options report sept 09 - 28 sept, 2009.pdf

7/30/2019 Options Report Sept 09 - 28 Sept, 2009.pdf

1/32

Dual Standard Design of Gayaza Road section from Ch 0+000 to Ch 1+300 Draft Options Report

____________________________________________________________________________________

Norconsult International AS

Service Contract No. RDP/HW/CS014, Addendum No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, September 2009

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

By letter ref. xxxx, dated xxxxxx, the Consultant was instructed by the Client to commence

the dual design services for the section of Kampala Gayaza Zirobwe road project from

Ch 0+000 to Ch 1+300, i.e. from the Mulago/Bombo road Roundabout to the Gayaza

road/Kampala Northern Bypass Roundabout, pending formal signature of the relevantAddendum no. xxxxx still under preparation..

Having mobilised the proposed staff for this assignment and commenced services as

instructed by the Client, the Consultant has to date executed the following activities:

1.1 Identification, survey and mapping of all existing roads accessing the proposed dualcarriageway section.

1.2 Review of the existing traffic data.

1.3 Study of the current traffic flow patterns and vehicle parking characteristics and

development of traffic flow management options.

1.4 Identification, survey and mapping of existing road drainage facilities

1.5 Identification, survey and mapping of all building structures and visible/overheadutility services within and adjacent to 15m from the existing road centreline.

1.6 Liaison with utility companies and identification of all underground utility serviceslikely to be affected by the proposed works.

1.7 Analysis of the feasible options

1.8 Presentation of the best evaluated two dual design options

1.9 Recommendation of the preferred dual design option

In respect of Activity 1.1 above, it is evident from the information obtained that most of

the existing access roads are minor earth/gravel access roads that are not engineered apart

from Mawanda road access at approximately Ch 0+757 RHS.

In respect of Activity 1.2 above, based on a review of the available 2007 traffic data, the

projected design year (2020) traffic is 26,205 PCUs/day and according to

recommendations by the Uganda Road Design Manual (Road Safety Revision, of July

2004), this level of traffic justifies provision of a dual carriageway in order to meet the

desired level of service standards for category A & B roads in a flat terrain typical of theproject area.

In respect of Activity 1.3 above, traffic surveys conducted by the Consultant during this

assignment have confirmed the following:

The access roads are mainly used by private cars, taxis and commuter matatus asby-passes during the peak-hour traffic congestion periods as opposed to being used

by residents to access their homes.

There is a significant level of parking traffic around the Kalerwe area; these beingmainly commuter taxis/matatus dropping and picking up passengers, private cars

for shoppers and trucks loading and offloading merchandise and that this parking


2/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



2

traffic significantly reduce the available travelled way for the through traffic

resulting in traffic congestion.

In respect of Activity 1.4 above, all existing drainage facilities have been surveyed and

included on drawings in appendix 1.

In respect of Activity 1.5 above, building structures and visible utility services within 15m

from the existing road centreline and adjacent to that 30m corridor, have been surveyed

and included on the existing services drawings in appendix 1.

In respect of Activity 1.6 above, the Consultant has liaised with the respective services

bodies and identified existing underground services likely to be affected by the proposed

works. These services indicated on drawings in appendix 1 are for National Water and

Sewerage Corporation, Uganda Telecom and UMEME. No services were identified for the

remaining utility companies.

In respect of Activity 1.7, the feasible options analysed during this study relate to thetraffic flow / management options, access to the various frontage businesses and markets,

surface water drainage outline options and geometric lay out options.

In respect of Activity 1.8, the Consultants options are summarised below:

Option 1

Traffic flow onto and along the proposed dual carriageway section

This option requires that no right turns are allowed for traffic joining the proposed dual

carriageway section. Consequently, all motorised traffic joining the proposed dual

carriageway would have to follow the general traffic flow direction of the proposed dual

carriageway until the next roundabout where it would turn to join the intended

carriageway.

Surface water drainage layout

This option requires that side drains generally drain surface water towards Gayaza side as

the proposed dual carriageway vertical profile generally falls in that direction.

Dual carriageway geometric layout; including all frontage business service accesses

This option provides that 3.25m wide lanes are used with a 1.2m wide central raised island

(0.2m above the adjacent finished road levels), service roads at selected locations on the

right hand side (in front of the market area) and on the left hand side on the approaches to

the Kalerwe market area. 1.5 m wide raised sidewalks are also proposed on both the LHS

and RHS with accesses to main business premises.

