chapter 16 feasibility study of east bank-west bank …

CONDUCT OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PROPOSED 12 BRIDGES ON PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER

AND MANGGAHAN FLOODWAY FINAL REPORT

Page |16-1

CHAPTER 16 FEASIBILITY STUDY OF EAST BANK-WEST BANK BRIDGE-2

16.1 Present Traffic Condition and Traffic Impact by the New Bridge

Present Traffic Condition

The present traffic condition in the area is illustrated in Figure 16-1 Beginning from Ortigas Avenue, the entire stretch of more than 6km of the riverbank has only two bridges, i.e. Legaspi/Javier Bridge on the upstream, and Barkadahan Bridge on the downstream. The proposed bridge lies between the two bridges.

Generally, traffic at East Bank Road are mostly intercity traffic and those coming from southern part of Cainta and Taytay (Rizal) entering Metro Manila. The same traffic movement in the opposite direction in the afternoon indicates that these commuters are working or doing business in the metropolitan business area are residing in Rizal.

Upon crossing the west bank side thru either of the two bridges mentioned above, traffic is connected to two major trunk roads which are the C-5 and the R-5. Aside from the obvious limited options of crossing the river, motorists have to pass the congested local roads before reaching the two major trunk roads.

The construction of the proposed bridge including its approach road will connect Mercedes Avenue with the East Bank Road essentially addressing the missing link in the network. This new east-west link will allow motorists more options in reaching major trunk roads such as C-5 and R-4.

Approach and Countermeasures

Although construction of a new bridge will contribute to improving the traffic flow in the area by adding additional capacity in the network, additional measures are desirable to complement the new link. The proposed approach and countermeasures to complement the construction of a new bridge to make the new link effective are presented in Figure 16-2. These are as follows:

• Construction of a new road to direct traffic from East Bank Road to Mercedes Avenue.

• Ensure the good condition of traffic flow along Mercedes Avenue by enforcing no on-street parking and no vendors on the pedestrian lanes.



Page |16-2

Figu

re 1

6-1

Pre

sen

t Tr

affi

c C

on

dit

ion

in t

he

are

a



Page |16-3

Figu

re 1

6-2

Ap

pro

ach

an

d C

ou

nte

rme

asu

res

to im

pro

ve t

raff

ic c

on

dit

ion

in t

he

are

a



Page |16-4

Estimated Future Traffic by the New Bridge

Figure 16-3 and Table 16-1 shows the future traffic volume carried by the bridge. Characteristics of the new bridge are as follows;

• Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 is expected to carry traffic of 17,186 veh/day in 2020, 23,826 veh/day in 2030 and 25,828 veh/day in 2040.

• Traffic volume of Legaspi Bridge which is located up-stream side of the subject bridge is expected to decrease by 7,717 veh/day in 2020, 13,745 veh/day in 2030 and 6,583 veh/day in 2040.

• Traffic volume of Barkadahan Bridge which is located down-stream side of the subject bridge is expected to decrease by 1,053 veh/day in 2020, 1,649 veh/day in 2030 and 904 veh/day in 2040.

The study considered the entire Metro Manila road network “with” and “without” the bridge projects. For the case of “with” the bridge project, the shift in traffic route is based on the Traffic Assignment Model considering the shortest/fastest travel time between routes. Traffic simulation of the entire road network (Metro Manila) is done until a particular route becomes congested (travel speed reduces to a certain degree) and traffic is diverted to lesser congested link. This results in decongesting adjacent bridges where new ones are proposed.

The generated traffic by the new bridge is not considered since traffic attraction/generation by the bridge is not easy to determine. Only the diverted traffic due to additional bridges is considered in this study.

Figure 16-3 Future Traffic Volume at East-West Bank Bridge No.2 and Neighboring Bridges

The result of total vehicle time saving and total vehicle distance saving is shown in Table 16-2.

Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 is expected to save the vehicle time and vehicle distance by 678 thousand veh*hour/year and 11,411 thousand veh*km/year in 2020, 1,871 thousand veh*hour/year and 16,819 thousand veh*km/year in 2030 and 2,353 thousand veh*hour/year and 17,801 thousand veh*km/year in 2040.

Without

With

Legaspi Bridge Barkadahan Bridge East-West Bank Bridge No.2

16,230 (2020) 20,347 (2030) 19,550 (2040)

13,828 (2020) 25,380 (2030) 27,044 (2040) Unit: Veh/day

Unit: Veh/day

Barkadahan Bridge Legaspi Bridge

6,112 (2020) (-7,717) 11,635 (2030) (-13,745) 20,191 (2040) (-6,583)

15,176 (2020) (-1,053) 18,699 (2030) (-1,649) 18,646 (2040) (-904)

17,186(2020) 23,826 (2030) 25,828 (2040)



Page |16-5

Table 16-1 Future Traffic Volume at Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 and Neighboring Bridges

Unit: Veh/day Legaspi Bridge

(Up-Stream Side) Eastbank - Westbank

Bridge No.2 Barkadahan Bridge

(Down-Stream Side)

2020

Without 13,828 0 13,828

with 6,112 17,186 6,112

Difference -7,717 17,186 -7,717

2030

Without 25,380 0 25,380

with 11,635 23,826 11,635

Difference -13,745 23,826 -13,745

2040

Without 27,044 0 27,044

with 20,191 25,828 20,191

Difference -6,853 25,828 -6,853

Source: Estimated by Study Team

Table 16-2 Comparison of Vehicle Time Saving and Vehicle Distance Saving between With Case and Without Case

Vehicle Time Saving Vehicle Distance Saving

veh*hour/day '000 veh*hour/year veh*km/day '000 veh*km/year

2020

Without 3,172,965 1,158,132 79,800,948 29,127,346

with 3,171,106 1,157,453 79,769,684 29,115,934

Difference 1,859 678 31,624 11,411

2030

Without 4,112,229 1,500,963 93,321,317 34,062,280

with 4,107,102 1,499,092 93,275,235 34,045,460

Difference 5,127 1,871 46,082 16,819

2040

Without 4,059,605 1,481,755 89,899,200 32,813,208

with 4,053,158 1,479,402 89,852,402 32,796,126

Difference 6,447 2,353 46,798 17,801

Source: Estimated by Study Team

Estimated Disruption Cost During Construction

The proposed Eastbank – Westbank No.2 bridge will connect Eastbank to C-5 via Westbank and Mercedes Ave. Due to the construction of the new bridge, Westbank will need full closure while at the side of Eastbank only two lanes will be closed.

The disruption caused by the road closure is thus translated to costs based on the additional vehicle-km and vehicle-hr. spent by the road users in when using alternate routes other than the existing road.

Following the procedure for disruption cost evaluation outlined in Section 3.2.5, the traffic assignment of JICA Strada was carried-out for the purpose of estimating the disruption cost. The total veh*km and veh*hr of vehicles in the network were calculated using the present condition of the network (Case 1: Eastbank and Westbank road are open see Table 16-3 and Table 16-4). The same procedure was carried out for the Case 2 (Eastbank road 2 lanes is closed and for Westbank full road closure) and total veh*km and veh*hr of vehicles in the network is recorded. Both data (Case 1 and Case 2) are then converted into vehicle operating cost (VOC) and travel time cost (TTC) as illustrated in Table 16-3 and Table 16-4. Since the data was daily basis, this was converted into two (2) months for Eastbank and one (1) month for Westbank which is the envisioned total duration of closure of the road. The disruption cost during this period of closure is estimated at PhP 15,544.0 Pesos and PhP 8,483.2 respectively.



Page |16-6

Table 16-3 Estimated Disruption Cost for Eastbank

Variables

Case 1: East Bank Road (4 Lanes) is

open (‘000 PhP/day)

Case 2: East Bank Road (2 Lanes) is

closed (‘000 PhP/day)

Difference: Case 2 - Case 1

(‘000 PhP/day)

Road is closed for 2 months (60 days)

(‘000 PhP)

Vehicle Operating Cost

(VOC) 1,361,769 1,361,848 79 79x60= 4,765.74

Travel Time Cost (TTC)

2,152,494 2,152,674 180 180x60= 10,778.23

Total 3,514,263 3,514,522 259 259x730= 15,544.00

Table 16-4 Estimated Disruption Cost for Westbank

Variables

Case 1: West Bank Road (2 Lanes) is open (‘000 PhP/day)

Case 2: West Bank Road (2 Lanes) is

closed (‘000 PhP/day)

Difference: Case 2 - Case 1

(‘000 PhP/day)

Road is closed for 1 month (30 days)

(‘000 PhP)

Vehicle Operating Cost

(VOC) 1,343,536 1,343,547 11 11x30= 340.01

Travel Time Cost (TTC)

2,123,748 2,124,019 271 271x30= 8,143.13

Total 3,467,284 3,467,567 283 283x30= 8,483.20

Major Traffic Flow Before, During and After Bridge Construction

Present Traffic Flow and Future Traffic Flow is shown in Figure 16-4. Present Traffic Flow: The proposed location of the new bridge is between the two existing bridges. Major traffic movement in this area is between Rizal towns (Cainta and Taytay) and Pasig. At present, motorists may drive via Legaspi Bridge or via A. Sandoval Avenue to get to their destination on the other side of the river. Traffic Flow During Construction: Since this is a new bridge, during construction no road should be closed to traffic. However, some road lanes might be reduced to accommodate construction works. Likewise, detailed construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is usually prepared during the detailed design and finalized prior to construction works. Traffic Flow After Widening of the Bridge: Once the bridge is constructed including its access road to Mercedes Avenue, it will give motorist another option of reaching Pasig (East Bank --> New Bridge --> Mercedes Avenue-->Raymundo Avenue-->C-5).



Page |16-7

Figu

re 1

6-4

Pre

sen

t Tr

affi

c Fl

ow

(wit

ho

ut

bri

dge

) an

d F

utu

re T

raff

ic F

low

(w

ith

bri

dge

)



Page |16-8

16.2 Bridge Alignment Study

Conditions of the Proposed Bridge Site

The original proposed location of the Eastbank-Westbank Bridge 2 to connect Eastbank Dike Road at the east side of Manggahan Floodway and Westbank Dike Road at the west opposite side of the Manggahan Floodway is shown in Figure 16-5.

Figure 16-5 DPWH Proposed Location of Bridge

The conditions of the DPWH original proposed bridge site are summarized as follows:

Connecting Road Name/Class Right Bank – passing over Westbank Road (National Road – Cainta, Rizal) and connects with Glass St. (Barangay road). Left Bank –passing over Eastbank Road (National Road - Cainta, Rizal) and connects with private road towards Cambridge Drive (village road).

River Name Manggahan Floodway

Approximate River Width 258.65m

Land Use Right Bank – Mostly residential areas to informal settlers particularly on the Westbank slopes and encroaching to the floodway channel. Left Bank - Mostly residential areas informal settlers on the Eastbank and communities of Cainta, Rizal with particular emphasis on Cambridge Village consisting of several high rise condominiums.

Existing Condition of Proposed Bridge Location

• Road Width (Right Bank): Westbank Road – 6.00m (approx.) (Left Bank): Eastbank Road. – 17.00m (approx.)

• Pavement: Asphalt/Concrete • Terrain: Flat/very high flooding. • Connecting Road (Right Bank): Close to the river bank and will

require widening/improvement of adjoining road. Needs also to



Page |16-9

open new road connection to nearest available less congested road.

• (Left Bank): Close to the river and probably open Cambridge Village as the nearest entry or locate an alternate road connection.

• River Condition: Constricted due to the encroachment of shanties by informal settlers and the water lilies that cover the channel.

Existing Condition of Nearby Bridge

• The proposed bridge is in between the Legaspi Bridge and the Barkadahan Bridge (C6).

• Barkadahan Bridge, which originally 2-lanes is proposed to be part of C6 and is being widened to 4-lanes by construction of a new 2-lane bridge.

• Both bridges experience heavy traffic during rush hours from those coming from the eastern province of Rizal.

• Both bridges are not in the BMS System but are considered in good condition; both bridges are fairly new.

Design Issues and Constraints • Demolition and removal of informal settlers on the right and left banks of the roads especially the shanties encroaching the floodway channel is absolutely required. Widening of the connecting roads is absolutely necessary which will affect residential areas.

• The informal settlers (PAPs) within the floodway corridor are proposed to be relocated by the project Manggahan Floodway Capacity Improvement Project. It is expected that the PAPs will have been relocated during the implementation of the proposed bridge.

Initial Assessment • Due to the issues and constraints particularly the effects on the residential areas in addition to the right-of-way acquisition problem; a thorough study is necessary in order to address these concerns and to identify a better road alignment corridor for this bridge site. These areas from the east are periodically experiencing heavy traffic; thus alternate access is absolutely necessary.

Looking from Right Bank towards Glass St. Note the narrow street.

Looking from Right Bank to Upstream of Manggahan Floodway corner of Glass St.



Page |16-10

Looking from Right Bank to Downstream of Manggahan Floodway at corner of Glass St.

Looking from Right Bank at Westbank Road towards the Left Bank at Eastbank Road. Cambridge Village and shanties/ houses encroaching the channel.

Looking from Left Bank to Downstream of Manggahan Floodway along Eastbank Road.

Looking from Left Bank to Upstream of Manggahan Floodway along Eastbank Road

Looking from Left Bank towards Cambridge Village; note the wide road going into the village.

Looking from Left Bank at Eastbank Road towards the Right Bank at Westbank Road. Note the waterlilies covering the channel and shanties/houses encroaching the channel.

Source: Study Team

Figure 16-6 Existing Conditions at Proposed Locations

Alternative Bridge Location

Three (3) Alternative Alignments were investigated namely: Alternative Alignment-1 (the original DPWH Proposed Alignment) and Alternative Alignment-2 and Alternative Alignment 3, as shown in Figure 16-7.

Initial comparative check was undertaken considering the locations of approach ramps, availability of space, road connectivity and road geometry, right of way (ROW) acquisition, LGU consultation affected by the bridge construction, access to adjacent properties, impact to existing road network, traffic movement, social impact to affected residents and existing structures and utilities.

The Alternative Alignment-2 is more advantageous than Alignment-1 (original proposed site) and Alignment-3 in terms of road connectivity and availability of space to locate the approach ramps,



Page |16-11

lesser relocation of affected people, less adverse effect on Cambridge Village and satisfying the required alignment geometry of the bridge crossing Pasig River. The comparative study is shown to Table 16-5 and Table 16-7 .

