 38,873,854.61 67,812,333.86 14,500,289.53 15,301,183.98 669,330.79 1,334,799.26 435,711.68 138,927,503.72
35 2053 40,040,070.25 70,185,765.55 15,080,301.12 15,836,725.42 689,410.72 1,374,843.24 448,783.03 143,655,899.32
36 2054 41,241,272.35 72,642,267.34 15,683,513.16 16,391,010.81 710,093.04 1,416,088.54 462,246.52 148,546,491.76
37 2055 42,478,510.52 75,184,746.70 16,310,853.69 16,964,696.19 731,395.83 1,458,571.20 476,113.91 153,604,888.04
38 2056 43,752,865.84 77,816,212.83 16,963,287.83 17,558,460.56 753,337.70 1,502,328.33 490,397.33 158,836,890.43
39 2057 45,065,451.82 80,539,780.28 17,641,819.35 18,173,006.68 775,937.84 1,547,398.18 505,109.25 164,248,503.39
40 2058 46,417,415.37 83,358,672.59 18,347,492.12 18,809,061.91 799,215.97 1,593,820.13 520,262.53 169,845,940.62
41 2059 47,809,937.83 86,276,226.13 19,081,391.81 19,467,379.08 823,192.45 1,641,634.73 535,870.40 175,635,632.43

117
TABLE XXXI: ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST SAVINGS
ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME COST SAVINGS

PASSENGER/
YEAR MOTOR- GOODS RIGID RIGID ARTICULAT TOTAL
PASSENGER
CYCLE/ UTILITY/ LARGE BUS TRUCK - TRUCK - ED CARGO
CAR
TRICYCLE SMALL 2AXLE 3+AXLE TRUCK
BUS/PUJ
1 2019 79,621,249.08 118,379,620.66 21,591,174.77 26,711,193.27 1,370,920.23 2,733,929.67 892,422.64 251,300,510.32
2 2020 82,009,886.55 122,522,907.38 22,454,821.76 27,646,085.03 1,412,047.84 2,815,947.56 919,195.32 259,780,891.45
3 2021 84,470,183.14 126,811,209.14 23,353,014.63 28,613,698.01 1,454,409.27 2,900,425.99 946,771.18 268,549,711.37
4 2022 87,004,288.64 131,249,601.46 24,287,135.22 29,615,177.44 1,498,041.55 2,987,438.77 975,174.31 277,616,857.39
5 2023 89,614,417.30 135,843,337.51 25,258,620.63 30,651,708.65 1,542,982.80 3,077,061.93 1,004,429.54 286,992,558.36
6 2024 92,302,849.82 140,597,854.33 26,268,965.45 31,724,518.45 1,589,272.28 3,169,373.79 1,034,562.43 296,687,396.55
7 2025 95,071,935.31 145,518,779.23 27,319,724.07 32,834,876.60 1,636,950.45 3,264,455.01 1,065,599.30 306,712,319.97
8 2026 97,924,093.37 150,611,936.50 28,412,513.03 33,984,097.28 1,686,058.97 3,362,388.66 1,097,567.28 317,078,655.08
9 2027 100,861,816.17 155,883,354.28 29,549,013.55 35,173,540.68 1,736,640.73 3,463,260.32 1,130,494.30 327,798,120.04
10 2028 103,887,670.66 161,339,271.68 30,730,974.10 36,404,614.61 1,788,739.96 3,567,158.13 1,164,409.13 338,882,838.25
11 2029 107,004,300.78 166,986,146.19 31,960,213.06 37,678,776.12 1,842,402.16 3,674,172.87 1,199,341.40 350,345,352.57
12 2030 110,214,429.80 172,830,661.30 33,238,621.58 38,997,533.28 1,897,674.22 3,784,398.06 1,235,321.64 362,198,639.89
13 2031 113,520,862.69 178,879,734.45 34,568,166.44 40,362,446.95 1,954,604.45 3,897,930.00 1,272,381.29 374,456,126.27
14 2032 116,926,488.57 185,140,525.16 35,950,893.10 41,775,132.59 2,013,242.58 4,014,867.90 1,310,552.73 387,131,702.63
15 2033 120,434,283.23 191,620,443.54 37,388,928.83 43,237,262.23 2,073,639.86 4,135,313.93 1,349,869.32 400,239,740.93
16 2034 124,047,311.73 198,327,159.06 38,884,485.98 44,750,566.41 2,135,849.05 4,259,373.35 1,390,365.39 413,795,110.98
17 2035 127,768,731.08 205,268,609.63 40,439,865.42 46,316,836.23 2,199,924.52 4,387,154.55 1,432,076.36 427,813,197.79
18 2036 131,601,793.01 212,453,010.96 42,057,460.04 47,937,925.50 2,265,922.26 4,518,769.19 1,475,038.65 442,309,919.61
19 2037 135,549,846.80 219,888,866.35 43,739,758.44 49,615,752.89 2,333,899.93 4,654,332.26 1,519,289.81 457,301,746.48

