Group3 7

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information
CE 509 CE Projects 2
1st Semester, SY 2021-2022
Cablao, Alyssa Isabel

Student/Team Colinares, Jocelyn
Group Esquilla, Angelique
Gumangan, Jan Chelsey
Design of Eight-Hundred Meter Bicycle Lane with Bollards
Project Title
Along Taft Avenue
Program Transportation Engineering
Concentration Area Structural Engineering
Constraints
Transportation Engineering
Quantitative Constraints
Designing a project whether large- or small-scale projects are expensive.
However, it is possible to choose more affordable materials and methods of
construction which may help lower costs. In Transportation Context, the
designers will estimate the construction cost of each trade-off based on labor
cost and materials to be used for the proposed structure.
Economic
(Project Cost) After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-offs will be best suitable
for the proposed budget without compromising the overall design. In these
trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to know what
will be the most economical under given circumstances.
● Limitation: The construction cost of the project set by the client is
limited to an amount of Php 10,000,000.00 only.
This constraint is the phase of any design project to execute within regular
operating conditions for a particular running period. This is required to be
accounted on how much will be the cost of the project when it resists limit states
according to its capacity. Sustainability constraint will be measured by
Sustainability
estimating the maintenance cost needed for the bicycle lane design. The bicycle
(Maintenance Cost)
lane design which will prove to be cheaper in maintenance will be more
favorable in terms of sustainability.
● Limitation: The structure must have a minimal maintenance cost.
Efficient planning of activities and allocation of resources may result in a fast-

paced construction. The designers shall abide by the conditions of the client in
terms of the duration of the construction. Such constraint helps the designers
prevent errors, delays, and unnecessary costs. Therefore, this constraint enables
Constructability
the designers to fully identify factors which may cause delay in construction
(Duration)
and remedies to be done to compensate for unexpected errors or delayed works.
● Limitation: The construction of the project must be completed within
180 days.
1
Level of service (LOS) is a mechanism used to determine how well a
transportation facility is operating from a traveler’s perspective. Typically, six
levels of service are defined and each is assigned a letter designation from A to
F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F the worst.
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will have important
Safety safety implication. It also influences other aspects of planning and design of
(Level of Service) specific projects, whether along a corridor or within a broader bikeway
network. Greater safety attracts more bicyclists, resulting in safer cycling
conditions overall. Multiple studies show that the presence of bikeways,
particularly low-stress, connected bikeways, positively correlates with
increased bicycling. This in turn results in improvements in bicyclists’ overall
safety.
• Limitation: The Level of Service must be between A-C.
This project focuses on the Traffic Impact Assessment of each trade-off while
being accessible to bikers on a daily basis. The designers used Traffic Impact
Assessment for the next fifteen (15) years to assess the traffic condition to help
Risk Assessment
in determining the possible effects on the development of the traffic system to
(Traffic Impact)
mitigate any negative impacts. There will be computation and analysis of the
trade-offs to know which trade-off will satisfy the design.
• Limitation: The designed bike lane must have a low traffic impact.
Transporting materials to be used in a project is indeed costly. Transporting
construction materials, whether within your city or region requires some careful
consideration and planning. Depending on the types of materials to be
transported, usage of different vehicles and other equipment to ensure materials
reach their destination safely. Different loads will need to be packed differently
and needs to ensure to have the right paperwork for the transit of the materials.
Uncertainty
(Mobility Cost)
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will experience
precise arrival time for the materials to arrive. In these trade-offs, the designers
will be obtaining desirable outcomes to know what will be the most punctual
under given circumstances.
• Limitation: The mobility cost of the project set by the client is limited
to an amount of Php 1,500,000.00 only.
Qualitative Constraints
Societal constraints refer to the social behaviors and characteristics influencing
the sustainability of a design project within a community. We evaluated the
thoughts and reactions of motorists, especially; the bikers affected by the traffic
Societal
in the area. We considered this as a constraint since motorists and bikers would
deal with the side effects of designing a bike lane.
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan

for the design of the structure. The original aesthetic of the project is to have a
Aesthetics
barrier with pavement markings. It is dependent on the location of the project
whether or not it may be prone to hazards.
2
Structural Engineering
Quantitative Constraints
Using bollard is costly, whether huge- or small-scale projects. However, it is
possible to choose more affordable materials and methods of construction,
which may help lessen the costs. This depends on the type of bollards to be
used. This set of trade-offs will be evaluated whether the materials will be
inexpensive and, at the same time, be beneficial to the project. In these trade-
Economic
offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to identify what will be
(Project Cost)
the most economical under given circumstances. In Structural Context, the
designers will estimate the construction cost of each trade-off based on the labor
cost and equipment to be used for the bollards.
● Limitation: The construction cost of the project set by the client is
limited to an amount of Php 10,000,000.00 only.
This constraint is the phase of any design project to execute within regular
operating conditions for a particular running period. This is required to be
accounted on how much will be the cost of the bollard when it resists limit states
according to its capacity. Sustainability constraint will be measured by
Sustainability
estimating the maintenance cost needed for the bollard design. The bollard
(Maintenance Cost)
design which will prove to be cheaper in maintenance will be more favorable
in terms of sustainability.
• Limitation: The structure must have a minimal maintenance cost.
Constructability defines the ease and efficiency with which bollards can be
built. The more constructible a bollard is, the more cost-effective it will be. This
constraint has a significant influence on the project cost because it has a direct
relationship with the duration of the project. As the project duration lengthens,
Constructability the labor cost and equipment cost increases and thus making the project more
(Duration) expensive. This constraint will focus on the period of the execution of each
trade-off.
● Limitation: The construction of the project must be completed within
180 days.
Risk assessment is a term used to describe the overall process or method where
you: Identify hazards and risk factors that have the potential to cause harm. This
constraint helps the bicycle lane to maintain its safety. Safety may indicate a
structure’s ability to protect against traffic congestion and accidents. Therefore,
the designers use guidelines prescribed by Department of Public Works and
Safety Highways to prevent the potential hazard that makes the bollards collapse or be
(Safety Impact) destroyed and bike lanes to be erased. During an accident, and the vehicle hits
the bollards, the impact of the collision can be lessened and the security of
pedestrians and cyclists can be safer.
● Limitation: This constraint will focus on determining which type of
bollard will be the most efficient against lateral forces to deploy along
Taft Avenue.
3
Temporary barriers are often required to provide positive protection for
motorists and workers in a highway work zone. Most highway work zones are
restricted in terms of available lateral space for accommodating traffic and the
work activity. Consequently, it is desirable to minimize the deflection of work
zone barriers in order to minimize the required buffer distance between the
barrier and work activity area and, thereby, maximize the space and number of
lanes available for traffic. Whenever a traffic control plan is developed that
utilizes temporary barriers, it is important to define acceptable barrier deflection
Risk Assessment
criteria. However, the acceptable deflection criteria can be expected to vary,
(Barrier Deflection)
depending on the application.
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will achieves the
objective of low dynamic barrier design deflection without sacrificing
constructability. In addition to being easy to install, the new barrier system is
also perceived to be easy to inspect, and repair.
• Limitation: The barrier deflection must be minimal.
Transporting materials to be used in a project is indeed costly. Transporting

construction materials, whether within your city or region requires some careful
consideration and planning. Depending on the types of materials to be
transported, usage of different vehicles and other equipment to ensure materials
reach their destination safely. Different loads will need to be packed differently
Uncertainty
(Mobility Cost) After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will experience
precise arrival time for the materials to arrive. In these trade-offs, the designers
will be obtaining desirable outcomes to know what will be the most punctual
• Limitation: The mobility cost of the project set by the client is limited
to an amount of Php 1,500,000.00 only.
Qualitative Constraints
An environmental constraint is a limitation of building a particular bollard with
the equipment and methods to be used, based on the environmental impact on
the surroundings in construction. The designers have researched a set of trade-
Environmental offs that will be analyzed, whether the equipment and methods to be used in the
road improvement will be beneficial to the environment at the same time to the
design itself.
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan

for the design of the bollard. The original aesthetic of the project is to have a
simple yet striking design for bollards. The aesthetics may need to be modified,
Aesthetics
or redesign in terms of the design constraint of the tradeoffs and may affect the
preliminary design.
4
Trade Offs
Transportation Engineering
One-way protected bicycle lanes are physically separated bike lanes that allow
bicycle movement in one direction on one side of the street. Separation for
One-Way Bike Lane
protected bicycle lanes is provided through physical barriers between the bike
lane and the vehicular travel lane.
A bike lane that accommodates cyclists traveling in both directions, and is
typically separated from vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier. Physical
Two-Way Bike Lane separation of two-way bike lanes is often preferable on wide or busy streets, on
major bike routes, or along long, uninterrupted stretches.
Contra-Flow lanes are lanes where some cyclists are moving the opposite
direction of the motor vehicles adjacent to the lane. Sometimes, this is done
Contra-Flow Bike with a two-way bike path, with the bike lane adjacent to vehicles moving
Lane contraflow. Sometimes this bike infrastructure solution means putting lanes on
either side of a one-way street, so that bikes move in both directions. The lane
that moves in the opposite direction of oncoming cars is the contraflow lane.
Structural Engineering
Concrete bollards provide a high level of impact protection, making them ideal
for sensitive, high-traffic areas, whilst also being incredibly durable and cost
Concrete Bollard
effective. are one example of a decorative bollard that provides impact
protection without distracting from the landscaping and architectural style.
Security bollards made of structural grade steel filled with concrete have
increased traffic-stopping power. An unreinforced concrete post by itself has
Concrete-Filled Steel
little bending strength, so it would easily break if hit by a car. The pipe adds
Bollard
strength and give, while the concrete creates an additional degree of inertia and
helps the pipe resist buckling or collapsing at the point of impact.
Steel safety bollards can refer to a variety of stainless-steel uprights and metal
posts. They often provide protection from vehicles in addition to segregating
Steel Bollard
walkways and prohibiting vehicle access. They are weather-resistant, which
makes them useful for long-term outdoor use.
Design Standards
The Department of Public Works and Highways acts as the Government's
engineering and construction arm charged with constantly improving its
Department of technologies to ensure the safety of all infrastructure facilities and achieve the
Public Works and highest efficiency and quality of construction for all public works and
Highways highways. DPWH released a road safety design manual for the establishment
(DPWH) and maintenance of uniform principles and standards of road safety design in
the Philippines. This requires principles of safety architecture, based on best
international practice in the Philippines
DPWH Standard This Item shall consist of furnishing and installing road safety and traffic
Specification for control devices such as delineators, barriers, bollard/markers and cones in
Item 625 – Road accordance with this Specification and at the locations shown on the Plans, or
Safety and Traffic as required by the Engineer.
Control Devices
5
NACTO encourages the exchange of transportation ideas, insights, and
National Association
practices among large central cities while fostering a cooperative approach to
of City
key national transportation issues. The purpose of the NACTO Urban Bikeway
Transportation
Design Guide (part of the Cities for Cycling initiative) is to provide cities with
Officials
state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are safe
(NACTO)
and enjoyable for cyclists.
The Prescribing Guidelines on the Design of Bicycle Facilities Along National
Prescribing Roads was drafted and adopted as a uniform bicycle lane design to embody up-
Guidelines on the to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use,
Design of Bicycle occupancy, and maintenance. The use of this code is to determine the minimum
Facilities Along standards and requirements with regards to the design, use of the bicycle lane,
National Roads pavement markings, dimension and distances, regulate and control the location,
and maintenance.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE509
CE Design Projects 2
DESIGN OF EIGHT-HUNDRED-METER BICYCLE LANE WITH BOLLARDS ALONG

TAFT AVENUE
Prepared by:
CABLAO, ALYSSA ISABEL
COLINARES, JOCELYN
ESQUILLA, ANGELIQUE
GUMANGAN, JAN CHELSEY
CE52S1
Submitted to:
ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO
Instructor
35
APPROVAL SHEET
The capstone design project entitled “Design of Eight-Hundred-Meter Bicycle Lane with
Bollards Along Taft Avenue” prepared by Alyssa Isabel Cablao, Jocelyn Colinares, Angelique
Esquilla, and Jan Chelsey Gumangan, graduating students of Civil Engineering Department was
examined and evaluated by the members of the Students’ Design Evaluation Panel, and is hereby
recommended for approval.
_______________________________
Engr. Fatima Jade Ang
External Adviser
_______________________________
Engr. Yvonne Camille Santiano
External Adviser
_______________________________
Engr. Ma. Celine Angeles
Panel Member
_______________________________
Engr. Bailey John Bandiola
Panel Member
_______________________________
Engr. Chris Edward Monjardin
Panel Member
_______________________________
Engr. Billy John Rudolfh Rejuso
Panel Member
_______________________________
Engr. Jennifer Camino
Class Adviser
36
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Immeasurable appreciation and deepest gratitude; for the help and support; are extended to the
following people who in one way or another have contributed to making this design possible.
First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God Almighty, for providing us with the knowledge,
wisdom, strength, support and blessings throughout our design. And for the guidance in helping
us surpass all the trials that we have encountered and for giving us the determination to pursue our
Capstone design project.
Second, we would like to thank Engr. Jennifer Camino, our Capstone Design Instructor, for
providing invaluable supervision and assistance throughout this design project, for being patient
and easy to reach out whenever we have questions and clarifications. We will not be able to design
the project precisely without her guidance and assistance during and after the class.
Third, we are extending our most profound appreciation to our external advisers, Engr. Fatima
Jade Ang and Engr. Yvonne Camille Santiano, for the continuous support to our design. Their
patience, motivation, passion, vision, sincerity and immense knowledge have deeply inspired us.
It was a great privilege and honor to work and design under their guidance.
Lastly, we are extremely grateful for our families for their love, care, understanding and sacrifices
for educating and preparing us for our future. For their moral encouragement, financial assistance
as well as their spiritual support for us to accomplish our design. The product of this design would
not be possible without all of them.
37
ABSTRACT
Our country is currently dealing with a serious crisis: the pandemic. It led to a higher fare as a
result of the decline of transportation mobility and economic depreciation. To cope and continue
working without spending a lot of money on commuting, many Filipinos choose to use bicycles
as a mode of transportation, and as a matter of fact, bicycle lanes play an important role in keeping
cyclists and commuters safe from various types of vehicles. On the other hand, strong and durable
bollards safeguard cyclists and pedestrians on sidewalks from the dangers of vehicular accidents.
The multiple criteria to come up with a possible solution that led to proposing a bicycle lane with
bollards installed along a highway are considered. Also, the two Engineering Contexts; namely
Transportation Engineering and Structural Engineering; that play a vital role in the design are
carefully analyzed. In each context, options used for the project and the approach which best suits
the goal of the project are evaluated. For Transportation Engineering Context, the trade-offs are
One-Way Bike Lanes, Two-Way Bike Lanes and Contraflow Bike Lanes. Whereas for Structural
Engineering Context, the trade-offs are Concrete Bollard, Steel Bollard, and Concrete-Filled Steel
Bollard. Each trade-off was designed according to guidelines, standards, and constraints based on
the client’s needs and objectives to compare and evaluate each of them accurately. After
conducting the final ranking and sensitivity analysis, One-Way Bike Lanes with Concrete Bollard
governed on the most efficient alternative design for the bicycle lanes along Taft Avenue.
38
ABBREVIATION, SYMBOLS AND NOTATION
AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
BLOS – Bicycle Level of Service
DPWH – Department of Public Works and Highways
FHA – Federal Highway Administration
HCM – Highway Capacity Manual
NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic
𝛿𝑏 – barrier deflection
𝛿𝑐 – vehicle crush
A – cross-sectional area
a – deceleration rate
Ap – section area of bollard pipe
D – diameter of bollard pipe
Fd – static design force
Fi – impact force
FOS – factor of safety
g – unit weight of soil
h – height of bollard post
kb – coefficient of passive earth pressure
kb – stiffness of material
KE – Kinetic Energy
m – mass of vehicle
Mo – overturning moment
Mp – design moment on bollard pipe
Mr – resisting moment
v – vehicular speed
Z – section modulus
39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 37
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 38
ABBREVIATION, SYMBOLS AND NOTATION ................................................................. 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 40
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 48
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 55
1.1 The Project ............................................................................................................. 55
1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 56
1.3 The Client .............................................................................................................. 57
1.3.1 Client’s Specifications .............................................................................................57
1.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 57
1.4.1 General Objectives ..................................................................................................57
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................57
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations .................................................................................. 58
1.5.1 Context I Transportation Engineering .....................................................................58
Scope ……………………………………………………………………..............58
Limitations …………………………………………………………………….....58
1.5.2 Context II Structural Engineering ...........................................................................58
Scope …………………………………………………………………….............58
Limitations …………………………………………………………………….....59
1.6 Project Development ............................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........ 61
2.1 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 61
2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ........................61
Demography ……………………………………………………………………... 61
Population ............................................................................................. 61
Cyclists …………………………………………………………………….............................................63
Traffic Assessment ..................................................................................................64
40
Project Description ..................................................................................................65
Bicycle Operating Space for Road ............................................................ 65
Pavement Markings ................................................................................ 67
Retroreflective Materials ......................................................................... 67
Physical Separator .................................................................................. 68
Bollard Spacing .......................................................................................................70
2.1.2 Design Criteria for Context II Structural Engineering Context ..............................71
Hazard ……………………………………………………………………............71
Vehicular Barrier .....................................................................................................73
Fixed/Rigid Barrier ................................................................................. 73
Kinetic Energy .................................................................................... 73
Deceleration Rate ................................................................................ 74
Vehicular Mass and Nominal Minimum Test Velocity ............................... 74
Vehicular Speed ..................................................................................... 75
Vehicle Crush ........................................................................................ 75
Barrier Deflection ................................................................................... 75
Impact Force .......................................................................................... 75
Embedded Bollard ...................................................................................................76
Retroreflective Bands on Bollards ..........................................................................76
Bollard Installation into New Concrete ...................................................................77
2.2 Review of Related Literature .................................................................................... 82
2.2.1 Review of Related Literature for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ..82
2.2.2 Review of Related Literature for Context II Structural Engineering Context ........83
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINT, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS ................... 85
3.1 Design Constraints .................................................................................................. 85
3.1.1 Design Constraints for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ..................85
Quantitative Constraint............................................................................................85
Economic Constraint (Construction Cost) ................................................. 85
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) ............................................................ 85
Constructability (Construction Duration) .................................................. 86
Safety (Level of Service) ......................................................................... 86
41
Risk Assessment (Traffic Impact) ............................................................ 86
Uncertainty Constraint (Mobility Cost) ..................................................... 86
Qualitative Constraint..............................................................................................87
Societal …………………………………………………………………….............................................87
Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 87
3.1.2 Design Constraints for Context II Structural Engineering Context ........................87
Quantitative Constraint............................................................................................87
Economic (Construction Cost) ................................................................. 87
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) ............................................................ 88
Constructability (Construction Duration) .................................................. 88
Risk Assessment (Barrier Deflection) ....................................................... 88
Safety (Safety Impact) ............................................................................ 89
Uncertainty Constraint (Mobility Cost) ..................................................... 89
Qualitative Constraint..............................................................................................89
Environmental........................................................................................ 89
Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 90
3.2 Design Trade-offs ................................................................................................... 90
3.2.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Trade-offs ...................................................90
One-Way Bike Lane ................................................................................................90
Two-Way Bike Lane ...............................................................................................91
Contra-Flow Bike Lane ...........................................................................................92
3.2.2 Context II Structural Engineering Trade-offs .........................................................94
Concrete Bollard......................................................................................................94
Steel Bollard ……………………………………………………………………...95
Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ..................................................................................96
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking ......................................................................................... 97
3.3.1 Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ................98
Summary of Initial Estimate of Context I Transportation Engineering Context ....98
Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context I Transportation Engineering
Context ........................................................................................................98
Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering
42
Context ......................................................................................................105
Trade-off Assessment for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ...........105
Economic Constraint Assessment ........................................................... 106
Constructability Constraint Assessment .................................................. 106
Sustainability Constraint Assessment ...................................................... 106
Risk Assessment Constraint ................................................................... 106
Uncertainty Constraint .......................................................................... 106
Safety Constraint .................................................................................. 106
Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Transportation Engineering
Context ......................................................................................................106
3.3.2 Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context .....................107
Summary of Initial Estimate of Context II Structural Engineering Context .........107
Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context II Structural Engineering Context
……………………………………………………………………...107
Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context 114
Trade-off Assessment for Context II Structural Engineering Context ..................115
Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Structural Engineering Context
……………………………………………………………………...116
3.4 Multiple Constraints Using Initial Normalization Method ......................................... 116
3.4.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Context .....................................................116
Raw Data ……………………………………………………………………......116
Normalized Data....................................................................................................117
Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight ......................................................117
3.4.2 Context II Structural Engineering Context ............................................................119
Raw Data ……………………………………………………………………......119
Normalized Data....................................................................................................119
43
3.5 Design Guidelines ................................................................................................. 121
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE ............................................................................ 123
4.1 Design Methodology ............................................................................................. 123
4.2 Design Process for Context I Transportation Engineering .......................................... 124
4.2.1. Design Process using PTV Vissim .......................................................................124
4.2.2 Design Process for Bicycle Level of Service ........................................................125
4.3 Design for Context I Transportation Engineering Trade-offs ..................................... 126
4.3.1 Design of One-Way Bicycle Lane.........................................................................126
Design Input .........................................................................................................128
Design Input using PTV Vissim ............................................................. 128
Design Input for Bicycle Level of Service ............................................... 131
Design Output........................................................................................................132
Design Output using PTV Vissim........................................................... 132
Design Output for Bicycle Level of Service............................................. 134
4.3.2 Design of Two-Way Bike Lane.............................................................................136
Design Input .........................................................................................................138
Design Output........................................................................................................142
4.3.3 Design of Contra Flow Bike Lane .........................................................................146
Design Input …………………………………………………………………….148
Design Output........................................................................................................152
4.4 Design Process for Context II Structural Engineering ............................................... 156
4.4.1. Design Process for Bollard Strength ....................................................................156
44
4.5 Design for Context II Structural Engineering Trade-offs ........................................... 157
4.5.1 Design of Concrete Bollard ...................................................................................157
Design Input …………………………………………………………………….158
Design Output........................................................................................................161
4.5.2 Design of Steel Bollard .........................................................................................163
Design Input .........................................................................................................164
Design Output........................................................................................................167
4.5.3 Design of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ...............................................................169
Design Input .........................................................................................................170
Design Output........................................................................................................173
4.6 Designer’s Raw Ranking ....................................................................................... 175
4.6.1 Final Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ...............175
Summary of Final Estimate of Context I Transportation Engineering Context ....175
Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context I Transportation Engineering ...175
Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
……………………………………………………………………...182
Trade-off Assessment for Context I Transportation Engineering Context ...........183
Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Transportation Engineering
Context ......................................................................................................184
4.6.2 Final Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context ......................184
Summary of Final Estimate of Context II Structural Engineering Context ..........184
Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context II Structural Engineering Context
……………………………………………………………………...184
Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context .192
Trade-off Assessment for Context II Structural Engineering Context ..................192
45
Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Structural Engineering Context
……………………………………………………………………...193
4.7 Multiple Constraints Using Final Normalization Method........................................... 194
Raw Data ……………………………………………………………………......194
Normalized Data....................................................................................................194
Raw Data ……………………………………………………………………......196
Normalized Data....................................................................................................197
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 199
Economic vs. Constructability ..............................................................................199
Economic vs. Sustainability ..................................................................................200
Economic vs. Risk Assessment .............................................................................200
Economic vs. Uncertainty .....................................................................................201
Economic vs. Safety ..............................................................................................202
Economic vs. Constructability ..............................................................................203
Economic vs. Sustainability ..................................................................................204
Economic vs. Risk Assessment .............................................................................205
Economic vs. Uncertainty .....................................................................................206
Economic vs. Safety ..............................................................................................207
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN ............................................................................................... 209
5.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Final Design .................................................. 210
46
5.1.1 One-Way Bicycle Lane .........................................................................................210
5.2 Context I Structural Engineering Final Design ......................................................... 215
5.2.1 Concrete Bollard....................................................................................................215
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 219
APPENDIX A: INITIAL COST ESTIMATES...................................................................... 221
APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT DESIGN ................. 222
APPENDIX C: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT DESIGN ........................... 266
APPENDIX D: TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT CONSTRAINTS ... 279
APPENDIX E: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT CONSTRAINTS .............. 282
APPENDIX F: FINAL COST ESTIMATES ......................................................................... 284
APPENDIX G: REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL ...... 286
CURRICULUM VITAE........................................................................................................... 288
47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Perspective View of the Proposed Bicycle Lane ....................................................... 56

Figure 1-2: Site Location .............................................................................................................. 56
Figure 1-3: Stages of Design Project ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 2-1: Manila Population 2021 ............................................................................................. 61
Figure 2-2: Manila Population Data (Urban Area) ....................................................................... 62
Figure 2-3: Growth of biking interest ........................................................................................... 63
Figure 2-4: June 2020 Bike Count ................................................................................................ 64
Figure 2-5: Metropolitan Manila Annual Average Daily Traffic (2020) ..................................... 65
Figure 2-6: Class II (Separated Bike Lane with Physical Separator) ........................................... 66
Figure 2-7: Minimal Width for Cyclist(left) and One-Way Bicycle Path(right) .......................... 66
Figure 2-8: Pavement Markings.................................................................................................... 67
Figure 2-9: Isometric Plan View of Class II (Separated Bike Lane) Physically Separated .......... 68
Figure 2-10: Class II (Separated Bike Lane) Physically Separated .............................................. 69
Figure 2-11: MMARAS Annual Report 2020 .............................................................................. 72
Figure 2-12: Total Bike Accidents ................................................................................................ 72
Figure 2-13: Vehicle Barrier Reference Points ............................................................................. 73
Figure 2-14: Typical Bollard Detail .............................................................................................. 76
Figure 2-15: Bollard Parts ............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 2-16: Diameter of the hole ................................................................................................. 78
Figure 2-17: Dig the hole .............................................................................................................. 79
Figure 2-18: Compact the soil....................................................................................................... 79
Figure 2-19: Place the bollard ....................................................................................................... 80
Figure 2-20: Pour the concrete evenly .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 3-1: 3D Concept of one-way bike lane .............................................................................. 90
Figure 3-2: 3D Concept of two-way bike lane.............................................................................. 91
Figure 3-3: 3D Concept of contra-flow bike lane ......................................................................... 93
Figure 3-4: Bike Lane Concrete Bollard ....................................................................................... 94
Figure 3-5: Bike Lane with Steel Bollard ..................................................................................... 95
Figure 3-6: Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards ................................................................................... 96
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale ............................................................................................................ 97
Figure 3-7: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ....................... 99
Figure 3-7a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ................. 99
Figure 3-7b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane.......... 100
Figure 3-7c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane...... 100
Figure 3-7d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ............. 101
Figure 3-7e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ......... 102
Figure 3-7f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ......... 102
Figure 3-7g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .... 103
Figure 3-7h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ................ 103
Figure 3-7i: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane ........................... 104
Figure 3-7j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ...................... 104
Figure 3-8: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard....................................... 108
48
Figure 3-8a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ........... 108
Figure 3-8b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard ..................... 109
Figure 3-8c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard . 109
Figure 3-8d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard ............................... 110
Figure 3-8e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ..... 110
Figure 3-8f: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard ..................................... 111
Figure 3-8g: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard........................................... 112
Figure 3-8h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard .................................. 112
Figure 3-8i: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ......... 113
Figure 3-8j: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard .......................... 113
Figure 3-8k: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard 114
Figure 4-1: Design Process ......................................................................................................... 123
Figure 4-2: Design Process using PTV Vissim........................................................................... 124
Figure 4-3: Design Process for Bicycle Level of Service ........................................................... 125
Figure 4-4: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard) .............................. 126
Figure 4-5: AutoCAD design of One-Way Bicycle Lane ........................................................... 127
Figure 4-6: Vehicular Composition (2025)................................................................................. 128
Figure 4-9: One-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (1) ......................................... 129
Figure 4-9a: One-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2) ....................................... 130
Figure 4-10: Simulation Parameters ........................................................................................... 130
Figure 4-11: Density Southbound (One-Way Bike Lane) .......................................................... 132
Figure 4-12: Density Northbound (One-Way Bike Lane) .......................................................... 132
Figure 4-13: Speed Southbound (One-Way Bike Lane) ............................................................. 133
Figure 4-14: Speed Northbound (One-Way Bike Lane) ............................................................. 133
Figure 4-15: Bicycle Level of Service for One-Way Bicycle Lane............................................ 134
Figure 4-16: Level of Stress Parameter ...................................................................................... 135
Figure 4-17: Schematic Diagram of the Cyclist Domain............................................................ 135
Figure 4-18: 3D SketchUp of Two-Way Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard) ........................... 136
Figure 4-19: AutoCAD design of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ........................................................ 137
Figure 4-20: Vehicular Composition (2025)............................................................................... 138
Figure 4-23: Two-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Gepmetric Model (1) ...................................... 139
Figure 4-23a: Two-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2) .................................... 140
Figure 4-25: Density Southbound (Two-Way Bike Lane) ......................................................... 142
Figure 4-26: Density Northbound (Two-Way Bike Lane) ......................................................... 142
Figure 4-27: Speed Southbound (Two-Way Bike Lane) ............................................................ 143
Figure 4-28: Speed Northbound (Two-Way Bike Lane) ............................................................ 143
Figure 4-29: Bicycle Level of service for Two-Way Bicycle Lane............................................ 144
Figure 4-32: 3D SketchUp of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard) ....................... 146
49
Figure 4-33: AutoCAD design of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .................................................... 147
Figure 4-37: Contra-Flow Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (1) .................................. 149
Figure 4-37a: Contra-Flow Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2) ................................ 150
Figure 4-39: Density Southbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane) ..................................................... 152
Figure 4-40: Density Northbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane) ..................................................... 152
Figure 4-41: Speed Southbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane) ........................................................ 153
Figure 4-42: Speed Northbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane) ........................................................ 153
Figure 4-43: Bicycle Level of service for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ....................................... 154
Figure 4-46: Design Process for Bollard Strength ...................................................................... 156
Figure 4-47: 3D SketchUp of Concrete Bollard ......................................................................... 157
Figure 4-48: AutoCAD design of Concrete Bollard ................................................................... 158
Figure 4-49: Vehicle Crush Distance vs. Impact Speed ............................................................. 161
Figure 4-50: Impact Force vs. Impact Speed .............................................................................. 161
Figure 4-51: Barrier Deflection vs. Impact Speed ...................................................................... 162
Figure 4-52: 3D SketchUp of Steel Bollard ................................................................................ 163
Figure 4-53: AutoCAD design of Steel Bollard ......................................................................... 164
Figure 4-57: 3D SketchUp of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard...................................................... 169
Figure 4-58: AutoCAD design of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ............................................... 170
Figure 4-62: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane .................... 176
Figure 4-62a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ................. 176
Figure 4-62b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ........ 177
Figure 4-62c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane.... 177
Figure 4-62d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ........... 178
Figure 4-62e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ....... 179
Figure 4-62f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane ....... 179
Figure 4-62g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .. 180
Figure 4-62g: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane .............. 180
Figure 4-62h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .......... 181
Figure 4-62i: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane ......................... 181
Figure 4-62j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .................... 182
Figure 4-63: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard..................................... 185
Figure 4-63a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ......... 185
Figure 4-63b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard................... 186
50
Figure 4-63c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard 187
Figure 4-63d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard ............................. 187
Figure 4-63e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ... 188
Figure 4-63f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard ........................ 188
Figure 4-63g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
..................................................................................................................................................... 189
Figure 4-63h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard ................................ 190
Figure 4-63i: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard ....... 190
Figure 4-63j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard ................................... 191
Figure 4-63k: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard......................................... 191
Figure 4-64: Economic vs Constructability – Context I Transportation Engineering Context .. 199
Figure 4-65: Economic vs Sustainability – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ...... 200
Figure 4-66: Economic vs Risk Assessment – Context I Transportation Engineering Context . 201
Figure 4-67: Economic vs Uncertainty – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ......... 202
Figure 4-68: Economic vs Safety – Context I Transportation Engineering Context .................. 203
Figure 4-69: Economic vs Constructability – Context II Structural Engineering Context ......... 204
Figure 4-70: Economic vs Sustainability – Context II Structural Engineering Context ............ 205
Figure 4-71: Economic vs Risk Assessment – Context II Structural Engineering Context ....... 206
Figure 4-72: Economic vs Uncertainty – Context II Structural Engineering Context ................ 207
Figure 4-73: Economic vs Safety – Context II Structural Engineering Context ........................ 208
Figure 5-1: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane with Concrete Bollard (Not to Scale) ..... 209
Figure 5-2: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane ................................................................. 210
Figure 5-3: Front Elevation of One-Way Bicycle Lane.............................................................. 210
Figure 5-4: Top View of One-Way Bicycle Lane (with Bollards) ............................................. 211
Figure 5-5: Geometric Model of One-Way Bicycle Lane (PTV Vissim) ................................... 212
Figure 5-6: One-Way Bicycle Path ............................................................................................. 212
Figure 5-7: Bicycle Lane symbol and/or arrow markings .......................................................... 213
Figure 5-8: Layout of One-Way Bike Lane in Google Maps ..................................................... 214
Figure 5-9: 3D SketchUp of Concrete Bollard ........................................................................... 215
Figure 5-10: AutoCAD design of Concrete Bollard ................................................................... 216
51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Recommended Maximum Spacing of Cones and Bollards ......................................... 70