The Proposed Alignment-2 will intersect East Bank Road just about two (2) blocks away from the entrance of Cambridge Village which was proposed as Alternative Alignment 1. The approach road at Westbank Road side will pass through the residential area of Sitio Kabisig, Barangay San Andres, Cainta and will traverse vacant lots back of Mercedes Subdivision then connect with Mercedes Avenue. Some residential houses in Mercedes Subdivision will need relocation. The bridge is designed as 4-lanes with sidewalks provided from Eastbank Road side to Westbank Road side towards Mercedes Ave. The road connection to Mercedes Ave. will provide an efficient access from the west of the floodway towards C. Raymundo Ave.

The bridge alignment will affect illegal settlers along the banks of Manggahan Floodway and several residential houses at the Westbank where ROW acquisition is necessary. However, it is expected that the informal settlers at the Manggahan Floodway and dike roads will be cleared by the floodway capacity improvement project when the bridge construction is implemented.

Figure 16-7 Alternative Bridge Alignment Locations

To C5 & R5



Page |16-12

Table 16-5 Alternative Bridge Alignment-1

Alternative-1: Four (4)-Lanes Bridge (DPWH Original)

Alignment Description: River width is based on the design of PMRCIP, dike road clearance can accommodate

flood freeboard requirements, thus raising of the adjoining Eastbank and Westbank

Roads are not necessary.

No approach ramp bridges on both sides of the Eastbank Road side and Westbank Road

side.

The bridge is designed as 4-lanes, sidewalks are provided from Eastbank Road side to

Westbank Road side terminating at both abutment ends.

Main Bridge Type: 3-Span, 4-Lanes Steel Lohse Arch Bridge.

Approach Bridge: EASTBANK ROAD Side - No approach ramp bridge, will directly intersect Eastbank Road.

WESTBANK ROAD Side - No approach ramp bridge, will directly intersect Westbank Road.

Traffic Function: • Traffic capacity improvement is lesser than the other options since connection is only at the banks. The future volume of traffic crossing the floodway via the existing Legaspi Bridge and Barkadahan Bridge is partially shared by new bridge.

• Not efficient since the connection terminates at the banks

Right-of-Way (ROW): Not much effect on Eastbank Road since demolition and relocation of illegal settlers along the dike is included in the PMRCIP project.

On the other side at Westbank Road, widening is needed along the Westbank Road to harmonize and maximize the potential use of the bridge. In this case, all along the Westbank Road additional ROW will be needed for this proposed alignment.

Issues/Problems: Demolition issues with LGU and relocation of affected residents will be assisted by the LGU. No problem encountered with the LGU consultation, they welcome the construction of the bridge and will be looking for relocation sites of affected residents in their area.

Not effective to traffic mitigation since the bridge connects only the east and west bank roads. Connectivity to major trunk roads necessary to enable efficient traffic movement.

Recommendation: Not Recommended since:

• the road connectivity is not efficient to serve the required future traffic movement. • the proposed link does not provide adequate connectivity to road network going out of

Westbank Road unless complete widening of said road is implemented.



Page |16-13


Alternative-2: Four (4)-Lanes Bridge

Alignment Description: River width is based on the design of PMRCIP, dike road clearance can accommodate

flood freeboard requirements, thus raising of the adjoining Eastbank and Westbank

Roads are not necessary. The bridge vertical gradient is 0.05% while the MSE wall ramp at

Westbank side is 2.30%.

No approach ramp bridges on both sides of the Eastbank Road side and Westbank Road

side.

Approach road at Westbank Road side intersection will pass through the residential area of

Sitio Kabisig, Barangay San Andres, Cainta and will traverse vacant lots back of Mercedes

Subdivision then connect with Mercedes Avenue. Some residential houses in Mercedes

Subdivision will need relocation.

The bridge is designed as 4-lanes, sidewalks are provided from Eastbank Road side to

Westbank Road side terminating at both abutment ends.

Connection to Eastbank and Westbank road is provided by an intersection.

Main Bridge Type: 3-Span, 4-Lanes Steel Lohse Arch Bridge.


WESTBANK ROAD Side – No approach ramp bridge, will directly intersect Westbank Road.

Traffic Function: • Traffic capacity is improved with the volume of future traffic from Barkadahan Bridge and Legaspi Bridge being shared with the new bridge.

• Direct connection to Mercedes Ave. provides a more efficient traffic movement.

Right-of-Way (ROW): Not much effect on Eastbank Road since demolition and relocation of illegal settlers along the dike is included in the PMRCIP project.

On the other side at Westbank Road, widening is needed along the affected street thus demolition of residential houses will be necessary but for the vacant lots behind Mercedes Executive Village, expropriation will be necessary.


Recommendation: Recommended due to:

• Improve road network crossing the Manggahan Floodway by providing direct link to Mercedes Ave.

• Lesser ROW acquisition and involuntary resettlement inside Mercedes Executive Village compared to Alternative 3.



Page |16-14


Alternative-3: Four (4)-Lanes Bridge

Alignment Description: River width is based on the design of PMRCIP, dike road clearance can accommodate flood

freeboard requirements, thus raising of the adjoining Eastbank and Westbank Roads is not necessary.

The bridge vertical gradient is 0.05% while the MSE wall ramp at the Westbank side is 2.30%.

No approach ramp bridges on both sides of the Eastbank Road side and Westbank Road side.

Approach road at Westbank Road side intersection will pass through the residential area of Sitio Kabisig, Barangay San Andres, Cainta and will connect with Frankfurt Street and Hague Street inside the Mercedes Executive Village then connect with Mercedes Avenue.

Due to the widening these streets to accommodate 4-lanes approach road some residential houses require relocation.

Longer length of affected residential area than Alignment-2.

The bridge is designed as 4-lanes, sidewalks are provided from Eastbank Road side to Westbank Road side terminating at both abutment ends.

Main Bridge Type: 3-Span, 4-Lanes Steel Lohse Arch Bridge Bridge.


WESTBANK ROAD Side – No approach ramp bridge, will directly intersect Westbank Road.

Traffic Function: • Traffic capacity is improved with the volume of future traffic from Barkadahan Bridge and Legaspi Bridge being shared with the new bridge.

• Direct connection to Mercedes Ave. provides a more efficient traffic movement.

Right-of-Way (ROW): • Not much effect on Eastbank Road since demolition and relocation of illegal settlers along the dike is included in the PMRCIP project.

• The connection to Mercedes Ave. requires much ROW acquisition and involuntary resettlement inside Mercedes Executive Village


Recommendation: Not Recommended due to much ROW acquisition and involuntary resettlement inside Mercedes Executive Village.



Page |16-15

Connectivity with the Road Network

Figure 16-8 Road Connectivity of the Proposed Bridge

As seen in Figure 16-8, the proposed bridge will provide an alternative route connection of Eastbank Road from Highway 2000 in Rizal province to the other side of Manggahan Floodway and to Mercedes Avenue towards C. Raymundo and going to Metro Manila. The point of entry and exit at Westbank side will be at Mercedes Avenue connecting to C. Raymundo, Pasig Blvd. Extension then Circumferential Road 5 (C5). Mercedes Avenue is a four-lane city road with two-way traffic catering private vehicles and tricycles.

Eastbank Road is a local road, four-lane with two-way traffic perpendicular to Legaspi Bridge, Barkadahan Bridge and R5. Adding additional bridge can strengthen and improve the traffic capacity of the network.

16.3 Preliminary Design of Bridge and Approach Road

Basic Design Policy

The basic design considerations for the Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 are as follows:

• A four (4)-lane bridge is proposed with the alignment between the Legaspi Bridge and Barkadahan Bridge that will provide an optimum traffic flow distribution with the existing bridges.

• To minimize Right-of-Way acquisition, the bridge approach road at West Bank Road is located adjacent to the Mercedes Executive Village on a vacant lot that will require less involuntary resettlement and ROW acquisition. The selected alignment will require expropriation of the vacant lot affected by the project.



Page |16-16

• Depth requirement for hydraulic considerations shall be maintained to satisfy adequate freeboard due to maximum design flood level. The river study results did not require raising of the dike roads at both the Eastbank and Westbank sides but only embankments on the low-lying areas from the present road level along the alignment on Westbank side particularly on the area where soft soil is encountered.

• An intersection shall be formed with the Eastbank Road while maintaining its current profile. • The Westbank side approach ramp will be on embankment confined by MSE walls after the

bridge abutment and then transition to an at-grade approach road forming an intersection with Mercedes Avenue.

Design Concept and Conditions

(1) Road Design Criteria and Procedure and Standard Road Cross‐Section Elements

The design references shall be based on the road design criteria in Chapter 4.2.1, including the geometric design and cross-sectional design elements.

The project road will be classified as Urban Principal Arterials (Streets) better known as Urban National Road taking into account the future development and possible improvement of the existing road network of the influence area and it will also serve as alternative bridge/road crossing in between the existing Barkadahan Bridge and Legaspi Bridge.

The recommended design speed for the road component will be the 40 kph. The geometric design criteria of 40 kph will be used in the intersections of the Dike Roads at both Eastbank Road and Westbank Road with the proposed bridge and the intersections at proposed approach road and Mercedes Avenue.

The national road cross sectional dimensions for the project roadway line are presented in Table 4-2 of Chapter 4. The cross-section elements for the approach road at the Westbank side is shown in Table 16-8. The corresponding typical cross section drawing is shown in Figure 16-9 with a lane width of 3.35m adopted for the 4-lane bridge provided on the Westbank side of the approach ramp.

A 3.0m wide pedestrian sidewalk is provided for the bridge from the start of the bridge abutment at Eastbank Road side and terminates at the end of the approach road at Mercedes Avenue of Westbank Road side. The pedestrian sidewalk is separated from the vehicular lane by means of vehicular railing and provided with pedestrian railing at the extreme ends of the sidewalks.

Table 16-8 Approach Road at Westbank Side

ITEM UNIT VALUE REFERENCE/REMARKS

Median Width M 0.65 Concrete Barrier

Median Shy Distance m 0.50 Added median lateral clearance

Lane Width No.-m 4-(3.35) New typical road lane per direction

Gutter Width (with Curb) M 0.50 Drain and added lateral safety clearance

Sidewalk m 3.00 along the entire road

Normal Crossfall % 1.50 from DPWH Manual

Right of Way Width M 21.65 (min.) or actual available width



Page |16-17

Figure 16-9 Typical Road Cross-Sections

(2) Bridge Design Criteria and Procedure and Standard Road Cross‐Section Elements

a) Design Standards and Conditions

The basic design requirements for bridges shall conform with the criteria given in Section 4.2.2 of Chapter 4.

• A Lohse Arch Bridge main bridge, 3-span of 84.50m+85.50m+84.50m = 254.50m total length, is proposed with steel box chords and arch members supported on piers. This will enable enough vertical clearance for the hydraulic requirements of the bridge and at the same time provide an aesthetic view of the bridge symbolic in the area. The main bridge terminates on abutments A and B at the west and east banks, respectively.

• Since the bearing layer for the foundations reaches to a depth of 45m (confirmation

geotechnical investigation), bored piles 2.5m and 45m long are used to support the pier foundations.

• To minimize the traffic impact during construction, MSE walls are proposed to retain the embankment for the low-lying area in the Westbank side approach road.

b) Seismic Design Considerations

Seismic design for the bridge structures shall be based on the DPWH-BSDS, considering a PGA coefficient of 0.60 for the Level 2 earthquake. Based on Figure 16-40 (Active Fault Line Map), there is no active fault line within one kilometer radius in the proposed bridge.

Because of the importance of bridges crossing Manggahan Floodway, the bridge Operational Class shall be taken as OC-II (Essential Bridges) which should, as a minimum be open to emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes, be open within a short period after the Level 2 design earthquake (1,000-year EQ return period event).

c) Bridge Deck Section

The bridge will have four (4) – lanes with 3.35m width per lane and 2-3.00m sidewalk on both sides. Typical deck sections for the bridges are shown in Figure 16-10.



Page |16-18

Main Bridge Steel Box Section

Figure 16-10 Standard Bridge Cross-Sections

(3) Horizontal and Vertical Control

Consistent with the highway and hydraulic requirements, the proposed bridge was designed following a more or less normal orientation from the Manggahan Floodway with abutment supports following the alignment of the Eastbank Dike Road in the east and Westbank Dike Road in the west. The vertical alignment of the main bridge is on an almost horizontal line of 0.050 gradient; this design satisfies the high flood level clearance requirements as well as due to the selected main bridge superstructure, i.e. Lohse Arch Type - 85.50m center span and 84.50m side spans on both the Eastbank and Westbank side.

Approach Road from the Westbank connected to the Mercedes Avenue was designed for accessibility to the nearest main trunk road. However, at the Eastbank the bridge is directly connected to the dike road without any approach road.

(4) Topographic Condition

The roadway alignment traverses a flat terrain along the existing Eastbank Road and the neighboring barangays on Eastbank side. On the opposite bank at Westbank side, the condition is the same as the Eastbank side as the roadway alignment traverses flat terrain along residential areas and villages and vacant areas inside the villages.

The location of the proposed bridge is between the existing Barkadahan Bridge and Legaspi Bridge. The site of the bridge is relatively a flat area with the river banks being converted to residential areas by informal settlers. It is a very high flood risk area according to the Figure 16-38 Geo-Hazard Map of the project area from PAGASA as the rivers are constricted by the informal settlers’ houses.

The proposed bridge is planned to be at the road level on both sides of the floodway with the elevations of the adjoining roads meeting the hydraulic requirements of the waterway.

(5) Geotechnical Condition

Due to the absence of reference data along the selected alignment due to time constraint, borehole data from nearby Barkadahan Bridge is made as reference plus a confirmatory bore hole on the vicinity



Page |16-19

of the bridge site were utilized to determine the type and depth of foundations for the bridge structures. Figure 16-11 and Figure 16-12 give the soil profile in the vicinity of the proposed bridge site as well as the confirmatory borehole. Based on Figure 16-39 (Liquefaction Map), the Eastbank has no liquefaction potential while on the channel and Westbank, both locations are highly liquefiable.