Option 2

Traffic flow onto and along the proposed dual carriageway section


3/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



3

Option 2 provides that since Mawanda road is a major access road, traffic joining the

proposed dual carriageway section from Mawanda road be allowed to make a right turn

and the junction be designed as a partly Channelised T-intersection. Traffic from the rest of

the access roads is prohibited from making any right turn.

Surface water drainage layout

In terms of surface water drainage, this option provides that surface water runoff in the side

drains travels the minimum distance possible before discharging into the nearest cross

culvert and into the discharge channels. This therefore requires that in some instances, the

invert levels for the side drains will be adjusted to force water to flow backwards (towards

Km 0+000).

Dual carriageway geometric layout; including all frontage business service accesses

Like option 1, option 2 also provides that 3.25m wide lanes are used with 1.2m wide

central raised island (0.2m above the adjacent finished road levels), service roads atselected locations on the right hand side (in front of the market area) and 3.25m wide lay-

bys, 50m long, on the left hand side at selected locations, where significant vehicle parking

traffic is anticipated. 1.5 m wide raised sidewalks are also proposed on both the LHS and

RHS with accesses to main business premises.

The Recommended Dual Design Option

Bearing in mind that the underlying reason for the proposed dualling of this first 1.3km of

Gayaza road (through the Kalerwe market area) is the severe traffic congestion at this

location and keeping in mind that draining surface water backwards against the general

longitudinal slope of the road may present undesirably deep side drains, it is the

Consultants opinion that option 1, described in section 4.1 above be adopted and carried to

the detailed engineering design stage.


4/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



4

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

The upgrading works of Kampala-Gayaza-Zirobwe road commenced on 31 March

2008 under World Bank funding. However, while the proposed upgrading workswill go a long way in improving traffic movement in the north of Kampala, serious

concerns have persisted relating the chronic traffic congestion on the first 1.3km of

this road (i.e. between the Gayaza/Mulago/Bombo road roundabout and the Gayaza

road/Kampala Northern Bypass Roundabout. The traffic flow constriction on this

section of the road has frequently been attributed to the several side road accesses

to Gayaza road which are commonly used as bypasses by commuter taxi drivers;

resulting into traffic flow constrictions at several locations along this road stretch,

as well as the availability of 2 road side markets in this area with all the trucks

offloading their goods by the road side and causing further traffic flow constraints.

In addition, the rampant poor driver behaviour in this country may also have asignificant compounding effect of this traffic flow problem.

It is therefore perfectly understandable that with the eminent opening of the

Kampala Northern Bypass to public traffic and the likely increase in the traffic

levels on the northern part of the City, more traffic flow problems are envisaged

and therefore the need for a major intervention to alleviate this problem is certainly

timely and justified.

It is on the background of the above that by letter ref. xxxxxx, dated xxxxx, the

Client requested Norconsult to submit a proposal for the dual design of the first

1.3km of Gayaza road.

Having accepted the Consultants proposal for the dual design, by letter ref.

xxxxxx, dated xxxxxx, Norconsult was instructed to commence the dual design

services pending formal signature of the relevant Addendum no. xxxxx still under

preparation.

1.2 Key Project Milestones

Milestone Date

Submission of the proposal for the proposed dual design xxxxxxxUNRAs instruction to commence the dual design xxxxxxx

Scheduled date of submission of the draft options report xxxxxxx

Scheduled date of receipt of the Clients comments on

the draft options report

xxxxxxx

Scheduled date for submission of the final options report xxxxxxx

Scheduled date for submission of the drat final design

report

xxxxxxx

Scheduled date for submission of the final design report xxxxxxx


5/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



5

2.0 Activities executed by the Consultant to date

2.1 Identification, survey and mapping of all existing roads accessing theproposed dual carriageway section.

Bearing in mind that traffic flow along the proposed dual carriagewaysection is significantly affected by side roads access traffic, the consultant

has already captured all existing motorable side road accesses to the

proposed dual carriageway section. These accesses are indicated on the Plan

and Profile drawings in the appendices.

2.2 Review of the existing traffic data.

Through the Client, the Consultant had previously obtained traffic survey

data from the 2007 traffic counts on the National Road Network project.

The 12hr manual classified traffic count data was taken over a period of

6days (7am to 6pm), commencing on Friday, 9th March 2007 and ending onWednesday, 14

thMarch, 2007. A night expansion factor of 1.2 (evident

from the data collected from the Client) was used to convert the 12hr traffic

counts into Average Daily Traffic (ADT) values. The review and analysis of

the data involved the following:

Analysis of the hourly motorised 6-day total traffic flows in bothdirections (see Template 1 & 2)

Analysis of the weekday average hourly traffic flows for each trafficclass for each direction and for both directions (see Template 3)

Weekend average hourly traffic flows for each traffic class in bothdirections (see Template 4)

Determination of the 6-day average daily traffic flows in PCUs for eachtraffic class and for each direction (see Template 5)

Analysis of the peak hour traffic flows (see Template 6).