Table 2-2: Recommended Taper Length ...................................................................................... 71
Table 2-3: Impact Condition Designations ................................................................................... 74
Table 2-4: Size and Positioning of Retroreflective Bands on Bollards ........................................ 77
Table 2-5: Installation Equipment ................................................................................................ 77
Table 2-6: Parts List ...................................................................................................................... 77
Table 3-1: Advantages & Disadvantages of One-Way Bike Lane ............................................... 91
Table 3-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Two-Way Bike Lane............................................... 92
Table 3-3: Advantages & Disadvantages of Contra-Flow Bike Lane .......................................... 93
Table 3-4: Advantages & Disadvantages of Concrete Bollards ................................................... 94
Table 3-5: Advantages & Disadvantages of Stainless-Steel Bollards .......................................... 95
Table 3-6: Advantages & Disadvantages of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards ................................ 96
Table 3-7: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context I Transportation Engineering Context .......... 98
Table 3-8: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context I Transportation Engineering.............. 105
Table 3-9: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context II Structural Engineering Context .............. 107
Table 3-10: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context II Structural Engineering Context .... 114
Table 3-11: Raw Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ................................... 116
Table 3-12: Normalized Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ........................ 117
Table 3-13: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Transportation Engineering 117
Table 3-14: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Transportation Engineering
..................................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 3-15: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering..... 118
Table 3-16: Raw Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context .......................................... 119
Table 3-17: Normalized Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context .............................. 119
Table 3-18: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering ..... 120
Table 3-19: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering .... 120
Table 4-1: New Future AADT per Classification (2025) ........................................................... 128
Table 4-4: Bicycle Level of Service Categories ......................................................................... 131
Table 4-5: Bicycle Level of Service for One-Way Bike Lane.................................................... 131
Table 4-6: Roadway Parameters for One-Way Bicycle Lane ..................................................... 134
Table 4-10: Bicycle Level of Service Categories ....................................................................... 141
Table 4-11: Bicycle Level of Service for Two-Way Bicycle Lane ............................................ 141
Table 4-12: Roadway Parameters for Two-Way Bicycle Lane .................................................. 144
Table 4-13: New Future AADT per Classification (2025) ......................................................... 148
52
Table 4-16: Bicycle Level of Service Categories ....................................................................... 151
Table 4-17: Bicycle Level of Service for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane ........................................ 151
Table 4-19: Roadway Parameters for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane .............................................. 154
Table 4-20: Small-passenger Car Parameters ............................................................................. 159
Table 4-21: Pick-up Truck Parameters ....................................................................................... 159
Table 4-22: Medium-duty Truck Parameters .............................................................................. 160
Table 4-23: Heavy-goods Vehicle Parameters ........................................................................... 160
Table 4-32: Summary of Final Estimate – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ....... 175
Table 4-33: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context I Transportation Engineering ............. 182
Table 4-34: Summary of Final Estimate – Context II Structural Engineering Context.............. 184
Table 4-35: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context II Structural Engineering Context ...... 192
Table 4-36: Raw Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ................................... 194
Table 4-37: Normalized Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context ........................ 194
..................................................................................................................................................... 195
Table 4-40: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Transportation Engineering
..................................................................................................................................................... 196
Table 4-41: Raw Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context .......................................... 196
Table 4-42: Normalized Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context .............................. 197
..................................................................................................................................................... 200
..................................................................................................................................................... 201
..................................................................................................................................................... 202
..................................................................................................................................................... 203
53
Table 5-1: Dimensions of One-Way Bicycle Lane ..................................................................... 213
Table 5-2: Small-passenger Car Parameters ............................................................................... 217
Table 5-3: Pick-up Truck Parameters ......................................................................................... 217
Table 5-4: Medium-duty Truck Parameters ................................................................................ 218
Table 5-5: Heavy-goods Vehicle Parameters ............................................................................. 218
54
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project
Currently, the local government has selected some bicycle lanes along Taft Avenue to help the
Filipino commuters with the lack of the public utility vehicles due to the pandemic. In addition to
the lack of public utility vehicles (PUV), road accidents are still occurring. Last year, the number
of bicycle accidents in Metro Manila reached its highest level in 11 years, as the number of cyclists
increased in tandem, fueled by the necessity for alternative modes of transportation after the
COVID-19 lockdown crippled public transportation. According to the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority, or MMDA, the overall number of bicycle accidents increased to 2,606
last year, up from 1,759 the year before. This was also the first time that the number of bicycle
accidents exceeded 2,000 since the MMDA began keeping count in 2009, when it was 1,111. After
conducting an investigation on the state of bicycle lanes, we found out that the bicycle lanes are
not safe for the bikers due to the lack of dividers that separate the bicycle lane from the main road
lane. This puts the bikers’ well-being at risk and prone to accidents.
The proposed design idea shows how the bicycle lanes will be modified with bollards in mind. As
the number of private vehicles develops, safe bicycle lanes with bollards are crucial in providing
an atmosphere for a good and easily accessible alternative method of transportation while
combatting traffic congestion. In contrast to the suggested city proposal of providing merely a
buffer zone and using traffic barricades, designing a safe cycling lane with bollards necessitates a
cultural shift. As a result, the intended bicycle lane will be permanent, encouraging more Filipino
commuters to pedal and lowering their virus exposure. Furthermore, it inhibits unauthorized
parking on Taft Avenue, because when parking becomes scarce, people often resort to illegal
parking. In addition to preventing unauthorized parking, bollards placed around a business serve
to protect bikes and pedestrians from cars that attempt to scale the curb, whether or not the purpose
for doing so is deliberate. Pedestrian behavior is also influenced by bollards. A row of bollards not
only physically separates the sidewalks and walkways from the parking lots, but also visually
distinguishes the two. This keeps pedestrians off the road and strolling in a consistent pattern along
routes. By taking the initiative and constructing bollards that fulfill the requisite resistance
standards and crash ratings, pedestrians and cyclists can be protected from damage caused by
unsafe and out-of-control motor vehicles. We intended to use the Class II Bike Lane Classification
from the Prescribing Guidelines on the Design of Bicycle Facilities Along National Roads released
by the DPWH. This is a portion of a roadway designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and is
separated from the motor-vehicle roadway through pavement marking or physical separation.
55
Figure 1-1: Perspective View of the Proposed Bicycle Lane
1.2 Project Location

Taft Avenue is a major thoroughfare that connects at least two major districts of Manila and two
cities (Pasay and Paranaque). Taft Avenue is known mainly for being a part of the University Belt,
with several of Manila’s major colleges and universities located within the vicinity. This, plus its
proximity to major modes of transportation, gives Taft Avenue the youthful vibe and accessibility
that has attracted an interesting mix of establishments to the area.
The project will take place along Taft Avenue. Its length is 1.92-kilometer and has 4 lanes, but we
will only design 800-m of the 1.92-kilometer. It starts from U.N. Avenue Station to Pedro Gil
Station.
Figure 1-2: Site Location

Source: Google Maps
56
1.3 The Client
The client of the project is Engr. Danneedee V. Bobadilla, Engineer IV, OIC, Traffic Engineering
Center (Planning and Design Group) of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.
1.3.1 Client’s Specifications
● The total cost of the project must not exceed Php 10,000,000.00.
● The construction duration must not exceed 180 working days.
● The design life of the bicycle lanes must reach at least 40 years and has minimal
maintenance cost.
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objectives
The project aims to design a secure cycling lane along Taft Avenue, as well as safe barriers to
mark the boundary between the bicycle lane and the public and private utility vehicles lane.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
To attain the designer’s objectives, the following must be accomplished:
● To gather reliable data and statistics in order to produce a project design that is appropriate.
● To assess the design requirements considering the transportation and structural constraints.
● Creating bicycle lanes with barriers that allow cyclists to travel safely and avoid accidents.
● Providing a safe lane and access to more cycling routes to encourage more commuters to
use bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation.
● Using barriers and pavement markings in raising road safety awareness among motorists
and cyclists.
● To evaluate the effectiveness of the bicycle lane over a 15-year period utilizing the optimal
trade-off from a Transportation Engineering perspective.
57
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations
1.5.1 Context I Transportation Engineering
1.5.1.1 Scope
The design project shall provide and cover the following:
1. The designers will provide material estimates and cost of labor.

2. The designers will focus on the traffic volume during normal peak hours.
3. The designers will perform road safety features such as bike lane pavement markings.
4. The designers will focus on the safety of the cyclists.
1.5.1.2 Limitations
The project is limited and bounded by the following:
1. The designers will not provide the machinery that will be used during the construction of
the project.
2. The designers will not include subjects such as the presence of e-bikes and e-scooters and
the effect of speed differentials on users.
3. The designers will not provide detailed daily construction activities.
4. The designers will not consider intersections for designing the bike lane.
5. The designers will not consider the design of pavement.
1.5.2 Context II Structural Engineering
1.5.2.1 Scope
The design project shall provide and cover the following:
1. The designers will perform materials estimates and cost of labor.

2. The designers will focus on the vehicular impact of the bollards.
3. The designers will concentrate on the structure and design of bollards, which are used to
direct traffic to designated zones while maintaining clear sight lines and bike lane access.
58
1.5.2.2 Limitations
The project is limited and bounded by the following:
1. The designers will not provide the process of constructing bollards during construction of
the project.
2. The designers will not depend on existing projects from the local government that might
still undergo multiple experiments and approval.
3. The designers will not include the traffic management plan during the construction.
4. The designers will not provide other alternative designs that are not included in the trade-
offs.
1.6 Project Development
The first phase is identifying the problem and conceptualization, which introduces the client's
demands and goals into the project while adhering to local regulations. In the planning stage, the
establishment of architectural plans and the placement of structural elements in structural plans
were considered.
In addition, the following phases determined design standards, limitations, and trade-offs. After
evaluating all of the client's needs as well as the provisions of the codes in use, the results are
evaluated. The client will be given the final design of the structure for approval before construction
can begin.
1. Identification of the Problem – Empirical findings and information from a number of

credible sources, such as surveys, interviews, modeling, and research, should be used to
identify the problem in that specific location.
2. Conceptualization – The process of developing and formulating ideas and concepts is

known as conceptualization. The project's scope and limitations were drafted, as well as a
list of required features, details, and criteria.
3. Data Gathering – Data gathering is the method of collecting and analyzing data in order
for designers to create an efficient design and solution.
4. Design Constraints and Standards – Constraints are the restrictions or requirements that
must be met by the design in order to decide the best design to incorporate. In addition, it
is important to identify the requirements and provisions that exist in local and national
codes.
5. Identification and Design of Trade-Offs - Trade-offs are the various types of options that
can fulfill all of the requirements. The initial process for an innovative, economical, and
cost-efficient design identifies constraints, standards, and trade-offs.
59
6. Evaluation of Results – Establishing such parameters to assess the real effect or strengths
of the design may be used to evaluate it. If the outcomes were not as planned based on the
goals and requirements, the design must be revised.
7. Final Design – The final design will be handed over to the project in-charge after a
comprehensive review and analysis. The final design is the product of adhering to the
client's request, the applicable governing requirements and provisions, and the most cost-
effective trade-off.
Figure 1-3: Stages of Design Project
60
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Design Criteria
The designers gathered data from different institutions and departments in order to create suitable
design criteria for the bicycle lanes along Taft Avenue with bollards as the dividing line from the
major lane. These design parameters used are under the standards and provisions provided by the
Department of Public Works and Highways.
2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
2.1.1.1 Demography
Demography is the study of human populations, including size, structure, and distribution over
space, socioeconomic characteristics, households and families, migration, labor force, and vital
processes.
2.1.1.1.1 Population
Manila's 2021 population is now estimated at 14,158,573. It has grown by 235,121 since 2015,
which represents a 1.69% annual change. Manila is the world's most densely populated city with
42,857 people per square kilometer, or 111,002 people per square mile. This is all contained within
an area of 42.88 square kilometers (16.56 square miles).
Figure 2-1: Manila Population 2021

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com
61
Figure 2-2: Manila Population Data (Urban Area)
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com
Population projection is a mathematical equation that calculates the estimated growth rate or
change of future populations based on current populations. Governments use population
projections for planning for public health, preparedness, housing, assistance, and school and
hospital construction. Such information also aids business and marketing (Dotson, 2018). With the
help of population projection, the designers will be able to project the future population of Manila
to ensure the estimated cyclist and pedestrian that will benefit from the project.
𝑁𝑡 = 𝑃𝑒 𝑟𝑡 Equation 2-1: Population

Projection
Where:
𝑁𝑡 = number of people at a future date

P= present population
e= natural logarithm
r =rate of increase divided by 100
t = time period.
62
2.1.1.1.2 Cyclists
The growing dependence for bikes will continue to change the current set-up of the streets in the
Philippines. According to the latest data from the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA), bicycle imports in the country doubled to 2.1 million units in 2020 due to public transport
restrictions amid the pandemic. More and more people are choosing to ride their bicycles to go to
work, to run important errands, or even to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
A study by the e-commerce aggregator iPrice Group showed an increasing interest in bicycles by
Filipinos. The volume of Google searches by Filipinos on bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters
continued to increase from January to March 2020.
Figure 2-3: Growth of biking interest

Source: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/
Amid the emerging bike culture among Filipinos, bicycles were considered as an alternative mode
of transportation in the new normal. However, concerns about road safety and bike lanes emerged.
In a Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey released last January 2021, 87 percent of Filipinos said
they prefer bicycles and public transportation to be given priority over private motor vehicles on
roads in cities or municipalities.
63
According to Pasig City Transport Office head Robert Anthony Siy III, “When you have numbers
like this, we should already be implementing wider bike lanes, it’s about time that we start thinking
about the needs of people who want to use modes other than cars. If you build bike lanes,
sidewalks, and high-quality public transportation, Filipinos will surely support these initiatives if
you give them the right service and the right facilities,” he added.
Figure 2-4: June 2020 Bike Count

Source: https://icsc.ngo/mmda-counts/
The figures will be useful to better protect cyclists because those will give a better understanding
of the existing usage and in predicting future travel. The June count, which was undertaken in the
same intersections including Aurora Boulevard, Shaw Boulevard, and Taft Avenue, registered
100,792 cyclists overall, with an average of 4,060 cyclists per day.
2.1.1.2 Traffic Assessment
The Manila Standard Today reported in July 2015 that the main reason for the worsening traffic
in the National Capital Region is the ever-growing number of motor vehicles in the area. Around
2.5 million motor vehicles are registered in Metro Manila alone, and there is an estimated 14
million daytime road population in the area. According to a survey conducted by Ipsos (2019) in
the Philippines, 73 percent of the respondents stated that traffic in their area would get worse in
2020.
64
Figure 2-5: Metropolitan Manila Annual Average Daily Traffic (2020)
Source: MMDA – Traffic Engineering Center
2.1.1.3 Project Description
2.1.1.3.1 Bicycle Operating Space for Road
The preferred width for one-directional separated bike lane is 2.44m to allow safe passing behavior
and an absolute minimum width of 1.22m. The preferred operating width for a two-directional
separated bike lane is 3.0m. In constrained condition, an absolute minimum width of 2.44m may
be used.
65
Figure 2-6: Class II (Separated Bike Lane with Physical Separator)
Figure 2-7: Minimal Width for Cyclist(left) and One-Way Bicycle Path(right)
66
2.1.1.3.2 Pavement Markings
Bicycle lane symbol and/or arrow markings shall be placed in accordance to the following
requirements to remind motorists and pedestrians of the potential presence of bicyclists, especially
in areas where motorists are expected to cross bike lanes along the facility based on engineering
judgement and shall be maintained periodically.
• Bicycle lane symbol and/or arrow markings for shared use path and separated bike lane
using physical separators shall be placed at the beginning of a cycle track, intersection and
at periodic intervals of 100m minimum and not greater than 300m.
• The shared use path and bidirectional separated bike lane shall be separated with solid
white line pavement markings with width of 100mm and consideration of appropriate
informatory sign to guide and separate the cyclists from pedestrians and other users along
the path.
Pavement markings on the design will include the Bicycle Arrow, Bicycle Symbol, and the line
stripping which has a width of 100mm.
Figure 2-8: Pavement Markings
2.1.1.3.3 Retroreflective Materials
Reflective materials used for traffic control devices such as, hazard markers, guide posts,
delineators, and pavement markers shall be manufactured from retroreflective materials and tested
in accordance to industry standards.
67
2.1.1.3.4 Physical Separator
Along a continuous non-commercial section, pavement markings or combination of flexible

bollards/delineator posts with curbs shall be used to designate an exclusive space for bicyclists.
Figure 2-9: Isometric Plan View of Class II (Separated Bike Lane) Physically Separated
68
Figure 2-10: Class II (Separated Bike Lane) Physically Separated
69
2.1.1.4 Bollard Spacing
Spacing of cones and bollards shall conform to the given requirements of Table 625.3,
Recommended Maximum Spacing of Cones and Bollards. If necessary, spacing of cones and
bollards may need to be reduced to as little as 1 m to prevent traffic taking a wrong turn or wrong
opening in through a line of bollards and cones.
Table 2-1: Recommended Maximum Spacing of Cones and Bollards
70
Table 2-2: Recommended Taper Length
2.1.2 Design Criteria for Context II Structural Engineering Context
2.1.2.1 Hazard
The number of bicycle accidents last year in Metro Manila ballooned to its highest level in 11
years as the number of cyclists similarly grew, spurred by the need for alternative mobility options
after the COVID-19 lockdown hamstrung public transport. Last year, the MMDA recorded 3,026
incidents (36 of which were fatal) involving bicycles, e-bikes, and pedicabs. That accounts for
2.4% of the total number of incidents for the entire 2020. That’s up significantly from just 1,783
bicycle- and pedicab-related incidents (20 fatal) from 2019.
71
Figure 2-11: MMARAS Annual Report 2020
Source: https://mmda.gov.ph/
Based on monitoring data from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority or MMDA, the
total number of bicycle accidents last year shot up to 2,606, from 1,759 the previous year. This
was also the first time that bicycle accidents went past 2,000 since the MMDA began tracking data
in 2009, where it started at 1,111 that year.
Figure 2-12: Total Bike Accidents

Source: https://philstarlife.com/
72
2.1.2.2 Vehicular Barrier
A vehicle barrier is defined as an element or a system that, when placed in the path of a moving
vehicle, would stop the vehicle after it collides with the barrier. In general, vehicular barriers are
used to protect life, limbs and property from intruding vehicles. The barriers are passive type, such
as concrete walls, upturn beams, spandrel beams, steel guardrails, bollards, and prestressed cables.
A barrier that either fails during an impact with a colliding vehicle or flexes so much that the
vehicle breaches it without stopping, is not an effective barrier.
Figure 2-13: Vehicle Barrier Reference Points
2.1.2.2.1 Fixed/Rigid Barrier
Rigid barriers must be sufficiently stiff to provide a durable physical impediment that a vehicle
cannot run over or push out of the way. In many cases, the barrier must not move or move only
slightly when hit. The forces imparted to the rigid barrier must be immediately transferred to other
more massive elements usually the ground or a foundation structure.
2.1.2.2.1.1 Kinetic Energy
The force that a vehicle barrier must resist is largely dependent on the mass and velocity of the
vehicle. The force required to stop a large vehicle at a relatively low speed may be the same as that
required to stop a much smaller vehicle traveling at a higher speed. This concept is expressed in
terms of the kinetic energy (KE) of the moving vehicle. The key to an effective vehicle security
barrier is to determine a way to dissipate/absorb the kinetic energy of the vehicle before it reaches
its intended objective.
73
A moving vehicle has KE:
1
𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐾𝐸 = 𝑚𝑣 2
2
Equation 2-1: Kinetic Energy
where m = mass of the vehicle and v = velocity of the vehicle.
For rigid barriers, deceleration rates are extremely high. Numerous instrumented tests show that
most energy transfer in a head-on vehicle impact with a rigid barrier occurs within 0.2 s and can
be as short as 0.07–0.12 s
2.1.2.2.1.2 Deceleration Rate
The average deceleration rate can be determined by comparing the KE of the design vehicle with
the KE of physical impact tests culled from a literature search. Average deceleration values are in
the range of 245–304 m/s2. An average of these values is 274.5 m/s2.
An average deceleration rate (rather than maximum rate) should be used to account for crushing
of the design vehicle. Once the deceleration rate is established, the basic equation for the design
force on the barrier is:
𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎
Equation 2-2: Design Force
where m = mass of vehicle and a = deceleration rate of vehicle.
2.1.2.2.2 Vehicular Mass and Nominal Minimum Test Velocity
According to ASTM F 2656-07, A vehicular weight of 1100 kg for small passenger cars with
60km/h permissible speed range shall be used in barrier design. See Table 2-1 for Impact Condition
Designations.
Table 2-3: Impact Condition Designations
74
2.1.2.2.3 Vehicular Speed
The most significant parameter affecting the impact force is the vehicle collision speed; the impact
force increases with the square of the vehicular speed. The anticipated speed depends on the
distance and slope available for a vehicle to accelerate before slamming into the barrier.
2.1.2.2.4 Vehicle Crush
When a vehicle hits a barrier, parts of the vehicle deform, bends or crushes, and the vehicle length
decreases. The decrease in vehicle length after an impact is termed “car crush” and is denoted as
𝛿𝑐 . Based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) vehicle crash-
worthiness tests, the car crush distance 𝛿𝑐 can be approximated by the following equation:
Equation 2-3: Vehicle Crush Distance

where v is the car speed in miles per hour (mph).
2.1.2.2.5 Barrier Deflection
During an impact, a part of vehicle’s kinetic energy is transferred to the barrier. One barrier may
absorb energy as elastic strain while another system may rely on local yield mechanisms. The
amount of energy absorbed and accompanying deformation depends on the barrier type. For
barriers exhibiting linear behavior, the deflection can be represented as:
Equation 2-4: Barrier Deflection

where kb is the barrier stiffness.
2.1.2.2.6 Impact Force
The impact force on a vehicular barrier can be determined by the equation:
Equation 2-5: Impact Force

𝑊
where m is the vehicle mass (𝑚 = );
𝑔
v is the vehicle speed at the impact
𝛿𝑐 is the vehicle crush
𝛿𝑏 is the barrier deflection under impact
Equation 2-5 does not capture the peak force a barrier experience. Rather, it provides an average
force during the crush and rebound duration that lasts a fraction of second.
75
2.1.2.3 Embedded Bollard
Embedded Bollards is the most permanent of all bollard base options. They are simply bollards
which are embedded deep into the ground. This is usually for added strength and security.
Embedded bollards can be made out of any common bollard material, be it steel, concrete or even
wood, however the bollard will only be as strong as the foundation in which it is buried. A steel
post filled with concrete and buried very deep within a reinforced concrete foundation will be
strong indeed. On the contrary, a wooden post buried in soft sand or dirt will not provide as much
protection.
Figure 2-14: Typical Bollard Detail
2.1.2.4 Retroreflective Bands on Bollards
Bollards or tubular markers shall provide clear visual guidance to help drivers and road users
through challenging multi-lane separation. These vertical bollards having reflective surface, shall
provide a visible separation of lanes because of its elevated height compared to the ground stud
counterpart. Bollards or tubular markers shall be tube or pipe shaped with retroreflective bands.
76
The size and positioning of retroreflective bands on bollards shall be as shown in Table 625.1:
Table 2-4: Size and Positioning of Retroreflective Bands on Bollards
2.1.2.5 Bollard Installation into New Concrete
Embedding bollard footings into new concrete offers the possibility of below-grade mounting
options for retractable and removable bollards, as well as allowing for the installation of impact-
protective bollards.
Table 2-5: Installation Equipment

Auger Dirt Tamper
Level Chalk/Marker
Paper/Newspaper Measuring Tape
Figure 2-15: Bollard Parts
Table 2-6: Parts List

# Part Qty
1 Embedded Mount 1
2 Reflective Tape (optional) 1
77
Before Installation:
1. Study the site plans
Site plans are generally created by the architect of the project.
Refer to site plans to locate the precise center point of each bollard.
Ensure that the plan coincides with the site and familiarize yourself with the intended
arrangement of the bollards.
2. Check for hazards

Always check for hazards such as water pipes, gas lines, and underground wiring before
digging.
3. Prepare the site for concrete

Please consult your local Building Code Department to determine the recommended
digging depth below the frost line in your area.
Dig below the recommended digging depth—or to the required depth for the bollard—
whichever is greater.
Note: The required depth for the bollard differs based on the bollard model. Refer to
product drawings to determine specific depth measurements.
The diameter of the hole should extend a minimum of 2″ from the sides of the bollard base.
Figure 2-16: Diameter of the hole
Center the auger on the installation mark and bore a hole to the required measurements.
78
Figure 2-17: Dig the hole
Ensure the area is properly formed to create a perimeter that will hold wet concrete.
Use a dirt tamper to compact the soil below the intended surface.
Figure 2-18: Compact the soil
Set the Bollard:

4. Prepare the bollard for designated location
When ready to install, scrunch up paper or newspaper and put inside the hollow bottom of
the bollard to prevent debris from entering.
79
Pour the concrete:
5. Mix the concrete
Ensure that the proper ratio of water and concrete mix is used.
The concrete should have a similar texture to moldable clay.
6. Place the bollard in designated location

Lower the bollard into designated location. The bollard should be installed so that
predetermined portion of the bollard will sit below the finished surface of the concrete
grade.
Figure 2-19: Place the bollard
7. Pour the concrete

Take care to pour the concrete evenly, ensuring the surface is level.
Hold a level against the side of the bollard and ensure that it remains plumb.
Note: Once the concrete has cured, there will be no way to make any adjustments.
80
Figure 2-20: Pour the concrete evenly
Allow the concrete to cure:

A minimum of 2–3 days should be given for concrete to cure before beginning construction
projects on new concrete surfaces.
Note: Moisture in the environment and cool temperatures can significantly slow the
process.
Inspect:
1. Inspect the installation
From a distance, examine the plane of view.
Ensure the bollard is plumb.
Check the bollard for any signs of surface damage:

2. Abrasions should be covered as soon as possible to prevent rust and ensure the proper
life of the bollard.
81
2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Review of Related Literature for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
According to studies, approximately 35% of destinations in Metro Manila are within a 15-minute
walk or bicycle ride, but the majority of short trips are made by jeepneys, tricycles, and even
vehicles (Leather et al., 2011). Despite the apparent negative direct and indirect consequences of
owning and operating a vehicle, people continue to be drawn to it. Other cities in the Philippines,
such as Quezon City, are seeing a rise in private car usage as well. Despite the fact that public
transportation usage is high (Almec Corporation, 2015), the lack of municipal initiatives and
policies to expand public transportation and reduce car ownership and use may have a negative
effect on the city's potential traffic and transportation conditions. Furthermore, despite the
willingness of cities in developed countries to increase pedestrian and bicycle use, a lack of
available data on pedestrian and cycling remains an issue.
The safety of the cyclists passing through the bicycle lanes is the topmost concern of the
government (Abalos, Bicycle Lane improvements in metro now underway, 2021) which is indeed
should be the top most priority as of now since the number of cyclists are growing. “We need
mobility in the metropolis especially amid the pandemic and one alternative mode of transport is
the bicycle. We are committed to ensure that cyclists are able to move while making sure of their
safety,” (Abalos, Bicycle Lane improvements in metro now underway, 2021). With public
transportation still limited due to the coronavirus pandemic, the government's economic team is
promoting cycling and building more protected bike lanes. Constructing the projects, however,
remains to be challenging (CUYCO, 2021).
While bicycling is becoming more popular in the United States, it still accounts for only 1% of all
trips. According to surveys, up to 60% of the US population is interested in biking as a legitimate
mode of transportation, but they are worried about their safety. To have a significant impact, cities
must go above and beyond the bare minimum by investing in a comprehensive bicycle network
that prioritizes bike safety. In terms of infrastructure, this entails going beyond traditional bike
lanes, which separate bikes and cars with a simple line on the road. Bikes must instead be
physically protected from vehicles by using Protected Bike Lane (PBL) facilities. (Megyeri, 2016)
One-way bicycle lanes reduce risk of ‘dooring’ compared to a bike lane and eliminates the risk of
a doored bicyclist being run over by a motor vehicle (King, 2002). Road and path elements are
easily identifiable for one-way bicycle tracks (Søren Underlien Jensen, 2000). The advantage of
this one-way bicycle lane is that you are making the same kind of maneuvers as people in cars, so
broadly the road layout is designed to accommodate your journey (Wells, 2018).
Separated Bike Lane are bicycle facilities that use both paint and a vertical element as a buffer
between vehicle traffic and bicycle traffic. SBL installation has increased in recent years in the
United States as planners and engineers seek to reduce crash risk, increase safety, and foster
demand. As a result, public demand for these facilities has increased. (Hourdos, Duhn, Dirks, &
Greg, 2021)
82
Buffered and protected bike lanes are increasingly being recognized as a valuable tool in enticing
potential or hesitant cyclists to use a bicycle for transportation. These facilities, which provide
additional space and (in the case of protected bike lanes) physical separation from motor vehicles,
have been researched and are preferred by many bicyclists over traditional bike lanes. However,
little research has been conducted on the differences between buffer types and how they affect
people's perceptions of the safety and comfort of bicycling. This paper examines the impact of
various hypothetical and actual buffered bike lane designs (both with and without physical
protection) from the perspective of current bicyclists (n = 1,111) and residents living near the new
facilities (n = 2,283) who could be potential bicyclists using data from surveys collected for a
multicity study of newly constructed protected bike lanes. According to the findings, striped or
painted buffers provide some level of increased comfort, whereas buffers with some sort of
physical protection, even as minimal as a plastic flex post, provide significant increases in
perceived comfort for potential cyclists with safety concerns. Residents living near newly
constructed protected bike lanes indicated that if motor vehicles and bicycles were physically
separated by a barrier, 71 percent of all residents and 88 percent of the interested but concerned
indicated that they would be more likely to ride a bicycle (Mcneil, Monsere, & Dill, 2019).
2.2.2 Review of Related Literature for Context II Structural Engineering Context
Polyurethane bollards are an important part of urban and rural planning. They can be placed
alongside major roads to protect pedestrians from automobiles that mount the curb, as well as in
front of business and residential properties to limit vehicle access. They are an important part of
public security in metropolitan areas, as they make these surroundings more livable. Given the
importance of these locations' operation, concrete bollards must be of the greatest quality in order
to be a suitable long-lasting, sturdy, and cost-effective option (Speedy Street Solutions Ltd, n.d.).
On streets where no separate bike route is available, such as within or around crossroads and
merging traffic lanes, polyurethane bollards can be put as a safe and secure solution to separate
bike lanes and bicycle parking racks from motor traffic (Dlubala, 2017). There are various aesthetic
possibilities available with polyurethane bollards (Caston, 2020). Polyurethane bollards are
available in only one shape: cylindrical. Polyurethane bollards are commonly used for perimeter
protection since they are minimal maintenance, chip resistant, and weather resistant (Blog, 2019).
The impact resistance of a bollard, which is dependent on its foundation, is an important factor to
consider in its design. Previous research on bollard foundation systems has primarily focused on
the use of shallow concrete foundation systems. However, for bollards, a simple deep foundation
technology can be used at a low cost (Adom, 2015).
The pipe must be at least 3 feet tall to match the bumper height of most cars, according to the
“Military Field Manual.” They recommend that the bollard foundation be 3 feet deep and at least
18 inches square for 6-inch-diameter steel pipe. That works out to a little less than 7 cubic feet of
concrete (about 14 yard) — not much, but enough to mix by hand. Even at 8 inches in diameter,
an unreinforced concrete post has little bending strength by itself. In other words, a car colliding
with it would easily break it. That means that an effective bollard must be made of steel, preferably
a steel pipe filled with concrete. Even though the concrete adds little strength to the pipe's
resistance to impact, it helps the pipe resist collapsing at the point of impact (Construction, 2015).
83
Concrete bollards typically feature high-pressure cement for increased durability and security.
They are easy to paint and maintain and provide a clean finish for a sophisticated look. On the
other hand, concrete should not generally be used for higher security applications. In fact, no
cement bollards have ever been crash-tested (Bollards, n.d.). One major reason why concrete
bollards are not typically used for security is if there is a crash, the concrete basically explodes and
the resulting shrapnel will most likely do just as much, if not more, damage to surrounding areas
and people as if the driver broke through the barricade. Over time, they also tend to chip and fall
apart, leaving exposed rebar.
Bollard systems are often used to separate errant vehicular travel from pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. Various bollard systems are available for this function, including different installations,
functional design, and protection levels. Concrete-filled bollards are commonly used by
cities/states, local government organizations, and the private sector as “perceived impediments to
access” to protect against slow-moving vehicles. There is a general lack of publicly available test
data to evaluate these non-security bollards and conventional installation procedures (Croteau,
Crosby, Marine, & Kwasniak, 2015).
Steel bollards are useful in enhancing the security of pedestrians (Fedsteel, 2018). While auto
accidents can occur any time, bollards often act as a barrier that prevent a car from entering a
pedestrian-only zone. They can be seen in places like pedestrian malls, college campuses, or civic
centers. Without being an eyesore or an obstructive barrier like a fence, they are an effective and
minimalistic way of keeping automobiles out of unwanted areas.
84
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINT, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Design constraints are conditions that need to happen for a project to be successful. These
conditions are the requirements and standards set by the client depending on his budget, interest,
and specifications. Constraints will be paired with each trade-off to help the designer measure and
choose the most applicable design for the project.
In this project, the design constraints were divided into two types, namely, quantitative, and
qualitative. Quantitative constraints are those constraints that can be measured using engineering
methods (estimation). The qualitative constraints are those which cannot be measured but are
ranked through the designer’s perception and experience. The following are the constraints that
are considered in the design of the structure.
3.1.1 Design Constraints for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
3.1.1.1 Quantitative Constraint
Economic Constraint (Construction Cost)
Designing a project whether large- or small-scale projects are expensive. However, it is possible
to choose more affordable materials and methods of construction which may help lower costs. In
Transportation Context, the designers will estimate the construction cost of each trade-off based
on labor cost and materials to be used for the proposed structure.
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-offs will be best suitable for the proposed
budget without compromising the overall design. In these trade-offs, the designers will be
obtaining desirable outcomes to know what will be the most economical under given
circumstances.
● Limitation: The construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount
of Php 10,000,000.00 only.
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
This constraint is the phase of any design project to execute within regular operating conditions
for a particular running period. This is required to be accounted on how much will be the cost of
the project when it resists limit states according to its capacity. Sustainability constraint will be
measured by estimating the maintenance cost needed for the bicycle lane design. The bicycle lane
design which will prove to be cheaper in maintenance will be more favorable in terms of
sustainability.
• Limitation: The structure must have a minimal maintenance cost.
85
Constructability (Construction Duration)
Constructability is a technique to review construction processes from start to finish during pre-
construction phase. It is to identify obstacles before a project is implemented to reduce or prevent
errors, delays, and cost overruns. This constraint refers to the ratio of the number of workers that
will be hired for the construction, to the period for the lane to be built. One of these two will be
considered as a constant to measure an accurate difference between them. As the project duration
lengthens, the labor cost and equipment cost increase and thus making the project more expensive.
This constraint will focus on the period of the execution of each trade-off.
● Limitation: The construction of the project must be completed within 180 days.
Safety (Level of Service)
Level of service (LOS) is a mechanism used to determine how well a transportation facility is
operating from a traveler’s perspective. Typically, six levels of service are defined and each is
assigned a letter designation from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions,
and LOS F the worst.
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will have important safety implication. It
also influences other aspects of planning and design of specific projects, whether along a corridor
or within a broader bikeway network. Greater safety attracts more bicyclists, resulting in safer
cycling conditions overall. Multiple studies show that the presence of bikeways, particularly low-
stress, connected bikeways, positively correlates with increased bicycling. This in turn results in
improvements in bicyclists’ overall safety.
• Limitation: The Level of Service must be between A-C.
Risk Assessment (Traffic Impact)
This project focuses on the Traffic Impact Assessment of each trade-off while being accessible to
bikers on a daily basis. The designers used Traffic Impact Assessment for the next fifteen (15)
years to assess the traffic condition to help in determining the possible effects on the development
of the traffic system to mitigate any negative impacts. There will be computation and analysis of
the trade-offs to know which trade-off will satisfy the design.
• Limitation: The designed bike lane must have a low traffic impact.
Uncertainty Constraint (Mobility Cost)
Transporting materials to be used in a project is indeed costly. Transporting construction materials,

whether within your city or region requires some careful consideration and planning. Depending
on the types of materials to be transported, usage of different vehicles and other equipment to
ensure materials reach their destination safely. Different loads will need to be packed differently
86
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will experience precise arrival time for
the materials to arrive. In these trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to
know what will be the most punctual under given circumstances.
• Limitation: The mobility cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount of Php
1,500,000.00 only.
3.1.1.2 Qualitative Constraint
Societal
Societal constraints refer to the social behaviors and characteristics influencing the sustainability
of a design project within a community. We evaluated the thoughts and reactions of motorists,
especially the bikers affected by the traffic in the area. We considered this as a constraint since
motorists and bikers would deal with the side effects of designing a bike lane.
Aesthetics
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan for the design of the
structure. The original aesthetic of the project is to have a barrier with pavement markings. It is
dependent on the location of the project whether or not it may be prone to hazards. The aesthetics
may need to be modified, or redesign in terms of the design constraint of the tradeoffs and may
affect the preliminary design.
3.1.2 Design Constraints for Context II Structural Engineering Context
3.1.2.1 Quantitative Constraint
Economic (Construction Cost)
Using bollard is costly, whether big- or small-scale projects. However, it is possible to choose
more affordable materials and methods of construction, which may help lessen the costs. This
depends on the type of bollards to be used. This set of trade-offs will be evaluated whether the
materials will be inexpensive and, at the same time, be beneficial to the project. In these trade-offs,
the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to identify what will be the most economical
In Structural Context, the designers will estimate the construction cost of each trade-off based on
the labor cost and equipment to be used for the bollards.
● Limitation: The construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount of
Php 10,000,000.00 only.
87
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
This constraint is the phase of any design project to execute within regular operating conditions
for a particular running period. This is required to be accounted on how much will be the cost of
the bollard when it resists limit states according to its capacity. Sustainability constraint will be
measured by estimating the maintenance cost needed for the bollard design. The bollard design
which will prove to be cheaper in maintenance will be more favorable in terms of sustainability.
● Limitation: The structure must have a minimal maintenance cost.
Constructability (Construction Duration)
Constructability defines the ease and efficiency with which bollards can be built. The more
constructible a bollard is, the more cost-effective it will be. This constraint has a significant
influence on the project cost because it has a direct relationship with the duration of the project.
As the project duration lengthens, the labor cost and equipment cost increases and thus making the
project more expensive. This constraint will focus on the period of the execution of each trade-off.
● Limitation: The construction of the project must be completed within 180 days.
Risk Assessment (Barrier Deflection)
Temporary barriers are often required to provide positive protection for motorists and workers in
a highway work zone. Most highway work zones are restricted in terms of available lateral space
for accommodating traffic and the work activity. Consequently, it is desirable to minimize the
deflection of work zone barriers in order to minimize the required buffer distance between the
barrier and work activity area and, thereby, maximize the space and number of lanes available for
traffic. Whenever a traffic control plan is developed that utilizes temporary barriers, it is important
to define acceptable barrier deflection criteria. However, the acceptable deflection criteria can be
expected to vary, depending on the application.
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will achieves the objective of low
dynamic barrier design deflection without sacrificing constructability. In addition to being easy to
install, the new barrier system is also perceived to be easy to inspect, and repair.
• Limitation: The barrier deflection must be minimal.
88
Safety (Safety Impact)
Risk assessment is a term used to describe the overall process or method where you: Identify
hazards and risk factors that have the potential to cause harm. This constraint helps the bicycle
lane to maintain its safety. Safety may indicate a structure’s ability to protect against traffic
congestion and accidents. Therefore, the designers use guidelines prescribed by Department of
Public Works and Highways to prevent the potential hazard that makes the bollards collapse or be
destroyed and bike lanes to be erased. During an accident, and the vehicle hits the bollards, the
impact of the collision can be lessened and the security of pedestrians and cyclists can be safer.
● Limitation: This constraint will focus on determining which type of bollard will be the
most efficient against lateral forces to deploy along Taft Avenue.
Uncertainty Constraint (Mobility Cost)
Transporting materials to be used in a project is indeed costly. Transporting construction materials,

whether within your city or region requires some careful consideration and planning. Depending
on the types of materials to be transported, usage of different vehicles and other equipment to
ensure materials reach their destination safely. Different loads will need to be packed differently
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-off will experience precise arrival time for
the materials to arrive. In these trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to
know what will be the most punctual under given circumstances.
• Limitation: The mobility cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount of Php
1,500,000.00 only.
3.1.2.2 Qualitative Constraint
This constraint mainly concerns with the bollards’ functionality and its alignment with its purpose.
This bicycle lane with bollards as protection should be designed based on its purpose and function.
For a biker it is designed to provide a safe and smooth commuting experience for both pedestrians
and cyclists. The designers must see to it that the bicycle lane is wide enough to accompany one
bicycle while the bollards are cost-effective and durable.
Environmental
An environmental constraint is a limitation of building a particular bollard with the equipment and
methods to be used, based on the environmental impact on the surroundings in construction. The
designers have researched a set of trade-offs that will be analyzed, whether the equipment and
methods to be used in the road improvement will be beneficial to the environment at the same time
to the design itself.
89
Aesthetics
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan for the design of the
bollard. The original aesthetic of the project is to have a simple yet striking design for bollards.
The aesthetics may need to be modified, or redesign in terms of the design constraint of the
tradeoffs and may affect the preliminary design.
3.2 Design Trade-offs
Trade-offs are the balancing of factors that cannot be achieved simultaneously. It is an alternative
method of analyzing and comparing designs to determine the best design for the project given the
constraints. These trade-offs will be weighed by the designers to design an 800-meter bicycle lane
with bollards along Taft Avenue.
3.2.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Trade-offs
One-Way Bike Lane
One-way protected cycle tracks are bikeways that are at street level and use a variety of methods
for physical protection from passing traffic. A one-way protected cycle track may be combined
with a parking lane or other barrier between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane.
When a cycle track is elevated above street level it is called a raised cycle track and different design
considerations may apply.
Figure 3-1: 3D Concept of one-way bike lane

(Source: https://nacto.org/publication)
90
Table 3-1: Advantages & Disadvantages of One-Way Bike Lane
Advantages Disadvantages
● Protection for cyclists ● Parking impacts
● Proven safety benefits for all modes ● Loading activity occurs across bike lane
● Enhanced pedestrian safety and comfort ● Challenging to regulate floating parking
● Allows for pedestrian improvements ● Bike signal timing may impact traffic
like safety islands ● Maintenance plan required at pedestrian
safety islands for lanes under 11’ wide
● Complex review and implementation
Two-Way Bike Lane
Two-way cycle tracks (also known as protected bike lanes, separated bikeways, and on-street bike
paths) are physically separated cycle tracks that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one
side of the road. Two-way cycle tracks share some of the same design characteristics as one-way
tracks, but may require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings. A two-way
cycle track may be configured as a protected cycle track—at street level with a parking lane or
other barrier between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane—and/or as a raised cycle
track to provide vertical separation from the adjacent motor vehicle lane.
Figure 3-2: 3D Concept of two-way bike lane

91
Two-way cycle tracks along the road should not be installed where there are many side roads or
entrances and exits across the track, (for example, in cities). Safety issues arise when a two-way
cycle track crosses a side road because drivers often overlook cyclists coming from the wrong
direction. Two-way cycle tracks in rural areas should be installed when there is dense motor traffic
and enough space, for example along a highway or a heavily trafficked main road. From the point
of view of traffic safety, it’s often best to place the two-way cycle track on the side of the road
where there are fewest side roads and entrances and exits. On the other hand, if many cyclists use
the side roads it may be safer to place the two-way cycle track on the same side as the side roads.
The termination of a two-way cycle track should be designed in relation to the need for traffic
islands at crossings, etc.
Table 3-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Two-Way Bike Lane
● Dedicates and protects space for ● Less space for cars
bicyclists by improving perceived ● More traffic jams
comfort and safety. Eliminates risk and ● Plenty of planning are required
fear of collisions with over-taking ● Complex review and implementation
vehicles. ● May be unnecessary in some areas or
● Reduces risk of ‘dooring’ compared to a region.
bike lane, and eliminates the risk of a
doored bicyclist being run over by a
motor vehicle.
● Low implementation cost when making
use of existing pavement and drainage
and using parking lane or other barrier
for protection from traffic.
Contra-Flow Bike Lane
Contra-flow bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes designed to allow bicyclists to ride in the opposite
direction of motor vehicle traffic. They convert a one-way traffic street into a two-way street: one
direction for motor vehicles and bikes, and the other for bikes only. Contra-flow lanes are separated
with yellow center lane striping. Combining both direction bicycle travel on one side of the street
to accommodate contra-flow movement results in a two-way cycle track.
Typical Design Application
• On streets where large numbers of bicyclists are already riding the wrong way.
• On corridors where alternate routes require excessive out-of-direction travel.
• On corridors where alternate routes include unsafe or uncomfortable streets with high
traffic volumes and/or no bicycle facilities.
92
• On corridors where the contra-flow lane provides direct access to destinations on the street
under consideration.
• Where two-way connections between bicycle facilities are needed along one-way streets.
Figure 3-3: 3D Concept of contra-flow bike lane

Table 3-3: Advantages & Disadvantages of Contra-Flow Bike Lane
● Provides connectivity and access to ● Too expensive due to additional
bicyclists traveling in both directions. markings
● Reduces dangerous wrong-way riding. ● Not suitable for narrow roads
● Decreases sidewalk riding. ● Less room for the main road and will
● Influences motorist choice of routes cause traffic jams
without limiting bicycle traffic.
● Decreases trip distance, the number of
intersections encountered, and travel
times for bicyclists by eliminating out-
of-direction travel.
● Allows bicyclists to use safer, less
trafficked streets.
93
3.2.2 Context II Structural Engineering Trade-offs
Concrete Bollard
Concrete bollards provide a high level of impact protection, making them ideal for sensitive, high-
traffic areas, whilst also being incredibly durable and cost effective. are one example of a
decorative bollard that provides impact protection without distracting from the landscaping and
architectural style. Reinforced with steel for exceptional strength and available in many shapes,
sizes, and surface finishes, concrete bollards can be used for any permanent bollard application.
Concrete is an excellent building material, used in most major buildings and urban infrastructure
projects—you would be hard-pressed to find any modern building that does not use concrete for
at least the foundation. Concrete can also be easily upgraded with steel reinforcement for added
strength and additional surface finishing, protecting it from external elements while adding an
appealing surface texture.
Figure 3-4: Bike Lane Concrete Bollard

(Source: Google Images)
Table 3-4: Advantages & Disadvantages of Concrete Bollards
● Provides a high level of impact ● Heavyweight and bulkiness
protection. ● Long installation and removal times
● Strong and can’t be knocked over ● Less safe for drivers
easily.
● Durable and good choice for long-term
projects.
● Easily to paint and maintain.
94
Steel Bollard
Steel safety bollards can refer to a variety of stainless-steel uprights and metal posts. They often
provide protection from vehicles in addition to segregating walkways and prohibiting vehicle
access. They are weather-resistant, which makes them useful for long-term outdoor use. Some of
these bollards feature a concrete core. Temporary steel bollards can be removed or lowered to
allow access (telescopic bollards), while others are a permanent fixture. Permanent steel bollards
tend to be bolted to the floor or secured with concrete. Steel is possibly the most common type of
bollard protection, though they are not always the best choice. It depends on the location and the
types of impact they could face. While steel bollards do provide substantial protection – especially
against cars and other motor vehicles – they are often a single-use safety product. Once a steel
bollard has been struck by a vehicle, depending on the size of the force, it is likely that the bollard
will need replacing. The impact will destroy the bollard and possibly the footings that the bollard
sits in, as the force of the impact pulls the bollard from its foundations.
Figure 3-5: Bike Lane with Steel Bollard

Table 3-5: Advantages & Disadvantages of Stainless-Steel Bollards
● Provides safety to pedestrians. ● Difficulty in welding
● Adds aesthetics. ● High cost
● Higher resistance to corrosion.
● Durable
95
Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
From a security standpoint, bollards are designed to either absorb or deflect a potential threat. To
be effective, bollards should be designed to be bent or distorted on impact. Security bollards made
of structural grade steel filled with concrete have increased traffic-stopping power. An
unreinforced concrete post by itself has little bending strength, so it would easily break if hit by a
car. The pipe adds strength and give, while the concrete creates an additional degree of inertia and
helps the pipe resist buckling or collapsing at the point of impact.
Figure 3-6: Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards

Table 3-6: Advantages & Disadvantages of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards
● Often used to help guide traffic. ● Concrete-filled steel bollards cost
● Besides being aesthetically pleasing, more. Expect to pay additional labor
bollards assist those who may not be costs for installation and recurring
able to see walkways. maintenance.
● To stop car intrusion and security ● Require a fresh coat of paint from time
breaches. to time to cover up the dings,
scratches and chips.
96
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking
The designers summarized and ranked the trade-offs concerning different constraints using the
Model on Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design. The ranking process is based on the degree
of importance for each criterion and scaled from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest. Likewise, the design
methodology’s ability to satisfy the criterion is tabulated and also scaled from 0 to 10, as 10 being
the highest. The computations of ranking ability to satisfy the criteria of the design are as follows:
Equation 3-1: Percent Difference
Equation 3-2: Subordinate Rank
The designers set the governing rank as a subjective value which depends on the designers’
perception of how important each constraint for the design. In the Equation above, the
subordinating rank is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing
rank along the ranking scale of 0 to 10.
The value of importance rank is highly dependent on the client’s specifications and standards
wherein the designers will make adjustments to comply and meet the client’s needs. Since the
project is to be funded by the local government, thus the economic constraint will be ranked as ten
(10) because the cost has a limitation set by the client. Another constraint that should be ranked as
ten (10) is Risk Assessment/Safety. Considering it will function as a protected bicycle lane, it must
be durable enough to withstand different natural phenomena and accidents. The constructability
and sustainability constraints are both ranked as nine (9); the duration of construction should be
considered since there are times that the construction will be delayed due to some issues like the
weather. For sustainability, it is important to evaluate the life-span of the material as well as the
impact on traffic of the bike lane.
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale
97
3.3.1 Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
3.3.1.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Table 3-7: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Importance
Constraints One-Way Two-Way Contra-Flow
Factor
Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane
Economic
2,768,689.72 5,537,379.44 5,559,930.01 10
(Project Cost-Php)
Constructability
60 85 75 8
(Duration-Days)
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost- 2,558.47 5,115.81 2,567.38 9
Php)
Risk Assessment
10 8 9 10
(Traffic Impact)
Uncertainty
753,535 1,003,535 753,535 8
(Mobility Cost)
Safety
2.5 1.5 3.5 9
(Level of Service)
Table 3-7 shows the corresponding data of trade-offs concerning different constraints that will be
evaluated to come up with a desirable design.
3.3.1.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context I Transportation Engineering

Context
Solution for Economic Constraint
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it
a scale of ten (10).
For Two-Way Bicycle Lane
5,537,379.44 − 2,768,689.72
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
5,537,379.44
98
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5.00
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.00 = 5.00
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5.00
Figure 3-7: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
For Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
5,559,930.01 − 2,768,689.72
5,559,930.01
Figure 3-7a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Solution for Constructability Constraint
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the
designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
99
85 − 60
60

Figure 3-7b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
75 − 60
60
Figure 3-7c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
100
Solution for Sustainability Constraint
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the cheapest maintenance cost, the designers gave it a scale of
ten (10).
5,115.81 − 2,558.47
5,115.81
Figure 3-7d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
2,567.38 − 2,558.47
2,567.38
101
Figure 3-7e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest traffic impact out of three trade-offs, the designers
gave it a scale of ten (10).
𝟏𝟎 − 𝟖
% 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎
𝟏𝟎
% 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟎𝟎
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟎𝟎 = 𝟖. 𝟎𝟎
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟎𝟎
Figure 3-7f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
𝟏𝟎 − 𝟗
𝟏𝟎
102
Figure 3-7g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Solution for Uncertainty Constraint
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane have the cheapest mobility cost out
of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
𝟏, 𝟎𝟎𝟑, 𝟓𝟑𝟓 − 𝟕𝟓𝟑, 𝟓𝟑𝟓

𝟏, 𝟎𝟎𝟑, 𝟓𝟑𝟓
% 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟒𝟗 = 𝟕. 𝟓𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟓𝟏
Figure 3-7h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
Solution for Safety Constraint
Since Two-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest level of service out of three trade-offs, the designers
103
For One-Way Bicycle Lane
𝟐. 𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟓𝟎
𝟐. 𝟓𝟎
% 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟒
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟒 = 𝟔
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔
One-Way Bicycle Lane and
Figure 3-7i: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane
𝟑. 𝟓𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟓𝟎
𝟑. 𝟓𝟎
% 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟓. 𝟕𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟓. 𝟕𝟏 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟗
One-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bike
Figure 3-7j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
104
3.3.1.3 Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering
Context
Table 3-8: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context I Transportation Engineering
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion

Importance (on (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Decision Criteria
a scale of 0 to One-Way Two-Way Contra-Flow
10) Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane Bike Lane
Economic 10 10 5 4.98
Constructability 8 10 7.06 8
Sustainability 9 10 5 9.97
Risk Assessment 10 10 8 9
Uncertainty 8 10 7.51 10
Safety 9 6 10 4.29
Over-all Rank 504.00 381.56 412.14
Table 3-8 shows the summary of Initial Raw Ranking in the Transportation Engineering Context.
These values were multiplied to the importance factor set by the client and the designers.
3.3.1.4 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
The criterion’s importance depends on the mutual decision of the client and designer. Economic
and Risk Assessment is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a
restriction on budget of the client and since it is a bicycle lane it must promote the safety for the
cyclists. Sustainability and Safety are given an importance value of nine (9) while Constructability
and Uncertainty are given an importance value of eight (8). The designers and the client agreed
that even if it has a limit on the constructability, the number one concern for this project will be
the cost for construction and the safety of the cyclists.
105
Economic Constraint Assessment
The designers calculated the initial estimate for economic constraint using the typical cost per
construction equipment’s, pavement markings and related studies about the three trade-offs. In the
assessment of rankings, it showed that One-Way Bicycle Lane is the most economical since the
construction of the other two bicycle lanes requires more equipment and labor.
Constructability Constraint Assessment
In the assessment, the result showed that One-Way Bicycle Lane has the least construction period
since its construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn’t require highly skilled
workers.
Sustainability Constraint Assessment
One-Way Bicycle Lane is the best because it has the cheapest maintenance cost among the three
trade-offs.
Risk Assessment Constraint
One-Way Bicycle Lane is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a low traffic impact
unlike Two-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane.
Uncertainty Constraint
One-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bike Lane has the cheapest mobility cost among all three
trade-offs.
Safety Constraint
Two-Way Bicycle Lane is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a lower level of service
unlike One-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bike Lane.
3.3.1.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Transportation Engineering

Context
Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that One-Way Bicycle Lane
is the best option to be used in the design configuration of the Bicycle Lane along Taft Avenue
with an overall rank of 504.00. This trade-off ranks first in almost all of the constraints except
Safety.
106
3.3.2 Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context
3.3.2.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context II Structural Engineering Context
Table 3-9: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context II Structural Engineering Context
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Importance
Constraints Concrete Steel Concrete-Filled
Factor
Bollard Bollard Steel Bollard
Economic
(Project Cost-Php) 366,048.00 813,440.00 1,138,816.00 10
Constructability
(Duration-Days) 14 10 12 8
Sustainability
(Maintenance Cost- 362,387.52 809,372.80 1,135,019.95 9
Php)
Risk Assessment
(Barrier Deflection- 200 400 300 10
mm)
Uncertainty
(Mobility Cost) 753,535.00 881,321.00 791,211.75 8
Safety
8 9 10 9
(Safety Impact)
3.3.2.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context II Structural Engineering Context
Since Concrete Bollard is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
For Steel Bollard
813,440.00 − 366,048.00
813,440.00
107
Figure 3-8: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
For Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
1,138,816.00 − 366,048.00
1,138,816.00
Figure 3-8a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Steel Bollard has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the designers
For Concrete Bollard
108
14 − 10
14
Figure 3-8b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard
12 − 10
12
Figure 3-8c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete Bollard has the cheapest maintenance cost out of three trade-offs, the designers
109
For Steel Bollard
809,372.80 − 362,387.52
809,372.80
Figure 3-8d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
1,135,019.95 − 362,387.52
1,135,019.95
Figure 3-8e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
110
Since Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard has the highest safety factor out of three trade-offs, the
10 − 8
10
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2 = 8
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8
Figure 3-8f: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard
For Steel Bollard
10 − 9
10
111
Figure 3-8g: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
Since Concrete Bollard has the cheapest mobility out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
For Steel Bollard
881,321.00 − 753,535.00
881,321.00
Figure 3-8h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
791,211.75 − 753,535.00
791,211.75
112
Figure 3-8i: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete Bollard has the minimum barrier deflection out of three trade-offs, the designers
For Steel Bollard
400 − 200
400
Figure 3-8j: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
113
300 − 200
300
Figure 3-8k: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
3.3.2.3 Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context
Table 3-10: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context II Structural Engineering Context

Decision Criteria
a scale of 0 to Concrete Steel Concrete-Filled
10) Bollard Bollard Steel Bollard
Economic 10 10 4.50 3.21
Constructability 8 7.14 10 8.33
Sustainability 9 10 4.48 3.19
Risk Assessment 10 10 5 6.67
Uncertainty 8 10 8.55 9.52
Safety 9 8 9 10
Over-all Rank 499.12 364.72 360.31
Table 3-10 shows the summary of Initial Raw Ranking in the Structural Engineering Context.
114
3.3.2.4 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Structural Engineering Context
and Safety is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a restriction on
budget of the client and it is a protective bollard, it must be durable to promote the safety for the
The designers calculated the initial estimate for economic constraint using the project cost,
installation, and related studies about the three trade-offs. In the assessment of rankings, it showed
that Concrete Bollard is the most economical since the construction of the other two types of
Bollards requires more equipment and labor.
In the assessment, the result showed that Steel Bollard has the least construction period since its
construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn’t require highly skilled workers.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs when it comes to durability and the longest
design life since it can withstand road accidents and has low maintenance costs unlike Steel Bollard
and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
Safety Constraint
In the assessment of Safety Scale Factor and with the help of some studies, Concrete-Filled Steel
Bollard is the safest and has the least capacity of overcome accidents since it can withstand high
impact of collision.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a cheaper mobility cost unlike
Steel Bollard and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a minimal barrier deflection
unlike Steel Bollard and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
115
3.3.2.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Structural Engineering Context
Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that Concrete Bollard is the
best option to be used in the design configuration of the Protected Bicycle Lane along Taft Avenue
with an overall rank of 499.12. This trade-off ranks first in economic and sustainability constraints.
3.4 Multiple Constraints Using Initial Normalization Method
3.4.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Context
3.4.1.1 Raw Data
Table 3-11: Raw Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Risk
Economic Constructability Sustainability Uncertainty Safety
Assessment
Design (Project (Duration in (Maintenance (Mobility Cost- (Level of
(Traffic
Cost-Php) Days) Cost) Php) Service)
Impact)
One-
Way
Bike 2,768,689.72 60 2,558.47 10 753,535 2.50
Lane
Two-
Way
Bike 5,537,379.44 85 5,115.81 8 1,003,535 1.50
Lane
Contra-
Flow
Bike 5,559,930.01 75 2,567.38 9 753,535 3.50
Lane
Table 3-11 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the
transportation context, and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in
particular constraint, and in general scale.
116
3.4.1.2 Normalized Data
Table 3-12: Normalized Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Risk
Design Economic Constructability Sustainability Uncertainty Safety
Assessment
One-Way
10 10 10 10 10 5.5
Bike Lane
Two-Way
1.07 1 1 1 1 10
Bike Lane
Contra-Flow
1 4.6 9.97 5.5 10 1
Bike Lane
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally

common scale, prior to averaging. Table 3-12 shows the normalized data where the units of
measurement were eliminated to easily compare each transportation trade-off.
3.4.1.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 3-13: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Transportation Engineering
Weight One-Way Two-Way Contra-Flow

Constraints
(%) Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane
Economic 0.3 10 1.07 1
Constructability 0.2 10 1 4.6
Sustainability 0.2 10 1 9.97
Risk Assessment 0.3 10 1 5.5
Uncertainty 0.2 10 1 10
Safety 0.3 5.5 10 1
Weighted Sum 11.65 4.22 7.16
Table 3-13 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each transportation trade-off where
the economic constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, risk assessment
constraint, and uncertainty constraint have a weight of 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.3. One-Way Bike
Lane garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic and risk assessment is
higher than constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability.
117

Constraints
Economic 0.2 10 1.07 1
Safety 0.2 5.5 10 1
Weighted Sum 11.1 3.31 8.87
the economic, constructability, sustainability, risk assessment, and uncertainty constraints have a
weight of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.3. One-Way Bike Lane garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weight of constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability is higher than economic and risk
assessment.
Table 3-15: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering

Constraints
Economic 0.25 10 1.07 1
Safety 0.25 5.5 10 1
Weighted Sum 11.38 3.77 8.02
all the constraints have a weight of 0.25. One-Way Bike Lane garnered the highest weighted sum
when the weights of all constraints are the same.
118
3.4.2 Context II Structural Engineering Context
3.4.2.1 Raw Data
Table 3-16: Raw Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context
Risk
Economic Sustainability Safety Uncertainty
Constructability Assessment
Design (Project (Maintenance (Safety (Mobility
(Duration in Days) (Barrier
Cost-Php) Cost-Php) Impact) Cost-Php)
Deflection)
Concrete
366,048.00 14 362,387.52 8 753,535.00 200
Bollard
Steel
813,440.00 10 809,372.80 9 881,321.00 400
Bollard
Concrete-
Filled Steel 1,138,816.00 12 1,135,019.95 10 791,211.75 300
Bollard
Table 3-16 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the structural
engineering context and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in particular
constraint, and in general scale.
Table 3-17: Normalized Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context
Risk
Assessment
Concrete Bollard 10.00 1 10 1 10 10
Steel Bollard 4.79 10 4.79 5.5 1 1
Concrete-Filled
1.00 5.5 1 10 7.35 5.5
Steel Bollard

measurement were eliminated to easily compare each structural trade-off.
119
Table 3-18: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering
Weight Concrete-Filled
Constraints Concrete Bollard Steel Bollard
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.2 10 4.79 1
Sustainability 0.3 10 4.79 1
Risk Assessment 0.2 1 5.50 10
Uncertainty 0.2 10 1 7.35
Safety 0.3 10 1 5.5
Table 3-18 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where the
economic constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, risk assessment
constraint, and uncertainty constraint have a weight of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.2. Concrete Bollard
garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic and risk assessment is higher
than constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability.
Table 3-19: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Structural Engineering
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.3 10.00 7.90 1.00
Constructability 0.2 1.00 10.00 5.50
Sustainability 0.2 5.50 10.00 1.00
Risk Assessment 0.3 1.00 5.50 10.00
Safety 0.2 10 1 5.5
economic, constructability, sustainability, uncertainty, and risk assessment have a weight of 0.3,
0.2, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.3. Concrete Bollard garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of
constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability is higher than economic and risk assessment.
120
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.25 10.00 7.90 1.00
Constructability 0.25 1.00 10.00 5.50
Sustainability 0.25 5.50 10.00 1.00
Risk Assessment 0.25 1.00 5.50 10.00
Safety 0.25 10 1 5.5
Weighted Sum 12.75 3.59 7.86
Table 3-20 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where all
the constraints have a weight of 0.25. Concrete Bollard garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weights of all constraints are the same.
3.5 Design Guidelines
These are the rules and standards to consider to come with the final design of the structure.
3.5.1 Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
The Department of Public Works and Highways acts as the Government's engineering and
construction arm charged with constantly improving its technologies to ensure the safety of all
infrastructure facilities and achieve the highest efficiency and quality of construction for all public
works and highways. DPWH released a road safety design manual for the establishment and
maintenance of uniform principles and standards of road safety design in the Philippines. This
requires principles of safety architecture, based on best international practice in the Philippines.
3.5.2 DPWH Standard Specification for Item 625 – Road Safety and Traffic Control
Devices
This Item shall consist of furnishing and installing road safety and traffic control devices such as
delineators, barriers, bollard/markers and cones in accordance with this Specification and at the
locations shown on the Plans, or as required by the Engineer.
3.5.3 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
NACTO encourages the exchange of transportation ideas, insights, and practices among large
central cities while fostering a cooperative approach to key national transportation issues. The
purpose of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (part of the Cities for Cycling initiative) is
to provide cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that can help create complete streets that are
safe and enjoyable for bicyclists.
121
3.5.4 Prescribing Guidelines on the Design of Bicycle Facilities Along National Roads
The Prescribing Guidelines on the Design of Bicycle Facilities Along National Roads was drafted
and adopted as a uniform bicycle lane design to embody up-to-date and modern technical
knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance. The use of this
code is to determine the minimum standards and requirements with regards to the design, use of
the bicycle lane, pavement markings, dimension and distances, regulate and control the location,
and maintenance.
122
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 Design Methodology
The design is an eight-hundred-meter bicycle lane with bollards along Taft Avenue. For the
Transportation Context, the designers used PTV VISSIM to analyze the behavior and status of the
traffic by utilizing different types of bicycle lanes like One-Way, Two-Way, and Contra-Flow. It
simulates the road conditions of the proposed bicycle lane. The main focus of the designers is to
design protected bicycle lane that can establish the dividing line between the bicycle lane and the
public and private utility vehicles lane, while also considering its traffic impact. For the Structural
Context, the designers checked for the bollard strength of the proposed bollard structure.
MATERIAL MARKINGS &

START
PROPERTIES SIGNS
DETERMINE
DESIGN
PROBLEM AND IMPLEMENTATION
SPECIFICATION
LOCATION
GATHER DATA GEOMETRIC

END
DESIGN
Figure 4-1: Design Process
123
4.2 Design Process for Context I Transportation Engineering
4.2.1. Design Process using PTV Vissim
The first step in the design is to draw the layout of the road including the bike lane using PTV
VISSIM. This will give the designer a basic visualization of how the bike lane will function. After
that, start to input the vehicle volumes on each approach per the classification of the vehicle. Then
assign the vehicle routes to distribute the volume properly. Lastly, run the simulation and get the
average delay.
Figure 4-2: Design Process using PTV Vissim
124
4.2.2 Design Process for Bicycle Level of Service
Figure 4-3: Design Process for Bicycle Level of Service
125
4.3 Design for Context I Transportation Engineering Trade-offs
4.3.1 Design of One-Way Bicycle Lane
This is the 3D Model of One-Way Bicycle Lane. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D
SketchUp.
Figure 4-4: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard)
126
Figure 4-5: AutoCAD design of One-Way Bicycle Lane
127
4.3.1.1 Design Input
4.3.1.1.1 Design Input using PTV Vissim
Vehicular Inputs
These are the vehicular inputs for each classification of vehicles considered for PTV Vissim in
years 2025,2030 and 2035 respectively. We remove numbers (1000 on 2025, 2000 on 2030, and
3000 on 2035) each on Car, PUJ, UV, Taxi, and PUB to account for the increase of Bicycle users.
Table 4-1: New Future AADT per Classification (2025)

NEW FUTURE AADT PER CLASSIFICATION (2025)
Car PUJ UV Taxi PUB Truck MC Bicycle TOTAL
40056 15152 17928 5545 3510 752 126656 13501 223100

41562 18002 26378 5276 3241 866 467731 27799 590854

43220 21770 39545 5088 3091 997 1727291 52269 1893270
Vehicular Compositions
We combined all public vehicles when computing for the relative flow and volume.
Figure 4-6: Vehicular Composition (2025)
128
Geometric Model
These geometric models were plotted using PTV Vissim.
Figure 4-9: One-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (1)
129
Figure 4-9a: One-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2)
Simulation Parameter
These are the simulation parameter that we used. The simulation ends after 3600 seconds, after
which, the link segment results can be taken.
Figure 4-10: Simulation Parameters
130
4.3.1.1.2 Design Input for Bicycle Level of Service
Bicycle Level of Service
Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is a nationally-used measure of on-road bicyclist comfort level
as a function of a roadway's geometry and traffic conditions.
Table 4-4: Bicycle Level of Service Categories

Level of Service BLOS Score
A ≤ 1.5
B > 1.5 and ≤ 2.5
C > 2.5 and ≤ 3.5
D > 3.5 and ≤ 4.5
E > 4.5 and ≤ 5.5
F > 5.5
Table 4-5: Bicycle Level of Service for One-Way Bike Lane

Throughout lanes per direction (Def = 1) 2
Width of outside lane. To outside stripe,
11.829 ft
in ft. (Def = 12)
Paved shoulder, bike lane, or marked
4 ft
parking area, in ft. (Def=0)
Bi-directional Traffic Volume in ADT
55458 veh/day
(Def = 4000)
Posted Speed limit in mph (Def = 30) 60 mph
Percentage of heavy vehicles (Def = 2) 0.6%
FHWA’s pavement condition rating
4
(5 = Best, 1 = Worst; Def = 4)
Percentage of road segment with occupied
0%
parking (Def = 0)
131
4.3.1.2 Design Output
4.3.1.2.1 Design Output using PTV Vissim
These graphs are based on PTV Vissim Link Segment Results.
Density (Southbound)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314 151617 181920 2122232425 262728 293031 32
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-11: Density Southbound (One-Way Bike Lane)
Density (Northbound)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-12: Density Northbound (One-Way Bike Lane)
Density is the average number of vehicles in a segment over length of segment.
132
Speed (Southbound)
14
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-13: Speed Southbound (One-Way Bike Lane)
Speed (Northbound)
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-14: Speed Northbound (One-Way Bike Lane)
Speed is the total distance traveled on segment/total time on segment.
Although we assumed converting some motorists into bicycle users, since there is a decrease in
the road size for motorists, the graphs show that as the segment (x-axis) lengthens every 10m, the
density is getting higher for both directions. Speed, on the other hand, is getting lower.
133
4.3.1.2.2 Design Output for Bicycle Level of Service
Figure 4-15: Bicycle Level of Service for One-Way Bicycle Lane
Table 4-6: Roadway Parameters for One-Way Bicycle Lane
Level of Traffic Stress 3 Evaluated

Capacity Utilization Rate 62.5% Computed
Speed 30 mph Assumed
Longitudinal Separation 32.10 m Computed
Horizontal Separation 0.61 m Computed
Cyclist Domain Comfortability 26.70% Surveyed
Governing Equation
𝑰𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑶𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕
a.) 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝑼𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑷𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑶𝒖𝒕𝒑𝒖𝒕
b.) 𝑳𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 = 2.905 − 1.185𝑣 + 0.251𝑣 2
c.) 𝑯𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒛𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 = −0.059 + 0.428𝑣 − 0.035𝑣 2
134
Figure 4-16: Level of Stress Parameter
Figure 4-17: Schematic Diagram of the Cyclist Domain
135
4.3.2 Design of Two-Way Bike Lane
This is the 3D Model of Two-Way Bicycle Lane. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D
SketchUp.
Figure 4-18: 3D SketchUp of Two-Way Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard)
136
Figure 4-19: AutoCAD design of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
137
Vehicular Inputs

40056 15152 17928 5545 3510 752 126656 13501 223100

41562 18002 26378 5276 3241 866 467731 27799 590854

43220 21770 39545 5088 3091 997 1727291 52269 1893270
138
Geometric Model
Figure 4-23: Two-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Gepmetric Model (1)
139
Figure 4-23a: Two-Way Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2)
140

A ≤ 1.5
B > 1.5 and ≤ 2.5
C > 2.5 and ≤ 3.5
D > 3.5 and ≤ 4.5
E > 4.5 and ≤ 5.5
F > 5.5
Table 4-11: Bicycle Level of Service for Two-Way Bicycle Lane

11.829 ft
in ft. (Def = 12)
8 ft
55458 veh/day
(Def = 4000)
4
0%
parking (Def = 0)
141
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-25: Density Southbound (Two-Way Bike Lane)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-26: Density Northbound (Two-Way Bike Lane)
142
Speed (Southbound)
14
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-27: Speed Southbound (Two-Way Bike Lane)
Speed (Northbound)
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-28: Speed Northbound (Two-Way Bike Lane)
143
Figure 4-29: Bicycle Level of service for Two-Way Bicycle Lane
Table 4-12: Roadway Parameters for Two-Way Bicycle Lane

Capacity of Utilization Rate 67.57% Computed
Cyclist Domain
66.7% Surveyed
Comfortability
Governing Equation
144
145
4.3.3 Design of Contra Flow Bike Lane
This is the 3D Model of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D
SketchUp.
Figure 4-32: 3D SketchUp of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane (with typical bollard)
146
Figure 4-33: AutoCAD design of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
147
Vehicular Inputs

40056 15152 17928 5545 3510 752 126656 13501 223100

41562 18002 26378 5276 3241 866 467731 27799 590854

43220 21770 39545 5088 3091 997 1727291 52269 1893270
148
Geometric Model
Figure 4-37: Contra-Flow Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (1)
149
Figure 4-37a: Contra-Flow Bike Lane PTV Vissim Geometric Model (2)
150

A ≤ 1.5
B > 1.5 and ≤ 2.5
C > 2.5 and ≤ 3.5
D > 3.5 and ≤ 4.5
E > 4.5 and ≤ 5.5
F > 5.5
Table 4-17: Bicycle Level of Service for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane

11.829 ft
in ft. (Def = 12)
4 ft
55458 veh/day
(Def = 4000)
4
0%
parking (Def = 0)
151
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314 151617 181920 2122232425 262728 293031 32
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-39: Density Southbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-40: Density Northbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane)
152
Speed (Southbound)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-41: Speed Southbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane)
Speed (Northbound)
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
2025 2030 2035
Figure 4-42: Speed Northbound (Contra-Flow Bike Lane)
153
Figure 4-43: Bicycle Level of service for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Table 4-19: Roadway Parameters for Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane

Capacity Utilization Rate 83.33% Computed
Cyclist Domain
6.6% Surveyed
Comfortability
Governing Equation
154
155
4.4 Design Process for Context II Structural Engineering
4.4.1. Design Process for Bollard Strength
Figure 4-46: Design Process for Bollard Strength
156
4.5 Design for Context II Structural Engineering Trade-offs
4.5.1 Design of Concrete Bollard
This is the 3D Model of Concrete Bollard. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D SketchUp.
Figure 4-47: 3D SketchUp of Concrete Bollard
157
Figure 4-48: AutoCAD design of Concrete Bollard
Bollard Parameters
These are the bollard parameters used to compute for the Static Design Force and Barrier
Deflection. Barrier deflection of Small-passenger Car is used for the Risk Assessment Constraint.
158
Table 4-20: Small-passenger Car Parameters
PARAMETER SYMBOL FORMULA VALUE UNIT
mass of vehicle m 1100 kg
vehicular speed v 16.667 m/s
barrier stiffness 𝑘𝑏 720 N/mm
deceleration rate a 274.5 m/s2
DESIGN FORCE SYMBOL FORMULA VALUE UNIT
𝑚𝑣 2
kinetic energy KE 152.77839 kJ
2
static design force Fd 𝑚∗𝑎 301.95 kN
BARRIER DEFLECTION SYMBOL FORMULA VALUE UNIT
vehicle crush distance 𝛿𝑐 √𝑣 1.360829 m

3
impact force 𝑚𝑣 2
Fi 112.26862 kN
(assume 𝛿𝑏 = 0; 𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑟) 2(𝛿𝑐 +𝛿𝑏 )
𝐹𝑖
barrier deflection 𝛿𝑏 155.92863 mm
𝑘𝑏
Table 4-21: Pick-up Truck Parameters

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 234.74347 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
159
Table 4-22: Medium-duty Truck Parameters
𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 450.78057 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
Table 4-23: Heavy-goods Vehicle Parameters

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 1955.5922 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
160
These graphs are based on the computation from the Design Input.
2
1.8
1.6
VEHICLE CRUSH DISTANCE
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
Figure 4-49: Vehicle Crush Distance vs. Impact Speed
300
250
200
IMPACT FORCE
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
Figure 4-50: Impact Force vs. Impact Speed
161
800
700
600
BARRIER DEFLECTION 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
Figure 4-51: Barrier Deflection vs. Impact Speed
The graphs show that impact speed is directly proportional with vehicle crush distance, impact
force, and barrier deflection. It is applicable to all types of vehicles computed namely: small-
passenger car, pick-up truck, medium-duty truck, and heavy-goods vehicle.
162
4.5.2 Design of Steel Bollard
This is the 3D Model of Steel Bollard. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D SketchUp.
Figure 4-52: 3D SketchUp of Steel Bollard
163
Figure 4-53: AutoCAD design of Steel Bollard
Bollard Parameters
164
𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 112.26862 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 234.74347 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
165
𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 450.78057 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 1955.5922 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
166
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
300
250
200
IMPACT FORCE
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
167
800
700
600
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
168
4.5.3 Design of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
This is the 3D Model of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard. Dimensions are not to scale for the 3D
SketchUp.
Figure 4-57: 3D SketchUp of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
169
Figure 4-58: AutoCAD design of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Bollard Parameters
170
𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 112.26862 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 234.74347 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
171
𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 450.78057 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

𝑚𝑣 2
2

3
Fi 1955.5922 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
172
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
300
250
200
IMPACT FORCE
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
173
800
700
600
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
IMPACT SPEED
174
4.6 Designer’s Raw Ranking
4.6.1 Final Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
4.6.1.1 Summary of Final Estimate of Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Table 4-32: Summary of Final Estimate – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Importance
Constraints One-Way Two-Way Contra-Flow
Factor
Bike Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane
Economic
997,392.92 1,269,835.84 916,129.38 10
(Project Cost-Php)
Constructability
60 85 75 8
(Duration-Days)
Sustainability
Php)
Risk Assessment
12.525 14.085 57.455 10
(Traffic Impact)
Uncertainty
30,000.00 45,000.00 60,000.00 8
(Mobility Cost)
Safety
3.39 1.51 3.39 9
(Level of Service)
4.6.1.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context I Transportation Engineering
Since Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave
it a scale of ten (10).
175
997,392.92 − 916,129.38
997,392.92
Figure 4-62: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane
1,269,835.84 − 916,129.38
1,269,835.84
Figure 4-62a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the
176
85 − 60
60
Figure 4-62b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
75 − 60
60
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘=8.00
Figure 4-62c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
177
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the cheapest maintenance cost, the designers gave it a scale of
ten (10).
61,448.98 − 30,731.33
61,448.98
Figure 4-62d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
46,004.62 − 30,731.33
46,004.62
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒= 3.32
178
Figure 4-62e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest relative delay out of three trade-offs, the designers
14.085 − 12.525
14.085
Figure 4-62f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
57.455 − 12.525
57.455
179
Figure 4-62g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Since One-Way Bicycle Lane has the cheapest mobility cost out of three trade-offs, the designers
45,000 − 30,000
45,000
Figure 4-62g: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bicycle Lane
180
60,000 − 30,000
60,000
Figure 4-62h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
Since Two-Way Bicycle Lane has the lowest level of service out of three trade-offs, the designers
3.39 − 1.51
3.39
Figure 4-62i: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of One-Way Bicycle Lane
181
3.39 − 1.51
3.39
Figure 4-62j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane
4.6.1.3 Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Table 4-33: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context I Transportation Engineering

Decision Criteria
a scale of 0 to One-Way Two-Way Contra-Flow
10) Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane Bike Lane
Economic 10 9.19 7.21 10
Constructability 8 10 7.06 8
Sustainability 9 10 5 6.68
Risk Assessment 10 10 8.89 2.18
Uncertainty 8 10 6.67 5
Safety 9 4.45 10 4.45
Over-all Rank 481.95 405.84 330.97
Table 4-33 shows the summary of Final Raw Ranking in the Transportation Engineering Context.
182
4.6.1.4 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Transportation Engineering Context
and Risk Assessment is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a
restriction on budget of the client and since it is a bicycle lane it must promote the safety for the
cyclists. Sustainability is given an importance value of nine (9) while Constructability and
Uncertainty are given an importance value of eight (8). The designers and the client agreed that
even if it has a limit on the constructability, the number one concern for this project will be the
cost for construction and the safety of the cyclists.
The designers calculated the final estimate for economic constraint using the typical cost per
construction equipment’s, pavement markings, traffic management, construction safety and health,
and labor cost of the three trade-offs. In the assessment of rankings, it showed that Contra-Flow
Bicycle Lane is the most economical since the construction of the other two bicycle lanes requires
more labor cost.
In the assessment, the result showed that One-Way Bicycle Lane has the least construction period
since its construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn’t require highly skilled
workers.
One-Way Bicycle Lane is the best because it has the cheapest maintenance cost among the three
trade-offs.
One-Way Bicycle Lane is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a low traffic impact
One-Way Bicycle Lane is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a cheaper mobility cost
Safety Constraint
Two-Way Bicycle Lane is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a lower level of service
unlike One-Way Bicycle Lane and Contra-Flow Bike Lane.
183
4.6.1.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Transportation Engineering
Context
Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that One-Way Bicycle Lane
is the best option to be used in the design configuration of the Bicycle Lane along Taft Avenue
with an overall rank of 481.95. This trade-off ranks first in constructability, sustainability,
uncertainty, and risk assessment constraints.
4.6.2 Final Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context
4.6.2.1 Summary of Final Estimate of Context II Structural Engineering Context
Table 4-34: Summary of Final Estimate – Context II Structural Engineering Context
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Importance
Constraints Concrete Steel Concrete-Filled
Factor
Bollard Bollard Steel Bollard
Economic
(Project Cost-Php) 550,996.61 1,119,612 766,196.91 10
Constructability
(Duration-Days) 14 10 12 8
Sustainability
Php)
Risk Assessment
(Barrier Deflection 155.93 320.77 213.84 10
-mm)
Uncertainty
75,000.00 90,000.00 80,000.00 8
(Mobility Cost)
Safety
8 9 10 9
(Safety Impact)
4.6.2.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context II Structural Engineering Context
Since Concrete Bollard is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
184
For Steel Bollard
1,119,612 − 550,996.61
1,119.612
Figure 4-63: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
766,196.91 − 550,996.61
766,196.91
Figure 4-63a: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
185
Since Steel Bollard has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the designers
14 − 10
14
Figure 4-63b: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard
12 − 10
12
186
Figure 4-63c: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete Bollard has the cheapest maintenance cost out of three trade-offs, the designers
For Steel Bollard
505,894.72 − 226,508.64
505,894.72
Figure 4-63d: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
713,924.29 − 226,508.64
713,924.29
187
Figure 4-63e: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard has the lowest barrier deflection out of three trade-offs, the
For Steel Bollard
320.77 − 155.93
320.77
Figure 4-63f: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
188
213.84 − 155.93
213.84
Figure 4-63g: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard has the cheapest mobility cost out of three trade-offs, the
For Steel Bollard
90,000 − 75,000
90,000
189
Figure 4-63h: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
80,000 − 75,000
80,000
Figure 4-63i: Uncertainty Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard
Since Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard has the highest safety factor out of three trade-offs, the
10 − 8
10
190
Figure 4-63j: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Concrete Bollard
For Steel Bollard
10 − 9
10
Figure 4-63k: Safety Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Steel Bollard
191
4.6.2.3 Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context II Structural Engineering Context
Table 4-35: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context II Structural Engineering Context

Decision Criteria
a scale of 0 to Concrete Steel Concrete-Filled
10) Bollard Bollard Steel Bollard
Economic 10 10 4.92 7.19
Constructability 8 7.14 10 8.33
Sustainability 9 10 4.48 3.17
Risk Assessment 10 10 4.86 7.29
Uncertainty 8 10 8.33 9.34
Safety 9 8 9 10
Over-all Rank 499.12 365.76 404.69
In Table 4-35 shows the summary of Initial Raw Ranking in the Structural Engineering Context.
4.6.2.4 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Structural Engineering Context
and Safety is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a restriction on
budget of the client and it is a protective bollard, it must be durable to promote the safety for the
The designers calculated the final estimate for economic constraint using the project cost,
installation, cost of material, and labor cost about the three trade-offs. In the assessment of
rankings, it showed that Concrete Bollard is the most economical since the construction of the
other two types of Bollards requires more equipment and labor.
192
In the assessment, the result showed that Steel Bollard has the least construction period since its
construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn’t require highly skilled workers.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs when it comes to durability and the longest
design life since it can withstand road accidents and has low maintenance costs unlike Steel Bollard
and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a minimal barrier deflection
unlike Steel Bollard and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
Concrete Bollard is the best among the three trade-offs since it has a cheaper mobility cost unlike
Steel Bollard and Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard.
Safety Constraint
In the assessment of safety, Concrete Bollard is the safest and has the least capacity of overcome
accidents since it can withstand high impact of collision.
4.6.2.5 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Structural Engineering Context
Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that Concrete Bollard is the
best option to be used in the design configuration of the Protected Bicycle Lane along Taft Avenue
with an overall rank of 499.12. This trade-off ranks first in economic, sustainability, uncertainty,
and risk assessment constraints.
193
4.7 Multiple Constraints Using Final Normalization Method
4.7.1.1 Raw Data
Table 4-36: Raw Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Risk Safety
Economic Constructability Sustainability Uncertainty
Assessment (Level of
(Project (Duration in (Maintenance (Mobility
Design (Traffic Service)
Cost-Php) Days) Cost-Php) Cost-Php)
Impact)
One-
997,392.92 60 30,731.33 12.525 30,000 3.39
Way
Bike
Lane
Two-
1,269,835.84 85 61,448.98 14.085 45,000 1.51
Way
Bike
Lane
Contra-
916,129.38 75 46,004.62 57.455 60,000 3.39
Flow
Bike
Lane
Table 4-36 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the
transportation context, and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in
particular constraint, and in general scale.
Table 4-37: Normalized Data – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
Risk
Assessment
One-Way
7.93 10 10 10 10 1
Bike Lane
Two-Way
1 1 1 9.69 5.5 10
Bike Lane
Contra-Flow
10 4.6 5.54 1 1 1
Bike Lane

measurement were eliminated to easily compare each transportation trade-off.
194

Constraints
Economic 0.3 7.93 1 10
Uncertainty 0.2 10 5.5 1
Safety 0.3 1 10 1
Weighted Sum 11.89 7.71 5.83
the economic constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, risk assessment
constraint, and uncertainty constraint have a weight of 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.3. One-Way Bike
Lane garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic and risk assessment is
higher than constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability.

Constraints
Economic 0.2 7.93 1 10
Safety 0.2 1 10 1
Weighted Sum 12.58 6.39 5.74
the economic, constructability, sustainability, risk assessment, and uncertainty constraints have a
weight of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.3. One-Way Bike Lane garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weight of constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability is higher than economic and risk
assessment.
195

Constraints
Economic 0.25 7.93 1 10
Safety 0.25 1 10 1
Weighted Sum 12.23 7.05 5.78
all the constraints have a weight of 0.25. One-Way Bike Lane garnered the highest weighted sum
when the weights of all constraints are the same.
4.7.2.1 Raw Data
Table 4-41: Raw Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context
Risk
Economic Constructability Sustainability Assessment Uncertainty Safety
Design (Project (Duration in (Maintenance (Barrier (Mobility (Safety
Cost-Php) Days) Cost-Php) Deflection- Cost-Php) Impact)
mm)
Concrete
550,996.61 14 226,508.64 155.93 75,000 8
Bollard
Steel
1,119,612 10 505,894.72 320.77 90,000 9
Bollard
Concrete-
Filled Steel 766,196.91 12 713,924.29 213.84 80,000 10
Bollard
Table 4-41 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the structural
engineering context and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in particular
constraint, and in general scale.
196
Table 4-42: Normalized Data – Context II Structural Engineering Context
Risk
Assessment
Concrete Bollard 10.00 1 10 10 10 1
Steel Bollard 1.00 10 4.84 1 1 5.5
Concrete-Filled
6.59 5.5 1 6.84 7 10
Steel Bollard

measurement were eliminated to easily compare each structural trade-off.
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.2 10 1 6.59
Safety 0.3 1 5.5 10
economic constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, risk assessment
constraint, and uncertainty constraint have a weight of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.2. Concrete Bollard
garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic and risk assessment is higher
than constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability.
197
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.3 10 1 6.59
Safety 0.2 1 5.5 10
economic, constructability, sustainability, uncertainty, and risk assessment have a weight of 0.3,
0.2, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.3. Concrete Bollard garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of
constructability, uncertainty, and sustainability is higher than economic and risk assessment.
(%) Steel Bollard
Economic 0.25 10 1 6.59
Safety 0.25 1 5.5 10
Weighted Sum 10.50 4.71 9.23
Table 4-45 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where all
the constraints have a weight of 0.25. Concrete Bollard garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weights of all constraints are the same.
198
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis
4.8.1.1 Economic vs. Constructability
Figure 4-64 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the constructability of the project.
The project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the construction duration since increasing
the manpower and equipment will speed up the construction and decrease the construction duration
of the project. The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
One-Way Bike Lane Two-Way Bike Lane Contra Flow Bike Lane
Percent Increase
Project Cost Days Project Cost Days Project Cost Days
0% 30,792.92 90.00 61,585.84 75.00 46,189.38 60.00
5% 32,332.57 85.50 64,665.13 71.25 48,498.85 57.00
10% 33,872.21 81.00 67,744.42 67.50 50,808.32 54.00
15% 35,411.86 76.50 70,823.72 63.75 53,117.79 51.00
20% 36,951.50 72.00 73,903.01 60.00 55,427.26 48.00
25% 38,491.15 67.50 76,982.30 56.25 57,736.73 45.00
Figure 4-64: Economic vs Constructability – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
199
4.8.1.2 Economic vs. Sustainability
Figure 4-65 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the sustainability of the project. The
project cost was seen to be somehow inversely proportional to the maintenance cost of the project.
It is due to the dependency of maintenance cost to the material cost and predicted lifespan of the
project. The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
Percent Increase
Project Cost Maintenance Project Cost Maintenance Project Cost Maintenance
0% 30,792.92 554.27 61,585.84 1,231.72 46,189.38 1,662.82
5% 32,332.57 526.56 64,665.13 1,170.13 48,498.85 1,579.68
10% 33,872.21 498.84 67,744.42 1,108.55 50,808.32 1,496.54
15% 35,411.86 471.13 70,823.72 1,046.96 53,117.79 1,413.40
20% 36,951.50 443.42 73,903.01 985.38 55,427.26 1,330.26
25% 38,491.15 415.70 76,982.30 923.79 57,736.73 1,247.12
Figure 4-65: Economic vs Sustainability – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
4.8.1.3 Economic vs. Risk Assessment
Figure 4-66 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the cost of risk of the project. The
project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the cost of risk because traffic impact may
decrease once cyclists and motorists are educated enough to use bike lane.
200
Percent Increase
Project Cost Cost of Risk Project Cost Cost of Risk Project Cost Cost of Risk
0% 30,792.92 200.00 61,585.84 150.00 46,189.38 100.00
5% 32,332.57 190.00 64,665.13 142.50 48,498.85 95.00
10% 33,872.21 180.00 67,744.42 135.00 50,808.32 90.00
15% 35,411.86 170.00 70,823.72 127.50 53,117.79 85.00
20% 36,951.50 160.00 73,903.01 120.00 55,427.26 80.00
25% 38,491.15 150.00 76,982.30 112.50 57,736.73 75.00
Figure 4-66: Economic vs Risk Assessment – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
4.8.1.4 Economic vs. Uncertainty
Figure 4-67 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the mobility cost of the project. The
project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the mobility cost because Transporting
materials to be used in a project is indeed costly.
201
Percent
Project Mobility Project Mobility Project Mobility
Increase
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
0% 30,792.92 30,000.00 61,585.84 45,000.00 46,189.38 60,000.00
5% 32,332.57 28,500.00 64,665.13 42,750.00 48,498.85 57,000.00
10% 33,872.21 27,000.00 67,744.42 40,500.00 50,808.32 54,000.00
15% 35,411.86 25,500.00 70,823.72 38,250.00 53,117.79 51,000.00
20% 36,951.50 24,000.00 73,903.01 36,000.00 55,427.26 48,000.00
25% 38,491.15 22,500.00 76,982.30 33,750.00 57,736.73 45,000.00
Figure 4-67: Economic vs Uncertainty – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
4.8.1.5 Economic vs. Safety
Figure 4-68 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the level of service of the project.
The project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the level of service.
202
Percent
Project Level of Project Level of Project Level of
Increase
Cost Service Cost Service Cost Service
0% 30,792.92 3.39 61,585.84 1.51 46,189.38 3.39
5% 32,332.57 3.22 64,665.13 1.43 48,498.85 3.22
10% 33,872.21 3.05 67,744.42 1.36 50,808.32 3.05
15% 35,411.86 2.88 70,823.72 1.28 53,117.79 2.88
20% 36,951.50 2.71 73,903.01 1.21 55,427.26 2.71
25% 38,491.15 2.54 76,982.30 1.13 57,736.73 2.54
Figure 4-68: Economic vs Safety – Context I Transportation Engineering Context
4.8.2.1 Economic vs. Constructability
Figure 4-69 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the constructability of the project.
The project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the construction duration since increasing
the manpower and equipment will speed up the construction and decrease the construction duration
of the project. The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
203
Concrete Bollards Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards Steel Bollards