118
20 2038 139,616,342.21 227,584,976.67 45,489,348.77 51,352,304.24 2,403,916.93 4,793,962.23 1,564,868.50 472,805,719.56
21 2039 143,804,832.47 235,550,450.85 47,308,922.73 53,149,634.89 2,476,034.43 4,937,781.10 1,611,814.56 488,839,471.03
22 2040 148,118,977.45 243,794,716.63 49,201,279.63 55,009,872.11 2,550,315.47 5,085,914.53 1,660,168.99 505,421,244.82
23 2041 152,562,546.77 252,327,531.72 51,169,330.82 56,935,217.64 2,626,824.93 5,238,491.97 1,709,974.06 522,569,917.91
24 2042 157,139,423.17 261,158,995.33 53,216,104.05 58,927,950.25 2,705,629.68 5,395,646.73 1,761,273.28 540,305,022.50
25 2043 161,853,605.87 270,299,560.16 55,344,748.21 60,990,428.51 2,786,798.57 5,557,516.13 1,814,111.48 558,646,768.94
26 2044 166,709,214.05 279,760,044.77 57,558,538.14 63,125,093.51 2,870,402.53 5,724,241.61 1,868,534.83 577,616,069.44
27 2045 171,710,490.47 289,551,646.34 59,860,879.67 65,334,471.78 2,956,514.60 5,895,968.86 1,924,590.87 597,234,562.59
28 2046 176,861,805.18 299,685,953.96 62,255,314.86 67,621,178.30 3,045,210.04 6,072,847.93 1,982,328.60 617,524,638.86
29 2047 182,167,659.34 310,174,962.35 64,745,527.45 69,987,919.54 3,136,566.34 6,255,033.37 2,041,798.46 638,509,466.83
30 2048 187,632,689.12 321,031,086.03 67,335,348.55 72,437,496.72 3,230,663.33 6,442,684.37 2,103,052.41 660,213,020.52
31 2049 193,261,669.79 332,267,174.04 70,028,762.49 74,972,809.11 3,327,583.23 6,635,964.90 2,166,143.98 682,660,107.54
32 2050 199,059,519.88 343,896,525.13 72,829,912.99 77,596,857.43 3,427,410.73 6,835,043.84 2,231,128.30 705,876,398.30
33 2051 205,031,305.48 355,932,903.51 75,743,109.51 80,312,747.43 3,530,233.05 7,040,095.16 2,298,062.15 729,888,456.29
34 2052 211,182,244.64 368,390,555.13 78,772,833.89 83,123,693.60 3,636,140.04 7,251,298.01 2,367,004.01 754,723,769.33
35 2053 217,517,711.98 381,284,224.56 81,923,747.25 86,033,022.87 3,745,224.24 7,468,836.95 2,438,014.14 780,410,781.99
36 2054 224,043,243.34 394,629,172.42 85,200,697.14 89,044,178.67 3,857,580.97 7,692,902.06 2,511,154.56 806,978,929.16
37 2055 230,764,540.64 408,441,193.46 88,608,725.02 92,160,724.93 3,973,308.40 7,923,689.13 2,586,489.20 834,458,670.77
38 2056 237,687,476.86 422,736,635.23 92,153,074.02 95,386,350.30 4,092,507.65 8,161,399.80 2,664,083.87 862,881,527.73
39 2057 244,818,101.17 437,532,417.46 95,839,196.98 98,724,872.56 4,215,282.88 8,406,241.79 2,744,006.39 892,280,119.23
40 2058 252,162,644.20 452,846,052.07 99,672,764.86 102,180,243.10 4,341,741.37 8,658,429.05 2,826,326.58 922,688,201.23
41 2059 259,727,523.53 468,695,663.89 103,659,675.46 105,756,551.61 4,471,993.61 8,918,181.92 2,911,116.38 954,140,706.39