From templates 1 & 2 below, it is clear that there are two traffic peak flow

periods everyday; with the morning traffic peaking at around 8am and the

evening traffic peaking after 6pm. The exact peak flow time for the evening

traffic could not be established from the available traffic data as the traffic

counts were conducted up to 6pm. However, observations by the consultant

have suggested that the evening peaking hour occurs at about 8pm. The twotraffic flow peaking periods correspond with the periods when the majority

of the working people are going for work in the morning and when they arereturning home from work in the evening.


6/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



6

Template 1: Hourly motorised 6-day total traffic flows in both directions

Time 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total

Hourly 6-

day totals

(Motorized)

8597 9661 8258 7296 7204 6782 6964 5834 5453 6885 7559 8126 88619

Equivalent

%age9.7% 10.9% 9.3% 8.2% 8.1% 7.7% 7.9% 6.6% 6.2% 7.8% 8.5% 9.2% 100%

Template 2: 6-day average hourly motorised traffic variation

Variation of Combined Motorised Traffic with Time of

the Day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 5 10 15 20

Time of the Day

CombinedMotorisedTraffic


7/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



7

From template 3 below, its also apparent that different vehicle categories have different

peaking periods during weekdays; with the passenger vehicles (saloon cars, taxis, minibuses

matatus and motorcycles) peaking from 8 to 9am; during which most of the people employed

in the informal sectors such as markets, shops, etc are going for work. On the other hand, the

peaking period for the goods vehicles such as the light, medium, large and articulated trucks

is between 11am and 2pm; corresponding to the period when most the goods are beingdelivered to the various business outfits around Kalerwe area.

Template 3: Weekday average hourly traffic flows for each traffic class for each

direction and for both directionsHour (Starting at:) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 TOTAL

DIRECTION A: ToGayazaMotorised

SALOON CARS andTAXIS 48 77 121 81 91 118 129 125 129 130 180 194 1420LIGHT GOODS VANS,

PICKUP and 4WD 36 51 94 69 76 90 92 88 104 92 104 112 1007Small Bus: MINIBUSESand MATATUS 188 207 193 147 153 126 179 104 135 151 182 203 1968Medium Bus: COASTERS 3 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 4 3 26BUSES 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 9Light Single Unit Truck:DYNAS and TRACTORs 7 7 11 14 18 15 22 11 14 12 15 19 164Medium-Single UnitTrucks:- 7 4 11 10 10 13 14 7 11 11 11 9 115Large -Single Unit Trucks:-Lories, Fusos 3 4 7 8 7 9 9 3 6 5 6 5 72TRUCK TRAILER ANDSEMI TRAILER 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 11MOTORCYCLES 307 416 270 235 207 211 233 121 122 191 225 266 2805

Total 599 769 708 567 565 588 682 462 525 593 728 812 7596

Non-motorised

BICYCLES 303 385 295 179 174 151 122 118 128 161 259 300 2572CARTS 3 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 5 39

Total 305 390 298 183 177 154 125 120 130 163 262 305 2611

DIRECTION B: ToKampalaMotorised

SALOON CARS andTAXIS 256 211 154 131 113 114 98 103 79 112 120 103 1592LIGHT GOODS VANS,

PICKUP and 4WD 107 125 94 79 93 83 74 71 60 94 81 71 1029Small Bus: MINIBUSESand MATATUS 253 265 180 155 132 111 131 89 107 139 178 205 1945Medium Bus: COASTERS 6 9 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 22BUSES 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Light Single Unit Truck:DYNAS and Tractors 14 17 17 13 11 13 15 8 7 5 6 6 131Medium-Single UnitTrucks:- 10 10 10 10 10 7 9 9 12 6 6 8 104Large -Single Unit Trucks:-Lories, Fusos 4 10 7 6 10 8 4 6 6 5 2 4 72TRUCK TRAILER ANDSEMI TRAILER 0 2 1 2 2 3 2 0 2 1 1 1 16MOTORCYCLES 405 353 201 164 186 142 120 117 105 141 148 195 2277

Total 1055 1002 664 559 556 481 453 405 377 503 542 593 7190


8/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



8

Non-motorised

BICYCLES 441 286 134 133 121 95 65 60 73 139 139 178 1863CARTS 12 12 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 32