Figure 16-11 Reference Borehole Data A

Source: PMRCIP Borehole Data

Figure 16-12 Reference Borehole Data B

(6) River and Hydraulic Condition

a) Present River Condition

The proposed Eastbank – Westbank BRIDGE 2 is located downstream of Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 1. The floodway width appears wider at this site and is cleaner in terms of the presence of water hyacinths during the ocular verification, and in good operational condition. The banks are fairly intact, the water in the floodway appears to be murky, but that is, its usual state noting it’s earth-lined banks and bottom and it had through the years acquired its septic function. The banks appear to have higher strata of residential communities with the usual appurtenances of residential areas. The ordinary water level appears confined to within the channel cross-section. The floodway was not designed as



Page |16-20

a transport alternative therefore no water vessels can be seen coming from the Laguna areas during the ocular inspection. This is simply a floodway to divert excess flood water from Marikina River, to be stored temporarily in Laguna Bay where it outfalls, until such time that it will be gradually channeled along Napindan Channel into Pasig River then to the Manila Bay. The segment of the floodway where the proposed Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 will be constructed, on first impression, appears to be deep and wide and has practically a straight alignment on the proposed site.

Close up views of the Westbank, note the wider width of the Floodway at this area

East Bank Vicinity

Figure 16-13 Conditions at the Vicinity of Proposed Eastbank - Westbank 2 Bridge 2 Site

b) Hydraulic Features

• The Manggahan floodway is an artificial waterway constructed 31 years ago with the primary

hydraulic purpose of reducing flooding along the banks of the Pasig River and its vicinity, by

diverting flood flows from the Marikina River to Laguna Bay.

• Its segments are fairly straight channel but slightly bends to the left as it heads towards the

Laguna Bay to effectively serve its purpose of diverting a maximum of 2,400 cms flow as

originally designed; but roughly 2,000 cms is its practical capacity.

• The increasing build-up of the presence of informal settlers has reduced its effective width to

about 250 meters at this location as of latest records, and this hinders the efficiency of its

function as originally designed.

• The preponderance of water hyacinths going forth to multiply some more and the Kangkong

livelihood, fueled by the floodway’s acquired function, also hampers the flow.



Page |16-21

• Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 is at the start of the earth dike segment of the Manggahan

Floodway at Sta. 3+850. At this segment, the cross-section basically has earth dike banks.

c) Plan-Schematic Location and River Alignment

The plan-schematic location of the proposed Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 and the river alignment is shown in Figure 16-14.

Source: PASIG MARIKINA CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Source: Adapted from Fig. R 1.5.2 – Review Report – Supplemental Agreement No. 1 – PMRCIP –Phase IV & V, Schematic Location of Eastbank – Westbank 2



Page |16-22

Manggahan Floodway Alignment

Figure 16-14 Bridge Location and Alignment

(d) River Bank Improvement Section

Figure 16-15 shows the PMRCIP Mangghan Floodway improvement section at Eastbank -Westbank Bridge 2

Flood Diversion to Manggahan Floodway Earth Dike Section

Typical Section

Figure 16-15 PMRCIP Manggahan Floodway Improvement Sections at Eastbank-Westbank Bridge 2

Design Flood Discharge and Flood Levels

Basic to the design and construction of bridge projects are the conduct of hydrologic and hydraulic design analyses. These involve the inspection of the project site, conduct related topographic and cross-section survey and borehole foundation layer sampling among others.

(1) Preliminary Data on Design Discharges

In the course of design and construction activities for the PMRCIP, various analyses were conducted. The hydrological and hydraulic aspects adaptable for this feasibility study takes off from the results of in-depth analyses already conducted.

(2) Design Flood Level Determination

The HEC-RAS software is utilized for the design flood level analysis.

Berm

West Bank

East Bank Design DFL EL+15.30 (50yr)

Berm Channel Bed

254m



Page |16-23

The basic HEC-RAS computational procedure is based on the solution of the one-dimensional energy equation with an iterative procedure called the standard step method. The following assumptions are usually considered: Flow is steady; flow is gradually varied; flow is one-dimensional.

The HEC-RAS computer software was used to compute for the flood level corresponding to the 50-year and 100-year design flood based on the PMRCIP 30-year design flood level (DFL).

Figure 16-16 presents the location of the Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 along the longitudinal profile of the Mangahan Floodway and the corresponding PMRCIP 30-year design flood level (DFL).

Figure 16-16 Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 LOCATION

Figure 16-17 is the graphical presentation of the results of the hydraulic analyses

Figure 16-17 Result of Hydraulic Analysis

Table 16-9 presents the results of the HEC-RAS analyses for the 50-year and 100-year design flood levels based on the PMRCIP 30-year design flood level (DFL).

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 15010

12

14

16

18

20

MANGAHAN FLOODWAY BRIDGE NO. 12 Plan: MANGAHAN BRIDGE NO. 12 - PQ-LAGELEV109 4/16/2017

3+850 - ASSUMED BRIDGE CENTERLINE

Station (m)

Ele

vation

(m

)

Legend

WS 100-YR.

WS 50-YR.

WS 30-YR.

Ground

Bank Sta

.0311



Page |16-24

Table 16-9 HEC-RAS Analysis for the 50-year and 100-yeear Design Flood Levels

Bridge Name

30-YR. PMRCIP

DFL (m)

50-YR. Computed Elevation

(m)

100--YR. Computed Elevation

(m)

EAST BANK-WEST BANK

BRIDGE NO. 2

15.10

15.30

15.35

The results of the HEC-RAS hydraulic analyses are presented in detail in Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 Hydraulic Analyses Appendix 16-1.

Road and Intersection Design

(1) Road Design Controls and Consideration

The road design is basically controlled by the direct link between the existing Eastbank Dike Road and the nearest Mercedes Avenue in the western side passing the built-up and vacant lots residential areas and considering sufficient space for the bridge approaches while maintaining the said geometric criteria and roadway elements.

(2) Road Alignment, Profile and Cross-Section Design

The Road Horizontal Alignment is geometrically design using the 40 kph design speed with the minimum radius of 100m at the western section and straight line at the eastern side of the alignment. The design speed is dictated by the Single Unit Truck that will dominate the roadway with some consideration of Trailer utilizing this new floodway bridge.

The minimum 0.05 percent vertical grade along the bridge section was adopted between the existing bank roads taking into account the 50-year design flood level and a 2.30 percent maximum down grade was introduced to meet the at-grade level towards Mercedes Avenue.

The DPWH current lane width of 3.35 meters for National roads was adopted for safety and to anticipate the possible improvement of the road network in the influence area. The 0.50m-wide gutter and 3.00m sidewalk at both sides of the road was provided for surface drain and to serve the projected pedestrian volume, respectively.

The plan alignment and longitudinal profile are shown in Figure 16-18 and Figure 16-19.

Figure 16-18 Design Roadway Plan



Page |16-25

Figure 16-19 Design Road Profile

(3) Intersection Design

The turning design speed of the Intersections would be 20kph and checked using the swept path analysis of a Single Unit Truck to turn minimal encroachment at the opposite lane. The Intersection will be un-signalized system as per existing site condition and traffic study.

Bridge Design

(1) Bridge Design Controls and Conditions

a) Design Controls and Conditions at Manggahan Floodway

Picture-1 and Picture-2 show the conditions of the up-stream and the view from across Westbank of the Manggahan Floodway at the bridge site, respectively.

Picture-1: View from up-stream Picture-2: View from across Westbank

Figure 16-20 shows the overall control points at Manggahan Floodway and Figure 16-21 shows the vertical and horizontal controls.



Page |16-26

Figure 16-20 Over-all Control Points at Manggahan Floodway

a. Flood Water Level - Design Flood Water Level: EL=15.49m (flood water level) - Free board: 1.0m, EL=16.49m (Design Flood) 84.50m 85.50m 84.50m

b. Vertical Clearances at East Bank and West Bank Road Dikes - Horizontal clearance = Not applicable (For watercraft vessels) - Vertical clearance = Design Flood Water Level EL. 15.49m + Clearance (1.00m) = EL. 16.49m

c. River Width Constriction Ratio by Piers - Less than 5%

Figure 16-21 Vertical and Horizontal Controls

b) Design Controls and Conditions at East Bank Road and West Bank Road

Condition of Eastbank Road near the bridge site is shown in Picture-3 and Picture-4. The condition of Westbank Road near the bridge alignment is shown in Picture-5 and Picture-6.



Page |16-27

(2) Selection of Alternative Bridge Types (Main Bridge and Approach)

a) Main Bridge

The planning of the main bridge considers as follows:

• The type of main bridge selected is considered long span to allow no obstruction to the floodway

discharge flow with sufficient freeboard clearance and to build a bridge that has better aesthetic

and is symbolically in the area.

• The depth of superstructure shall be proportioned to its span length while providing sufficient

freeboard to the design flood.

• The type of main bridge will be iconic because it will provide a scenic view on the area where

monotonous bridges are built and which will enhance the tourism value of the site.

b) Main Bridge Span Length Considerations

• No consideration for navigation is accounted in the preliminary design of this bridge. However,

the span lengths will allow small boats to use the floodway.

• The span length of the bridge and the depth of the bridge girders is based solely on the maximum

flood requirements of Manggahan Floodway.

• The abutment position is decided to clear the design flood level at the bank.

• The pier location in the river shall be as near as possible to the left bank and right bank taking

into account of road alignment and ease of construction.



Page |16-28

• In case of the necessity to place piers farther offshore from the banks, the horizontal and vertical

clearance requirements should be strictly followed.

c) Pier Locations

The pier locations in river of the main bridge are decided as follows:

• The bank to bank distance to be connected by the bridge is about 254m. Since a one-span bridge

will result to a major structure with large abutment at the dike road, a multi-span bridge is taken

as the optimum span configuration.

• Three (3)-span continuous structures or simply supported multi-span arches and trusses are some

of the candidate bridge forms, considering the span requirements, depth of superstructure and

total bridge length. For three (3)-span bridges, at least two (2) piers will be in the river with the

locations based on the type of superstructure.

Figure 16-22 Pier Locations and Abutment Positions

d) Span Length for Main Bridge

Depending on the bridge type, the span length for main bridge can then be taken from 64m to 130m, as compared in the initial screening (Table 16-10).

The total bridge length will be the Eastbank to Westbank bank-to-bank distance which is around 254m.

e) Initial Screening for Applicable Alternative Bridge Types

The range of applicable bridge types, as a function of the bridge span length, for the main bridge is presented in Table 16-10. For the required span range (64m-130m), steel and concrete cable-stayed bridge, steel arch and truss bridge and prestressed concrete extradosed bridge and are the choice for the superstructure form.

Considering the previous design conditions, the number of span considered for the main bridge is basically a three-span bridge and four-span, which determines the type of bridge for the superstructure. The comparison covers a single bridge type which spans the Eastbank and the Westbank of the floodway.

Bank Distance = 254m

Multi-span bridge with piers in the river



Page |16-29

Table 16-10 Applicable Bridge Type According to Span Length

An initial screening of possible bridge types and combination of spans for the case when the bridge length is 254m, is shown in Table 16-11. Five (5) bridge alternative schemes were considered:

• Steel Bridge : 3-Span Cable Stayed Bridge, 3-Span Arch Bridge, 3-Span Arch Bridge and 4-Span Truss Bridge

• Concrete Bridge : 3-Span Cable Stayed Bridge

Among the initial alternatives, the steel arch bridge and the concrete cable stayed bridge presents a more aesthetic and balanced view of the bridge form that can be symbolic in the area. These bridges will be the subject of a more detailed comparison.

f) Initial Screening for Applicable Alternative Bridge Types

Based on the initial screening of possible bridge schemes, a detailed comparative table of three (3) alternative schemes from the five (5) initial screening alternatives is presented in Table 16-12.

The following three (3) bridge schemes are compared as follows:

Alternative 1: 3-Span Steel Lohse Arch Bridge (L =84.5m+85.5m+84.5m)

Alternative 2: 4-Span Steel Lohse Arch Bridge (L [email protected])

Alternative 3: 3-Span Concrete Cable Stayed Bridge (L =62.25m+130m+62.25m)

As a result of the bridge comparison the 3-Span Steel Lohse Arch Bridge, which has the balanced aesthetic view and landscape characteristics, fastest construction period, least cost, ease of workability required in the bridge planning and construction and is also advantageous as a symbolic bridge, is selected as the bridge type for the main bridge.

3

EXTRADOSED BRIDGE

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE

BRIDGE TYPEMaximum Span (m)Number

of Span

4

3 and 4

3

3

1. STEEL BRDGE

2. CONCRETE BRDGE

TRUSS BRIDGE

ARCH BRIDGE

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE

50 100 150 200 2500

L=64mL=85.5m L=130m



Page |16-30

Table 16-11 Comparison Table for Bridge Type

Span Arrangement Alternatives Symbolic

Aspect Remarks

Option For

Comparison

1. STEEL BRIDGE

ALTERNATIVE 1

SPAN: 62.25+130+62.25= 254.5M 3-SPAN STEEL CABLE STAYDE

Most symbolic/ aesthetically pleasing

◎

• Relative Construction

Period:1.40(Bent construction) • Construction cost: 1.475 • Girder depth : 1.8m • Least obstruction to river flow • Requires repainting

ALTERNATIVE 2

SPAN: 84.5+85.5+84.5 = 254.5M 3-SPAN STEEL ARCH

Aesthetically

pleasing

○


Period:1.00(Bent construction) • Construction cost: 1.165 • Girder depth : 1.5m • Least obstruction to river flow • Requires repainting

1

ALTERNATIVE 3

SPAN: [email protected] = 254.5M 4-SPAN STEEL ARCH

Aesthetically

pleasing

○


Period:1.30(Bent construction) • Construction cost: 1.253 • Girder depth : 1.3m • Less obstruction to river flow

Requires repainting

3

ALTERNATIVE 4

SPAN: [email protected] = 254.5M 4-SPAN STEEL TRUSS

Simple View

△


Period:1.20(Bent construction) • Construction cost: 1.000 • Girder depth : 1.2m • Less obstruction to river flow • Requires repainting

2. CONCRETE BRIDGE

ALTERNATIVE 5

SPAN: 62.25+130+62.25= 254.5M 3-SPAN PRESTRESSED CONC CABLE STAYED

Most symbolic/ aesthetically pleasing

◎


Period:1.50 • Construction cost: 1.319 • Girder depth : 2.0m • Least obstruction to river flow • Less maintenance

2

◎ – Very high aesthetic/symbolic form ○ – Moderate aesthetic/symbolic form △ – Common form



Page |16-31

Tab

le 1

6-1

2 C

om

par

ativ

e T

able

fo

r B

rid

ge T

ype



Page |16-32

(3) Selection of Substructure and Foundation Types

a) Selection of Substructure/Pier Types

The substructure type for the pier is selected considering the following:

• The pier shape on the river shall not hinder the river flow.