119
TABLE XXXII: PROJECT COST AND TRAFFIC COST NET BENEFITS
Project Cost Traffic Cost
Traffic Cost
Year Maintenance ROW Total Net Benefits Remarks
Without the Project With the Project Savings
Construction
Case Case
Routine Periodic
Planning
2019 Period
2020 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2021 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2022 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2023 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
2024 337,193,840.00 0 0 19,023,600.00 356,217,440.00 0 0 - (356,217,440.00) Period
Php Php Php
2025 50,579,076.00 50,579,076.00 339,821,369.83 52,828,811.47 286,992,558.36 236,413,482.36 Opening
Php Php Php
2026 52,349,343.66 52,349,343.66 351,300,807.53 54,613,410.98 296,687,396.55 244,338,052.89
Php Php Php
2027 54,181,570.69 54,181,570.69 363,171,091.65 56,458,771.68 306,712,319.97 252,530,749.28
Php Php Php
2028 56,077,925.66 56,077,925.66 375,445,633.61 58,366,978.52 317,078,655.08 261,000,729.42
Php Php Php Php
2029 58,040,653.06 433,965,710.51 492,006,363.57 388,138,308.58 60,340,188.55 327,798,120.04 (164,208,243.54)
Php Php Php
2030 60,072,075.92 60,072,075.92 401,263,471.65 62,380,633.40 338,882,838.25 278,810,762.33
Php Php Php
2031 62,174,598.57 62,174,598.57 414,835,974.50 64,490,621.93 350,345,352.57 288,170,753.99
Php Php Php
2032 64,350,709.52 64,350,709.52 428,871,182.79 66,672,542.90 362,198,639.89 297,847,930.36
Php Php Php
2033 66,602,984.36 66,602,984.36 443,384,994.01 68,928,867.74 374,456,126.27 307,853,141.91
Php Php Php Php
2034 68,934,088.81 515,415,131.50 584,349,220.31 458,393,856.08 71,262,153.44 387,131,702.63 (197,217,517.68)
Php Php Php
2035 71,346,781.92 71,346,781.92 473,914,786.50 73,675,045.57 400,239,740.93 328,892,959.01

120
Php Php Php
2036 73,843,919.29 73,843,919.29 489,965,392.28 76,170,281.31 413,795,110.98 339,951,191.69
Php Php Php
2037 76,428,456.46 76,428,456.46 506,563,890.49 78,750,692.70 427,813,197.79 351,384,741.33
Php Php Php
2038 79,103,452.44 79,103,452.44 523,729,129.52 81,419,209.91 442,309,919.61 363,206,467.17
Php Php Php Php
2039 81,872,073.27 612,151,493.40 694,023,566.67 541,480,611.21 84,178,864.73 457,301,746.48 (236,721,820.19)
Php Php Php
2040 84,737,595.84 84,737,595.84 559,838,513.58 87,032,794.03 472,805,719.56 388,068,123.72
Php Php Php
2041 87,703,411.69 87,703,411.69 578,823,714.53 89,984,243.50 488,839,471.03 401,136,059.34
Php Php Php
2042 90,773,031.10 90,773,031.10 598,457,816.25 93,036,571.42 505,421,244.82 414,648,213.72
Php Php Php
2043 93,950,087.19 93,950,087.19 618,763,170.54 96,193,252.64 522,569,917.91 428,619,830.72
Php Php Php Php
2044 97,238,340.24 727,043,945.69 824,282,285.94 639,762,905.07 99,457,882.57 540,305,022.50 (283,977,263.44)
Php Php Php
2045 100,641,682.15 100,641,682.15 661,480,950.43 102,834,181.49 558,646,768.94 458,005,086.79
Php Php Php
2046 104,164,141.02 104,164,141.02 683,942,068.29 106,325,998.86 577,616,069.44 473,451,928.41
Php Php Php
2047 107,809,885.96 107,809,885.96 707,171,880.44 109,937,317.85 597,234,562.59 489,424,676.63
Php Php Php
2048 111,583,231.97 111,583,231.97 731,196,898.89 113,672,260.04 617,524,638.86 505,941,406.89
Php Php Php Php
2049 115,488,645.09 863,500,137.90 978,988,782.99 756,044,557.06 117,535,090.23 638,509,466.83 (340,479,316.16)
Php Php Php
2050 119,530,747.67 119,530,747.67 781,743,242.03 121,530,221.51 660,213,020.52 540,682,272.85
Php Php Php
2051 123,714,323.83 123,714,323.83 808,322,327.92 125,662,220.38 682,660,107.54 558,945,783.70
Php Php Php
2052 128,044,325.17 128,044,325.17 835,812,210.50 129,935,812.20 705,876,398.30 577,832,073.13
Php Php Php
2053 132,525,876.55 132,525,876.55 864,244,342.97 134,355,886.68 729,888,456.29 597,362,579.74
Php Php Php Php
2054 137,164,282.23 1,025,567,288.71 1,162,731,570.94 893,651,273.05 138,927,503.72 754,723,769.33 (408,007,801.61)
Php Php Php
2055 141,965,032.11 141,965,032.11 924,066,681.31 143,655,899.32 780,410,781.99 638,445,749.89
Php Php Php
2056 146,933,808.23 146,933,808.23 955,525,420.93 148,546,491.76 806,978,929.16 660,045,120.93