Total 453 298 138 134 122 95 66 60 73 140 140 179 1895

BOTH DIRECTIONS(A+B)

TypeMotorised excl. M-bikes 941 1003 901 727 728 717 781 628 675 763 897 944 9704Motorised incl. M-bikes 1654 1772 1372 1126 1121 1069 1135 866 902 1096 1270 1406 14786Non-motorised 758 688 435 317 298 249 190 180 203 303 402 484 4506

During weekends, template 4 suggests that although there are generally two peaking traffic

flow periods (during the morning and the evening periods), peaking periods for the

passenger traffic during weekends shifts from 8am (during weekdays) to 9am during the

weekend. Again this is no surprise since most people are more relaxed about travelling to

work on weekends than during weekdays. Another important observation is that the traffic

flow for the weekend is lower than that for the weekday for the minibuses, matatus,

medium buses, large buses, heavy trucks, truck trailers and motorcycles; with the weekdaytraffic for medium buses being as high as 74% more than for the weekend traffic and even

higher (192% more) for the truck trailers and semi trailers.

However, an important trend to note is that the hourly traffic flow variation over weekdays

is a lot more pronounced than during the weekend.

Template 4: Weekend average hourly traffic flows for each traffic class in both

directions

Hour (Startingat:) 7

am

8

am

9

am

10am

11am

12pm

1

pm

2

pm

3

pm

4

pm

5

pm

6

pm

TO

TAL

BOTHDIRECTIONS(A+B)

Motorised

SALOON CARSand TAXIS 123 246 368 348 356 329 343 340 269 363 363 350 3796LIGHT GOODSVANS, PICKUPand 4WD 68 141 193 199 189 179 207 186 169 206 213 198 2146Small Bus:

MINIBUSES andMATATUS 339 538 437 386 175 247 420 80 279 224 248 368 3741Medium Bus:COASTERS 1.5 2.5 5.5 4 0.5 2 3.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 3 2.5 27.5BUSES 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 8.5Light Single UnitTruck: DYNAS andTRACTORs 20.5 24 24 29.5 27 31 22 25.5 23.5 32 29 20.5 308.5Medium-SingleUnit Trucks:- 15 26 18.5 19 30.5 24.5 14 15 12 16.5 17.5 14.5 223Large -Single UnitTrucks:- Lories,Fusos 6 6 10 12.5 19 14.5 9.5 6.5 7 6.5 7 2.5 107

TRUCK TRAILERAND SEMI 1 1 0 0.5 0 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 9


9/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



9

TRAILERMOTORCYCLES 418 515 392 401 357 343 297 277 225 315 272 261 4071

Total 992 1499 1447 1399 1155 1172 1317 932 987 1166 1154 1219 14436

Non-motorised

BICYCLES 373 443 345 327 241 190 188 207 224 260 249 320 3365

CARTS 3 12 9 5.5 2.5 4.5 4 0.5 1 2.5 8.5 0.5 53.5Total 376 455 354 333 244 194 192 208 225 262 258 321 3418

Further analysis of the traffic flow data has been conducted by converting the 12hr. count

traffic into the equivalent passenger car units (PCUs) using PCU factors proposed in the

Kenya Road Design Manual, Part 1 published in 1979. The 12hr PCU values for each

traffic class were expanded into 24hr. PCU values using the Clients accepted 1.2 night

expansion factor. The resulting equivalent PCU values per traffic category are given in

template 5 below; indicating that the total PCUs per day has been estimated at 20,473 for

the year 2007.

Having assumed that the traffic growth rate would remain constant at about 2.8% per yearover the next 10 years after opening the road to traffic (i.e. up to the design year), andassuming that the 2007 traffic would be maintained throughout the construction period up

to 2010 when the road is expected to be commissioned after construction, the 2007 PCU

values, have been used to estimate the design year (2020) traffic (projected at 26,205

PCUs) using relationship given below.

DT =Tc + Tc x (r) x n

Where DT =Design year traffic in PCUs

Tc = 2007 traffic in PCUs.

r = Average traffic growth rate per year estimated at 2.8%

n = 10 years (i.e. the time to elapse from the scheduled year of completion of works to the

design year)

It is therefore evident that based on the 2007 traffic count data availed to the Consultant

and the recommendations of the Uganda Road Design Manual of July, 2004, which inter

alia states The level-of-service standards for Category A and B roads in flat terrain can

only be met by building a dual carriageway road once the design year volume exceeds

about 13000 pcu/day, it technically justifiable that the first 1.3km of Gayaza road be

upgraded to dual carriageway standard.