• A structure that can support the large reaction of the new superstructure.

• The pier should be able to support the horizontal transverse reaction from the Lohse Arch

supports.

b) Selection of Foundation Types

The foundation type for the pier is selected considering the following:

• Possibility of constructing bored piles by using crane on barge.

• Construction is easier than other foundation types.

• Construction is faster (shorter period) than other foundation types.

• Cheaper than other foundation types.

• Most popular method used in the Philippines in bridge foundation design and construction.

(4) Preliminary Design of Bridge (Main Bridge and Approach)

a) General Plan and Profile of the Bridge

The general plan layout of the bridge is presented in Figure 16-23 while the bridge profile shown in Figure 16-24 and the bridge perspective view is shown as Figure 16-25.

Figure 16-23 General Plan Layout

Figure 16-24 General Profile of the Bridge



Page |16-33

Figure 16-25 Perspective View of the Bridge

b) Main Bridge

The main bridge spans 254.50m total length over the river with 2 main piers located off shore and the abutments located in the sloped protected channel banks. The bridge cast-in-situ deck slab is supported the 3-span Lohse Arch supports forming an iconic bridge symbolic of the area. Wall-type

piers on bored piles 45m-long, 2.50m diameter support the pile caps that absorb the loads from the Lohse arch supports. See Figure 16-26.

Main Bridge Cross Section with Lohse Arch Main Pier Supports

Figure 16-26 Typical Lohse Arch and Pier Sections

The deck slab formed cast-in-situ composite with the steel superstructure is 230mm thick with 50mm thickness bituminous concrete wearing surface course. The 4-lanes carriageway is 21.65m wide, with



Page |16-34

0.65m median barriers, 0.50m gutters and 3.00m sidewalks on both sides. For the safety of the pedestrians, vehicular railings are placed to separate the carriageway and the sidewalks while pedestrian railing are placed at the ends of the sidewalks.

c) Approach Ramp Bridges

EASTBANK Approach. No approach ramp bridge, the main bridge is supported on Abutment A that connects directly to the intersection of Eastbank Road.

WESTBANK Approach. No approach ramp bridge, the main bridge is supported on Abutment B that connects directly to the intersection of Westbank Road and forms a new approach road on MSE wall embankment leading to the intersection with Mercedes Avenue.

d) Abutments and Approach Ramps

The bridge abutments are formed at the intersections of the Eastbank and Westbank connecting roads. On the Westbank side an approach ramp is proposed together with the at-grade road connection to Mercedes Avenue. To minimize disturbance of traffic during construction, less space used during construction and generally more economical option, mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSE) system is utilized to retain the embankment in the approach ramps at the Westbank side. See Figure 16-27.

Figure 16-27 Abutment and Approach Ramps (MSE Wall) Details

Miscellaneous Structures

(1) MSE Walls

MSE walls are adopted at higher segments from the abutments of the ramps to a minimum of 1.0m from the Roadway Level for optimum and economical result. The MSE wall is adopted due to the following:

Approach Ramp on MSE Wall

Typical Abutment Details



Page |16-35

• Economy, considerable advantages over cast-in-situ, both in construction time and quantity of

materials;

• Technical, high load carrying capabilities, both static and dynamic;

• Construction, ease of installation using prefabricated components is rapid and predictable; and

• Aesthetics, superior appearance since the facing is highly suited for architectural finishes

The MSE wall is mainly comprised of the layers of granular fill, reinforcing strips, concrete precast facing and the founding base. Its strength and stability is derived from the frictional interaction between the granular backfill and the reinforcing strips resulting in a permanent and predictable bond that creates a unique composite construction material. The concrete facing is connected to the reinforcing strips by durable bolts.

The MSE Base is embedded into the ground a minimum of 0.90m and sized per AASHTO LRFD, 2012 Section 11.10 criteria and specifications. See Figure 16-27.

(2) River Protection

Slope Protection Works. In order to maintain the uniformity of flow, the confinement of water in the river, mitigate scouring of river banks and maintain the water within the river at specified flood discharge and flood level, concrete/grouted riprap slope protection and/or gabion mattress will be provided along the banks. For this bridge, existing concrete slope protection works similar to the upstream part of the channel will be adopted as designed. This option is to use concrete lined slope protection works depending on the hydraulic considerations. See Figure 16-28 showing a typical river bank slope protection works.

Figure 16-28 Typical Concrete Slope Protection Wall

(3) Drainage Facilities

Appurtenant to all bridge structures are the equally spaced side drain openings at both sides of the bridge or drainage gutters with outfalls at the foot of the bridge, directed into the river by means of concrete lined ditches or connected to the drainage facilities at the approach road (Figure 16-29). Side ditches running down adjacent to the ends of the bridge, down to the river are also necessary for bridge approaches that may be required to be elevated due to conditions at the approaches. These are usually concrete-lined side ditches.



Page |16-36

Figure 16-29 Typical Viaduct Drainage Set-up

16.4 Construction Planning

Construction Planning Considerations

The general principles of construction planning considerations is discussed in Chapter 5 Section 5.4.1.

Construction Method and Layout for Bridges

(1) General

The bridge type of Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 is as follows:

Main Bridge : 3-Span Lohse Arch Bridge

(2) Pile Foundation

Bored pile method shall be adopted for bridge foundation. Piles for two piers shall be constructed in the river while piles for two abutments shall be done from the land. Fabrication of piles at the river side is explained in Chapter 5 Section 5.4.2.1 Construction Method for Main Bridge and Approach, (3) Pile Foundation.

(3) Construction of Substructure

After bored piles have been fabricated, temporary cofferdam using steel sheet piles shall be erected. The inside of the cofferdam shall be dried up by using submersible pumps and substructure works shall be conducted.

(4) Superstructure

Completion

Figure 16-30 shows the procedure for erection of the main bridge. After completion of the main bridge’s substructure, the 1st and 3rd span bridges shall be constructed. Then, the bridge center span bridge shall be constructed. The construction procedure is as same as the Chapter 12, Mercury-Evangelista Bridge, except that this bridge has three spans.



Page |16-37

(a) Substructure Construction

(b) Arch Member Erection (Side Spans)

(c) Arch Member Erection (Center Span)

(d) Completion

Figure 16-30 Erection Method

(5) Temporary Yard

The right bank of the approach road traverses an open field. This field can be utilized as a temporary yard for fabrication, staging and preparation. Figure 16-31 shows the location plan of bridge, approach road and temporary yard.



Page |16-38

Figure 16-31 Proposed Location for Temporary yard

Temporary yard shall include space for:

• Contractor’s office

• Equipment, workshop and parking space

• Stock yard for various materials

Temporary yard and facilities shall be demolished when the construction is completed.

(6) Construction Safety Plan

Please refer to Chapter 5 Section 5.4.2.3 construction Safety Plan of Binondo-Intramuros Bridge.

Construction Implementation and Schedule

(1) Construction Implementation

Main members of the superstructure of the bridge shall be fabricated at a factory. Some equipment that cannot be procured in the Philippines shall be brought from abroad.

(2) Construction Schedule

The construction schedule is shown in Table 16-13. Construction duration shall be 31 months including mobilization and demobilization.

Table 16-13 Construction Schedule for Eastbank-Westbank Bridge No.2

Utilities Relocation, etc.

There are no particular utilities relocation at site.

Proposed Temporary Yard

Year

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Main Bridge

Pile Foundation

Road Work

Fabrication of Steel

3Item

1 2

Preparation Work

Cleaning

Substructure Works

Superstructure Works

Approach Road Works

Miscellaneous Works



Page |16-39

16.5 Cost Estimate

Assumption and Procedure for Estimating Construction Costs

(1) General

Project cost estimate consists of construction cost, compensation and relocation cost, maintenance cost, consultancy service cost, physical contingency cost, administrative cost and tax.

(2) Construction Costs

Construction cost is composed of bridge construction cost, approach roads construction cost, temporary work cost and other miscellaneous cost.

The unit construction cost for major work items were prepared by referring the cost data collected from DPWH, contractor and suppliers and the prevailing construction unit prices employed the similar project in the Philippines and Japan.

(3) Term of Cost Estimation

The cost estimation is updated on the price level as of March 2017.

(4) Exchange Rate

Exchange rates are estimated from recent exchange fluctuation of Central Bank of the Philippines. The exchange rates of February 2017 are:

US$1=PHP50.257

PHP1=JPY2.24

(5) Currency for Cost Estimate

The cost component shall consist of foreign currency and local currency portions. Philippine peso shall be used for both local and foreign currency portions.

(6) Physical Contingency

It is for the physical extras which may occur during construction period. It includes unforeseen ground conditions, exceptionally inclement weather, quantity changes, delays beyond the control of the contractors, unexpected incidents and the like.

The physical contingency cost has been set at 10% of the construction cost.

(7) Administrative Cost

Administrative cost is the cost incurred by the executing agency DPWH during detailed design and construction supervision. These costs have been assumed and estimated as just 8% of Direct Consultancy Services Cost plus 12% VAT.

Construction Cost of Bridges

Please refer to Chapter 5 Section 5.5.2 Construction Cost of Bridges.

ROW Acquisition and Compensation Costs

The ROW acquisition and compensation costs includes the following:

• Land acquisition

• Resettlement of houses and industrial structures

• Compensation for Relocation



Page |16-40

• Miscellaneous (10% of above)

The approximate land acquisition shall be 13,462m2 and the approximate number of buildings for

fabrication is estimated to be thirteen (13) with an area of 1,032m2.

Consultancy Costs

Consultancy cost consists of detailed design cost and construction supervision cost. Detailed cost varies depending on the scale of the project, tender processing and contract method.

Based on the previous experiences, consultancy costs for the project are estimated as 3% and 4% of the total construction cost for the detailed design cost and construction supervision cost respectively.

Environmental and Monitoring Cost During Construction

The cost of environmental monitoring during construction phase includes:

Table 16-14 Cost of Environmental Monitoring (Construction Phase)

Maintenance Cost

(1) General

Please refer to Chapter 5 Section 5.5.5 Maintenance Cost (1) General.

(2) Inspection of Bridge

Table 16-15 shows the possible damages at each member. Inspections shall be conducted taking care of these points.

Table 16-15 Possible Damages at Each Members

Classification Member Material Type of Damage

Superstructure Deck Slab Main Girder

Steel corrosion crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function abnormal sound/vibration abnormal deflection deformation/missing abnormal deflection defect of joint gap

Cable Steel corrosion abnormal sound/vibration water leakage degradation of corrosion function

Item Parameters Frequency Unit Cost (Php)

1. Air Pollution Total Suspended Particulate, 2 stations Monthly 20,000/month

2. Noise Noise Level, 2 stations Monthly 10,000/month

3. Water Pollution DO, TSS, pH, Color, Turbidity (2 stations) (upstream & downstream)

Quarterly 10,000/every 3 months

4. Groundwater TDS, tubidity, pH, Iron,Mn, Color Annual 100,000/year

5. Solid Waste Solid Wastes from construction Weekly 5,000/week



Page |16-41


deformation

Substructure Body Concrete crack peeling/rebar expose water leakage/free lime damage to concrete reinforcement defect at anchorage discoloration/deterioration water leakage/ponding deformation/missing

Foundation Concrete settlement/move/inclination scouring

Bearing Shoe Main body Steel corrosion crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function malfunction of shoe water leakage/ponding deformation/missing clogging of sediment settlement/move/inclination

Rubber malfunction of shoe discoloration/deterioration water leakage/ponding deformation/missing clogging of sediment settlement/move/inclination

Bridge seat Concrete crack deformation/missing

Bridge-fall prevention device

Steel corrosion crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function deformation/missing

Concrete crack peeling/rebar expose water leakage/free lime deformation/missing

On the deck Handrail Steel corrosion crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function deformation/missing

Road light/road sign Steel corrosion crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function abnormal sound/vibration deformation/missing

Curb Concrete crack pealing/rebar expose water leakage/free lime discoloration/deterioration deformation/missing

Pavement Asphalt Concrete

unevenness of road surface defect of pavement water leakage/ponding

Expansion device Steel corrosion



Page |16-42


crack looseness/dropout fracture degradation of corrosion function defect of joint gap unevenness of road surface deformation/missing clogging of sediment

Rubber deformation of joint gap unevenness of road surface discoloration/deterioration clogging of sediment

(3) Organization for Maintenance

Please refer to Chapter 5 Section 5.5.5 Maintenance Cost (3) Organization for Maintenance.

(4) Estimation of Maintenance Cost

Maintenance cost will be divided into bridge maintenance cost and approach road maintenance cost. The maintenance cost consists of cleaning cost and inspection cost. Primary Inspection shall be conducted annually and Detailed Inspection shall be conducted every five years.

Summary of Bridge Investment Costs

Table 16-16 shows summary of 4-lane bridge investment cost

Table 16-16 Summary of Bridge Investment Costs

Civil work cost breakdown is shown in Appendix 16-2, Table A16-1.

Unit : Million Pesos

Local Foreign Tax

1) Civil Works (A) 268.02 2,017.14 334.73 2,619.89

General Works 17.20 62.26 11.40 90.86

Approach Road and Bridge 42.07 39.04 10.90 92.01

Main Bridge 208.05 1,912.95 311.91 2,432.91

Temporary Works 0.69 2.90 0.52 4.11

2) Physical Contingency (E) (10% of (A)) 26.80 201.71 33.47 261.99

Sub-Total : 1) + 2) 294.82 2,218.85 368.21 2,881.88

3) Consultancy Services Cost (C) 18.76 141.20 23.43 183.39

Detailed Design (3% of (A)) 8.04 60.51 10.04 78.60

Construction Supervision (4% of (A)) 10.72 80.69 13.39 104.80

4) ROW Acquisition and Compensation Costs (B) 94.96 94.96

5) Environmental Cost 0.98 0.53 0.20 1.70

6) Administrative Cost (F) (8% of (C)) 12.80 1.54 14.33

Construction Cost : 1) + 2) + 3) + 4) + 5) + 6) 422.32 2,360.58 393.37 3,176.26

7) Maintenance Cost

Annual Maintenance Cost (Every year) 4.15 0.00 0.50 4.65

Periodic Maintenance (Every 5 years) 4.25 0.00 0.51 4.76

ItemsCost Component

Total



Page |16-43

16.6 Environmental and Social Impact

Area of Study

The Impact Areas was pre-determined using the initial topographic survey and site inspection. It was delineated within the approaches of the bridge with due consideration to the possible impact of the bridge rehabilitation works on the immediate surrounding communities. The proposed bridge is located at Barangay San Andres, Cainta, Rizal. These areas will have a direct impact of the project. However, the overall beneficiaries of the project may not be limited to these areas but may also indirectly affect the whole area of Cainta and nearby cities. Figure 16-32 shows the location of the proposed alignment.