121
Php Php Php
2057 152,076,491.52 152,076,491.52 988,063,558.80 153,604,888.04 834,458,670.77 682,382,179.25
Php Php Php
2058 157,399,168.72 157,399,168.72 1,021,718,418.16 158,836,890.43 862,881,527.73 705,482,359.01
Php Php Php Php
2059 162,908,139.63 1,218,052,224.32 1,380,960,363.95 1,056,528,622.62 164,248,503.39 892,280,119.23 (488,680,244.72)

122
TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN
References
[1] Online, www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph, February 2018.
[2] Online, www.koeppen-geiger.vu.wien.ac.at, March 2018.
[3] Online, https://philippinescities.com/tuguegarao-city-cagayan/, September 2017.
[4] Online, http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/gis, October 2017.
[5] Online, http://www.dotregion2.com.ph/welcome/tuguegarao-city/, September 2017.
[6] Online, DPWH.maps.arcgis.com, February 2018.
[7] R. D. C. 02, Cagayan Valley Regional Development Plan 2011-2016, March 2018.
[8] R. D. C. 02, Cagayan Valley Regional Development 2017-2022, March 2018.
[9] N. E. C. C. L. N. S. &. S. M. C. Katahira & Engineers International, Study on the Project for
Construction of davao-Samal Bridge in Republic of the Philippines, Febrary 2016.
[10] O. C. C. L. E.-J. E. C. I. Japan International Cooperation Agency, The Feasibility Study on the
Construction of a New Bridge across River Nile at Jinja The Republic of Uganda, October 2009.
[11] Online, www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/news, May 4, 2018.

A Study On The Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study On The Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag

Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

In partial fulfilment of the course Project Study in the Program

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Blessy Grace G. Marquez

Department of Civil Engineering

Cagayan State University

This project proposal entitled “A STUDY ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF

1. JADEE A. DAQUIOAG 3. BLESSY GRACE G. MARQUEZ

2. LEOMAR D. JULIANO 4. FRENALYN G. VILLANO

ENGR. REYNALDO N. ROSAL JR.

ENGR. ERNESTO D. MARALLAG

APPROVED by the Panel Committee with remarks.

Arch. STELLA MARIE AQUINO Engr. NIKKI A. SUMER

Engr. JOEY T. PAREDES Engr. JOHN MICHAEL B. CASIBANG

This proposal is hereby approved and accepted.

AUDY R. QUEBRAL, PECE, MST

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

THE STUDY TEAM

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

LIST OF FIGURES xii

PROJECT LOCATION MAP xv

PROJECT PERSPECTIVE xvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii

1.1 Background of the Study............................................................................................2

1.2 Necessity of the Project...............................................................................................3

1.3 Objective of the Study.................................................................................................3

1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study..............................................................................3

1.4.1 Collection of Data and Analysis for the Existing Conditions........................3

1.4.2 Traffic Demand Forecast................................................................................4

1.4.3 Establishment of Design Criteria....................................................................4

1.4.4 Road and Bridge Planning and Outline Design..............................................4

1.4.5 Environmental and Social Consideration........................................................4

1.4.6 Construction Planning and Cost Estimate.......................................................4

1.4.7 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................................................4

1.5 Study Area...................................................................................................................5

1.6 Study Methodology......................................................................................................6

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

1.7 Definition of Key Terms..............................................................................................7

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................................9

2.1 Overview of the Target Sectors of the Project............................................................9

2.1.1 Current Status of Traffic Infrastructure of the Cagayan Valley Region........ 9

2.2 Overview of the Project Site……………....................................................................10

2.2.1 Outline of Tuguegarao City...........................................................................10

2.2.4 Regional Economy.........................................................................................13

2.3 Local Bridges...............................................................................................................15

2.2.1 Tallang Bridge in Baggao, Cagayan..............................................................15

2.2.2 Pigalo Bridge in Angadanan, Isabela….........................................................15

2.2.3 Sugpon Bridge in Ilocos Sur..........................................................................16

2.2.4 Lucban Bridge…...........................................................................................16

2.2.5 Study on the Project for Construction of Davao-Samal Bridge in Republic of

2.4 Foreign Bridges............................................................................................................17

3. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT............................................................20

3.1 Inventory of Existing Alternative Routes....................................................................20

3.2 Traffic Demand Forecast.............................................................................................21

3.3 Natural Conditions.......................................................................................................34

3.4 Design Conditions........................................................................................................38

3.5 Comparison of Alternative Routes..............................................................................41

A Study on the Proposed Construction of Poblacion-Libag Bridge in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS..............................49

4.1 Present Environmental and Social Conditions.............................................................49