Percent Increase
Project Cost Days Project Cost Days Project Cost Days
0% 228,796.61 75.00 716,312.00 60.00 508,436.91 45.00
5% 240,236.44 71.25 752,127.60 57.00 533,858.76 42.75
10% 251,676.27 67.50 787,943.20 54.00 559,280.60 40.50
15% 263,116.10 63.75 823,758.80 51.00 584,702.45 38.25
20% 274,555.93 60.00 859,574.40 48.00 610,124.29 36.00
25% 285,995.76 56.25 895,390.00 45.00 635,546.14 33.75
Figure 4-69: Economic vs Constructability – Context II Structural Engineering Context
4.8.2.2 Economic vs. Sustainability
Figure 4-70 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the sustainability of the project. The
project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the maintenance cost of the project. It is due
to the dependency of maintenance cost to the material cost and predicted lifespan of the project.
The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
204
Concrete Bollards Steel Bollards
Percent Bollards
Increase Project Project
Maintenance Project Cost Maintenance Maintenance
Cost Cost
0% 228,796.61 20,591.69 716,312.00 21,489.36 508,436.91 22,879.66
5% 240,236.44 19,562.11 752,127.60 20,414.89 533,858.76 21,735.68
10% 251,676.27 18,532.52 787,943.20 19,340.42 559,280.60 20,591.69
15% 263,116.10 17,502.94 823,758.80 18,265.96 584,702.45 19,447.71
20% 274,555.93 16,473.35 859,574.40 17,191.49 610,124.29 18,303.73
25% 285,995.76 15,443.77 895,390.00 16,117.02 635,546.14 17,159.75
Figure 4-70: Economic vs Sustainability – Context II Structural Engineering Context
4.8.2.3 Economic vs. Risk Assessment
Figure 4-71 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the cost of risk of the project. The
project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the cost of risk since increasing the size and
number of columns will decrease the potential failure of the bollard when subjected to impact.
205
Percent Bollards
Increase Project Cost of Project Cost of
Project Cost Cost of Risk
Cost Risk Cost Risk
0% 228,796.61 200.00 716,312.00 150.00 508,436.91 100.00
5% 240,236.44 190.00 752,127.60 142.50 533,858.76 95.00
10% 251,676.27 180.00 787,943.20 135.00 559,280.60 90.00
15% 263,116.10 170.00 823,758.80 127.50 584,702.45 85.00
20% 274,555.93 160.00 859,574.40 120.00 610,124.29 80.00
25% 285,995.76 150.00 895,390.00 112.50 635,546.14 75.00
Figure 4-71: Economic vs Risk Assessment – Context II Structural Engineering Context
4.8.2.4 Economic vs. Uncertainty
Figure 4-72 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the mobility cost of the project. The
project cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the mobility cost because transporting
materials to be used in a project is indeed costly.
206
Percent Bollards
Increase Project Mobility Project Mobility Project Mobility
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
0% 228,796.61 75,000.00 716,312.00 80,000.00 508,436.91 90,000.00
5% 240,236.44 71,250.00 752,127.60 76,000.00 533,858.76 85,500.00
10% 251,676.27 67,500.00 787,943.20 72,000.00 559,280.60 81,000.00
15% 263,116.10 63,750.00 823,758.80 68,000.00 584,702.45 76,500.00
20% 274,555.93 60,000.00 859,574.40 64,000.00 610,124.29 72,000.00
25% 285,995.76 56,250.00 895,390.00 60,000.00 635,546.14 67,500.00
Figure 4-72: Economic vs Uncertainty – Context II Structural Engineering Context
4.8.2.5 Economic vs. Safety
Figure 4-73 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the safety of the project. The project
cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the safety factor.
207
Percent Bollards
Increase Project Safety Project Safety Project Safety
Cost Factor Cost Factor Cost Factor
0% 228,796.61 8.00 716,312.00 10.00 508,436.91 9.00
5% 240,236.44 7.60 752,127.60 9.50 533,858.76 8.55
10% 251,676.27 7.20 787,943.20 9.00 559,280.60 8.10
15% 263,116.10 6.80 823,758.80 8.50 584,702.45 7.65
20% 274,555.93 6.40 859,574.40 8.00 610,124.29 7.20
25% 285,995.76 6.00 895,390.00 7.50 635,546.14 6.75
Figure 4-73: Economic vs Safety – Context II Structural Engineering Context
208
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
This section shows the final design results of the governing trade-offs for the
Transportation and Structural Engineering Context after conducting the final ranking and
sensitivity analysis. Out of the Transportation Engineering Trade-offs, which are One-Way
Bicycle Lane, Two-Way Bicycle Lane, and Contra-Flow Bicycle Lane, the One-Way Bicycle Lane
governed in the final ranking, sensitivity analysis, and normalization method. Meanwhile, for the
Structural Engineering Trade-offs, which are Concrete Bollard, Steel Bollard, and Concrete-Filled
Steel Bollard, Concrete Bollard governed in the final ranking, sensitivity analysis, and
normalization method.
From the conducted estimates and design, and based on the governing trade-offs, the proposed
Eight-Hundred-Meter Bicycle Lane with Bollards along Taft Avenue will therefore have a project
cost of Php 997,392.92 for the One-Way Bicycle Lane and construction days of 60. It has minimal
maintenance cost throughout its life span which cost Php 30,731.33. The Concrete Bollard, on the
other hand, will take 14 days in total to construct, and the material cost is 550,996.61. To sum it
up, the total cost and construction duration for one-way bicycle lane together with its concrete-
filled steel bollard will be Php 1,548,389.53 and 74 days respectively.
Figure 5-1: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane with Concrete Bollard (Not to Scale)
209
5.1 Context I Transportation Engineering Final Design
5.1.1 One-Way Bicycle Lane
Figure 5-2: 3D SketchUp of One-Way Bicycle Lane
Figure 5-3: Front Elevation of One-Way Bicycle Lane
210
Figure 5-4: Top View of One-Way Bicycle Lane (with Bollards)
211
Figure 5-5: Geometric Model of One-Way Bicycle Lane (PTV Vissim)
Figure 5-6: One-Way Bicycle Path
212
Table 5-1: Dimensions of One-Way Bicycle Lane
Location of Bicycle Lane Taft Avenue

Point 1 UN Station (14.58242, 120.98469)
Point 2 Pedro Gil Station (14.57616, 120.98833)
Length of bike lane 800 m
Total width of bike lane 1.22 m
Basic width for cyclist 0.75 m
Safety Margin (each side) 0.235 m
Bollard Spacing 4m
Figure 5-7: Bicycle Lane symbol and/or arrow markings
213
Figure 5-8: Layout of One-Way Bike Lane in Google Maps
214
5.2 Context I Structural Engineering Final Design
5.2.1 Concrete Bollard
Figure 5-9: 3D SketchUp of Concrete Bollard
215
Figure 5-10: AutoCAD design of Concrete Bollard
216
Design Data
These are the design data used to compute for the concrete bollard.

2
𝑚𝑣
2

3
Fi 112.26862 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

2
𝑚𝑣
2

3
Fi 234.74347 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
217
2
𝑚𝑣
2

3
Fi 450.78057 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏

2
𝑚𝑣
2

3
Fi 1955.5922 kN
𝐹𝑖
𝑘𝑏
218
REFERENCES
(2020). Retrieved from Sandersen Concrete: https://www.sandersonconcrete.ca/blog/the-

effectiveness-of-concrete-bollards-protection-and-security
Abalos, M. C. (2021, March 12). Bicycle lane improvements in metro now underway. (J. E.
Guzman, Interviewer)
Abalos, M. C. (2021, March 12). Bicycle lane improvements in metro now underway. (J. E.
Guzman, Interviewer)
Adom, G. (2015). An Innovative Foundation System for Bollards. Ottawa, Ontario.
Arup Group. (2000). Sustrans Cycling Guidelines. Sustrans Bristol.
Barry, M. D. (2020). Concrete, bollards, and fencing: exploring the im/mobilities of security at
public events in Brisbane, Australia.
Blog, B. (2019). Bollards By Material: The Pros & Cons Of Each.
Bollards, A. 1.-8. (n.d.). Bollards By Material: The Pros & Cons Of Each. Retrieved from 1-800
Bollards: https://www.1800bollards.com/bollards-by-material-the-pros-cons-of-each/
Caston, R. (2020). Concrete Bollards Protect Entrances To Buildings.
Construction, C. (2015, April 2). Creating a Bollard. Retrieved from Concrete Construction:
https://www.concreteconstruction.net/how-to/creating-a-bollard_o
Croteau, J., Crosby, C., Marine, M., & Kwasniak, A. (2015). Bollard Energy Dissipation in
Moving Barrier and Passenger Vehicle Impacts. SAE Mobilus, 15.
CUYCO, J. (2021). PH needs more bike lanes, but gov't slow in building them. Rappler.
Dlubala, B. G. (2017). Concrete Bollards Are Crucial To Separating Cars From Pedestrians and
Buildings.
Fedsteel. (2018, June 20). Benefits of Steel Bollards. Retrieved from Federal Steel Supply, LLC:
https://www.fedsteel.com/our-blog/benefits-of-steel-bollards/
Gerald Dlubala. (2017). Concrete Bollards Are Crucial To Separating Cars From Pedestrians and
Buildings.
Hester Wells. (2018). Bidirectional versus one-way cycle lanes.
Hourdos, J., Duhn, M., Dirks, P., & Greg, L. (2021). Guidance for Separated/Buffered Bike
Lanes with Delineators. Minnesota Department of Transportation.
King, M. (2002). "Bicycle Facility Selection: A Comparison of Approaches.". Pedestrian and

219
Bicycle Information Center, Highway Safety Research Center, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Koglin 2013; Aldred 2013; Koglin 2015a; Koglin 2015b; Lanzendorf & Busch-Geertsema 2014;
Pucher & Buehler 2012; Pucher, & Buehler 2009. (n.d.). Bicycle planning in an urban
context.
Koglin 2013; Garrard et al. 2012; Tranter 2012; Cooper et al. 2008. (n.d.). Bicycle planning – A
literature review.
Koglin 2013; Koglin & Rye 2014; Furness 2010; Emanuel 2012. (n.d.). Bicycle planning in an
urban context.
Mcneil, N., Monsere, C., & Dill, J. (2019). Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived
Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists. Sage Journals, 132-142.
Megyeri, K. (2016). Fitting in Protected Bike Lanes. Scholar's Bank.
MFG, P. (n.d.). Petersen Manufacturing Co. Retrieved from

https://www.petersenmfg.com/bollards.asp
Post Guard. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.postguard.com/concrete-bollards
Reliance Foundry. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reliance-foundry.com/blog/precast-

concrete-bollards
Søren Underlien Jensen, T. A. (2000). Collection of Cycle Concept. Road Directorate.
Speedy Street Solutions Ltd. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.speedystreetsolutions.com/bollards/concrete-bollard.html
Steg, Gärling, Khayesi et al . (2008). Planning for cycling =planning for equity: aresponse to
Cupples and Ridley ‘Towards aheterogeneous environmental responsibility:sustainability
and cycling fundamentalism’.
Wells, H. (2018). Bidirectional versus one-way cycle lanes.
220
APPENDIX A: INITIAL COST ESTIMATES
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT
Initial Cost Estimates of One-Way Bike Lanes

Length Price per Meter Total Cost
m Php Php
800 3,460.86 2,768,689.72
Initial Cost Estimates of Two-Way Bike Lanes

m Php Php
800 6,921.72 5,537,379.44
Initial Cost Estimates of Contra Flow Bike Lanes

m Php Php
800 6,949.91 5,559,930.01
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT
Initial Cost Estimates of Concrete Bollards

No. of
Price per Bollard Total Cost
Bollards
pcs. Php Php
200 4,575.60 366,048.00
Initial Cost Estimates of Steel Bollards

No. of
Bollards
pcs. Php Php
200 14,235.20 1,138,816.00
Initial Cost Estimates of Concrete-Filled Steel Bollards

No. of
Bollards
pcs. Php Php
200 10,168.00 813,440.00
221
APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT DESIGN
Survey results for the purpose of the study:
222
223
Cyclist Domain Comfortability
contra-flow
10%
one-way
33%
two-way
57%
one-way two-way contra-flow
Manual Computation:
To compute for Future AADT per Classification (using forecasting method):
𝑬𝒕+𝒏 = 𝑬𝒕 (𝟏 + 𝒈)𝒏
where: 𝐸𝑡+𝑛 – AADT value of 𝑡 year, forecasted 𝑛 years in the future

𝐸𝑡 – base year AADT value, observed during 𝑡 year
𝑔 – AADT growth rate
For average AADT growth rate, it is calculated using this equation:
𝒌 𝑬𝒕
𝒈= √ −𝟏
𝑬𝒕−𝒌
where: 𝑘 – a number of years between the first and last AADT data value
SOLUTION:
AADT PER CLASSIFICATION (2018)

37789 11974 10737 5644 4129 692 20338 3021 94324
224
AADT PER CLASSIFICATION (2020)
38695 13043 12625 5888 3881 653 34297 4060 113142
Growth Rate Factor
2 38695
𝑔𝑐𝑎𝑟 = √ − 1 = 0.011916613 ≈ 0.01
37789
2 13043
𝑔𝑃𝑈𝐽 = √ − 1 = 0.043684227 ≈ 0.04
11974
2 12625
𝑔𝑈𝑉 = √10737 − 1 = 0.084361818 ≈ 0.08
2 5888
𝑔𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑖 = √5644 − 1 = 0.02138717 ≈ 0.02
2 3881
𝑔𝑃𝑈𝐵 = √4129 − 1 = 0.030496503 ≈ 0.03
2 653
𝑔𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 = √ − 1 = 0.028587823 ≈ 0.03
692
2 34297
𝑔𝑚𝑐 = √20338 − 1 = 0.298595654 ≈ 0.30
2 4060
𝑔𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 = √3021 − 1 = 0.15927816 ≈ 0.16
Summarized Growth Rate Factor:
GROWTH RATE FACTOR

Car PUJ UV Taxi PUB Truck MC Bicycle
0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.16
Future AADT per Classification (2025)
using present AADT per classification (2020) and calculated growth rate factor,
𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑟(2025) = 38695 (1 + 0.01)5 ≈ 41056
225
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐽(2025) = 13043 (1 + 0.04)5 ≈ 16152
𝐸𝑈𝑉(2025) = 12625 (1 + 0.08)5 ≈ 18928
𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑖(2025) = 5888 (1 + 0.02)5 ≈ 6545
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐵(2025) = 3881 (1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 4510
𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘(2025) = 653 (1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 752
𝐸𝑀𝐶(2025) = 34297 (1 + 0.30)5 ≈ 126656
𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒(2025) = 4060 (1 + 0.16)5 ≈ 8501
Summarized Future AADT per Classification (2025)
FUTURE AADT PER CLASSIFICATION (2025)

41056 16152 18928 6545 4510 752 126656 8501 223100
If we remove, 1000 on Car, PUJ, UV, Taxi, PUB and added it on AADT of Bicycle:

40056 15152 17928 5545 3510 752 126656 13501 223100
using future AADT per classification (2025) and calculated growth rate factor,
𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑟(2030) = 41056 (1 + 0.01)5 ≈ 43562
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐽(2030) = 16152(1 + 0.04)5 ≈ 20002
𝐸𝑈𝑉(2030) = 18928(1 + 0.08)5 ≈ 28378
𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑖(2030) = 6545 (1 + 0.02)5 ≈ 7276
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐵(2030) = 4510(1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 5241
𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘(2030) = 752 (1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 866
226
𝐸𝑀𝐶(2030) = 126656(1 + 0.30)5 ≈ 467731
𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒(2030) = 8501 (1 + 0.16)5 ≈ 17799

43562 20002 28378 7276 5241 866 467731 17799 590854

41562 18002 26378 5276 3241 866 467731 27799 590854
using future AADT per classification (2030) and calculated growth rate factor,
𝐸𝑐𝑎𝑟(2035) = 43562 (1 + 0.01)5 ≈ 46220
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐽(2035) = 20002 (1 + 0.04)5 ≈ 24770
𝐸𝑈𝑉(2035) = 28378 (1 + 0.08)5 ≈ 42545
𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑖(2035) = 7276 (1 + 0.02)5 ≈ 8088
𝐸𝑃𝑈𝐵(2035) = 5241 (1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 6091
𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘(2035) = 866 (1 + 0.03)5 ≈ 997
𝐸𝑀𝐶(2035) = 467731 (1 + 0.30)5 ≈ 1727291
𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒(2035) = 17799 (1 + 0.16)5 ≈ 37269

46220 24770 42545 8088 6091 997 1727291 37269 1893270
227

43220 21770 39545 5088 3091 997 1727291 52269 1893270
VISSIM RESULTS (ONE-WAY BIKE LANE):
LINK SEGMENT RESULTS (2025)
TIMEINT LINKEVALSEGMENT DENSITY(ALL) DELAYREL(ALL) SPEED(ALL) VOLUME(ALL)

0-3600 1-0-10 268.45 77.29% 11.68 3135.73
0-3600 1-10-20 366.26 83.65% 8.46 3098.2
0-3600 1-20-30 363.45 83.52% 8.45 3070.36
0-3600 1-30-40 359.88 83.35% 8.47 3048.93
0-3600 1-40-50 379.85 84.30% 7.98 3029.67
0-3600 1-50-60 374.45 84.16% 8.05 3015.27
0-3600 1-60-70 314.25 81.26% 9.54 2996.67
0-3600 1-70-80 364.55 84.00% 8.15 2972.87
0-3600 1-80-90 306.33 81.04% 9.64 2954.27
0-3600 1-90-100 375.65 84.62% 7.81 2933.43
0-3600 1-100-110 342.38 83.17% 8.52 2915.89
0-3600 1-110-120 345.53 83.40% 8.39 2898
0-3600 1-120-130 348 83.62% 8.28 2881.88
0-3600 1-130-140 380.94 85.10% 7.53 2869.26
0-3600 1-140-150 355.96 84.18% 7.99 2845.46
0-3600 1-150-160 392.41 85.79% 7.17 2815.3
0-3600 1-160-170 368.53 84.97% 7.56 2786.41
0-3600 1-170-180 352.6 84.54% 7.78 2743.43
0-3600 1-180-190 344.58 84.38% 7.85 2703.8
0-3600 1-190-200 425.37 87.45% 6.27 2668.93
0-3600 1-200-210 355.08 85.14% 7.42 2633.28
0-3600 1-210-220 384.41 86.40% 6.77 2603.94
0-3600 1-220-230 431.5 87.97% 5.95 2568.32
0-3600 1-230-240 444.58 88.48% 5.66 2515.94
0-3600 1-240-250 406.21 87.62% 6.08 2469.64
0-3600 1-250-260 450.99 88.99% 5.39 2430.1
0-3600 1-260-270 453.22 89.18% 5.29 2396.23
0-3600 1-270-280 467.73 89.58% 5.07 2372.36
0-3600 1-280-290 492.14 90.16% 4.77 2347.27
0-3600 1-290-300 459.11 89.52% 5.07 2329.39
228
0-3600 1-300-310 543 91.13% 4.26 2315.63
0-3600 1-310-320 645.98 92.54% 3.56 2299.56
0-3600 1-320-330 71.68 33.57% 31.89 2285.9
0-3600 1-330-340 62.84 24.56% 36.16 2272.15
0-3600 1-340-350 58.42 19.35% 38.64 2256.97
0-3600 1-350-360 55.32 14.97% 40.55 2243.64
0-3600 1-360-370 52.69 10.93% 42.33 2230.4
0-3600 1-370-380 50.36 8.21% 43.81 2206.22
0-3600 1-380-390 48.99 6.14% 44.84 2196.46
0-3600 1-390-400 48.46 5.27% 45.16 2188.6
0-3600 1-400-410 48.2 5.36% 45.12 2174.74
0-3600 1-410-420 48.75 6.53% 44.49 2169.31
0-3600 1-420-430 50.25 9.68% 43.04 2162.94
0-3600 1-430-440 49.26 8.93% 43.76 2155.51
0-3600 1-440-450 47.37 4.62% 45.45 2152.9
0-3600 1-450-460 47.17 4.25% 45.54 2148
0-3600 1-460-470 47.42 4.47% 45.29 2148
0-3600 1-470-480 47.39 3.98% 45.33 2148
0-3600 1-480-490 47.06 3.48% 45.65 2148
0-3600 1-490-500 46.88 3.47% 45.82 2148
0-3600 1-500-510 47.11 3.79% 45.59 2148
0-3600 1-510-520 47.37 4.69% 45.35 2148
0-3600 1-520-530 47.32 5.32% 45.39 2148
0-3600 1-530-540 47.15 4.55% 45.56 2148
0-3600 1-540-550 46.92 4.23% 45.78 2148
0-3600 1-550-560 46.83 4.10% 45.87 2148
0-3600 1-560-570 46.84 4.20% 45.85 2148
0-3600 1-570-580 46.9 4.10% 45.8 2148
0-3600 1-580-590 46.96 2.99% 45.74 2148
0-3600 1-590-600 46.89 2.63% 45.81 2148
0-3600 1-600-610 46.55 2.93% 46.15 2148
0-3600 1-610-620 46.4 2.96% 46.29 2148
0-3600 1-620-630 46.42 2.73% 46.28 2148
0-3600 1-630-640 46.27 2.32% 46.43 2148
0-3600 1-640-650 46.1 1.76% 46.6 2148
0-3600 1-650-660 46.04 1.92% 46.65 2148
0-3600 1-660-670 45.92 1.84% 46.74 2146.42
0-3600 1-670-680 45.62 2.21% 46.89 2139.54
0-3600 1-680-690 45.4 2.45% 47 2134.06
0-3600 1-690-700 45.29 2.55% 47.03 2129.97
229
0-3600 1-700-710 44.98 2.17% 47.23 2124
0-3600 1-710-720 44.61 2.08% 47.53 2120.41
0-3600 1-720-730 43.93 2.01% 48.12 2114.11
0-3600 1-730-740 43.68 2.21% 48.35 2112
0-3600 1-740-750 43.93 2.52% 48.07 2112
0-3600 1-750-760 43.92 2.75% 48.08 2112
0-3600 1-760-770 43.84 2.42% 48.18 2112
0-3600 1-770-780 43.55 1.97% 48.49 2112
0-3600 1-780-790 43.12 1.46% 48.98 2112
0-3600 1-790-800 42.94 0.75% 49.19 2112
0-3600 1-800-801 42.78 0.29% 49.36 2112
0-3600 2-0-10 145.88 47.30% 28.38 4139.45
0-3600 2-10-20 193.92 60.81% 21.25 4120.42
0-3600 2-20-30 213.97 64.64% 19.16 4100.15
0-3600 2-30-40 219.24 65.57% 18.56 4068.56
0-3600 2-40-50 234.67 68.03% 17.18 4032.02
0-3600 2-50-60 219.48 66.02% 18.24 4003.88
0-3600 2-60-70 249.42 70.36% 15.94 3974.73
0-3600 2-70-80 224.75 67.32% 17.56 3946.24
0-3600 2-80-90 224.84 67.63% 17.38 3908.18
0-3600 2-90-100 239.81 69.95% 16.12 3866.38
0-3600 2-100-110 241.56 70.43% 15.84 3826.71
0-3600 2-110-120 237.42 70.16% 16.01 3801.09
0-3600 2-120-130 242.12 70.90% 15.56 3767.91
0-3600 2-130-140 249.72 71.89% 14.97 3738.73
0-3600 2-140-150 258.41 72.97% 14.35 3707.86
0-3600 2-150-160 250.82 72.40% 14.66 3676.04
0-3600 2-160-170 281.13 75.62% 12.96 3643.48
0-3600 2-170-180 294.34 77.05% 12.25 3605.62
0-3600 2-180-190 304.19 78.03% 11.75 3573.83
0-3600 2-190-200 304.71 78.26% 11.59 3531.93
0-3600 2-200-210 329.98 80.13% 10.6 3498.23
0-3600 2-210-220 306.38 78.70% 11.32 3469.39
0-3600 2-220-230 296.02 78.25% 11.62 3439.99
0-3600 2-230-240 310.89 79.49% 11.01 3421.61
0-3600 2-240-250 302.89 79.05% 11.22 3398.21
0-3600 2-250-260 306.08 79.36% 11.04 3380.21
0-3600 2-260-270 309.79 79.65% 10.86 3364.75
0-3600 2-270-280 367.75 82.97% 9.09 3342.81
0-3600 2-280-290 350.09 82.17% 9.52 3333.32
230
0-3600 2-290-300 356.28 82.53% 9.31 3318.25
0-3600 2-300-310 348.01 82.12% 9.51 3308.43
0-3600 2-310-320 363 82.92% 9.08 3294.56
0-3600 2-320-330 357.71 82.78% 9.18 3285.11
0-3600 2-330-340 343.8 82.13% 9.52 3273.06
0-3600 2-340-350 383.78 84.00% 8.51 3265.35
0-3600 2-350-360 350.12 82.50% 9.28 3250.35
0-3600 2-360-370 318.2 80.80% 10.17 3235.52
0-3600 2-370-380 300.73 79.91% 10.66 3207.11
0-3600 2-380-390 331.51 81.98% 9.58 3176.49
0-3600 2-390-400 366.89 83.89% 8.56 3140.57
0-3600 2-400-410 368.72 84.13% 8.39 3095.28
0-3600 2-410-420 379.39 84.77% 8.03 3047.22
0-3600 2-420-430 379.28 84.98% 7.91 3001.92
0-3600 2-430-440 399.28 85.96% 7.38 2946.96
0-3600 2-440-450 429.58 87.16% 6.73 2889.6
0-3600 2-450-460 409.09 86.65% 6.95 2843.72
0-3600 2-460-470 493.67 89.12% 5.66 2796.29
0-3600 2-470-480 479.11 89.04% 5.74 2751.78
0-3600 2-480-490 71.34 27.40% 38.27 2730
0-3600 2-490-500 64.6 19.74% 42.26 2730
0-3600 2-500-510 61.23 14.95% 44.58 2730
0-3600 2-510-520 59.13 11.35% 46.17 2730
0-3600 2-520-530 57.39 8.30% 47.57 2730
0-3600 2-530-540 56.15 6.43% 48.62 2730
0-3600 2-540-550 55.48 4.75% 49.2 2730
0-3600 2-550-560 54.94 3.45% 49.69 2730
0-3600 2-560-570 54.63 3.07% 49.98 2730
0-3600 2-570-580 54.8 3.74% 49.82 2730
0-3600 2-580-590 55.93 6.64% 48.81 2730
0-3600 2-590-600 55.14 5.27% 49.51 2730
0-3600 2-600-610 54.33 3.01% 50.25 2730
0-3600 2-610-620 54.42 2.59% 50.16 2730
0-3600 2-620-630 54.44 2.64% 50.15 2730
0-3600 2-630-640 54.31 2.81% 50.27 2730
0-3600 2-640-650 54.12 2.97% 50.44 2730
0-3600 2-650-660 54.08 2.96% 50.48 2730
0-3600 2-660-670 54.21 3.20% 50.36 2730
0-3600 2-670-680 54.34 3.15% 50.24 2730
0-3600 2-680-690 54.44 3.19% 50.15 2730
231
0-3600 2-690-700 54.47 3.15% 50.12 2730
0-3600 2-700-710 54.39 2.94% 50.19 2730
0-3600 2-710-720 54.33 3.06% 50.25 2730
0-3600 2-720-730 54.14 2.91% 50.42 2730
0-3600 2-730-740 53.92 2.40% 50.63 2729.78
0-3600 2-740-750 53.45 2.38% 50.96 2724
0-3600 2-750-760 52.89 1.80% 51.43 2720.06
0-3600 2-760-770 52.52 1.62% 51.75 2718
0-3600 2-770-780 52.44 1.46% 51.83 2718
0-3600 2-780-790 52.14 1.34% 52.03 2712.77
0-3600 2-790-800 51.75 0.53% 52.37 2710.18
0-3600 2-800-801 51.12 0.18% 52.94 2706