The component of the study included land, water bodies, residential, commercial & industrial establishments and people that will be directly affected by the proposed Project.

Source: Study Team

Figure 16-32 Map of Direct Impact Area

Environmental Aspect

(1) The Land

Topography and Slope

The proposed East West Bank Bridge 2 lies within 14°34’06.66” North Latitude and 121° 06’ 19.86” East Longitude. It has generally flat topography with a slope ranging from 0-3%. Figure 16-33 and Figure 16-34.



Page |16-44

Source: USGS

Figure 16-33 Topographic map of the project area

Source: PhilGIS

Figure 16-34 Slope map of the project area



Page |16-45

Land Cover and Land Use

The project area is covered with built-up areas (Figure 16-35). Its land use at the right bank covers residential areas and infrastructures such as the floodway channel. The left bank covers residential and high-rise condominiums.

Source: FMB

Figure 16-35 Land cover map of the project area Geology/Geomorphology

Based on Figure 16-36, the soil map from the Bureau of Soils and Water Management –Department of Agriculture (BSWM-DA), the major soil types identified within the study area is the Marikina Silt Loam. Figure 16-37, shows the geologic map from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau-Department of Environment and Natural Resources (MGB-DENR). The classified lithology of the area is recent deposit. Recent deposits consist mostly of alluvium but include some reworked Aeolian sand on the uplands. Vertebrate remains in these deposits are of modern types. The soil on the recent deposits consists of an upper brown layer about a foot thick over a 1- or 2-foot layer stained reddish with iron oxide. Some of the early recent alluvial deposits, which have been subjected to flooding, have a weakly developed but distinct zone of lime carbonate under the brown layer.



Page |16-46

Source: BSWM-DA

Figure 16-36 Soil cover map of the project area

Landslide and Flooding

Being a built-up area with a generally flat topography, the project area is susceptible to flooding especially after a heavy downpour. Floodwater may rise to a half meter on the average and may reach a meter high during extreme cases. Figure 16-38 shows the geo-hazard map of the proposed EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2, flood susceptibility in the proposed project area is very high.

Source: MGB

Figure 16-37 Geologic map of the project area



Page |16-47

Source: MGB

Figure 16-38 Geo-hazard map of the project area

Liquefaction

Liquefaction in the proposed bridge is very high on the west bank and no apparent liquefaction on the east bank. Liquefaction takes place when loosely packed, water-logged sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking. Liquefaction occurring beneath buildings and other structures can cause major damage during earthquakes. See Figure 16-39 for liquefaction potential in the area.

Source: GMMA READY PROJECT

Figure 16-39 Liquefaction map of the project area



Page |16-48

Active Fault line

Figure 16-40 shows that there is no active fault line within one-kilometer radius in the proposed EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2.

Source: PHILVOCS

Figure 16-40 Active Fault line map of the project area

Terrestrial Ecology

The main objective of the assessment is to identify existing vegetation cover/plants and faunal species possibly affected with the implementation of the proposed project. Transect Survey was used in the identification of existing vegetation cover of the proposed project alignments. Plant species encountered was identified and recorded. Initial accounting of tree species is also employed during the survey. Flora The assessed area is mainly traverses some residential in barangay San Andres in Cainta, Rizal. There are also some patches of open areas covered with grass species in the west side. Result of the assessment shows the presence of 32 plant species belonging to 22 families dominated by Poaceae. In terms of plant form/habit herbs and trees are the dominant in the area comprised of about 41.9% and 39.5%, respectively (Table 16-17).



Page |16-49

Table 16-17 Summary of Plant Species Relative to Plant form/habit

Form/Habit Barangay San

Andres Cainta, Rizal (East side)

Barangay San Andres, Cainta, Rizal (west side)

Total Percentage (%)

Tree 3 14 17 39.9

Herb 10 8 18 41.9

Palm 4 3 7 16.3

Vine 1 1 2 2.3

TOTAL 17 26 43 100

Naturally growing plant species such as grass species, Ipil-ipil, Kaatoanbangkal, Datiles and other species are commonly situated at the river banks and in small open areas in the west side. Planted species dominated by vegetable crops are commonly observed in small patches of open areas along the bank easement in both sides. Shade plants and ornamental plants such as Neem tree, Indian mango, Palm, Makopa, Mahogany and some fruit bearing trees are also observed within settlements, vacant spaces within back yards and along roads.

Portion of the open area that traverse by the proposed alignment is primarily vegetated with grass species (i.e. Tambu, Goose grass) in aggregation with few tree species. The site is also observed as waterlogged area.

In terms of conservation status with reference to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2014.2) only the Mahogany is included in the list of threatened plants classified as vulnerable species.

In relation to species endemicity 19 species are native species in the country and the remaining eleven (11) species are introduced/exotic species.

Table 16-18 Flora Species Within the Study Area

Common/Local name

Scientific Name Family Plant

habit/form Remarks

Barangay San Andres, Cainta, Rizal (East side)

Datiles *Muntigia calabura MUNTIGIACEAE Tree Naturally growing, 4 species

Tambo Thysonolaena latifolia POACEAE Grass Naturally growing, abundant

Gabi *Colocasiaesculentum (L.) ARACEAE Herb Planted

Hyacinth Eichhorniacrassipes PONTEDERIACEAE Herb Naturally growing within the channel, invasive plant

KamotengKahoy Manihot esculenta EUPHORBIACEAE Herb Herb

KaatoangBangkal Neolamarckia cadamba RUBIACEAE Tree Naturally growing, 7 species

Malungai *Moringa oleiferaLamk MORINGACEAE Herb Planted, 2 species

Para grass Braiachiaria mutica POACEAE Grass Naturally growing

Goose Grass Eleusineindica POACEAE Grass Naturally growing

Sugar Cane Saccharum officinarum POACEAE Grass Planted, 4 hills

Thailand Kangkong

Ipomoea aquatica CONVOLVULACEAE Herb Planted

Portion of the project alignment which is a waterlogged area primarily vegetated with grass species.



Page |16-50

Common/Local name

Scientific Name Family Plant

habit/form Remarks

Banana Musa sp. MUSACEAE Herb Planted, 5 hills

Ipil-ipil Leucaenaleucocephala (Lam.)

FABACEAE: MIMOSOIDEAE

Tree Naturally growing, 1 species

Alugbati Basella alba BASELLACEAE Herb Planted

Saluyot Corchorus sp. MALVACEAE Herb Planted

Kalabasa Cucurbita maxima CUCURBITACEAE Herb Planted, 1 species

Kolitis Amaranthusviridis AMARANTHACEAE Herb Planted

Barangay San Andres, Cainta, Rizal (West side)


Datilis *Muntigiacalabura L. MUNTIGIACEAE Tree Naturally growing, 3 species

Gabi *Colocasiaesculentum (L.) ARACEAE Herb Planted

KamotengKahoy Manihotesculenta EUPHORBIACEAE Herb Planted along back yards

KaatoangBangkal Neolamarckia cadamba RUBIACEAE Tree Naturally growing, 3 species

Tambo Thysonolaena latifolia POACEAE Grass Naturally growing along the river banks

Para grass Braiachiariamutica (Forssk.)

POACEAE Grass Naturally growing along the banks and waterlogged areas

Hyacinth Eichhorniacrassipes PONTEDERIACEAE Herb Naturally growing within the channel, invasive plant

Atis Annona squamosa L. ANNONACEAE Tree Planted, 3 species

KamotengBaging Ipomoea batatas CONVULVOLACEAE Herb Planted

African Tulip *Spathodeacampanulata BIGNONIACEAE Tree Planted, 1 species

Yellow Bamboo Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. POACEAE Grass Planted, 1species

Guyabano *Annona muricata L. ANNONACEAE Tree Planted, 2 species

Saluyot Corchorusolitorius MALVACEAE Herb Planted

San Fernando Alocasia sp. ARACEAE Herb Planted

Hawili Ficus septica MORACEAE Tree Naturally growing

Neem Tree *AzadirachtaindicaA. Juss. MELIACEAE Tree Planted, 2 species

Datiles *Muntigiacalabura L. MUNTIGIACEAE Tree Naturally growing, 1 species

Duhat *Syzygiumcumini ( MYRTACEAE Tree Planted, 1 species

Mahogany *Swietenia macrophylla MELIACEAE Tree Planted, 4 species Vulnerable (IUCN)

Indian Mango *Mangifera indica. ANACARDIACEAE Tree Planted, 4 species

Santol Sandoricumkoetjape MELIACEAE Tree Planted 1 species

Atis Annona squamosa. ANNONACEAE Tree Planted, 3 species

Makopa *Syzygium samarangense MYRTACEAE Tree 1 species

Panama Rubber *Castilloa elastica MORACEAE Vine Planted, 1 species


Ipil-Ipil Leucaenaleucocephala FABACEAE: MIMOSOIDEAE

Tree Naturally growing, 9 species

Saguisi Heterospatheelata ARECACEAE Palm Planted, 8 species Source: This Project Legend: * Exotic/ Introduced species in the Philippines



Page |16-51

Source: This project

Figure 16-41 Photo Showing the Floral Species in the Proposed Project Area

Fauna The assessed area only reveals 10 species of faunal species which is identified during the conduct of rapid assessment. Bird species are the dominant fauna on site with 8 species out of 10 species identified (Table 16-19). These species belong to different families and which are commonly observed in grass land areas and along river banks. Other species are reptile and amphibian which are found in wide range of habitat. The Marine toad is an introduced species in the country.

In terms of conservation status with reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), all the faunal species observed are under Least Concern category.



Page |16-52

Figure 16-42 Some faunal species observed on site

Table 16-19 Faunal species observed within the study area

Local/common name

Scientific name Family Conservation

Status Remarks

Aves

Tawny Grass Bird Megalurus timoriensis

SYLVIIDAE Least Concern Common species, spotted along the banks

Eurasian Tree sparrow

Passer montanus PASSERIDAE

Least Concern common

Yellow vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier PYCNONOTIDAE Least Concern common

Glossy swiftlet Collocalia eculenta APODIDAE Least Concern commonly spotted along the

banks

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus LARIDAE Least Concern Common species, spotted

along the banks

Intermediate Egret Egretta intermedia ARDEIDAE Least Concern common, Native

Buff-banded rail Gallirallus philippensis

RALLIDAE Least Concern

Native, commonly found along banks and wetlands

Little heron Butorides striatus ARDEIDAE Least Concern

Native, commonly found along river banks, wetlands, agricultural areas

Reptiles Bubuli Eutropismultifasciata SCINCINIDAE Not evaluated Common, native

Amphibian Marine Toad Bufo marinus BUFONIDAE Least Concern Introduced, common

Source: Study Team

Overall assessment reveals that floristic and fauna composition of this alignment is very minimal. Most of the flora species is dominated by grass, shrub species and aggregates of cultivated crops-mainly

Source: This Project



Page |16-53

vegetables. Trees observed are mixtures of naturally growing species planted trees as fruit crop, shade plant and as landscape species. Though, only the Mahogany (Sweitenia macrophylla King) is included in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2014.2) list of threatened species as Vulnerable in category. Assessment to fauna also revealed that observed species are minimal and very similar on both sides (east and west side). This can be associated to the current condition of the area which is generally not opportune as habitat for wildlife. Species observed are also found to be common and thriving in a wide range of habitats in the low lands. These species are thus that can thrive in highly urbanized areas including settlements. Other species are thus highly mobile in nature that going to different places following river channels and/ aquatic areas as their feeding ground. With reference to the IUCN red list, all of the fauna species observed are under least concern category.

(2) The Water

Water Quality

The nearest water quality stations obtained from the proposed Eastbank-Westbank Bridge 2 are the results of C6 Bridge and Bambang bridge stations. Secondary data for physico-chemical and sediments quality results from January to December 2016 were obtained from Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC).

Based on the results, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Oil & Grease, Fecal Coliform, phosphates and ammonia of both stations failed to meet the criteria guidelines of the DENR Administrative Order No. 2016-08, Water Quality Guidelines and General Effluent Standards of 2016. Results of hexavalent chromium for certain months in 2016 failed to conform to the criteria. Higher dissolved oxygen concentrations measured in water indicate a healthy aquatic environment needed by aquatic animals. BOD measures the pollution strength of water. High concentrations of BOD may lower the amount of oxygen that will be available to the fishes and other aquatic species. Thus, BOD is a good indicator of pollution level, the higher the BOD, the higher the amount of pollutants. The results of both water quality stations for BOD were 2 to 5 times higher than the standard of 7 mg/L. These maybe attributed to domestic wastewater that flows out directly to receiving body of water, untreated or partially treated wastewater from commercial and industrial facilities located within the vicinity and nearby areas. The excessive levels of nutrients such as ammonia, total nitrogen and phosphates are indicative of nutrient pollution. The main nutrients required for plant growth such as nitrogen and phosphates are present at high levels. The presence of water hyacinths along Manggahan floodway serves as indicators of pollution. Discharges from domestic wastewater or septic tanks, commercial and industrial sites can be a source of nutrient enrichment. Levels of fecal coliform bacteria showed high exceedance against the standard. Total coliform is a measure of potential water contamination from bacteria that can be found in soil, vegetation and feces of warm-blooded animals. Most coliform bacteria are generally harmless but they may also pose some health risk if there is presence of fecal coliform. Fecal coliforms are associated with human or animal wastes.

Sediments Quality

River sediments were taken from C6 Bridge and Bambang Bridge stations on March and October 2016. Trace levels of cadmium, chromium and lead were detected at C6 Bridge. Lead results were notably



Page |16-54

high at Bambang bridge station especially on October 2016. Arsenic and Cadmium were present on March 2016. Table 16-20 presents the sediment quality along these stations.