0-3600 1-0-10 419.11 79.18% 9.28 3889.87
0-3600 1-10-20 575.91 85.00% 6.7 3858.46
0-3600 1-20-30 529.43 83.84% 7.22 3821.79
0-3600 1-30-40 585.76 85.45% 6.46 3784.09
0-3600 1-40-50 527.33 83.94% 7.12 3755.15
0-3600 1-50-60 546.53 84.63% 6.82 3726.54
0-3600 1-60-70 530.94 84.24% 6.97 3700.29
0-3600 1-70-80 498.73 83.30% 7.36 3671.2
0-3600 1-80-90 530.59 84.42% 6.86 3637.92
0-3600 1-90-100 517.83 84.14% 6.99 3620.55
0-3600 1-100-110 560.98 85.45% 6.4 3591.25
0-3600 1-110-120 549.1 85.20% 6.48 3555.91
0-3600 1-120-130 490.99 83.57% 7.18 3527.13
0-3600 1-130-140 526.12 84.77% 6.67 3507.88
0-3600 1-140-150 543.87 85.34% 6.39 3476.63
0-3600 1-150-160 510.84 84.55% 6.72 3433.81
0-3600 1-160-170 563.15 86.10% 6.01 3387.32
0-3600 1-170-180 501.21 84.58% 6.65 3335.23
0-3600 1-180-190 581.92 86.88% 5.66 3293.84
0-3600 1-190-200 524.06 85.58% 6.2 3250.66
0-3600 1-200-210 500.05 85.08% 6.4 3200.36
0-3600 1-210-220 538.51 86.28% 5.87 3160.31
0-3600 1-220-230 518.35 85.87% 6.03 3123.61
0-3600 1-230-240 562.32 87.18% 5.48 3079.36
0-3600 1-240-250 564.25 87.48% 5.35 3018.59
232
0-3600 1-250-260 637.22 89.15% 4.65 2960.59
0-3600 1-260-270 673.01 89.95% 4.32 2905.75
0-3600 1-270-280 619.91 89.31% 4.61 2855.74
0-3600 1-280-290 742.52 91.17% 3.8 2822.79
0-3600 1-290-300 741.76 91.23% 3.77 2795.13
0-3600 1-300-310 700.91 90.84% 3.95 2770.02
0-3600 1-310-320 810.39 92.19% 3.39 2748.07
0-3600 1-320-330 89.66 29.64% 30.47 2731.83
0-3600 1-330-340 79.53 21.52% 34.13 2714.29
0-3600 1-340-350 74.32 16.56% 36.32 2699.65
0-3600 1-350-360 70.38 12.13% 38.13 2683.82
0-3600 1-360-370 67.89 9.23% 39.32 2669.2
0-3600 1-370-380 66.61 7.77% 39.87 2655.56
0-3600 1-380-390 65.62 7.37% 40.31 2644.98
0-3600 1-390-400 64.8 6.47% 40.65 2634
0-3600 1-400-410 64.89 6.39% 40.43 2623.9
0-3600 1-410-420 67.72 10.33% 38.7 2620.51
0-3600 1-420-430 70.2 14.37% 37.26 2616
0-3600 1-430-440 66.97 10.02% 39.05 2615.5
0-3600 1-440-450 63.61 5.01% 40.96 2605.1
0-3600 1-450-460 63.01 4.14% 41.21 2596.55
0-3600 1-460-470 63.01 4.38% 41.14 2592
0-3600 1-470-480 63.21 4.80% 41.01 2592
0-3600 1-480-490 63.4 5.08% 40.88 2592
0-3600 1-490-500 63.38 5.39% 40.89 2592
0-3600 1-500-510 63.3 5.52% 40.95 2592
0-3600 1-510-520 63.12 4.95% 41.07 2592
0-3600 1-520-530 63.22 4.83% 41 2592
0-3600 1-530-540 63.41 5.04% 40.88 2592
0-3600 1-540-550 63.65 5.39% 40.72 2592
0-3600 1-550-560 63.63 5.91% 40.74 2592
0-3600 1-560-570 63.23 5.55% 40.99 2592
0-3600 1-570-580 62.57 4.40% 41.43 2592
0-3600 1-580-590 61.98 3.95% 41.74 2587.29
0-3600 1-590-600 61.48 3.86% 41.97 2580.43
0-3600 1-600-610 61.39 3.31% 41.97 2576.86
0-3600 1-610-620 60.93 3.08% 42.17 2569.91
0-3600 1-620-630 60.41 2.94% 42.43 2563.18
0-3600 1-630-640 60.06 4.07% 42.58 2557.24
0-3600 1-640-650 60.1 4.66% 42.51 2555
233
0-3600 1-650-660 59.56 3.85% 42.81 2549.8
0-3600 1-660-670 58.74 2.61% 43.31 2544
0-3600 1-670-680 58.03 2.12% 43.76 2539.33
0-3600 1-680-690 57.85 2.29% 43.82 2534.97
0-3600 1-690-700 57.5 2.43% 44 2530.3
0-3600 1-700-710 56.88 2.28% 44.38 2524.54
0-3600 1-710-720 56.5 2.33% 44.58 2518.88
0-3600 1-720-730 56.28 2.22% 44.67 2514
0-3600 1-730-740 56.62 2.26% 44.4 2514
0-3600 1-740-750 56.77 2.50% 44.28 2514
0-3600 1-750-760 56.63 2.81% 44.4 2514
0-3600 1-760-770 56.31 2.43% 44.65 2514
0-3600 1-770-780 56.09 1.92% 44.82 2514
0-3600 1-780-790 55.54 1.50% 45.27 2514
0-3600 1-790-800 54.75 0.78% 45.92 2514
0-3600 1-800-801 54.26 0.32% 46.33 2514
0-3600 2-0-10 304.13 66.13% 16.31 4959.17
0-3600 2-10-20 428.6 76.08% 11.53 4942.77
0-3600 2-20-30 416.27 75.30% 11.83 4925.21
0-3600 2-30-40 426.78 75.88% 11.52 4914.67
0-3600 2-40-50 458.35 77.62% 10.68 4895
0-3600 2-50-60 444.63 77.10% 10.95 4867.86
0-3600 2-60-70 473.81 78.69% 10.2 4833.18
0-3600 2-70-80 470.41 78.67% 10.2 4799.69
0-3600 2-80-90 445.62 77.66% 10.68 4757.05
0-3600 2-90-100 443.88 77.74% 10.61 4711.43
0-3600 2-100-110 405.61 75.80% 11.51 4667.42
0-3600 2-110-120 461.71 78.84% 10.05 4640.02
0-3600 2-120-130 430.02 77.42% 10.72 4609.37
0-3600 2-130-140 425.83 77.40% 10.75 4577.22
0-3600 2-140-150 447.02 78.62% 10.16 4542.96
0-3600 2-150-160 464.32 79.57% 9.69 4501.09
0-3600 2-160-170 462.35 79.58% 9.67 4471.06
0-3600 2-170-180 442.71 78.90% 10.01 4433.73
0-3600 2-180-190 458.69 79.78% 9.6 4402.6
0-3600 2-190-200 440.88 79.07% 9.91 4367.75
0-3600 2-200-210 445.88 79.43% 9.74 4342.25
0-3600 2-210-220 426.23 78.60% 10.11 4307.6
0-3600 2-220-230 429.53 78.87% 9.97 4280.58
0-3600 2-230-240 466.54 80.68% 9.11 4250.78
234
0-3600 2-240-250 443.76 79.76% 9.52 4222.88
0-3600 2-250-260 462.94 80.69% 9.09 4209.15
0-3600 2-260-270 519.4 82.83% 8.08 4194.94
0-3600 2-270-280 460.55 80.75% 9.07 4178.33
0-3600 2-280-290 461.99 80.83% 9.04 4175.22
0-3600 2-290-300 458.03 80.70% 9.09 4162.62
0-3600 2-300-310 453.21 80.54% 9.17 4157.97
0-3600 2-310-320 445.77 80.27% 9.31 4148.42
0-3600 2-320-330 410.55 78.60% 10.07 4134.27
0-3600 2-330-340 436.14 79.88% 9.46 4125.47
0-3600 2-340-350 391.06 77.68% 10.49 4100.9
0-3600 2-350-360 421.77 79.39% 9.67 4078.96
0-3600 2-360-370 450.12 80.76% 9 4051.47
0-3600 2-370-380 478.37 82.01% 8.38 4006.59
0-3600 2-380-390 463.79 81.62% 8.57 3972.94
0-3600 2-390-400 394.22 78.61% 9.97 3929.16
0-3600 2-400-410 493.73 83.04% 7.86 3881.94
0-3600 2-410-420 483.69 82.91% 7.9 3821.4
0-3600 2-420-430 497.74 83.58% 7.56 3763.14
0-3600 2-430-440 467.77 82.61% 7.98 3731.73
0-3600 2-440-450 530.05 84.73% 6.97 3696.94
0-3600 2-450-460 473.39 83.04% 7.73 3658.95
0-3600 2-460-470 711.51 88.89% 5.08 3610.92
0-3600 2-470-480 599.61 87.04% 5.93 3556.72
0-3600 2-480-490 99.28 22.49% 35.54 3528
0-3600 2-490-500 91.77 16.09% 38.44 3528
0-3600 2-500-510 87.75 11.88% 40.2 3528
0-3600 2-510-520 85.55 9.54% 41.24 3528
0-3600 2-520-530 84.03 7.63% 41.99 3528
0-3600 2-530-540 82.69 5.84% 42.66 3528
0-3600 2-540-550 82.3 5.33% 42.87 3528
0-3600 2-550-560 82.31 5.81% 42.86 3528
0-3600 2-560-570 83.51 7.44% 42.25 3528
0-3600 2-570-580 85.01 9.44% 41.5 3528
0-3600 2-580-590 86.99 12.02% 40.55 3528
0-3600 2-590-600 84.13 8.68% 41.93 3528
0-3600 2-600-610 80.97 4.10% 43.57 3528
0-3600 2-610-620 80.11 3.48% 43.97 3522.31
0-3600 2-620-630 79.75 3.66% 44.09 3516.22
0-3600 2-630-640 79.35 3.77% 44.26 3512.44
235
0-3600 2-640-650 79.01 4.15% 44.39 3506.86
0-3600 2-650-660 79.1 4.48% 44.27 3501.56
0-3600 2-660-670 79.07 4.85% 44.21 3496.19
0-3600 2-670-680 79.23 5.63% 44.07 3492
0-3600 2-680-690 79.11 5.50% 44.07 3486.26
0-3600 2-690-700 78.32 4.87% 44.45 3481.55
0-3600 2-700-710 77.8 4.62% 44.71 3478.27
0-3600 2-710-720 77.19 4.51% 45 3473.49
0-3600 2-720-730 76.5 4.36% 45.33 3468
0-3600 2-730-740 76.11 4.37% 45.49 3462.2
0-3600 2-740-750 76.03 4.35% 45.52 3460.65
0-3600 2-750-760 75.2 3.75% 45.93 3453.76
0-3600 2-760-770 74.32 2.79% 46.42 3449.6
0-3600 2-770-780 73.3 2.71% 46.98 3444
0-3600 2-780-790 72.55 2.07% 47.47 3444
0-3600 2-790-800 71.54 0.93% 48.11 3441.68
0-3600 2-800-801 70.92 0.49% 48.48 3438

0-3600 1-0-10 415.33 75.52% 9.52 3952.45
0-3600 1-10-20 626.5 84.04% 6.22 3899.67
0-3600 1-20-30 551.06 82.24% 6.99 3851.35
0-3600 1-30-40 569.07 82.99% 6.7 3810.92
0-3600 1-40-50 626.84 84.81% 6.01 3764.88
0-3600 1-50-60 574.03 83.67% 6.49 3724.12
0-3600 1-60-70 619.93 85.09% 5.94 3681.12
0-3600 1-70-80 612.6 85.09% 5.95 3646.58
0-3600 1-80-90 614.31 85.32% 5.88 3609.42
0-3600 1-90-100 588.53 84.77% 6.09 3586.75
0-3600 1-100-110 619.13 85.70% 5.73 3544.72
0-3600 1-110-120 516.97 83.03% 6.8 3513.23
0-3600 1-120-130 573.39 84.81% 6.09 3492.6
0-3600 1-130-140 528.33 83.66% 6.57 3468.85
0-3600 1-140-150 571.62 85.04% 6.01 3432.79
0-3600 1-150-160 637.64 86.81% 5.31 3388.25
0-3600 1-160-170 584.09 85.90% 5.7 3328.87
0-3600 1-170-180 564.95 85.70% 5.79 3268.35
0-3600 1-180-190 613.8 87.09% 5.23 3210.82
0-3600 1-190-200 570.6 86.48% 5.54 3158.94
236
0-3600 1-200-210 568.16 86.71% 5.47 3108.45
0-3600 1-210-220 617.01 88.00% 4.96 3058.08
0-3600 1-220-230 670.85 89.12% 4.49 3014.51
0-3600 1-230-240 636.69 88.78% 4.66 2963.9
0-3600 1-240-250 689.47 89.84% 4.23 2913.13
0-3600 1-250-260 627.95 88.98% 4.56 2866.56
0-3600 1-260-270 628.79 89.12% 4.49 2825.15
0-3600 1-270-280 660.36 89.77% 4.23 2792.15
0-3600 1-280-290 694.24 90.40% 3.98 2766.11
0-3600 1-290-300 696.56 90.54% 3.94 2744.46
0-3600 1-300-310 723.1 90.99% 3.77 2729.22
0-3600 1-310-320 831.52 92.21% 3.25 2706.46
0-3600 1-320-330 91.61 29.68% 29.38 2691.49
0-3600 1-330-340 81.79 22.59% 32.65 2670.79
0-3600 1-340-350 75.08 16.18% 35.31 2650.68
0-3600 1-350-360 71.55 12.15% 36.93 2642.31
0-3600 1-360-370 69.27 10.56% 37.89 2624.37
0-3600 1-370-380 67.67 8.62% 38.6 2611.8
0-3600 1-380-390 66.92 7.39% 38.91 2604
0-3600 1-390-400 67.52 8.15% 38.52 2600.77
0-3600 1-400-410 70.16 12.11% 36.88 2586.99
0-3600 1-410-420 72.22 14.69% 35.72 2579.58
0-3600 1-420-430 73.61 16.96% 34.94 2572.33
0-3600 1-430-440 68.71 11.34% 37.38 2568
0-3600 1-440-450 65.07 5.26% 39.44 2566.31
0-3600 1-450-460 64.56 4.74% 39.63 2558.57
0-3600 1-460-470 64.64 5.11% 39.54 2556
0-3600 1-470-480 64.52 4.93% 39.62 2556
0-3600 1-480-490 64.43 4.94% 39.67 2556
0-3600 1-490-500 64.67 5.23% 39.53 2556
0-3600 1-500-510 64.87 5.49% 39.4 2556
0-3600 1-510-520 64.98 5.81% 39.34 2556
0-3600 1-520-530 64.97 5.61% 39.34 2556
0-3600 1-530-540 64.73 5.17% 39.48 2556
0-3600 1-540-550 64.44 4.83% 39.66 2556
0-3600 1-550-560 64.18 4.82% 39.83 2556
0-3600 1-560-570 64.12 5.05% 39.86 2556
0-3600 1-570-580 64.16 5.04% 39.84 2556
0-3600 1-580-590 64.34 4.99% 39.73 2555.95
0-3600 1-590-600 63.69 4.42% 40.04 2550
237
0-3600 1-600-610 62.86 3.76% 40.47 2544.01
0-3600 1-610-620 62.62 3.72% 40.55 2539.28
0-3600 1-620-630 62.39 3.72% 40.61 2533.64
0-3600 1-630-640 62.23 3.92% 40.64 2529.27
0-3600 1-640-650 61.76 3.85% 40.9 2526
0-3600 1-650-660 61.11 3.43% 41.28 2522.42
0-3600 1-660-670 60.7 3.46% 41.47 2516.97
0-3600 1-670-680 60.58 3.96% 41.44 2510.47
0-3600 1-680-690 60.21 3.71% 41.66 2508
0-3600 1-690-700 59.59 2.60% 42.09 2508
0-3600 1-700-710 59.22 2.49% 42.26 2502.75
0-3600 1-710-720 58.98 2.46% 42.32 2495.93
0-3600 1-720-730 58.75 2.38% 42.39 2490
0-3600 1-730-740 58.91 2.80% 42.27 2490
0-3600 1-740-750 58.68 3.51% 42.36 2485.98
0-3600 1-750-760 58.42 3.74% 42.52 2484
0-3600 1-760-770 58.21 3.20% 42.67 2484
0-3600 1-770-780 57.49 2.27% 43.2 2484
0-3600 1-780-790 56.46 1.59% 43.93 2480.63
0-3600 1-790-800 55.52 0.91% 44.63 2478
0-3600 1-800-801 55 0.35% 45.05 2478
0-3600 2-0-10 365.53 65.17% 14.31 5230.52
0-3600 2-10-20 429.07 70.44% 12.13 5204.21
0-3600 2-20-30 465.77 72.90% 11.12 5178.65
0-3600 2-30-40 457.89 72.55% 11.25 5152.69
0-3600 2-40-50 459 72.70% 11.18 5129.55
0-3600 2-50-60 421.29 70.30% 12.12 5107.09
0-3600 2-60-70 461.8 73.14% 10.99 5073.88
0-3600 2-70-80 483.81 74.72% 10.38 5020.49
0-3600 2-80-90 477.25 74.61% 10.4 4965.59
0-3600 2-90-100 491.46 75.69% 10 4914.63
0-3600 2-100-110 488.18 75.75% 9.98 4872.89
0-3600 2-110-120 516.92 77.34% 9.34 4827.92
0-3600 2-120-130 486.43 76.11% 9.84 4786.96
0-3600 2-130-140 479.31 76.02% 9.9 4746.99
0-3600 2-140-150 496.72 77.00% 9.48 4708.43
0-3600 2-150-160 465.7 75.65% 10.04 4673.44
0-3600 2-160-170 494.09 77.27% 9.38 4633.63
0-3600 2-170-180 490.21 77.27% 9.38 4597.5
0-3600 2-180-190 500.61 77.90% 9.11 4561.23
238
0-3600 2-190-200 495.26 77.89% 9.13 4521.21
0-3600 2-200-210 491.68 77.93% 9.12 4482.41
0-3600 2-210-220 476 77.47% 9.35 4448.74
0-3600 2-220-230 500.22 78.88% 8.81 4409.36
0-3600 2-230-240 491.52 78.76% 8.9 4376.95
0-3600 2-240-250 481.8 78.59% 9.02 4345.29
0-3600 2-250-260 522.31 80.42% 8.28 4325.19
0-3600 2-260-270 489.5 79.33% 8.77 4292.18
0-3600 2-270-280 504.14 80.12% 8.46 4266.63
0-3600 2-280-290 537.11 81.55% 7.9 4240.95
0-3600 2-290-300 539.24 81.74% 7.83 4221.88
0-3600 2-300-310 532.22 81.62% 7.91 4210.47
0-3600 2-310-320 549.66 82.31% 7.63 4193.08
0-3600 2-320-330 544.4 82.26% 7.67 4175.68
0-3600 2-330-340 527.91 81.76% 7.89 4164.41
0-3600 2-340-350 498.76 80.85% 8.31 4142.61
0-3600 2-350-360 507.95 81.34% 8.12 4125.86
0-3600 2-360-370 468.49 79.96% 8.74 4096.16
0-3600 2-370-380 500.72 81.46% 8.09 4050.61
0-3600 2-380-390 501.44 81.87% 7.96 3989.81
0-3600 2-390-400 540.32 83.40% 7.28 3930.97
0-3600 2-400-410 568.19 84.41% 6.81 3868.28
0-3600 2-410-420 559.77 84.35% 6.79 3800.8
0-3600 2-420-430 585.2 85.24% 6.38 3731.55
0-3600 2-430-440 630.51 86.59% 5.81 3664.77
0-3600 2-440-450 604.11 86.25% 5.98 3609.6
0-3600 2-450-460 572.59 85.85% 6.19 3546.51
0-3600 2-460-470 639.04 87.60% 5.47 3494.81
0-3600 2-470-480 616.69 87.42% 5.58 3439.23
0-3600 2-480-490 100.01 22.62% 34.13 3414
0-3600 2-490-500 92.87 16.41% 36.76 3414
0-3600 2-500-510 89.32 12.73% 38.22 3414
0-3600 2-510-520 86.95 10.25% 39.26 3414
0-3600 2-520-530 85.15 8.26% 40.1 3414
0-3600 2-530-540 84.06 7.23% 40.61 3414
0-3600 2-540-550 83.67 6.83% 40.8 3414
0-3600 2-550-560 85.26 8.69% 40.04 3414
0-3600 2-560-570 88.31 11.80% 38.66 3414
0-3600 2-570-580 90.6 14.31% 37.68 3414
0-3600 2-580-590 90.96 15.33% 37.53 3414
239
0-3600 2-590-600 85.39 9.00% 39.98 3414
0-3600 2-600-610 82.27 4.58% 41.5 3414
0-3600 2-610-620 81.82 4.12% 41.73 3414
0-3600 2-620-630 81.83 4.18% 41.69 3411.53
0-3600 2-630-640 81.41 4.14% 41.83 3405.28
0-3600 2-640-650 81.03 4.61% 41.95 3399.54
0-3600 2-650-660 80.66 5.01% 42.07 3393.21
0-3600 2-660-670 80.28 4.95% 42.19 3386.97
0-3600 2-670-680 79.94 4.71% 42.3 3381.64
0-3600 2-680-690 79.5 4.45% 42.46 3375.5
0-3600 2-690-700 79.04 4.42% 42.64 3370.24
0-3600 2-700-710 78.58 4.56% 42.84 3366
0-3600 2-710-720 78.28 4.22% 42.97 3363.49
0-3600 2-720-730 77.7 4.04% 43.22 3358.11
0-3600 2-730-740 77.12 3.96% 43.47 3352.36
0-3600 2-740-750 76.44 4.11% 43.8 3348
0-3600 2-750-760 75.82 3.31% 44.15 3347.59
0-3600 2-760-770 74.73 2.26% 44.72 3342
0-3600 2-770-780 73.96 1.74% 45.17 3340.76
0-3600 2-780-790 73.02 1.38% 45.68 3335.74
0-3600 2-790-800 71.69 0.49% 46.45 3329.9
0-3600 2-800-801 70.73 0.13% 47 3324
VISSIM RESULTS (TWO-WAY BIKE LANE):

0-3600 1-0-10 294.92 81.29% 9.47 2791.89
0-3600 1-10-20 289.21 81.23% 9.61 2777.84
0-3600 1-20-30 337.61 83.90% 8.17 2759.38
0-3600 1-30-40 292.12 81.29% 9.4 2744.7
0-3600 1-40-50 222.74 75.45% 12.25 2727.46
0-3600 1-50-60 246.42 77.96% 11 2710.01
0-3600 1-60-70 262.25 79.41% 10.27 2694.24
0-3600 1-70-80 291.81 81.64% 9.18 2678.11
0-3600 1-80-90 347.39 84.66% 7.66 2660.66
0-3600 1-90-100 372.82 85.77% 7.09 2642.91
0-3600 1-100-110 361.87 85.39% 7.26 2628.2
0-3600 1-110-120 316.8 83.43% 8.24 2609.93
0-3600 1-120-130 303.81 82.82% 8.53 2592.5
240
0-3600 1-130-140 307.56 83.07% 8.38 2578.33
0-3600 1-140-150 316.99 83.67% 8.08 2560.41
0-3600 1-150-160 334.69 84.57% 7.6 2542.98
0-3600 1-160-170 434.57 88.19% 5.82 2527.53
0-3600 1-170-180 378.59 86.64% 6.62 2504.54
0-3600 1-180-190 408.88 87.72% 6.08 2487.33
0-3600 1-190-200 376.51 86.73% 6.56 2470.17
0-3600 1-200-210 309.06 83.89% 7.94 2455.4
0-3600 1-210-220 408.8 87.89% 5.96 2436.91
0-3600 1-220-230 309.8 84.09% 7.81 2419.59
0-3600 1-230-240 424.44 88.43% 5.67 2405.63
0-3600 1-240-250 379.61 87.14% 6.29 2387.31
0-3600 1-250-260 462.99 89.57% 5.1 2359.93
0-3600 1-260-270 454.76 89.50% 5.11 2325.49
0-3600 1-270-280 466.26 89.83% 4.93 2297.71
0-3600 1-280-290 431.53 89.11% 5.27 2275.8
0-3600 1-290-300 459.62 89.83% 4.91 2256.29
0-3600 1-300-310 377.56 87.63% 5.94 2240.86
0-3600 1-310-320 621.96 92.49% 3.57 2223.46
0-3600 1-320-330 67.88 32.32% 32.56 2209.68
0-3600 1-330-340 59.82 23.40% 36.65 2192.49
0-3600 1-340-350 56.09 18.10% 38.83 2177.79
0-3600 1-350-360 53.56 14.31% 40.43 2165.48
0-3600 1-360-370 51.02 10.92% 41.97 2141.51
0-3600 1-370-380 48.82 8.37% 43.57 2126.95
0-3600 1-380-390 47.62 6.20% 44.53 2120.44
0-3600 1-390-400 47.03 4.80% 45.02 2117.27
0-3600 1-400-410 46.45 3.99% 45.37 2107
0-3600 1-410-420 46.05 3.56% 45.73 2106
0-3600 1-420-430 46.48 4.66% 45.21 2101
0-3600 1-430-440 46.99 6.41% 44.65 2097.95
0-3600 1-440-450 45.89 4.41% 45.48 2087.28
0-3600 1-450-460 45.41 3.24% 45.84 2082
0-3600 1-460-470 45.62 3.27% 45.64 2082
0-3600 1-470-480 45.78 3.65% 45.48 2082
0-3600 1-480-490 46.01 4.50% 45.25 2082
0-3600 1-490-500 46.09 4.54% 45.17 2082
0-3600 1-500-510 45.87 4.13% 45.39 2082
0-3600 1-510-520 45.72 4.44% 45.54 2082
0-3600 1-520-530 45.86 4.62% 45.4 2082
241
0-3600 1-530-540 45.78 4.49% 45.48 2082
0-3600 1-540-550 45.53 4.43% 45.72 2082
0-3600 1-550-560 45.51 4.33% 45.75 2082
0-3600 1-560-570 45.64 4.17% 45.62 2082
0-3600 1-570-580 45.74 4.01% 45.52 2082
0-3600 1-580-590 45.8 4.01% 45.46 2082
0-3600 1-590-600 45.59 3.58% 45.67 2082
0-3600 1-600-610 45.06 2.86% 46.21 2082
0-3600 1-610-620 44.78 2.42% 46.49 2082
0-3600 1-620-630 44.88 2.21% 46.39 2082
0-3600 1-630-640 45.04 1.81% 46.22 2082
0-3600 1-640-650 44.88 1.83% 46.4 2082
0-3600 1-650-660 44.52 1.96% 46.77 2082
0-3600 1-660-670 44.41 1.73% 46.89 2082
0-3600 1-670-680 44.58 1.81% 46.7 2082
0-3600 1-680-690 44.67 1.55% 46.61 2082
0-3600 1-690-700 44.62 1.75% 46.63 2080.55
0-3600 1-700-710 44.44 2.00% 46.71 2075.85
0-3600 1-710-720 44.27 2.13% 46.76 2070
0-3600 1-720-730 43.9 2.05% 47.05 2065.48
0-3600 1-730-740 43.42 2.09% 47.46 2060.9
0-3600 1-740-750 43.17 2.20% 47.63 2056.13
0-3600 1-750-760 42.86 2.19% 47.88 2052
0-3600 1-760-770 42.63 2.02% 48.14 2052
0-3600 1-770-780 42.47 1.40% 48.32 2052
0-3600 1-780-790 42.17 0.78% 48.67 2052
0-3600 1-790-800 41.85 0.38% 49.04 2052
0-3600 1-800-801 41.65 0.16% 49.27 2052
0-3600 2-0-10 151.68 53.01% 25.06 3800.65
0-3600 2-10-20 239.73 70.79% 15.77 3779.56
0-3600 2-20-30 258.7 73.02% 14.53 3759.4
0-3600 2-30-40 246.74 71.56% 15.15 3738.57
0-3600 2-40-50 259.5 73.02% 14.3 3711.52
0-3600 2-50-60 272.5 74.53% 13.51 3682.54
0-3600 2-60-70 245.92 72.07% 14.88 3660.13
0-3600 2-70-80 262.74 74.04% 13.88 3646.42
0-3600 2-80-90 247.41 72.62% 14.63 3619.7
0-3600 2-90-100 268.71 74.93% 13.36 3590.83
0-3600 2-100-110 269.68 75.05% 13.23 3569.14
0-3600 2-110-120 281.3 76.23% 12.64 3554.53
242
0-3600 2-120-130 288.02 76.99% 12.25 3529.36
0-3600 2-130-140 303.18 78.28% 11.57 3507.89
0-3600 2-140-150 254.22 74.28% 13.65 3469.01
0-3600 2-150-160 298.13 78.18% 11.52 3434.3
0-3600 2-160-170 284.23 77.29% 11.97 3401.92
0-3600 2-170-180 294.2 78.37% 11.44 3365.36
0-3600 2-180-190 290.68 78.37% 11.46 3331.28
0-3600 2-190-200 300.46 79.27% 10.99 3300.53
0-3600 2-200-210 342.38 82.07% 9.55 3269.57
0-3600 2-210-220 329.03 81.48% 9.84 3237.96
0-3600 2-220-230 306.64 80.30% 10.48 3213.09
0-3600 2-230-240 297.52 79.86% 10.73 3193.36
0-3600 2-240-250 298.22 80.04% 10.62 3166.58
0-3600 2-250-260 328.44 81.94% 9.59 3150.32
0-3600 2-260-270 300.93 80.35% 10.41 3132.85
0-3600 2-270-280 317.11 81.40% 9.85 3124.35
0-3600 2-280-290 347.13 83.11% 8.95 3106.47
0-3600 2-290-300 372.94 84.34% 8.29 3090.31
0-3600 2-300-310 373.43 84.40% 8.25 3082.61
0-3600 2-310-320 343.29 83.07% 8.94 3068.37
0-3600 2-320-330 353 83.57% 8.66 3058.29
0-3600 2-330-340 324.37 82.24% 9.36 3037.18
0-3600 2-340-350 313.94 81.82% 9.6 3014
0-3600 2-350-360 352.11 83.93% 8.48 2986.09
0-3600 2-360-370 367.16 84.62% 8.08 2966.46
0-3600 2-370-380 373.88 85.01% 7.84 2932.94
0-3600 2-380-390 405.03 86.34% 7.15 2895.46
0-3600 2-390-400 425.14 87.22% 6.71 2852.3
0-3600 2-400-410 394.13 86.32% 7.16 2820.58
0-3600 2-410-420 403.67 86.81% 6.87 2773.79
0-3600 2-420-430 453.75 88.46% 6.01 2728.62
0-3600 2-430-440 364.37 85.86% 7.36 2681.21
0-3600 2-440-450 385.42 86.74% 6.87 2648.53
0-3600 2-450-460 388.24 86.93% 6.76 2622.8
0-3600 2-460-470 385.68 86.92% 6.71 2588.58
0-3600 2-470-480 498.31 90.16% 5.08 2531.22
0-3600 2-480-490 66.1 27.15% 38.03 2514
0-3600 2-490-500 60.19 20.11% 41.77 2514
0-3600 2-500-510 57.13 15.29% 44.01 2514
0-3600 2-510-520 55.38 12.01% 45.4 2514
243
0-3600 2-520-530 53.84 9.08% 46.7 2514
0-3600 2-530-540 52.37 6.24% 48 2514
0-3600 2-540-550 51.33 4.62% 48.98 2514
0-3600 2-550-560 50.77 3.59% 49.52 2514
0-3600 2-560-570 50.31 2.68% 49.97 2514
0-3600 2-570-580 50.21 2.52% 50.07 2514
0-3600 2-580-590 50.55 3.43% 49.73 2514
0-3600 2-590-600 50.37 3.03% 49.91 2514
0-3600 2-600-610 49.97 2.15% 50.31 2514
0-3600 2-610-620 50.16 2.41% 50.12 2514
0-3600 2-620-630 50.54 2.93% 49.75 2514
0-3600 2-630-640 50.9 3.36% 49.39 2514
0-3600 2-640-650 50.85 3.49% 49.44 2514
0-3600 2-650-660 50.53 3.50% 49.76 2514
0-3600 2-660-670 50.28 3.66% 50 2514
0-3600 2-670-680 50.26 3.68% 50.02 2514
0-3600 2-680-690 50.48 3.81% 49.8 2514
0-3600 2-690-700 50.89 3.97% 49.4 2514
0-3600 2-700-710 51.07 4.10% 49.22 2514
0-3600 2-710-720 50.84 3.47% 49.45 2514
0-3600 2-720-730 50.42 3.02% 49.87 2514
0-3600 2-730-740 50.25 3.00% 50.03 2514
0-3600 2-740-750 50.27 2.94% 50.01 2514
0-3600 2-750-760 50.17 2.44% 50.11 2514
0-3600 2-760-770 49.58 2.11% 50.66 2511.67
0-3600 2-770-780 48.52 1.47% 51.57 2501.87
0-3600 2-780-790 47.63 1.01% 52.33 2492.58
0-3600 2-790-800 47.29 0.46% 52.65 2490
0-3600 2-800-801 47.23 0.28% 52.72 2490

0-3600 1-0-10 244.95 68.93% 13.26 3248.36
0-3600 1-10-20 362.25 79.40% 8.92 3232.24
0-3600 1-20-30 388.53 80.77% 8.26 3210.24
0-3600 1-30-40 464.57 83.73% 6.87 3192.95
0-3600 1-40-50 399.64 81.06% 7.95 3175.29
0-3600 1-50-60 461.15 83.82% 6.84 3154.39
0-3600 1-60-70 437.12 83.07% 7.18 3136.91
0-3600 1-70-80 329 77.63% 9.48 3119.24
244
0-3600 1-80-90 409.74 82.07% 7.57 3101.7
0-3600 1-90-100 391.75 81.37% 7.88 3085.84
0-3600 1-100-110 438.56 83.39% 7 3069.59
0-3600 1-110-120 452.8 84.01% 6.74 3049.75
0-3600 1-120-130 401.07 82.11% 7.55 3029.38
0-3600 1-130-140 509.9 85.98% 5.91 3012.64
0-3600 1-140-150 420.74 83.05% 7.12 2995.74
0-3600 1-150-160 414.22 82.81% 7.19 2978.9
0-3600 1-160-170 421.47 83.17% 7.03 2962.54
0-3600 1-170-180 446.27 84.18% 6.6 2946.51
0-3600 1-180-190 513.6 86.32% 5.7 2928.67
0-3600 1-190-200 456.2 84.69% 6.37 2907.98
0-3600 1-200-210 467.29 85.20% 6.17 2883.03
0-3600 1-210-220 473.91 85.58% 6.03 2856.72
0-3600 1-220-230 422.67 83.90% 6.72 2838.43
0-3600 1-230-240 496.14 86.25% 5.69 2823.7
0-3600 1-240-250 426.13 84.02% 6.59 2809.72
0-3600 1-250-260 547.11 87.67% 5.11 2796.03
0-3600 1-260-270 543.72 87.71% 5.11 2778.96
0-3600 1-270-280 543.46 87.74% 5.09 2766
0-3600 1-280-290 529.95 87.44% 5.21 2759.04
0-3600 1-290-300 549.35 87.89% 4.99 2743.54
0-3600 1-300-310 705.36 90.55% 3.88 2734.74
0-3600 1-310-320 758.11 91.27% 3.58 2716.82
0-3600 1-320-330 88.2 26.58% 30.47 2687.38
0-3600 1-330-340 80.11 19.86% 33.38 2674.06
0-3600 1-340-350 76.4 16.16% 34.82 2660.14
0-3600 1-350-360 72.56 12.74% 36.32 2635.15
0-3600 1-360-370 68.78 9.58% 37.98 2612.52
0-3600 1-370-380 66.66 7.28% 39.02 2600.99
0-3600 1-380-390 65.59 5.71% 39.39 2583.63
0-3600 1-390-400 65.03 4.68% 39.67 2580
0-3600 1-400-410 64.83 4.59% 39.59 2567.01
0-3600 1-410-420 65.38 5.41% 39.19 2562
0-3600 1-420-430 67.2 8.44% 38.12 2562
0-3600 1-430-440 66.29 7.43% 38.65 2562
0-3600 1-440-450 64.12 3.55% 39.96 2562
0-3600 1-450-460 63.43 2.60% 40.35 2559.65
0-3600 1-460-470 63.49 3.34% 40.26 2556
0-3600 1-470-480 63.89 3.84% 40.01 2556
245
0-3600 1-480-490 63.94 3.70% 39.97 2556
0-3600 1-490-500 63.59 3.18% 40.2 2556
0-3600 1-500-510 63.56 3.55% 40.21 2556
0-3600 1-510-520 63.78 4.23% 40.08 2556
0-3600 1-520-530 64.03 4.10% 39.92 2556
0-3600 1-530-540 63.91 3.33% 39.99 2556
0-3600 1-540-550 63.32 2.85% 40.37 2556
0-3600 1-550-560 62.86 2.97% 40.66 2556
0-3600 1-560-570 62.9 2.82% 40.64 2556
0-3600 1-570-580 63.16 3.20% 40.47 2556
0-3600 1-580-590 63.18 3.19% 40.46 2556
0-3600 1-590-600 62.94 2.42% 40.61 2556
0-3600 1-600-610 62.86 2.28% 40.66 2556
0-3600 1-610-620 62.9 2.38% 40.64 2556
0-3600 1-620-630 62.99 2.50% 40.57 2556
0-3600 1-630-640 62.93 2.38% 40.62 2556
0-3600 1-640-650 62.73 2.17% 40.74 2555.66
0-3600 1-650-660 62.1 2.22% 40.98 2544.81
0-3600 1-660-670 61.76 1.90% 41.15 2541.12
0-3600 1-670-680 61.05 1.74% 41.52 2535.03
0-3600 1-680-690 60.68 1.82% 41.69 2529.89
0-3600 1-690-700 60.02 1.47% 42 2521.12
0-3600 1-700-710 59.36 1.19% 42.34 2513.35
0-3600 1-710-720 59.24 1.25% 42.34 2508
0-3600 1-720-730 59.02 1.64% 42.43 2504.45
0-3600 1-730-740 58.46 2.27% 42.67 2494.09
0-3600 1-740-750 58.05 2.29% 42.79 2484.09
0-3600 1-750-760 57.89 2.02% 42.8 2478.09
0-3600 1-760-770 57.79 1.68% 42.88 2478
0-3600 1-770-780 57.23 1.57% 43.3 2478
0-3600 1-780-790 56.77 1.13% 43.65 2478
0-3600 1-790-800 55.96 0.41% 44.28 2478
0-3600 1-800-801 55.58 0.18% 44.59 2478
0-3600 2-0-10 336.21 70.13% 14.51 4879.16
0-3600 2-10-20 486.68 79.72% 9.97 4854.02
0-3600 2-20-30 520.56 80.96% 9.29 4833.44
0-3600 2-30-40 506.75 80.26% 9.51 4817.42
0-3600 2-40-50 501.68 80.02% 9.55 4793.46
0-3600 2-50-60 515.48 80.76% 9.25 4765.64
0-3600 2-60-70 495.32 80.27% 9.52 4716.34
246
0-3600 2-70-80 458.55 78.83% 10.2 4676.48
0-3600 2-80-90 503.57 80.83% 9.22 4642.72
0-3600 2-90-100 496.78 80.63% 9.29 4614.37
0-3600 2-100-110 477.09 79.97% 9.59 4575.67
0-3600 2-110-120 521.35 81.84% 8.7 4534.26
0-3600 2-120-130 478.88 80.41% 9.38 4493.89
0-3600 2-130-140 499.7 81.38% 8.91 4453.26
0-3600 2-140-150 500.01 81.54% 8.81 4406.15
0-3600 2-150-160 456.42 79.88% 9.56 4362.29
0-3600 2-160-170 459 80.15% 9.42 4323.35
0-3600 2-170-180 472.5 80.95% 9.06 4279.38
0-3600 2-180-190 478.68 81.36% 8.85 4236.71
0-3600 2-190-200 467.44 80.95% 8.97 4192.75
0-3600 2-200-210 495.78 82.10% 8.38 4154.94
0-3600 2-210-220 505.97 82.64% 8.16 4126.72
0-3600 2-220-230 518.53 83.19% 7.9 4097.71
0-3600 2-230-240 510.53 83.07% 7.98 4074.45
0-3600 2-240-250 472.53 81.76% 8.57 4050.43
0-3600 2-250-260 451.44 81.01% 8.91 4024.57
0-3600 2-260-270 469.03 81.83% 8.52 3996.12
0-3600 2-270-280 413 79.41% 9.64 3980.31
0-3600 2-280-290 472.35 82.05% 8.4 3965.93
0-3600 2-290-300 413.87 79.58% 9.56 3956.04
0-3600 2-300-310 476.14 82.34% 8.26 3934.77
0-3600 2-310-320 476.33 82.45% 8.21 3912.25
0-3600 2-320-330 497.21 83.28% 7.81 3880.8
0-3600 2-330-340 472.9 82.54% 8.12 3839.52
0-3600 2-340-350 428 80.92% 8.87 3795.72
0-3600 2-350-360 445.13 81.80% 8.46 3764.91
0-3600 2-360-370 478.78 83.11% 7.82 3743.37
0-3600 2-370-380 458.01 82.36% 8.14 3727.19
0-3600 2-380-390 454.99 82.31% 8.14 3702.98
0-3600 2-390-400 494.86 83.93% 7.41 3664.68
0-3600 2-400-410 530.04 85.09% 6.86 3635.99
0-3600 2-410-420 537.11 85.36% 6.72 3609.1
0-3600 2-420-430 531.02 85.34% 6.73 3571.64
0-3600 2-430-440 468.84 83.50% 7.54 3533.59
0-3600 2-440-450 538.54 85.69% 6.51 3506.85
0-3600 2-450-460 589.56 87.05% 5.85 3450.15
0-3600 2-460-470 586.73 87.17% 5.79 3394.48
247
0-3600 2-470-480 627.81 88.31% 5.32 3341.29
0-3600 2-480-490 92.78 21.37% 35.83 3324
0-3600 2-490-500 86.96 15.33% 38.22 3324
0-3600 2-500-510 83.95 11.82% 39.6 3324
0-3600 2-510-520 81.74 9.37% 40.66 3324
0-3600 2-520-530 79.71 6.98% 41.7 3324
0-3600 2-530-540 78.25 4.82% 42.48 3324
0-3600 2-540-550 77.29 3.66% 43.01 3324
0-3600 2-550-560 76.79 3.13% 43.29 3324
0-3600 2-560-570 76.73 2.91% 43.32 3324
0-3600 2-570-580 77.66 4.09% 42.8 3324
0-3600 2-580-590 80.02 7.56% 41.54 3324
0-3600 2-590-600 78.74 5.93% 42.21 3324
0-3600 2-600-610 76.87 3.24% 43.24 3324
0-3600 2-610-620 76.82 3.02% 43.27 3324
0-3600 2-620-630 77.14 3.40% 43.09 3324
0-3600 2-630-640 77.16 3.83% 43.08 3324
0-3600 2-640-650 76.63 3.80% 43.38 3324
0-3600 2-650-660 76.52 3.90% 43.44 3324
0-3600 2-660-670 76.86 4.06% 43.25 3324
0-3600 2-670-680 77.59 4.40% 42.84 3324
0-3600 2-680-690 78.21 5.13% 42.48 3322.47
0-3600 2-690-700 78.04 5.57% 42.52 3318
0-3600 2-700-710 77.44 5.18% 42.84 3318
0-3600 2-710-720 76.42 4.45% 43.35 3312.99
0-3600 2-720-730 76.1 4.07% 43.52 3312
0-3600 2-730-740 75.5 3.87% 43.75 3303.59
0-3600 2-740-750 75.1 3.91% 43.91 3297.3
0-3600 2-750-760 74.35 3.61% 44.25 3290.13
0-3600 2-760-770 73.03 3.24% 44.9 3279.36
0-3600 2-770-780 71.95 2.68% 45.47 3271.79
0-3600 2-780-790 70.65 1.80% 46.17 3261.92
0-3600 2-790-800 69.42 0.74% 46.93 3258
0-3600 2-800-801 68.86 0.44% 47.32 3258

0-3600 1-0-10 299.36 63.01% 12.59 3768.54
0-3600 1-10-20 469.99 76.69% 7.98 3748.96
0-3600 1-20-30 429.49 74.51% 8.68 3726.08
248
0-3600 1-30-40 433.71 74.74% 8.55 3707.28
0-3600 1-40-50 398 72.72% 9.27 3688.37
0-3600 1-50-60 507.27 78.82% 7.22 3663.24
0-3600 1-60-70 440.57 75.68% 8.26 3639.58
0-3600 1-70-80 380.47 72.06% 9.51 3617.35
0-3600 1-80-90 411.34 74.28% 8.75 3599.86
0-3600 1-90-100 397.99 73.51% 8.99 3576.63
0-3600 1-100-110 453.08 76.81% 7.84 3554.22
0-3600 1-110-120 469.01 77.67% 7.54 3537.47
0-3600 1-120-130 419.36 75.21% 8.38 3515.02
0-3600 1-130-140 478.39 78.36% 7.31 3496.81
0-3600 1-140-150 460.21 77.55% 7.56 3480.09
0-3600 1-150-160 376.89 72.82% 9.16 3451.76
0-3600 1-160-170 461.51 77.99% 7.43 3427.04
0-3600 1-170-180 403.07 74.77% 8.46 3410.29
0-3600 1-180-190 488.07 79.34% 6.94 3388.28
0-3600 1-190-200 464.06 78.44% 7.25 3364.64
0-3600 1-200-210 471.73 78.77% 7.1 3348.89
0-3600 1-210-220 528.35 81.12% 6.3 3328.9
0-3600 1-220-230 482 79.46% 6.85 3299.92
0-3600 1-230-240 490.8 80.06% 6.66 3268.95
0-3600 1-240-250 504.95 80.86% 6.42 3241.78
0-3600 1-250-260 453.39 79.13% 7.05 3195.96
0-3600 1-260-270 596.59 84.39% 5.3 3160.19
0-3600 1-270-280 711.25 87.12% 4.38 3114.03
0-3600 1-280-290 750.34 87.92% 4.11 3087.51
0-3600 1-290-300 755.3 88.06% 4.06 3064.95
0-3600 1-300-310 887.92 89.95% 3.42 3038.12
0-3600 1-310-320 831.74 89.45% 3.63 3018.94
0-3600 1-320-330 113.9 23.80% 26.32 2998.12
0-3600 1-330-340 104.45 17.50% 28.43 2969.05
0-3600 1-340-350 98.86 13.31% 29.8 2946.33
0-3600 1-350-360 94.92 10.73% 30.87 2930.21
0-3600 1-360-370 92.16 9.04% 31.54 2906.32
0-3600 1-370-380 90.43 7.58% 31.96 2890.59
0-3600 1-380-390 89.23 6.40% 32.28 2880
0-3600 1-390-400 89.22 6.36% 32.2 2873.32
0-3600 1-400-410 92.02 9.39% 31.06 2857.65
0-3600 1-410-420 97.16 14.63% 29.35 2851.8
0-3600 1-420-430 100.58 18.55% 28.33 2850
249
0-3600 1-430-440 93.1 11.73% 30.61 2850
0-3600 1-440-450 87.13 4.96% 32.65 2845.19
0-3600 1-450-460 86.48 4.46% 32.89 2844
0-3600 1-460-470 86.94 4.52% 32.71 2844
0-3600 1-470-480 86.79 4.61% 32.77 2844
0-3600 1-480-490 86.47 4.73% 32.89 2844
0-3600 1-490-500 86.75 4.87% 32.78 2844
0-3600 1-500-510 87.08 5.21% 32.66 2844
0-3600 1-510-520 87.44 5.49% 32.53 2844
0-3600 1-520-530 87.04 4.57% 32.68 2844
0-3600 1-530-540 86.54 4.75% 32.87 2844
0-3600 1-540-550 86.26 4.53% 32.97 2844
0-3600 1-550-560 86.45 4.83% 32.9 2844
0-3600 1-560-570 86.29 4.86% 32.96 2844
0-3600 1-570-580 85.73 3.93% 33.17 2844
0-3600 1-580-590 84.67 3.19% 33.5 2836.71
0-3600 1-590-600 83.8 3.16% 33.73 2826.33
0-3600 1-600-610 83.15 3.00% 33.88 2816.9
0-3600 1-610-620 82.8 3.33% 33.94 2810.06
0-3600 1-620-630 82.19 3.09% 34.06 2799.28
0-3600 1-630-640 81.58 2.95% 34.18 2788.38
0-3600 1-640-650 80.58 2.70% 34.48 2778
0-3600 1-650-660 80.07 2.95% 34.61 2771.24
0-3600 1-660-670 79.45 3.07% 34.8 2765.21
0-3600 1-670-680 79.27 2.91% 34.82 2760
0-3600 1-680-690 79.12 2.86% 34.81 2754.27
0-3600 1-690-700 78.83 3.26% 34.82 2744.74
0-3600 1-700-710 78.31 3.48% 34.96 2737.48
0-3600 1-710-720 77.59 3.16% 35.14 2726.57
0-3600 1-720-730 77.27 3.00% 35.25 2724
0-3600 1-730-740 77.12 2.82% 35.32 2724
0-3600 1-740-750 76.71 2.43% 35.43 2718.15
0-3600 1-750-760 76.23 2.58% 35.59 2713.32
0-3600 1-760-770 75.47 2.48% 35.92 2710.76
0-3600 1-770-780 73.99 2.00% 36.57 2705.84
0-3600 1-780-790 72.74 1.60% 37.08 2696.93
0-3600 1-790-800 72.29 0.46% 37.27 2694
0-3600 1-800-801 72.25 0.18% 37.29 2694
0-3600 2-0-10 460.98 73.02% 11.29 5205.07
0-3600 2-10-20 522.41 76.51% 9.91 5177.19
250
0-3600 2-20-30 503.16 75.40% 10.24 5153.26
0-3600 2-30-40 526.87 76.36% 9.73 5128.34
0-3600 2-40-50 524.23 76.30% 9.74 5104.49
0-3600 2-50-60 490.11 74.78% 10.38 5085.97
0-3600 2-60-70 501.13 75.43% 10.11 5067.73
0-3600 2-70-80 504.84 75.63% 9.99 5043.49
0-3600 2-80-90 521.02 76.54% 9.63 5015.38
0-3600 2-90-100 473.27 74.39% 10.52 4979.77
0-3600 2-100-110 503.33 75.98% 9.83 4947.84
0-3600 2-110-120 523.87 77.06% 9.38 4915.64
0-3600 2-120-130 482.98 75.25% 10.11 4884.06
0-3600 2-130-140 486.6 75.52% 9.96 4844.72
0-3600 2-140-150 484.02 75.51% 9.94 4809.64
0-3600 2-150-160 491.2 76.05% 9.72 4776.75
0-3600 2-160-170 500.97 76.70% 9.44 4730.28
0-3600 2-170-180 503.89 77.03% 9.27 4672.99
0-3600 2-180-190 486.34 76.45% 9.49 4615.21
0-3600 2-190-200 571.12 80.11% 7.99 4561.41
0-3600 2-200-210 531.16 78.91% 8.49 4509.15
0-3600 2-210-220 501.78 77.97% 8.87 4449.2
0-3600 2-220-230 494.07 77.84% 8.91 4401.9
0-3600 2-230-240 452.79 76.01% 9.64 4363.61
0-3600 2-240-250 533.48 79.74% 8.11 4324.63
0-3600 2-250-260 483.12 77.88% 8.87 4284.69
0-3600 2-260-270 495.11 78.52% 8.59 4254.39
0-3600 2-270-280 506.68 79.08% 8.36 4237.7
0-3600 2-280-290 546.74 80.70% 7.71 4213.9
0-3600 2-290-300 498.05 78.88% 8.44 4201.32
0-3600 2-300-310 513.35 79.59% 8.14 4180.02
0-3600 2-310-320 505.7 79.31% 8.24 4168.91
0-3600 2-320-330 470.6 77.82% 8.83 4156.63
0-3600 2-330-340 477.02 78.14% 8.67 4137.53
0-3600 2-340-350 466.85 77.67% 8.85 4129.41
0-3600 2-350-360 460.66 77.46% 8.93 4111.72
0-3600 2-360-370 433.64 76.18% 9.43 4089.18
0-3600 2-370-380 506.91 79.72% 8.02 4066.27
0-3600 2-380-390 471.03 78.32% 8.56 4033.13
0-3600 2-390-400 511.73 80.15% 7.79 3984.75
0-3600 2-400-410 474.5 78.75% 8.29 3934.61
0-3600 2-410-420 478.58 79.22% 8.1 3877.1
251
0-3600 2-420-430 527.64 81.38% 7.24 3821.39
0-3600 2-430-440 549.46 82.32% 6.84 3756.02
0-3600 2-440-450 585.08 83.48% 6.33 3703.47
0-3600 2-450-460 580.22 83.48% 6.28 3641.54
0-3600 2-460-470 642.65 85.35% 5.55 3566.42
0-3600 2-470-480 675.38 86.49% 5.16 3486.07
0-3600 2-480-490 113.95 20.78% 30.44 3468
0-3600 2-490-500 107.28 14.91% 32.33 3468
0-3600 2-500-510 103.82 11.51% 33.4 3468
0-3600 2-510-520 101.79 9.66% 34.07 3468
0-3600 2-520-530 100.06 8.19% 34.66 3468
0-3600 2-530-540 98.95 7.20% 35.05 3468
0-3600 2-540-550 98.82 7.19% 35.09 3468
0-3600 2-550-560 99.94 8.36% 34.7 3468
0-3600 2-560-570 103.64 11.68% 33.46 3468
0-3600 2-570-580 109.55 16.30% 31.66 3468
0-3600 2-580-590 110.46 17.48% 31.4 3468
0-3600 2-590-600 101.28 9.12% 34.24 3468
0-3600 2-600-610 96.64 4.55% 35.89 3468
0-3600 2-610-620 96.23 4.23% 36.04 3468
0-3600 2-620-630 95.99 4.60% 36.08 3462.91
0-3600 2-630-640 95.94 4.67% 36.04 3457.64
0-3600 2-640-650 96.04 4.65% 35.96 3452.98
0-3600 2-650-660 95.8 4.94% 35.96 3444.95
0-3600 2-660-670 95.37 5.81% 36.02 3435.33
0-3600 2-670-680 94.59 6.24% 36.2 3423.63
0-3600 2-680-690 93.62 5.80% 36.45 3412.49
0-3600 2-690-700 92.84 5.27% 36.63 3400.85
0-3600 2-700-710 92.13 4.82% 36.82 3392.03
0-3600 2-710-720 90.94 4.41% 37.17 3380.12
0-3600 2-720-730 89.9 4.43% 37.5 3371.1
0-3600 2-730-740 88.88 4.18% 37.84 3363.57
0-3600 2-740-750 87.86 3.61% 38.23 3358.72
0-3600 2-750-760 86.32 3.09% 38.8 3349.08
0-3600 2-760-770 84.95 2.48% 39.34 3341.79
0-3600 2-770-780 83.1 1.75% 40.08 3330.84
0-3600 2-780-790 81.62 1.25% 40.69 3321.02
0-3600 2-790-800 80.64 0.60% 41.15 3318
0-3600 2-800-801 80.22 0.34% 41.36 3318
VISSIM RESULTS (CONTRA-FLOW BIKE LANE):

252

0-3600 1-0-10 206.6 69.92% 14.79 3055.87
0-3600 1-10-20 308.19 80.21% 9.8 3021.55
0-3600 1-20-30 355.39 82.98% 8.36 2971.6
0-3600 1-30-40 350.88 82.87% 8.3 2913.03
0-3600 1-40-50 351.74 83.09% 8.14 2864.24
0-3600 1-50-60 305.4 80.77% 9.23 2818.45
0-3600 1-60-70 262.06 77.89% 10.6 2778.66
0-3600 1-70-80 273.21 79.06% 10.06 2748.95
0-3600 1-80-90 321.48 82.32% 8.49 2728.57
0-3600 1-90-100 306.12 81.54% 8.85 2709.55
0-3600 1-100-110 352.39 84.09% 7.63 2688.44
0-3600 1-110-120 358.53 84.45% 7.45 2669.58
0-3600 1-120-130 352.04 84.28% 7.53 2649.32
0-3600 1-130-140 377.26 85.42% 6.97 2630.29
0-3600 1-140-150 333.63 83.63% 7.83 2610.84
0-3600 1-150-160 296.17 81.67% 8.75 2590.73
0-3600 1-160-170 392.05 86.24% 6.56 2570.21
0-3600 1-170-180 349.66 84.78% 7.28 2544.71
0-3600 1-180-190 466.88 88.71% 5.41 2525.8
0-3600 1-190-200 396.64 86.80% 6.32 2506.96
0-3600 1-200-210 346.7 84.98% 7.17 2487.2
0-3600 1-210-220 418.37 87.63% 5.89 2465.77
0-3600 1-220-230 415.03 87.59% 5.9 2446.73
0-3600 1-230-240 400.01 87.23% 6.07 2426.39
0-3600 1-240-250 442.82 88.58% 5.44 2408.38
0-3600 1-250-260 396.9 87.34% 6.03 2393.29
0-3600 1-260-270 475.12 89.51% 4.99 2371.24
0-3600 1-270-280 498.22 90.00% 4.75 2364.12
0-3600 1-280-290 468.97 89.49% 4.99 2340.14
0-3600 1-290-300 547.3 91.01% 4.26 2328.84
0-3600 1-300-310 508.2 90.33% 4.54 2309.5
0-3600 1-310-320 708.9 93.06% 3.23 2293.01
0-3600 1-320-330 76.52 36.60% 29.79 2279.81
0-3600 1-330-340 69.69 30.79% 32.55 2268.48
0-3600 1-340-350 65.66 27.01% 34.25 2248.61
0-3600 1-350-360 62.11 23.08% 35.98 2234.87
0-3600 1-360-370 59.32 19.75% 37.5 2224.4
253
0-3600 1-370-380 57.15 17.73% 38.53 2202.16
0-3600 1-380-390 55.39 15.72% 39.52 2188.78
0-3600 1-390-400 54.26 14.04% 40.12 2176.77
0-3600 1-400-410 53.29 12.63% 40.68 2168.09
0-3600 1-410-420 52.88 12.60% 40.76 2155.24
0-3600 1-420-430 53.39 13.95% 40.23 2148
0-3600 1-430-440 52.7 13.41% 40.67 2143.39
0-3600 1-440-450 50.5 9.57% 42.33 2137.56
0-3600 1-450-460 49.57 8.16% 42.85 2124.25
0-3600 1-460-470 49.33 7.29% 43.06 2124
0-3600 1-470-480 49 6.46% 43.35 2124
0-3600 1-480-490 48.69 5.97% 43.63 2124
0-3600 1-490-500 48.52 5.62% 43.78 2124
0-3600 1-500-510 48.41 5.23% 43.87 2124
0-3600 1-510-520 48.45 5.46% 43.84 2124
0-3600 1-520-530 48.46 5.83% 43.83 2124
0-3600 1-530-540 48.1 5.02% 44.16 2124
0-3600 1-540-550 47.82 4.69% 44.42 2124
0-3600 1-550-560 47.7 4.55% 44.53 2124
0-3600 1-560-570 47.7 4.50% 44.53 2124
0-3600 1-570-580 47.77 4.63% 44.46 2124
0-3600 1-580-590 47.87 4.13% 44.37 2124
0-3600 1-590-600 47.66 3.68% 44.56 2124
0-3600 1-600-610 47.27 3.66% 44.93 2124
0-3600 1-610-620 47.33 3.97% 44.87 2124
0-3600 1-620-630 47.65 4.15% 44.58 2124
0-3600 1-630-640 47.74 3.75% 44.49 2124
0-3600 1-640-650 47.7 3.85% 44.53 2124
0-3600 1-650-660 47.62 4.30% 44.6 2124
0-3600 1-660-670 47.46 4.07% 44.72 2122.28
0-3600 1-670-680 47.4 4.63% 44.63 2115.39
0-3600 1-680-690 47.38 5.13% 44.53 2109.91
0-3600 1-690-700 47.15 5.32% 44.67 2105.82
0-3600 1-700-710 46.67 5.15% 45 2100
0-3600 1-710-720 46.13 4.65% 45.45 2096.26
0-3600 1-720-730 45.45 4.26% 45.99 2089.96
0-3600 1-730-740 45.45 4.50% 45.94 2088
0-3600 1-740-750 45.75 4.79% 45.64 2088
0-3600 1-750-760 45.76 4.85% 45.63 2088
0-3600 1-760-770 45.73 4.94% 45.66 2088
254
0-3600 1-770-780 45.43 4.43% 45.96 2088
0-3600 1-780-790 44.72 3.36% 46.69 2088
0-3600 1-790-800 44.05 2.09% 47.4 2088
0-3600 1-800-801 43.73 1.33% 47.74 2088
0-3600 2-0-10 183.96 58.63% 21.52 3959.02
0-3600 2-10-20 244.65 69.25% 16.14 3947.48
0-3600 2-20-30 249.98 69.96% 15.74 3934.08
0-3600 2-30-40 230.65 67.33% 16.98 3916.13
0-3600 2-40-50 274.64 72.65% 14.17 3890.53
0-3600 2-50-60 234.65 68.38% 16.44 3856.95
0-3600 2-60-70 247.1 70.42% 15.43 3811.86
0-3600 2-70-80 244.23 70.40% 15.45 3772.79
0-3600 2-80-90 226.12 68.16% 16.5 3732.07
0-3600 2-90-100 266.75 73.19% 13.83 3689.67
0-3600 2-100-110 275.89 74.35% 13.23 3650.89
0-3600 2-110-120 295.03 76.36% 12.24 3611.73
0-3600 2-120-130 288.08 76.04% 12.41 3574.25
0-3600 2-130-140 299.27 77.14% 11.82 3537.07
0-3600 2-140-150 311.79 78.21% 11.23 3501.6
0-3600 2-150-160 342.22 80.27% 10.16 3477.81
0-3600 2-160-170 282.72 76.29% 12.2 3449.4
0-3600 2-170-180 332.69 80.07% 10.27 3415.68
0-3600 2-180-190 271.29 75.89% 12.46 3380.02
0-3600 2-190-200 319.57 79.69% 10.49 3353.71
0-3600 2-200-210 290.48 77.90% 11.42 3316.81
0-3600 2-210-220 322.25 80.13% 10.21 3290.21
0-3600 2-220-230 312.36 79.83% 10.42 3255.87
0-3600 2-230-240 352.22 82.29% 9.16 3226.6
0-3600 2-240-250 325.65 80.99% 9.82 3198.61
0-3600 2-250-260 378.15 83.68% 8.41 3180.28
0-3600 2-260-270 337.5 81.75% 9.37 3161.61
0-3600 2-270-280 336.73 81.79% 9.36 3150.87
0-3600 2-280-290 346.36 82.40% 9.05 3135.14
0-3600 2-290-300 334.6 81.81% 9.35 3129.43
0-3600 2-300-310 350.79 82.68% 8.89 3120.24
0-3600 2-310-320 412.39 85.32% 7.53 3104.83
0-3600 2-320-330 361.06 83.27% 8.57 3096
0-3600 2-330-340 363.52 83.48% 8.48 3082.9
0-3600 2-340-350 369.16 83.86% 8.29 3059.56
0-3600 2-350-360 379.16 84.39% 7.99 3030.9
255
0-3600 2-360-370 373.16 84.26% 8.02 2993.03
0-3600 2-370-380 372.73 84.46% 7.9 2944.08
0-3600 2-380-390 374.19 84.80% 7.74 2896.21
0-3600 2-390-400 383.22 85.43% 7.43 2846.55
0-3600 2-400-410 426.51 87.01% 6.61 2820.78
0-3600 2-410-420 396.66 86.18% 7.01 2782.23
0-3600 2-420-430 419.38 87.05% 6.54 2743.26
0-3600 2-430-440 488.73 89.02% 5.52 2697.63
0-3600 2-440-450 393.14 86.55% 6.74 2649.48
0-3600 2-450-460 448.15 88.40% 5.82 2606.48
0-3600 2-460-470 475.62 89.25% 5.4 2567.8
0-3600 2-470-480 479.68 89.64% 5.24 2513.63
0-3600 2-480-490 75.13 35.27% 33.22 2496
0-3600 2-490-500 71.39 31.92% 34.96 2496
0-3600 2-500-510 69.54 29.65% 35.9 2496
0-3600 2-510-520 68.05 27.86% 36.68 2496
0-3600 2-520-530 67.04 26.50% 37.23 2496
0-3600 2-530-540 65.71 24.84% 37.99 2496
0-3600 2-540-550 64.38 23.48% 38.77 2496
0-3600 2-550-560 63.69 22.37% 39.19 2496
0-3600 2-560-570 64 22.52% 39 2496
0-3600 2-570-580 65.61 24.43% 38.04 2496
0-3600 2-580-590 67.51 26.88% 36.97 2496
0-3600 2-590-600 64.84 23.86% 38.49 2496
0-3600 2-600-610 62.35 21.08% 40.03 2496
0-3600 2-610-620 60.95 19.17% 40.95 2496
0-3600 2-620-630 60.43 18.05% 41.3 2496
0-3600 2-630-640 60.17 17.55% 41.48 2496
0-3600 2-640-650 59.46 16.73% 41.98 2496
0-3600 2-650-660 58.42 15.30% 42.72 2496
0-3600 2-660-670 57.23 13.98% 43.62 2496
0-3600 2-670-680 56.4 12.96% 44.26 2496
0-3600 2-680-690 55.93 11.77% 44.63 2496
0-3600 2-690-700 55.75 11.11% 44.77 2496
0-3600 2-700-710 55.43 10.67% 45.03 2496
0-3600 2-710-720 54.92 9.93% 45.44 2496
0-3600 2-720-730 54.16 9.28% 46.05 2494.11
0-3600 2-730-740 53.55 8.66% 46.48 2489.07
0-3600 2-740-750 52.93 7.60% 46.93 2484
0-3600 2-750-760 52.32 7.03% 47.38 2478.47
256
0-3600 2-760-770 51.57 6.44% 47.99 2474.8
0-3600 2-770-780 50.58 5.50% 48.88 2472
0-3600 2-780-790 49.3 3.97% 50.02 2466.11
0-3600 2-790-800 48.52 2.28% 50.77 2463.43
0-3600 2-800-801 48.14 1.60% 51.1 2460