Table 16-20 Results of 2016 Sediment Quality

Parameter Date

Arsenic (mg/Kg) March Oct

C6 Bridge 0.81 < 0.4

Bambang Bridge 1.18 < 0.4

Cadmium (mg/Kg) March Oct

C6 Bridge 1.93 1.07

Bambang Bridge 1.26 0.96

Chromium (mg/Kg) March Oct

C6 Bridge 13.49 20.30

Bambang Bridge 16.67 < 3

Lead (mg/Kg) March Oct

C6 Bridge 40.75 11.50

Bambang Bridge 35.38 268.00

Mercury (mg/Kg) March Oct

C6 Bridge < 0.05 < 0.05

Bambang Bridge < 0.05 < 0.05 Source: Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) . (3) The Air

Climate

The climate in the area is mild. Rainfall occurs mostly from June to October due to the southwest monsoon. The dry season starts in November and ends in May registering a warm mean temperature of 29.2 ºC. The coldest month is January. The normal relative humidity is 77 percent, which is highest from July to September. The northeast wind normally occurs during the months of January, February, October, November, and December while the southwest and southeast wind occur at shorter periods from June to September and March to May, respectively. Based on the modified coronas classification of climate of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration (PAGASA), the project area falls under a Type-1 climate which is characterized by two distinct seasons; wet from May to November and dry from December to April. Most Tropical cyclones that pass through the province come from the Pacific Ocean at a frequency of five cyclones in three (3) years. Frequency of tropical cyclones/typhoons per PAGASA is rated at 16%. The abnormal amount of rainfall is induced by typhoons. The temperature of the area ranges from 26ºC to 31ºC with an annual average temperature of 27ºC. November is the coolest month while May is the hottest. Humidity ranges from 70% to 85%.



Page |16-55

Source: PAGASA

Figure 16-43 Climate map of the project area

Ambient Air Quality

Table 16-21 presents the Ambient Air Quality Stations near the proposed bridge construction. Air sampling was conducted on October 2015 for 24-hours. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide were measured and analyzed. The results are then compared with the DENR Standards under National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values (NAAQGV) of Republic Act 8749 or known as the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999.

Table 16-21 Ambient Air Quality Sampling Locations, Dates of Sampling and Parameters Tested

Station Locations Coordinates

Sampling date Parameters Measured Latitude Longitude

A1

Manggahan Village (premises of sub-division)

14º36’20.8" N 121º05’28.1" E Oct. 22-23, 2015

(24 hours) TSP (Dust), SO2, and NO2

A2 Circulo Verde (premises of condominiums)

14º36’12.3" N 121º05’19.9" E Oct. 23-24, 2015

(24 hours)

Source: Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project – Phase V Report

Based on Table 16-22, the TSP, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide were within the DENR

standards for 24-hours monitoring. TSP from Circulo Verde station was higher compared from Manggahan Village which may be attributed to its proximity to existing roads. Sulfur dioxides in both stations were not detected and trace levels of nitrogen dioxide were obtained. Meteorological factors such as the wind velocity and direction may also have contributed to the movement of dust from the road.



Page |16-56

Table 16-22 Results of Ambient Air Quality

Parameter Unit Standard Limit

(DAO No. 2000-81) A1 A2

TSP (Dust) µg/Ncm 230 64 187

SO2 µg/Ncm 180 <4 <4

NO2 µg/Ncm 150 0.4 2.5 Source: Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project – Phase V Report

Noise Quality

Table 16-23 presents the results of noise quality taken at Manggahan Village and Circulo Verde. The results are compared with the DENR Ambient Noise Quality Standards Sec. 78 Chapter IV, Article 1 of National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC) Rules and Regulations, 1978 standard limits for Class A category. For Residential areas, both stations did not conform with the noise levels throughout the 24 hours monitoring. For commercial and light industrial establishments, noise levels were within the criteria.

Table 16-23 Results of Noise Quality

Location/ Zone

Classification Unit

Morning (05:00 – 09:00)

Day Time (09:00 – 18:00)

Evening (18:00 – 22:00)

Night Time (22:00 – 05:00)

AN-1 (Manggahan

Village) dBA 57.6 62.9 60.8 58.1

AN-2 (Circulo

Verde) dBA 59.1 61.1 60.3 53.7

Class A – Residential*

dBA 50 55 50 45

Class C – Light

Industrial** dBA 65 70 65 60

Note *: Applicable standard (NPCC, 1980) based on actual land use of the respective locations. **: Applicable standard (NPCC, 1980) based on land use plan of the respective locations designated by LGUs. Source: Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project – Phase V Report

Social Aspect

The project area for the proposed EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2 is located at San Andres, Cainta Rizal. General socio-economic profiles of the project area are the following:

Geographical Location and Land Area

The municipality of Cainta is one of the fourteen municipalities of the province of Rizal which is found east of Metro Manila. Cainta is Located in the Western confines of Rizal province with the grids 14°31’28” to 14°38’38.5” north latitude and 121°05’36” to 121°09’08” east longitude. The municipality belongs to the first district of Cainta along with Angono, Antipolo, Binangonan and Taytay. Among all the municipalities of Rizal,Cainta has at present the smallest land area among the fourteen with only 1,019 hectares based on the National Statistics Office.

Cainta is currently entangled in a boundary dispute battle in court involving the municipalities of Antipolo,Taytay and Pasig City. Cainta is trying to reclaim a total land area of 4,299 hectares.

However, the total land area used in this volume is the present land area being administratively

governed the by the local government of Cainta and the disputed areas since the base map provided

by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator was the Land Use Map of 1987 with a land

area of 4,299.



Page |16-57

Table 16-24 Existing Barangay and their Corresponding Land Areas

BARANGAY LAND AREA (in hectares)

Barangay San Andres 322.96

Barangay San Isidro** 2,158.90

Barangay San Juan** 675.5

Barangay San Roque 66.96

Barangay Sta Rosa 2.77

Barangay Sto.Niño 41.14

Barangay Sto Domingo** 1.021.29

Total 4289.52 Source Municipal Assessor”s Office **areas where disputed territories are located

Demographic Features Cainta remained largely uninhabited until during the 1960’s when it’s population more than tripled over a ten-year period. The same trend continued until during the 1970’s with the population growth rate peaking at an average of as much as 12 percent per year. The rate of population growth gradually tapered off during the succeeding years, with the rate of increase lowered at an average of three percent per year during the last five years. By 1995, Cainta’s population reached 148,780, having climbed from as low as 6,803 in 1960. Cainta displayed a much more aggressive population growth than that of the whole province of Rizal which exhibited an average increase of 6.1 percent per year during the 70’s and 5.8 percent per year during the 80’s. The national average was 2.9 percent from the 1970’s to 1980 and 2.3 from 1980 to 1990. In terms of population, by the year 2000, Rizal Shared 14.48 percent to the 11.8 million populations of the region and ranked fourth in terms of population size among the 11 provinces and one highly urbanized city. Among the 13 municipalities, Antipolo City was the biggest in terms of population size of 27.58 percent of the total provincial population, Cainta with 14.20 percent followed with Taytay 11.61 percent, respectively. By the year 2010, Cainta increase its average to 2.55, the high population growth of Cainta is attributed to the fact the municipality has served as an important overspill area of the population of Metro Manila. With its proximity to the urban employment hubs of Metro Manila, Cainta has become a strategic residential place for average income families working in the metropolis. Road Network The main road of Cainta is Ortigas Avenue Extension, a heavily congested corridor that passes through the business district of Ortigas Center and leads to Mandaluyong City and San Juan in the west and the town of Taytay and Antipolo City in the east. Another major road is Imelda Avenue which runs across Ortigas Avenue Extension and connects the town to Marikina City to the north and Taytay to the south. The point of intersection between these two main arterials is known as simply as Junction. A. Bonifacio Avenue, located in the town proper, is the town’s most frequently traversed street. At the current time, Cainta is under the management of the MMDA, which pertains to the traffic situations, particularly in the junction area.



Page |16-58

Public works Cainta continues to strive for growth and advancement. A. Bonifacio Avenue, being Cainta’s busiest corridor has undergone road widening. The span of expansion is from Junction area up to the Cainta Catholic Church. This would result to a low – lane accommodation for traffic flow and provide necessary loading and unloading station throughout the municipal road. Vast infrastructure improvements are evident along the municipality. With the help of the national government and local and provincial authorities, Cainta’s major thoroughfares are being upgraded to serve the growing number of motorist passing across the town; upgrade is evident along Ortigas Avenue Extension, Imelda Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue. Economic Characteristics Cainta is situated at the doorstep of the CALABARZON region which stands as perfect heaven for investments. Its economic turn – about from agricultural town to a first-class municipality is propelled by the fast pace completion of various infrastructure projects. It is a home of multinational companies such as Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, BF Metals, Monde M.Y. San Corporation and others. Today Cainta has a robust economy as evidenced by several commercial and industrial establishments that have sprouted. Cainta is the richest municipal in the province and the second ranking in the country after Cabuyao, Laguna with respect to Income Revenue growth (base on 2007 COA Report.) The town continues to attract businesses because of its proximity to Manila and the town’s burgeoning population which mostly consists of hard-working and hospitable people. The early part of the 21st century witnessed the founding of numerous manufacturing firms, including Monde M.Y San Corporation, one of the nation’s leading biscuit manufacturers and BF Construction Philippines Impacts

The implementation of EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2 will cause significant impacts on land acquisition and resettlement along the alignment of the bridge which is located in San Andres, Cainta, Rizal. These include informal settlers along the eastbank and westbank of Manggahan Floodway. Structures and land along the bridge alignment in Mercedes village will be acquired to give way for the construction of the bridge. Thirteen (13) structures are identified including the extension Office of Cainta LGU will be affected. About 46 ISF structures are initially accounted to be affected along the alignment in Manggahan Floodway.

Significant direct impacts on people include displacement and loss of land and properties. The people residing and working nearby will most likely be affected due to increase to increase in noise, odor, dust pollution, traffic congestion brought about by the construction of the project and the mobilization of construction materials and equipment. Health and peace and order condition of nearby communities will somehow be affected during construction phase due to possible entry of migrant workers.

A detailed Resettlement Action Plan will be undertaken during the detailed phase of the project to ensure that land and structure that will be affected will be compensated and replaced. Coordination with the village owner will also be undertaken (Mercedes Village).



Page |16-59

Resettlement Policy Framework

(1) Background

The proposed 4 lane 2-way bridge project is a 254.5-meter-long which will connect the east and western portion of Cainta, Rizal across the Manggahan floodway. The proposed bridge geographically lies in between 121o 6’ 19.8576” longitude and 14o 35’ 2.1012”. It is bounded by Pasig in the Northwestern side, Municipality of Cainta and Taytay in the southeastern section. The proposed bridge from East Bank road side will be connected across the Manggahan floodway into the existing Westbank road and will cut-cross Mercedes Village. Construction of this bridge will help ease heavy traffic in the ease bank road which is periodically experience.

(2) Legal Framework

Table 16-25 summarizes the legal framework specific to the project condition.

Table 16-25 Legal Policy Framework for East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2

Bridge/Area Key

Issues/Condition Legal Policy Project Policy to bridge the Gaps

East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 (Pasig Floodway East and West Bank area, Brgy. San Andres, Cainta.)

Treatment of Informal Settlers

R.A. 7279 states that eligible homeless and poor informal settlers in urban areas are entitled to resettlement if they are affected by development projects. RA 10752 states that replacement cost of structures and improvements is also applicable to those owners who do not have legally recognized rights to the land

The project will replace lost structures and other assets of informal settlers. Replacement options include rehousing, including rental support while waiting for the housing units to become available, transportation costs, and, as needed, rehabilitation costs to restore lost livelihood. For structures that encroach on public lands and used for purely commercial purposes, compensation will be equivalent to the loss of business income only computed per DPWH LARRIP Sec. 4.d.ii. Income Loss. (For loss of business/ income, the PAF will be entitled to an income rehabilitation assistance not to exceed P 15,000 for severely affected structures, or to be based on the latest copy of the PAF’s Tax record for the period corresponding to the stoppage of business activities.) NOTE: A DETAILED RAP WAS PREPARED COVERING ALL THE INFORMAL SETTLER WITHIN THE PASIG FLOODWAY UNDER PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PUMPING Station located at west bank area will be relocated

East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 (Pasig Floodway East and West Bank area, Brgy. San Andres, Cainta.)

Treatment of Informal Settlers

R.A. 7279 states that eligible homeless and poor informal settlers in urban areas are entitled to resettlement if they are affected by development projects.

The project will replace lost structures and other assets of informal settlers. Replacement options include rehousing, including rental support while waiting for the housing units to become available, transportation costs, and, as needed, rehabilitation costs to restore lost



Page |16-60

Bridge/Area Key


RA 10752 states that replacement cost of structures and improvements is also applicable to those owners who do not have legally recognized rights to the land

livelihood. For structures that encroach on public lands and used for purely commercial purposes, compensation will be equivalent to the loss of business income only computed per DPWH LARRIP Sec. 4.d.ii. Income Loss. (For loss of business/ income, the PAF will be entitled to an income rehabilitation assistance not to exceed P 15,000 for severely affected structures, or to be based on the latest copy of the PAF’s Tax record for the period corresponding to the stoppage of business activities.) NOTE: A DETAILED RAP WAS PREPARED COVERING ALL THE INFORMAL SETTLER WITHIN THE PASIG FLOODWAY UNDER PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PUMPING Station located at west bank area will be relocated

East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 (PAPs from Mercedes Village)

For Private land and structure/house owners

Philippine Constitution states that private lands expropriated or taken for the public interest shall be paid just compensation. The Supreme Court defines just compensation as current market value less the cost of any future benefits the landowner may derive from residual land. In negotiated settlements, government offers compensation based on the schedule of market values of the LGU or BIR zonal valuation before proceeding with expropriation. Under RA 10752, Section 5, Compensation should be through negotiated sale the required ROW Project, by offering to the property owner as compensation price, the sum of the: a. current market value of

the land b. replacement cost of

structures and

The project should use replacement cost for the valuation of land, which for urban land is defined as the pre-displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar or improved public infrastructure facilities and services and located in the vicinity of the affected land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes.

The project policy on compensation is based on the full replacement cost for land, structures and other improvements in line with JICA Guidelines, WB OP 4.12 and RA 10752

Cainta Municipal Extension Office will be replaced/relocated based on the agreement of Cainta LGU



Page |16-61

Bridge/Area Key


improvements therein; and

c. current market value of crops and trees therein

East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 (trees along Mercedes Village area)

Affected Trees and crops

RA 10752 replacement cost includes trees and crops that may be damaged Replacements of trees are based on DENR MC 2012-02 and 2012-01 and JMC 2014-01- Guidelines for the implementation of the DPWH-DENR-DSWD partnership on the tree replacement.