0-3600 1-0-10 334.48 76.24% 9.81 3282.24
0-3600 1-10-20 423.04 81.43% 7.71 3262.48
0-3600 1-20-30 422.47 81.51% 7.66 3237.06
0-3600 1-30-40 403.11 80.66% 7.98 3218.02
0-3600 1-40-50 429.39 81.92% 7.45 3197.82
0-3600 1-50-60 404.24 80.95% 7.85 3172.03
0-3600 1-60-70 395.57 80.58% 7.97 3152.93
0-3600 1-70-80 382.03 80.13% 8.19 3128.1
0-3600 1-80-90 416.74 81.97% 7.45 3105.23
0-3600 1-90-100 441.36 83.03% 6.99 3086.52
0-3600 1-100-110 423.37 82.38% 7.24 3066.22
0-3600 1-110-120 415.77 82.20% 7.32 3045.31
0-3600 1-120-130 464.06 84.20% 6.51 3020.05
0-3600 1-130-140 421.41 82.61% 7.12 3001.79
0-3600 1-140-150 401.75 81.86% 7.42 2982.11
0-3600 1-150-160 364.39 80.10% 8.13 2962.97
0-3600 1-160-170 456.03 84.24% 6.45 2941.83
0-3600 1-170-180 413.29 82.70% 7.07 2921.68
0-3600 1-180-190 489.44 85.45% 5.93 2901.2
0-3600 1-190-200 478.18 85.26% 6.02 2876.92
0-3600 1-200-210 460.32 84.86% 6.2 2851.96
0-3600 1-210-220 401.47 82.77% 7.03 2824.28
0-3600 1-220-230 428.78 83.99% 6.52 2796.57
0-3600 1-230-240 483.72 85.88% 5.75 2780.95
0-3600 1-240-250 483.39 85.96% 5.72 2763.48
0-3600 1-250-260 541.67 87.64% 5.05 2733.54
0-3600 1-260-270 596.56 88.95% 4.54 2707.82
0-3600 1-270-280 552.08 88.22% 4.85 2677.97
0-3600 1-280-290 618.99 89.61% 4.29 2658.51
0-3600 1-290-300 666.92 90.42% 3.96 2638.05
0-3600 1-300-310 620.64 89.84% 4.21 2614.51
0-3600 1-310-320 803.77 92.24% 3.24 2604.27
257
0-3600 1-320-330 91.5 33.00% 28.27 2586.49
0-3600 1-330-340 83.93 27.96% 30.5 2559.55
0-3600 1-340-350 80.91 25.38% 31.53 2550.74
0-3600 1-350-360 77.83 23.24% 32.54 2532.57
0-3600 1-360-370 74.33 20.17% 33.96 2524.09
0-3600 1-370-380 72.23 18.17% 34.68 2504.55
0-3600 1-380-390 71.42 16.99% 35.02 2501.06
0-3600 1-390-400 70.88 16.70% 35.21 2495.85
0-3600 1-400-410 71.14 17.44% 34.95 2486.58
0-3600 1-410-420 71.87 18.46% 34.53 2482.13
0-3600 1-420-430 73.06 20.74% 33.92 2478
0-3600 1-430-440 69.39 16.38% 35.59 2469.3
0-3600 1-440-450 66.35 12.12% 37.06 2459.05
0-3600 1-450-460 65.07 10.61% 37.71 2454
0-3600 1-460-470 64.01 9.84% 38.25 2448.53
0-3600 1-470-480 63.56 8.98% 38.42 2442
0-3600 1-480-490 63.05 8.25% 38.73 2442
0-3600 1-490-500 62.8 7.70% 38.88 2442
0-3600 1-500-510 62.77 7.71% 38.9 2442
0-3600 1-510-520 62.58 7.39% 39.02 2442
0-3600 1-520-530 62.15 6.36% 39.29 2442
0-3600 1-530-540 61.75 5.61% 39.54 2442
0-3600 1-540-550 61.36 5.49% 39.8 2442
0-3600 1-550-560 61.12 5.40% 39.96 2442
0-3600 1-560-570 60.98 5.52% 40.04 2442
0-3600 1-570-580 60.92 5.43% 40.09 2442
0-3600 1-580-590 60.97 5.09% 40.05 2442
0-3600 1-590-600 60.62 4.56% 40.29 2442
0-3600 1-600-610 60.53 4.40% 40.34 2442
0-3600 1-610-620 60.31 4.64% 40.39 2436.01
0-3600 1-620-630 60.26 4.98% 40.4 2434.54
0-3600 1-630-640 59.71 4.18% 40.69 2429.56
0-3600 1-640-650 59.14 3.77% 40.97 2422.9
0-3600 1-650-660 58.65 3.89% 41.23 2418
0-3600 1-660-670 58.59 3.86% 41.27 2418
0-3600 1-670-680 58.14 4.01% 41.44 2409.7
0-3600 1-680-690 57.49 3.88% 41.74 2399.29
0-3600 1-690-700 57.31 3.84% 41.77 2394
0-3600 1-700-710 57.21 4.10% 41.82 2392.53
0-3600 1-710-720 56.62 4.16% 42.14 2385.74
258
0-3600 1-720-730 56.75 4.91% 41.98 2382
0-3600 1-730-740 57.09 5.07% 41.72 2382
0-3600 1-740-750 56.74 4.32% 41.92 2378.68
0-3600 1-750-760 56.4 3.72% 42.13 2376
0-3600 1-760-770 56.11 3.30% 42.35 2376
0-3600 1-770-780 55.52 3.39% 42.79 2376
0-3600 1-780-790 54.52 3.19% 43.48 2370.81
0-3600 1-790-800 53.43 1.47% 44.3 2366.85
0-3600 1-800-801 52.83 0.89% 44.74 2364
0-3600 2-0-10 333.31 72.54% 12.28 4091.8
0-3600 2-10-20 336.19 73.00% 12.1 4067.84
0-3600 2-20-30 428.07 78.79% 9.45 4045.19
0-3600 2-30-40 418.91 78.32% 9.61 4025.64
0-3600 2-40-50 403.12 77.58% 9.93 4001.12
0-3600 2-50-60 366.02 75.60% 10.86 3975.83
0-3600 2-60-70 363.15 75.61% 10.88 3951.62
0-3600 2-70-80 326.51 73.00% 12.04 3930
0-3600 2-80-90 331.18 73.48% 11.8 3908.25
0-3600 2-90-100 394.47 77.76% 9.86 3887.86
0-3600 2-100-110 397.34 78.03% 9.73 3865.45
0-3600 2-110-120 406.43 78.67% 9.47 3848.33
0-3600 2-120-130 422.59 79.67% 9.06 3830.09
0-3600 2-130-140 351.78 75.77% 10.84 3811.85
0-3600 2-140-150 375.28 77.38% 10.1 3791.29
0-3600 2-150-160 393.5 78.42% 9.61 3781.46
0-3600 2-160-170 425.39 80.10% 8.86 3768.51
0-3600 2-170-180 368.34 77.12% 10.21 3758.97
0-3600 2-180-190 401.2 79.15% 9.34 3748.02
0-3600 2-190-200 409.26 79.63% 9.14 3740.35
0-3600 2-200-210 447.7 81.39% 8.34 3732
0-3600 2-210-220 406.09 79.47% 9.18 3727.03
0-3600 2-220-230 380.37 78.09% 9.76 3714.23
0-3600 2-230-240 413.01 79.85% 8.97 3706.08
0-3600 2-240-250 414.08 79.97% 8.94 3700.4
0-3600 2-250-260 412.7 80.05% 8.91 3677.81
0-3600 2-260-270 351.97 76.67% 10.43 3671.42
0-3600 2-270-280 394.35 79.23% 9.29 3662.17
0-3600 2-280-290 418.96 80.54% 8.69 3639.85
0-3600 2-290-300 428.85 81.01% 8.47 3630.41
0-3600 2-300-310 404.53 80.00% 8.93 3614
259
0-3600 2-310-320 451.02 82.17% 7.96 3588.3
0-3600 2-320-330 422.17 81.06% 8.44 3561.56
0-3600 2-330-340 409.23 80.54% 8.64 3534.54
0-3600 2-340-350 444.28 82.16% 7.91 3512.8
0-3600 2-350-360 357.76 77.94% 9.76 3492.44
0-3600 2-360-370 418.46 81.29% 8.29 3469.56
0-3600 2-370-380 432.04 82.07% 7.96 3438.4
0-3600 2-380-390 447.3 82.88% 7.61 3404.2
0-3600 2-390-400 445.58 82.97% 7.58 3376.96
0-3600 2-400-410 483.67 84.40% 6.93 3351.03
0-3600 2-410-420 480.45 84.42% 6.91 3320.27
0-3600 2-420-430 456.83 83.76% 7.19 3284.96
0-3600 2-430-440 489.03 84.88% 6.66 3255.98
0-3600 2-440-450 494.49 85.15% 6.54 3231.76
0-3600 2-450-460 588.96 87.78% 5.41 3184.61
0-3600 2-460-470 531.47 86.72% 5.91 3141.23
0-3600 2-470-480 594.78 88.35% 5.19 3087.97
0-3600 2-480-490 97.43 29.21% 31.53 3072
0-3600 2-490-500 92.29 25.23% 33.29 3072
0-3600 2-500-510 88.16 21.51% 34.84 3072
0-3600 2-510-520 85.71 19.26% 35.84 3072
0-3600 2-520-530 84.41 17.89% 36.39 3072
0-3600 2-530-540 83.07 16.55% 36.98 3072
0-3600 2-540-550 82.43 15.86% 37.27 3072
0-3600 2-550-560 81.94 15.43% 37.49 3072
0-3600 2-560-570 82.64 16.20% 37.17 3072
0-3600 2-570-580 85.64 19.23% 35.87 3072
0-3600 2-580-590 86.82 20.61% 35.38 3072
0-3600 2-590-600 82.48 16.61% 37.24 3072
0-3600 2-600-610 78.88 12.39% 38.95 3072
0-3600 2-610-620 78.13 11.31% 39.32 3072
0-3600 2-620-630 77.53 10.88% 39.59 3068.86
0-3600 2-630-640 76.82 10.49% 39.87 3063.22
0-3600 2-640-650 75.89 10.53% 40.29 3057.38
0-3600 2-650-660 75.66 10.55% 40.36 3054
0-3600 2-660-670 75.56 10.34% 40.35 3048.9
0-3600 2-670-680 74.97 9.89% 40.6 3043.59
0-3600 2-680-690 74.32 9.63% 40.88 3038
0-3600 2-690-700 73.68 9.10% 41.18 3034.24
0-3600 2-700-710 72.73 8.59% 41.65 3029.4
260
0-3600 2-710-720 71.74 8.28% 42.15 3024
0-3600 2-720-730 71.11 7.77% 42.5 3021.94
0-3600 2-730-740 70.34 6.87% 42.89 3016.54
0-3600 2-740-750 69.52 6.38% 43.32 3011.29
0-3600 2-750-760 68.46 5.63% 43.91 3006
0-3600 2-760-770 67.61 4.90% 44.46 3005.74
0-3600 2-770-780 66.88 4.67% 44.86 3000
0-3600 2-780-790 66.34 3.90% 45.16 2995.91
0-3600 2-790-800 65.11 1.92% 45.98 2994
0-3600 2-800-801 64.4 1.11% 46.49 2994

0-3600 1-0-10 359.6 69.35% 10.06 3615.96
0-3600 1-10-20 411.26 73.69% 8.66 3560.88
0-3600 1-20-30 432.41 75.43% 8.1 3500.42
0-3600 1-30-40 444.15 76.52% 7.75 3440.87
0-3600 1-40-50 490.01 79.16% 6.89 3377.54
0-3600 1-50-60 448.37 77.67% 7.4 3318.11
0-3600 1-60-70 520.16 81.22% 6.26 3258.02
0-3600 1-70-80 429.35 77.66% 7.49 3216.91
0-3600 1-80-90 453.61 79.11% 7.03 3187.93
0-3600 1-90-100 468.56 80.08% 6.74 3159.05
0-3600 1-100-110 426.85 78.34% 7.33 3130.87
0-3600 1-110-120 453.1 79.73% 6.86 3107.6
0-3600 1-120-130 460.65 80.23% 6.69 3080.51
0-3600 1-130-140 495.62 81.95% 6.15 3046.1
0-3600 1-140-150 479.16 81.52% 6.3 3017.82
0-3600 1-150-160 511.1 82.85% 5.85 2988.49
0-3600 1-160-170 460.83 81.31% 6.41 2953.23
0-3600 1-170-180 521.55 83.71% 5.58 2907.72
0-3600 1-180-190 491.67 83.20% 5.8 2853.63
0-3600 1-190-200 455.3 82.45% 6.16 2805
0-3600 1-200-210 513.5 84.82% 5.37 2755.01
0-3600 1-210-220 505.95 85.01% 5.36 2713.82
0-3600 1-220-230 488.22 84.76% 5.49 2678.62
0-3600 1-230-240 562.61 86.97% 4.71 2652.33
0-3600 1-240-250 547.61 86.84% 4.78 2615.36
0-3600 1-250-260 537.78 86.76% 4.82 2593.91
0-3600 1-260-270 577.74 87.80% 4.43 2557.73
261
0-3600 1-270-280 590.23 88.20% 4.3 2537.79
0-3600 1-280-290 644.77 89.28% 3.9 2516.92
0-3600 1-290-300 664.79 89.63% 3.75 2495.09
0-3600 1-300-310 639.77 89.33% 3.88 2481.1
0-3600 1-310-320 733.39 90.86% 3.35 2455.52
0-3600 1-320-330 95.79 30.84% 25.51 2443.91
0-3600 1-330-340 90.13 26.53% 26.85 2420.01
0-3600 1-340-350 86.95 24.23% 27.63 2402.36
0-3600 1-350-360 83.94 21.91% 28.53 2394.85
0-3600 1-360-370 80.65 19.76% 29.53 2381.42
0-3600 1-370-380 78.24 18.26% 30.22 2364.61
0-3600 1-380-390 77.56 17.42% 30.48 2364
0-3600 1-390-400 77.45 17.41% 30.38 2353.08
0-3600 1-400-410 78.62 18.69% 29.8 2342.55
0-3600 1-410-420 80.91 21.59% 28.88 2336.23
0-3600 1-420-430 83.13 24.38% 27.95 2323.07
0-3600 1-430-440 76.06 17.10% 30.45 2316
0-3600 1-440-450 71.74 11.91% 32.28 2316
0-3600 1-450-460 70.81 10.80% 32.63 2310.28
0-3600 1-460-470 70.38 10.32% 32.82 2310
0-3600 1-470-480 70.14 9.95% 32.94 2310
0-3600 1-480-490 69.86 9.78% 33.07 2310
0-3600 1-490-500 69.54 9.14% 33.22 2310
0-3600 1-500-510 69.23 8.87% 33.37 2310
0-3600 1-510-520 69.11 8.65% 33.42 2310
0-3600 1-520-530 68.93 7.96% 33.51 2310
0-3600 1-530-540 68.24 7.26% 33.85 2310
0-3600 1-540-550 68.01 6.85% 33.96 2310
0-3600 1-550-560 68.07 6.86% 33.93 2310
0-3600 1-560-570 67.77 7.00% 34.09 2310
0-3600 1-570-580 67.24 6.35% 34.36 2310
0-3600 1-580-590 67 6.16% 34.48 2310
0-3600 1-590-600 66.75 5.89% 34.53 2304.62
0-3600 1-600-610 66.51 5.57% 34.58 2299.87
0-3600 1-610-620 65.87 5.55% 34.83 2294.51
0-3600 1-620-630 65.64 5.61% 34.91 2291.33
0-3600 1-630-640 65.4 5.93% 34.95 2285.73
0-3600 1-640-650 65.42 6.16% 34.85 2280
0-3600 1-650-660 65.28 6.27% 34.79 2270.86
0-3600 1-660-670 64.75 6.74% 34.95 2263.06
262
0-3600 1-670-680 64.49 7.06% 35.01 2257.69
0-3600 1-680-690 64.5 7.45% 34.94 2253.67
0-3600 1-690-700 63.91 7.53% 35.14 2246.01
0-3600 1-700-710 63.9 8.16% 35.02 2238
0-3600 1-710-720 64 8.44% 34.88 2232.56
0-3600 1-720-730 63.71 8.92% 34.95 2226.24
0-3600 1-730-740 63.28 9.08% 35.05 2217.79
0-3600 1-740-750 62.88 8.61% 35.21 2214
0-3600 1-750-760 62.02 7.59% 35.7 2214
0-3600 1-760-770 61.03 6.56% 36.28 2214
0-3600 1-770-780 60.17 5.84% 36.8 2214
0-3600 1-780-790 59.21 4.80% 37.39 2214
0-3600 1-790-800 57.61 2.83% 38.43 2214
0-3600 1-800-801 56.77 1.97% 39 2214
0-3600 2-0-10 312.3 65.24% 12.52 3910.61
0-3600 2-10-20 370.26 70.87% 10.42 3858.55
0-3600 2-20-30 363.42 70.38% 10.51 3819.99
0-3600 2-30-40 346.2 69.18% 10.96 3793.18
0-3600 2-40-50 343.46 69.16% 10.98 3772.23
0-3600 2-50-60 338.45 68.96% 11.11 3759.97
0-3600 2-60-70 357.33 70.65% 10.48 3744.99
0-3600 2-70-80 338.82 69.03% 11.01 3730.95
0-3600 2-80-90 353.24 70.40% 10.52 3715.78
0-3600 2-90-100 362.52 71.39% 10.21 3701.02
0-3600 2-100-110 330.78 68.77% 11.14 3686.41
0-3600 2-110-120 307.32 66.41% 11.97 3679.2
0-3600 2-120-130 316.19 67.46% 11.61 3670.5
0-3600 2-130-140 349.35 70.72% 10.46 3654.5
0-3600 2-140-150 347.41 70.66% 10.5 3646.37
0-3600 2-150-160 334.93 69.67% 10.85 3633.01
0-3600 2-160-170 349.99 71.11% 10.35 3622.46
0-3600 2-170-180 348.52 71.04% 10.38 3618
0-3600 2-180-190 351.75 71.39% 10.25 3606.27
0-3600 2-190-200 361.54 72.27% 9.94 3593.22
0-3600 2-200-210 377.91 73.59% 9.48 3582.65
0-3600 2-210-220 347.39 71.36% 10.27 3567.14
0-3600 2-220-230 351.72 71.84% 10.1 3553.51
0-3600 2-230-240 339.42 71.01% 10.42 3538.03
0-3600 2-240-250 382.05 74.42% 9.19 3512.2
0-3600 2-250-260 349.36 72.21% 10 3492.16
263
0-3600 2-260-270 383.24 74.83% 9.06 3473.5
0-3600 2-270-280 346.93 72.24% 9.96 3455.78
0-3600 2-280-290 403.57 76.36% 8.49 3426.4
0-3600 2-290-300 386.24 75.45% 8.81 3402.02
0-3600 2-300-310 371.86 74.92% 9.06 3368.14
0-3600 2-310-320 350.68 73.62% 9.53 3342.78
0-3600 2-320-330 431.1 78.75% 7.69 3317.18
0-3600 2-330-340 408.95 77.76% 8.06 3294.1
0-3600 2-340-350 359.17 74.87% 9.1 3267.78
0-3600 2-350-360 391.44 77.10% 8.28 3242.84
0-3600 2-360-370 382.26 76.77% 8.41 3214.5
0-3600 2-370-380 411.57 78.83% 7.71 3174.7
0-3600 2-380-390 434.93 80.30% 7.2 3131.48
0-3600 2-390-400 474.64 82.24% 6.51 3092.23
0-3600 2-400-410 433.96 80.85% 7.04 3056.75
0-3600 2-410-420 493.84 83.44% 6.11 3015.96
0-3600 2-420-430 547.58 85.18% 5.44 2981.31
0-3600 2-430-440 533.44 84.93% 5.52 2946.14
0-3600 2-440-450 480.09 83.50% 6.06 2911.18
0-3600 2-450-460 561.05 86.21% 5.12 2869.86
0-3600 2-460-470 556.08 86.28% 5.08 2826.9
0-3600 2-470-480 613.35 87.83% 4.54 2783.08
0-3600 2-480-490 105.26 30.04% 26.28 2766
0-3600 2-490-500 99.61 25.88% 27.77 2766
0-3600 2-500-510 97.62 24.24% 28.33 2766
0-3600 2-510-520 95.78 22.48% 28.88 2766
0-3600 2-520-530 93.83 20.89% 29.48 2766
0-3600 2-530-540 91.63 19.05% 30.19 2766
0-3600 2-540-550 90.77 18.15% 30.47 2766
0-3600 2-550-560 91.32 18.37% 30.29 2766
0-3600 2-560-570 92.62 19.74% 29.86 2766
0-3600 2-570-580 94.5 21.74% 29.27 2766
0-3600 2-580-590 94.06 21.93% 29.41 2766
0-3600 2-590-600 86.77 14.58% 31.88 2766
0-3600 2-600-610 83.59 10.99% 33.09 2766
0-3600 2-610-620 82.76 9.92% 33.42 2766
0-3600 2-620-630 81.75 9.18% 33.77 2760.65
0-3600 2-630-640 80.63 8.54% 34.17 2754.69
0-3600 2-640-650 79.12 7.75% 34.74 2749.01
0-3600 2-650-660 78.47 7.33% 34.98 2744.93
264
0-3600 2-660-670 78.05 7.13% 35.06 2736.62
0-3600 2-670-680 77.2 7.32% 35.32 2726.87
0-3600 2-680-690 76.75 6.78% 35.49 2724
0-3600 2-690-700 76.12 6.40% 35.74 2720.63
0-3600 2-700-710 75.28 5.71% 36.06 2715.01
0-3600 2-710-720 74.18 5.00% 36.48 2705.67
0-3600 2-720-730 72.83 4.64% 36.99 2694.14
0-3600 2-730-740 72.19 3.96% 37.24 2688.43
0-3600 2-740-750 71.56 3.47% 37.48 2682.13
0-3600 2-750-760 70.56 3.30% 37.84 2670.22
0-3600 2-760-770 69.28 2.92% 38.4 2660.31
0-3600 2-770-780 67.57 2.21% 39.25 2652
0-3600 2-780-790 66.58 1.56% 39.83 2652
0-3600 2-790-800 66.09 0.70% 40.13 2652
0-3600 2-800-801 65.97 0.45% 40.2 2652
265
APPENDIX C: STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING CONTEXT DESIGN
Concrete Bollard
From Table 2-1: Impact Condition From Table 2-1: Impact Condition
Designations, for small-passenger car: Designations, for small-passenger car:
m = 1100 kg m = 2300 kg
v = 60 km/h v = 60 km/h
Convert velocity from km/h to m/s. Convert velocity from km/h to m/s.
v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s
Substitute the value into the formulas, Substitute the value into the formulas,
1100(16.6672 ) 1 2300(16.6672 ) 1
KE = (1000) = 152.778 kJ KE = (1000) = 319.446 kJ
2 2
1 1
Fd = 1100(274.5) (1000) = 301.95 kN Fd = 2300(274.5) (1000) = 631.35 kN
√16.667 √16.667
𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.361 m 𝛿𝑐 = = 1.361 m
3
1100(16.6672 ) 1 1100(16.6672 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 112.269 kN Fi = (1000) = 234.743 kN
2(1.361) 2(1.361)
112.269(1000) 112.269(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 155.929 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 326.033 mm
720 720
266
Designations, for medium-duty truck: Designations, for heavy-goods vehicle:
m = 6800 kg m = 29500 kg
v = 45 km/h v = 45 km/h
v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
KE = ( ) = 531.25 kJ KE = ( ) = 2304.688 kJ
2 1000 2 1000
1 1
Fd = 6800(274.5) ( ) = 1866.6 kN Fd = 29500(274.5) ( ) = 8097.75 kN
1000 1000
√12.5 √12.5
𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m 𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 450.781 kN Fi = (1000) = 1955.592 kN
2(1.179) 2(1.179)
450.781(1000) 1955.592(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 626.084 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 2716.100 mm
720 720
267
Steel Bollard
m = 1100 kg m = 2300 kg
v = 60 km/h v = 60 km/h
v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s
1100(16.6672 ) 1 2300(16.6672 ) 1
KE = (1000) = 152.778 kJ KE = (1000) = 319.446 kJ
2 2
1 1
Fd = 1100(274.5) (1000) = 301.95 kN Fd = 2300(274.5) (1000) = 631.35 kN
√16.667 √16.667
𝛿𝑐 = = 1.361 m 𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.361 m
3
1100(16.6672 ) 1 1100(16.6672 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 112.269 kN Fi = (1000) = 234.743 kN
2(1.361) 2(1.361)
112.269(1000) 234.73(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 320.767 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 670.696 mm
350 350
268
m = 6800 kg m = 29500 kg
v = 45 km/h v = 45 km/h
v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
KE = ( ) = 531.25 kJ KE = ( ) = 2304.688 kJ
2 1000 2 1000
1 1
Fd = 6800(274.5) ( ) = 1866.6 kN Fd = 29500(274.5) ( ) = 8097.75 kN
1000 1000
√12.5 √12.5
𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m 𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 450.781 kN Fi = (1000) = 1955.592 kN
2(1.179) 2(1.179)
450.781(1000) 1955.592(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 1287.945 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 5587.406 mm
350 350
269
m = 1100 kg m = 2300 kg
v = 60 km/h v = 60 km/h
v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s v = 60 km/h = 16.667 m/s
1100(16.6672 ) 1 2300(16.6672 ) 1
KE = (1000) = 152.778 kJ KE = (1000) = 319.446 kJ
2 2
1 1
Fd = 1100(274.5) (1000) = 301.95 kN Fd = 2300(274.5) (1000) = 631.35 kN
√16.667 √16.667
𝛿𝑐 = = 1.361 m 𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.361 m
3
1100(16.6672 ) 1 1100(16.6672 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 112.269 kN Fi = (1000) = 234.743 kN
2(1.361) 2(1.361)
112.269(1000) 234.73(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 213.845 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 447.130 mm
525 525
270
m = 6800 kg m = 29500 kg
v = 45 km/h v = 45 km/h
v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s v = 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
KE = ( ) = 531.25 kJ KE = ( ) = 2304.688 kJ
2 1000 2 1000
1 1
Fd = 6800(274.5) ( ) = 1866.6 kN Fd = 29500(274.5) ( ) = 8097.75 kN
1000 1000
√12.5 √12.5
𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m 𝛿𝑐 = 3
= 1.179 m
6800(12.52 ) 1 29500(12.52 ) 1
Fi = (1000) = 450.781 kN Fi = (1000) = 1955.592 kN
2(1.179) 2(1.179)
450.781(1000) 1955.592(1000)
𝛿𝑐 = = 858.630 mm 𝛿𝑐 = = 3724.938 mm
525 525
271
Other Manual Computations:
Concrete Bollard
272
273
* Bars and Ties (concrete)
274
Steel Bollard
275
276
277
278
APPENDIX D: TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT CONSTRAINTS
ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
279
SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
One-Way
Bike Lanes
Maintenance cost Material cost - 10% Residual value
Lifespan
= 30,731.33
Two-Way
Bike Lanes
Lifespan
= 61,448.98
Contra-Flow Bike
Lanes
Lifespan
= 46,004.62
RISK ASSESSMENT CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
Using the analysis from PTV Vissim, the summarized density and
speed of each trade-off are as follows:
Average Density
2025 2030 2035 one-way

SB 395.73 569.49 613.23 1578.45
NB 309.76 456.85 508.5 1275.11
1426.78
2025 2030 2035 two-way

SB 362.62 463.34 503.32 1329.28
NB 322.15 488.49 509.09 1319.73
1324.505
280
2025 2030 2035 contra-flow
SB 385.71 469.95 506.86 1362.52
NB 333.85 418.17 391.41 1143.43
1252.975
Average Speed
2025 2030 2035 one-way

SB 7.21 6.06 5.52 18.79
NB 12.21 9.59 8.84 30.64
24.715
2025 2030 2035 two-way

SB 30.38 27.05 22.99 80.42
NB 26.28 22.57 19.91 68.76
74.59
2025 2030 2035 contra-flow

SB 7.24 6.55 6.05 19.84
NB 10.52 8.96 9.13 28.61
24.225
UNCERTAINTY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
BIKE LANE AMOUNT
One-Way 30,000.00
One-Way 45,000.00
Contra-Flow 60,000.00
281
APPENDIX E: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT CONSTRAINTS
ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
282
SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
RISK ASSESSMENT CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
PARAMETER BARRIER DEFLECTION UNIT
Concrete Bollard 155.93 mm
Steel Bollard 320.77 mm
Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard 213.84 mm
UNCERTAINTY CONSTRAINT FINAL ESTIMATE
BOLLARD MATERIAL AMOUNT
Concrete Bollard 75,000.00
Steel Bollard 90,000.00
Concrete-Filled Steel Bollard 80,000.00
283
APPENDIX F: FINAL COST ESTIMATES
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING CONTEXT
284
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT
285
APPENDIX G: REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
PAGE
PANEL COMMENTS REVISION
NO/S
Correction on Approval Sheet Changed name from Maria to Ma. 6
Engr. Ma. Used reference for spacing of
Celine bollards provided by Engr. Angeles
Reference for spacing of bollards 38
Angeles and reflected it on the design of
trade-offs
88, 98,
Show highway/road plans with Updated CAD plans and added layout
108, 161,
bicycle lane of bike lane
166
It is in our school memorandum that
we are prohibited to conduct a
roadside survey as what our design
What is the consideration in the
requires. We also asked data from
transpo trade off? What is the
DPWH NCR through the Regional 32-33
basis? In terms of road/transpo
Director but we haven't received
data?
answers yet. With that, we opted to
use the recent AADT from FOI to
proceed with our study.
Engr. Bailey
Show calculation/simulation on
John Bandiola 87-116,
the transpo trade-offs, show road Updated Chapter 4 and Appendix
176-217
right of way
For structural context, show
complete calculation and why and
Elaborate computation and added 41-45,
where you get the data or how you
references 218-223
come up with the written values.
Show/reference code
118-119,
Correct some drawings in the Corrected some drawings in the
124, 130,
bollard part bollard part
167-168
Show complete design Added design considerations and
29-49
considerations and criteria criteria on both context
Wrote result of the analysis in
Write the result of the analysis 8
Abstract
Added page numbers on List of
Page number 17-22
Engr. Jennifer Figures and Tables
Camino Put “Context I” before Transportation
3.2.1 Title 57
Engineering
Put “Context II” before Structural
3.2.2 Title 61
Engineering
Engr. Cris Provide effect on traffic with the Provided effect on traffic with the 93-94,
Edward construction of bicycle lane as construction of bicycle lane as road 103-104,
Monjardin road size decreases for motorist size decreases for motorist 113-114
286
Decreased numbers for motorists and
What if -100 for the existing added it to AADT of bike users to 89, 99,
traffic? (assume) consider bicycle as an alternative 109
mode of transportation
Included survey responses in
Graph of surveys, respondents 174-176
Engr. Billy appendix
John Rudolfh Consider Speed instead of Relative Changed Relative Delay analysis to 94, 104,
Rejuso Delay Speed analysis 114
Updated CAD plans and drawings in
Complete plans and drawings 161-168
the final design
Computation for concrete
Depth of embedment, check if Added excel computations 224-230
enough
287
CURRICULUM VITAE
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299

Group3 7

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

Group3 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information

Cablao, Alyssa Isabel

Efficient planning of activities and allocation of resources may result in a fast-

The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan

Transporting materials to be used in a project is indeed costly. Transporting

The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF EIGHT-HUNDRED-METER BICYCLE LANE WITH BOLLARDS ALONG

AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Figure 1-1: Perspective View of the Proposed Bicycle Lane ....................................................... 56

Table 2-1: Recommended Maximum Spacing of Cones and Bollards ......................................... 70

1.2 Project Location

Figure 1-2: Site Location

1.3.1 Client’s Specifications

1.4.1 General Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

To attain the designer’s objectives, the following must be accomplished:

1.5.1 Context I Transportation Engineering

The design project shall provide and cover the following:

1. The designers will provide material estimates and cost of labor.

The project is limited and bounded by the following:

The design project shall provide and cover the following:

1. The designers will perform materials estimates and cost of labor.

The project is limited and bounded by the following:

1.6 Project Development

1. Identification of the Problem – Empirical findings and information from a number of

2. Conceptualization – The process of developing and formulating ideas and concepts is

Figure 1-3: Stages of Design Project

2.1 Design Criteria

2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Transportation Engineering Context

Figure 2-1: Manila Population 2021

𝑁𝑡 = 𝑃𝑒 𝑟𝑡 Equation 2-1: Population

𝑁𝑡 = number of people at a future date

Figure 2-3: Growth of biking interest

Figure 2-4: June 2020 Bike Count

2.1.1.2 Traffic Assessment

2.1.1.3 Project Description

2.1.1.3.1 Bicycle Operating Space for Road

Figure 2-8: Pavement Markings

2.1.1.3.3 Retroreflective Materials

Along a continuous non-commercial section, pavement markings or combination of flexible

Table 2-1: Recommended Maximum Spacing of Cones and Bollards

2.1.2 Design Criteria for Context II Structural Engineering Context

Figure 2-12: Total Bike Accidents

Figure 2-13: Vehicle Barrier Reference Points

2.1.2.2.1 Fixed/Rigid Barrier

2.1.2.2.2 Vehicular Mass and Nominal Minimum Test Velocity

Table 2-3: Impact Condition Designations

2.1.2.2.4 Vehicle Crush

Equation 2-3: Vehicle Crush Distance

2.1.2.2.5 Barrier Deflection

Equation 2-4: Barrier Deflection

2.1.2.2.6 Impact Force

The impact force on a vehicular barrier can be determined by the equation:

Equation 2-5: Impact Force

Figure 2-14: Typical Bollard Detail

2.1.2.4 Retroreflective Bands on Bollards

Table 2-4: Size and Positioning of Retroreflective Bands on Bollards

2.1.2.5 Bollard Installation into New Concrete

Table 2-5: Installation Equipment

Figure 2-15: Bollard Parts

Table 2-6: Parts List