Trees and crops will be replaced

East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 (Affected stores/business along East-West Bank Road)

People who must be resettled involuntarily and people whose means of livelihood will be hindered or lost

Major government policies (e.g. RA 7279, RA 10752) are silent regarding loss of income directly resulting from land acquisition. However, some agency specific policies like the DPWH Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous Peoples (LARRIP) Policy 2007 and DO 327 s. 2003 cover income loss. LARRIP on Income Loss. “For loss of business/ income, the PAF will be entitled to an income rehabilitation assistance not to exceed Peso 15,000 for severely affected structures, or to be based on the latest copy of the PAF’s Tax record for the period corresponding to the stoppage of business activities” DO 327 s. 2003 provides transitional allowance for severely affected shop owners for their computed income loss during demolition and reconstruction of their shops, but not to exceed one-month period.

Based on the result of the initial assessment, the Income Restoration and Livelihood Development Program will be considered in the RAP. Note: Area included in the RAP of PMRCIP



Page |16-62

(3) Project Affected People, Structures, Crops and Other Improvements

With the implementation of the proposed project some aggregates of residential area, Informal settler’s area and industrial lands will be generated by the project by the construction of new road alignment. The proposed bridge alignment including the construction of ramp and new roads that will link to the existing roads has a total of 14,490 square meters or 1.45 hectares. Of the total parcel of land possibly generated by the project, about 16.8% is a residential area, 16.0% is informal settler’s area, 56.8% is industrial area (currently grass land area).

At the East bank area, informal settlers are residing with house structures made of concrete to semi concrete houses. Other impact of the project at this area is disturbance of some small businesses such as sari-sari stores and other merchandizes along the west bank and east bank roads which will be possibly generated by the ROW. More so, a half court concrete paved basketball court in the east bank side will also be generated.

Figure 16-44 Commercial establishments at the East bank area

Figure 16-45 House Structures and Improvements at Eastbank area

There are about 13 house structures, in terms of land tenure, are initially identified along the alignment (Mercedes Village). Among also the affected structures within the alignment is the municipal annex building of Cainta, Rizal. Coordination with the village owner/management will be undertaken during the detailed design.

Informal settlers are also observed at the Westbank along the Manggahan Floodway. These are made of concrete, semi-concrete to light materials. Within the bridge alignment, around 46 ISF structures were initially identified residing along east bank and Westbank of Manggahan Floodway.



Page |16-63

Figure 16-46 Structures along the Manggahan Floodway at the Westbank

Figure 16-47 Grassland Area at the Westbank Portion

Table 16-26 below shows the trees and Crops along the East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 alignment.

Table 16-26 Trees and Crops Along the Project Alignment

Common name Scientific name

African Tulip *Spathodea campanulataP. Beauv.

Datiles *Muntigia calabura L.

Duhat *Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels

Hawili Ficus septicaBurm. f.

Ipil-Ipil Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.)

KaatoangBangkal Neolamarckiacadamba (Roxb.)

Mahogany *Swietenia macrophylla King

Makopa *Syzygium samarangense (Blume) Merr. & Perry

Neem Tree *Azadirachta indica A. Juss.

Atis Annona squamosa L.

Yellow Bamboo Bambusa vulgaris Schrad.

Guyabano *Annona muricata L.

Indian Mango *Mangifera indica L.

Santol Sandoricum koetjape (Burm. f.)

Panama Rubber *Castilloa elastic Cerv.



Page |16-64

Common name Scientific name

Saguisi Heterospathe elataScheff.

Malungai *Moringa oleiferaLamk

Banana Musa sp.

(4) Indicative Cost and Budget

For the purpose of this RPF, initial cost and budget were estimated for land, structures, crops and other improvements that may be affected by the project. Final costing will be computed during the preparation and implementation of detailed resettlement plan.

a) Estimated Cost

a.1) Cost of Affected Land

The market values of land were obtained from Cainta City Assessor’s Office. The effective zonal values of the BIR and current market price were also used. Lands within the easement of the river are excluded in the estimation of cost since it is considered as government properties. Table below shows the estimated values of lands.

Table 16-27 Market Value of the Affected Land (Php)

City/Location Residential

Cainta (San Andres, West) 5,500

The summary of affected lands and acquisition costs is shown in Table 16-28.

Table 16-28 Summary of Affected Lands and Cost

City

Residential

Total Affected area (sq.m)

Total Cost (Php)

Cainta (San Andres, West) 13,462.54 74,043,970

a.2) Cost of Structures

The replacement costs of the structures were obtained from third party Civil Engineer and also from Cainta City Assessor’s Office. It is categorized into the type of materials used for the construction of the structure. The cost considers the current market price of the construction materials in Metro Manila. RA 10752 reiterates that replacement cost for structures and improvement should consider the current market price of materials, regardless old or new is the structure.

Table 16-29 Estimated Unit Cost by Materials

Type of Materials Metro Manila Unit Construction Cost

(Php/sq.m)l

Remarks

Light Materials 3,000 Wood, bamboo, plywood, etc.

Semi Concrete 5,000 -

Concrete 10,000 -

*RA 19752- replacement cost based on current market value of the materials



Page |16-65

Summary of cost of affected structures per type of materials are the following:

Semi-concrete:

Table 16-30 Estimated Cost for Structures made of Semi-Concrete

BLDG. No. Area (sq.m.) Cost (PhP)

8 107.42 537,100

9 149.28 746,400

10 73.32 366,600

11 128.38 641,900

12 76.24 381,200

13 65.9 329,500

Total 600.54 3,002,700

Concrete:

Table 16-31 Estimated Cost for Structures made of Concrete

BLDG. No. Area (sq.m.) Cost (PhP)

1 322.4 3,224,000

2 96.99 969,900

3 162.19 1,621,900

4 100.18 1,001,800

5 121.31 1,213,100

6 38.45 384,500

7 50.92 509,200

Total 892.44 8,924,400

a.3) Cost of Trees and Plants

Tree replacement based on DENR MC no. 2012-02 for timber/forest trees which requires planting of 100 indigenous tree species in replacement of every trees cut. The market prices of trees and plants were obtained based on prevailing National Greening Program (NGP) costing of DENR’s and registered forester who is expert on plantation establishment.

Estimated cost for each seedling Cost of seedling /planting =Php 25.00 Cost of planting hole stick =Php 2.00 Labor cost for preparation (Survey, strip/ring brushing =Php 10.00

and hole digging) Labor cost for hauling and planting =Php 10.00 Maintenance cost for 6 months (ring weeding, application =Php 10.00 Fertilizer/soil enhancer) __________

Php 57.00/ Seedling For 1 tree= 100 seedlings which total cost is 5,700

Note: Trees included for replacement are thus with dbh 10 cm and above only



Page |16-66

Table 16-32 Summary of Affected Timber

City

Timber

Number

Total Seedling Replacement

1:100

Total Cost (Php)

Cainta 33 3,300 188,100

The cost per crops and fruits depend on the species. Annex A presents the prices per species of fruit trees and crops. Table 16-33 shows the summary of affected fruit trees and plants in the construction of EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2.

Table 16-33 Summary of Fruit trees and other crops

City

Total no. fruit trees and other crops

Number Total Cost (Php)

Cainta 31 36,900 * See Appendix 16-4 for presentation of prices

a.4) Other Cost

• Income loss The total income loss PhP45,000 is estimated by the following equation:

✓ Number of Vendors/Sari-Sari Store (San Andres, Westbank Road) x One-month

average monthly income =3 x Php 15,000= Php 45,000 Income loss computation is limited only to the observed business stall/sari-sari store within the alignment. There are businesses in the Eastbank area however not included in the estimation of RAP cost for this project (c/o PMRCIP)

• Livelihood Rehabilitation Assistance (Vulnerable Families) To be given in the form of skills training or other development activities, and estimated by the following equation: Vulnerable households: Number of household x PhP 15,000 = 6x Php 15,000= Php90,000

• Relocation Site Development Relocation site development will be coordinated to the NHA. At the East Bank area, relocation has been already coordinated by the LGU since they already given a notice to vacate. Manggahan Floodway has been subject to RAP and resettlement cost has been considered by the Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project.

a.5) Total Cost

The initial total cost estimated for RAP implementation of EastBank-WestBank Bridge 2 is Php 94,964,177.00.



Page |16-67

Table 16-34 Estimated RAP Implementation Cost

Activity Cost Item Amount (PhP) Remarks

A. Land Acquisition and Structures

Land 74,043,970 Estimated based on the current market values and Zonal Price of Cainta Assessor

Structures 11,927,100 Estimated based on replacement cost as defined in R.A. 10752, and third-party Engineer

Subtotal (A) 85,971,070

B. Compensation Trees and plants 225,000 Estimated based on DENR MC no. 2012-02 and 2012-01 for timber trees

Income Loss 45,000 Based on average monthly income for observed stores

Livelihood Restoration Assistance

90,000 Maximum amount PhP15,000 per households including ISFs

Subtotal (B) 360,000

Total (A+B) 86,331,070

C. Contingency 10% 8,633,107.0 10 % of total A + B

Total (A+B+C) 94,964,177

Page |1

6-6

8

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

Environmental Impact and Management Plan

Table 16-35 Environmental Impacts and Management Plan

Possible Environmental/ Social Impacts

Baseline Environment Preventive/Mitigating Measures Monitoring Parameters/

Implementation Cost of Mitigation/

Monitoring

LAND

Consistency with land use

Current land use w/in 1km radius (as per zoning ordinance): Residential Commercial/ Institutional Industrial Agricultural/ Recreational

☐ Protected Areas

☐ Others, specify ______________ Actual land uses w/in 1km radius: Residential Commercial/ Institutional Industrial Agricultural/ Recreational

☐ Protected Areas

☐ Others, specify

See attached proof of compatibility with land use

Disturbance to wildlife due to vegetation clearing

Existing vegetation in the area:

☐ Forestland

☐ Marshland Grassland

☐ Mangrove

☐Wetland Others, specify ornamental plants within the vicinity of the project site

Compliance with conditions of DENR/LGU SLUP, Tree Cutting Permit, ROW, PCA Permit

Limit land clearing as much as possible Provide temporary fencing to vegetation that will

be retained Promote restoration of damaged or destroyed

vegetation where possible (e.g., road side tree planting);

Annual inspection of area replanted/ re-vegetated

Cost integrated in the construction/ operation cost

☐ Change in surface landform/ topography/ terrain/slope

Soil Erosion

Slope: flat (0-3%)

☐ gently sloping to rolling (3-18%)

☐ steep (>18%)

Provide erosion control and slope protection measures Designate a Spoils Storage Area, with topsoil set aside for later use and allow maximum re-use of spoils Construct during dry season

Regular inspection of slope protection measures in erosion-prone areas Regular inspection for new eroded areas near the site

☐ Others, specify

☐ Slope/ Erosion Control Cost: Part of construction cost Others, specify

Include in the construction cost

Page |1

6-6

9

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

Is the project site located in an area identified by MGB/PAG-ASA/ PHIVOLCS as hazard prone?

Yes

☐ No

Stabilize embankment with grasses or other soil cover

☐ Others, specify ____________

☐ Comply with the DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 and DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-28, Implementing Guidelines on Engineering Geological and Geo-hazard Assessment (EGGA).

_________________

Soil/Land contamination due to improper solid waste disposal

Existing soil type in the area:

☐ sandy

☐ clay

☐ sandy-loam Others, specify:

Marikina Silt Loam

Implement Ecological Solid Waste Management Plan (ESWMP)

☐ Setup temporary fence around the construction area Implement re-use and recycling of waste materials Implement proper segregation, collection and disposal of domestic wastes in designated areas Implement proper collection, labeling and storage of hazardous waste Provide receptacles / bins for solid wastes

☐ Coordinate with the municipal / city waste collectors Engage third party company for waste collection

☐ Others, specify ________________

Daily inspection of waste/recycling bins for segregation Daily inspection for presence of mixed garbage in the facility Weekly inspection of waste accumulated

☐ Others, specify _________________


☐ Encroachment into protected areas or ecologically-sensitive areas

Is the project area near protected areas or ecologically-sensitive areas?

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Obtain appropriate permits/clearances from concerned agencies

☐ Provide adequate buffer

☐ Others, specify ________________

☐ Regular coordination with concerned agencies

☐ Cost integrated in the construction/ operation cost

☐ Impairment of visual aesthetics

Devaluation of land values

Presence of visually significant landforms/landscape/structures?

Yes

☐ No

Implement landscaping and other beautification measures Provide adequate buffer Compensate adjacent property owners

☐ Others, specify ________________

☐ Regular inspection of landscaping and other beautification activities Regular monitoring of buffer zones Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints from adjacent property owners


Page |1

6-7

0

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

WATER

Increased siltation due to project activities

Water quality degradation

☐ Others, specify _______________

Specify nearest water body: Manggahan Floodway Distance to nearest water body:

0 to less than 0.5 km

☐ 0.5 to 1 km

☐ More than 1 km If nearest water body is fresh water, specify classification:

☐ AA

☐ A

☐ B C

☐ D If nearest water body is coastal or marine water, specify classification:

☐ SA

☐ SB

☐ SC

☐ SD Current Water Use:

Fishery Tourist Zone / Park Recreational Industrial

☐ Agricultural

Setup proper and adequate sanitary facilities Strictly require the contractor and its workers to observe proper waste disposal and proper sanitation Strictly observe proper waste handling and disposal

☐ Set up silt trap (Gabions, Fascines)/settling ponds to minimize downstream siltation Others, specify

Establishment of construction buffer zones and containment barriers

Regular (ocular) inspection of:

☐ Drainage / canal systems

☐ Sanitation facilities Regular (ocular) inspection of water body for:

☐ Turbidity and/or silted condition

☐ Floating wastes or debris


Distance of project area to the nearest well used:

Page |1

6-7

1

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

0 to less than 0.5 km

☐ 0.5 to 1 km

☐ More than 1 km Use of the nearest well:

Drinking/Domestic

☐ Industrial

☐ Agricultural

☐ Competition in water use

☐ Depletion of water resources

Size of population using water source:

☐ ≤ 1,000 persons

☐>1,000 and ≤ 5,000 persons

☐>5,000 persons Available/nearest water source.

Deepwell Water district/LGU

☐Surface water

☐ Others, specify ___Maynilad___________

☐ Implement rainwater harvesting and similar measures as an alternative source of water Observe water conservation measures Improve water management to prevent water logging, erosion and leaching

☐ Others, specify _________________

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Regular coordination with concerned agencies Regular monitoring for occurrences of water shortages

☐ Others, specify ________________


Increased occurrence of flooding

Is the project site located in an area identified by MGB/PAG-ASA as flood prone?

Yes

☐ No

Use appropriate design for project facilities Implement appropriate drainage system Regularly remove debris and other materials that may obstruct water flow

☐ Others, specify ___________________

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Regular coordination with concerned agencies Regular monitoring for increased frequency of flooding

☐ Others, specify ____________________


AIR / NOISE

Air quality degradation Distance to nearest community: 0 to less than 0.5 km

☐ 0.5 to 1 km

☐ More than 1 km

Properly operate and maintain all emission sources (e.g. vehicles, generator, etc) Install, when applicable, the appropriate air pollution control device/s Strictly enforce good housekeeping practices Control vehicle speed to lessen suspension of road dust Conduct water spraying to suppress dust sources and minimize discomfort to nearby residents

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Regular (ocular) inspection of:

☐ Absence of white or black smoke from vehicles, generator, etc.

Presence of truck cover during deliveries


Page |1

6-7

2

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

Use covered vehicles to deliver materials that may generate dust

☐ Others, specify ______________

Air quality monitoring during construction

Nuisance due to noise generation

Distance to nearest community: 0 to less than 0.5 km

☐ 0.5 to 1 km

☐ More than 1 km

Properly operate and maintain all noise sources (e.g., vehicles, generator, etc.) Install, when applicable, the appropriate noise control device/s (e.g., mufflers, silencer, sound barriers, etc.) Implement appropriate operating hours Provide adequate buffer and/or planting of trees

☐ Others, specify _____________________

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Air quality monitoring during construction

☐ Regular monitoring of buffer zones


Nuisance due to vibration Distance to nearest community: 0 to less than 0.5 km

☐ 0.5 to 1 km

☐ More than 1 km

Properly operate and maintain all vibration sources (e.g., drive piling, etc.) Install, when applicable, the appropriate vibration control device/s

Vibration monitoring during construction


PEOPLE

Displacement of residents in the project site and within its vicinity

☐ Displacement of Indigenous Peoples

Enhanced employment and/or livelihood opportunities

☐ Reduced employment and/or livelihood opportunities

☐ Increased revenues for LGU

☐ Disruption/Competition in delivery of public services (e.g., education, peace and order, etc.)

Size of population of host barangay:

☐ ≤ 1,000 persons

☐ 1,000 and ≤ 5,000persons >5,000persons

Classification of host barangay:

Urban

☐ Rural Available services within/near the host barangay:

Schools (e.g., elementary, high school, college)

Health facilities (e.g., clinics, hospitals, etc.)

Peace and order (e.g., police outpost, Brgy. Tanod, etc.)

Recreation and sports facilities

Disturbance compensation packages Prioritize local residents for employment Promptly pay local taxes and other financial obligations Regularly coordinate with LGU

☐ Conduct prior consultation and coordination to minimize disruption of daily domestic activities and to ensure respect for IP rights and cultural practices

☐ Ensure participation of IPs in consultations and dialogues Provide appropriate traffic/warning signs, lighting, etc.

☐ Others, specify _________________

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Regular coordination with LGU

☐ Others, specify _________________


Page |1

6-7

3

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GES O

N P

ASIG-M

AR

IKIN

A R

IVER

A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

☐ Enhanced delivery of public services (e.g., education, peace and order, etc.)

Increase in traffic volume and worsening of traffic flow

☐ Others, specify ___________________

☐ Impacts on community health and safety

☐ Others, specify _______________

Regularly coordinate with LGU Provide appropriate warning signs, lighting and barricades, whenever practicable Observe proper housekeeping Provide on-site medical services for any emergency. Participate in public awareness programs on health and safety Implement appropriate safety programs for both community and workers

☐ Others, specify _____________________

Regular monitoring for presence/absence of complaints Regular coordination with LGU Regular submission of reports to concerned agency

☐ Others, specify ________________




Page |16-74

Consultation with Local Government Units (LGUs) and Other Stakeholders

The focus group discussion with the stakeholders in Cainta, Rizal was conducted last May 22, 2017, 1:30 PM at Mayor’s Office Conference Room, Cainta Municipal Hall. It was attended by twenty-four (24) participants, which includes the Cainta Mayor, Vice Mayor and concerned officials, DPWH Personnel, and Consultants.

The half-day event highlighted the presentation on project background and preliminary designs of the proposed Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 located at San Andres, Cainta, Rizal. The FGD also aims to gather comments and suggestions of the stakeholders (most especially the officials of Cainta) towards the project.

There was a concern on the ROW acquisition along the alignment in Mercedes Village. Coordination with the village and private property owners during the detailed engineering phase was recommended. Relocation of informal settlers along the Manggahan Floodway was also mentioned. At the end of the meeting, Cainta Mayor expressed his support to the project.

The FGD concluded the positive response and support of Cainta LGU to the project. The LGU commits full cooperation and assistance for the documents needed for the study (Comprehensive Land Use, Certificate of No Objection, among others). There are no major concern/issues raised during the meeting. Close coordination and communication with the LGU and the proponent should be undertaken in all phases of project development. Intensive Information-Education-Communication campaign about the project is very essential condition to generate full support to the project as well as avoid misunderstanding and misinformation to the concerned stakeholders.



Page |16-75

16.7 Project Evaluation

Economic Evaluation

The results of economic evaluation for the Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2 are shown in The EIRR shows 28.6%, which exceeds the social discount rate of 10%. This means that the project implementation is assessed as having economic validity from the viewpoint of the national economy.

Table 16-36. This bridge project is evaluated economically feasible. The cost benefit stream of subject bridge is shown in Table 16-38. The EIRR shows 28.6%, which exceeds the social discount rate of 10%. This means that the project implementation is assessed as having economic validity from the viewpoint of the national economy.

Table 16-36 Result of Economic Evaluation on Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2

Bridge Name EIRR B/C NPV

(Million Peso)

Eastbank – Westbank Bridge 2 28.6% 3.24 5,392.0

The result of sensitivity analysis is shown in Table 16-37.

Table 16-37 Result of Sensitivity Analysis for Eastbank - Westbank Bridge 2

EIRR B/C

NPV

(Million Peso @i=10%)

Base Case 28.6% 3.24 5,392.0

Cost 10% Plus 26.5% 2.95 5,151.8

Cost 20% Plus 24.7% 2.70 4,911.6

Benefit 10% Less 26.3% 2.92 4,612.6

Benefit 20% Less 23.9% 2.60 3,833.2

Cost 10% Plus, Benefit 10% Less 24.4% 2.65 4,372.4




Cost

0% +10% +20%

Ben

efit

-0% 28.6% 26.5% 24.7%

-10% 26.3% 24.4% 22.7%

-20% 23.9% 22.2% 20.6%

Page |1

6-7

6

CO

ND

UC

T OF F

EASIB

ILITY S

TUD

Y FO

R P

RO

PO

SED 1

2 B

RID

GE

S ON

PA

SIG-MA

RIK

INA

RIV

ER A

ND

MA

NG

GA

HA

N F

LOO

DW

AY

FINA

L R

EPO

RT

Table 16-38 Cost-Benefit Stream

No.12 BRIDGEUndiscounted Benefi t Cost Stream Mil l ion Peso Discounted Benefi t Cost Stream Mil l ion Peso

Benefit (F)

Disruption

Cost

1 2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2017 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 2018 83.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2018 76.3 0.0 -76.3

3 2019 666.5 666.5 0.0 -666.5 3 2019 550.8 0.0 -550.8

4 2020 1,165.2 1,165.2 0.0 -1,165.2 4 2020 875.5 0.0 -875.5

5 2021 1,165.2 1,165.2 -24.0 -24.0 -1,189.3 5 2021 795.9 0.0 -795.9

6 2022 116.5 4.1 120.7 676.5 300.1 976.7 856.0 6 2022 74.9 606.4 531.5

7 2023 4.1 4.1 738.4 345.2 1,083.5 1,079.4 7 2023 2.3 611.6 609.3

8 2024 4.1 4.1 738.8 363.9 1,102.6 1,098.5 8 2024 2.1 565.8 563.7

9 2025 4.1 4.1 739.1 383.6 1,122.7 1,118.5 9 2025 1.9 523.7 521.8

10 2026 8.4 8.4 739.5 404.4 1,143.8 1,135.4 10 2026 3.6 485.1 481.5

11 2027 4.1 4.1 739.9 426.3 1,166.1 1,162.0 11 2027 1.6 449.6 448.0

12 2028 4.1 4.1 740.2 449.4 1,189.6 1,185.4 12 2028 1.5 416.9 415.5

13 2029 4.1 4.1 740.6 473.7 1,214.3 1,210.1 13 2029 1.3 386.9 385.6

14 2030 4.1 4.1 741.0 499.4 1,240.3 1,236.2 14 2030 1.2 359.3 358.1

15 2031 8.4 8.4 741.3 511.7 1,253.0 1,244.6 15 2031 2.2 330.0 327.8

16 2032 4.1 4.1 741.7 524.4 1,266.1 1,261.9 16 2032 1.0 303.1 302.1

17 2033 4.1 4.1 742.0 537.4 1,279.4 1,275.3 17 2033 0.9 278.4 277.5

18 2034 4.1 4.1 742.4 550.7 1,293.1 1,289.0 18 2034 0.8 255.8 255.0

19 2035 4.1 4.1 742.8 564.3 1,307.1 1,303.0 19 2035 0.7 235.1 234.4

20 2036 8.4 8.4 743.1 578.3 1,321.5 1,313.1 20 2036 1.4 216.1 214.7

21 2037 4.1 4.1 743.5 592.7 1,336.2 1,332.0 21 2037 0.6 198.6 198.0

22 2038 4.1 4.1 743.9 607.3 1,351.2 1,347.1 22 2038 0.6 182.6 182.0

23 2039 4.1 4.1 744.2 622.4 1,366.6 1,362.5 23 2039 0.5 167.9 167.4

24 2040 4.1 4.1 744.6 637.8 1,382.4 1,378.2 24 2040 0.5 154.4 153.9

25 2041 8.4 8.4 745.0 653.6 1,398.6 1,390.2 25 2041 0.9 142.0 141.1

26 2042 4.1 4.1 745.3 669.8 1,415.1 1,411.0 26 2042 0.4 130.6 130.2

27 2043 4.1 4.1 745.7 686.4 1,432.1 1,427.9 27 2043 0.3 120.2 119.8

28 2044 4.1 4.1 746.1 703.4 1,449.4 1,445.3 28 2044 0.3 110.6 110.2

29 2045 4.1 4.1 746.4 720.8 1,467.2 1,463.1 29 2045 0.3 101.7 101.5

30 2046 8.4 8.4 746.8 738.6 1,485.4 1,477.0 30 2046 0.5 93.6 93.1

31 2047 4.1 4.1 747.2 756.9 1,504.1 1,500.0 31 2047 0.2 86.2 86.0

32 2048 4.1 4.1 747.5 775.7 1,523.2 1,519.1 32 2048 0.2 79.4 79.1

33 2049 4.1 4.1 747.9 794.9 1,542.8 1,538.7 33 2049 0.2 73.1 72.9

34 2050 4.1 4.1 748.3 814.6 1,562.9 1,558.7 34 2050 0.2 67.3 67.1

35 2051 8.4 8.4 748.6 834.8 1,583.4 1,575.0 35 2051 0.3 62.0 61.6

3,197.4 150.0 3,263.5 22,238.2 17,522.2 -24.0 39,736.5 36,472.9 2,402.0 7,794.0 5,392.0

5,392.0

3.24

28.6%

Benefit (E)

TTC

Benefit

(G=D+E-F)

EIRR

Net Present Value (Mi l l ion peso)

B/C Ratio

Benefit

(B)Year

Benefit - Cost

(G-C)sq Year

Project Cost

including DD,

SV, ROW and

Environmental

Cost（A）

Benefit (D)

VOCCost (C)

O&M

Cost（B）sq

Benefit - Cost

(A-B)Cost (A)



Page |16-77

Technical Evaluation

The results of the bridge planning and technical analysis indicate that the proposed four (4)-lane East Bank – West Bank Bridge-2 construction is technically feasible. In general, the proposed bridge will directly connect the east bank with the west bank and proceeds towards Mercedes Ave., which is linked directly to C. Raymundo Ave. and provides connection to C-5.

Other Impacts

(1) Traffic

The results of the traffic analysis indicated that the proposed East Bank – West Bank Bridge-2 will be able to share significantly the future traffic growth expected to pass the Barkadahan and Legaspi Bridges. Specifically, the provision of the new bridge will reduce the traffic movement travel time from the east bank to C. Raymundo Ave.

(2) Environmental and Social Evaluation

Environmental Evaluation

Evaluating the environmental condition/setting of the area plays a vital role on the initial stage of any development project to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts and risks of the proposed project and to plan for the best alternative project location. The proposed East Bank-West Bank Bridge 2 poses minimal or no serious adverse impacts to the environment, in terms of air and water quality, including noise as the project area is already urbanized and industrialized. In terms of ecosystem, as the project area is covered with built-up areas, no significant ecosystem is left within the project area. On the other hand, physical condition of the area should always be as the area is susceptible to hazards such as liquefaction and flooding.

Social Evaluation

The East Bank – West Bank Bridge-2 will yield the following positive results: improved traffic and reduced travel time. The proposed bridge will provide an alternate route for those commuting residents from Rizal to/from their respective work places and thus reducing the delay time experienced on a day to day basis.

However, there will be partial PAPs the will need involuntary resettlement away from their existing place of residence who may not benefit on the increase income-opportunity due to improve traffic and reduced travel-time. Hence, in determining the type entitlements - this concern must be well considered in the RAP. Further, the resettlement-process should also look on the lost or destruction of existing “support system networks” among the relocated PAPs. If the “in-City” relocation sites may not be feasible due to very high-cost and unavailability of land, it is important for project management to ensure that social-system-support would be established in the “host-community”.

The positive effects of the bridge is not limited to those living around the area but could be felt outside the area - especially those with business related to the port area.

Overall Evaluation

The proposed bridge, on the overall, is justified and found to be economically and technically feasible with positive impacts outweighing the negative impacts in the surrounding areas and beyond. Specifically, the host LGU (Cainta) is willing to extend its full support towards implementation of this bridge project.

chapter 16 feasibility study of east bank-west bank …

Documents