Template 6 gives a detailed analysis of the peak hour traffic flows for each traffic class.


10/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



10

Template 5: Determination of the 6-day average daily traffic flows in PCUs for

each traffic class and for each directionDIRECTION A

Vehicle No. per day

PCU

Factors

PCUs per

day

PCUs per day &

NightSALOON CARS and TAXIS 1579 1 1579 1894.4LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and4WD 1035 1 1035 1242.2

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 1987 1 1987 2384.4

Medium Bus: COASTERS 23 2 45 54

BUSES 8 2 17 20Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS andTractors 164 2.5 409 491

Medium-Single Unit Trucks:- 120 2.5 300 360Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories,Fusos 70 2.5 174 208.5

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 8 3.5 29 34.3

MOTORCYCLES 2618 1 2618 3142

BICYCLES 2422 0.5 1211 1453.3

Total 10034 9403 11284

DIRECTION B

Vehicle No. per dayPCUFactors

PCUs perday

PCUs per day &Night

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 1695 1 1695 2034LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and4WD 1037 1 1037 1244

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 1969 1 1969 2363Medium Bus: COASTERS 19 2 37 44

BUSES 3 2 6 7Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS andTractors 136 2.5 339 407

Medium-Single Unit Trucks:- 101 2.5 251 302Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories,Fusos 62 2.5 155 186

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 12 3.5 43 52

MOTORCYCLES 2126 1 2126 2551

BICYCLES 1656 0.5 828 994

Total 8815 7658 9189

Total PCUs per day in both directions 20,473


11/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



11

Template 6: Analysis of the peak hour traffic flowsHour (Startingat:) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AVERAGE

DIRECTIONA+B

Motorised

SALOON CARSand TAXIS 214 267 321 280 280 280 285 284 238 302 331 324 284LIGHT GOODSVANS, PICKUPand 4WD 105 158 190 173 179 176 186 173 166 196 199 190 174Small Bus:MINIBUSES andMATATUS 390 505 405 344 230 242 365 136 261 257 304 388 319Medium Bus:COASTERS 5 7 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 4 3 3

BUSES 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1Light Single UnitTruck: DYNAS andTRACTORs 21 24 26 28 28 30 29 22 22 25 25 23 25Medium-SingleUnit Trucks:- 16 20 19 19 25 22 18 15 17 16 17 16 18Large -SingleUnit Trucks:-Lories, Fusos 7 10 12 13 18 16 11 8 10 8 8 6 10TRUCKTRAILER ANDSEMI TRAILER 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1MOTORCYCLES 565 642 431 400 375 348 325 257 226 324 322 361 381

Total 1323 1635 1409 1262 1138 1120 1226 899 944 1131 1212 1312 1218

Non-motorised

BICYCLES 558 557 387 319 268 217 188 192 212 280 323 399 325CARTS 9 15 8 6 3 4 3 1 2 2 6 3 5

Total 567 572 394 325 271 221 191 194 214 282 330 402 330

Vehicle Category

PeakHrlytraffic(A)

Avg DailyPerCategory(B) (A/B)*100

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 331 284 117

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 199 174 114Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 505 319 158

Medium Bus: COASTERS 7 3 223

BUSES 2 1 229

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 30 25 119

Medium-Single Unit Trucks:- 25 18 136

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 18 10 172

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 4 1 272

MOTORCYCLES 642 381 168

BICYCLES 558 325 172

CARTS 15 5 289


12/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



12

2.3 Study of the current traffic flow patterns and vehicle parking characteristicsand development of traffic flow management options.

As noted in Section 1, the observed traffic flow congestion on the proposed

dual carriageway section has been attributed to the several side road

accesses to Gayaza road which are commonly used as bypasses bycommuter taxi drivers; resulting into traffic flow constrictions at several

locations along this road stretch, as well as the availability of 2 road side

markets in this area with all the trucks offloading their goods by the road

side and causing further traffic flow constraints.

Under this task therefore, the Consultant organised a 2-day, 16hr. traffic

flow study (16th

& 17th

, September 2009) at 6 different locations along the

proposed dual carriageway section. The table 2.1 below gives the locations

of the traffic surveys and nature of the data collected. The detailed analysis

of the traffic survey data obtained is presented in template 7 below.

Table 2.1: Details of the current traffic flow patterns investigated

SNo. Location (Ch) Key parameter

surveyed

Details of data

collected

1 0+310 RHS Traffic flow to &

from access road

Manual classified

junction traffic flows


from access road

Manual classified


3 0+635 LHS Traffic flow to &

from access road

Manual classified


4 0+757 RHS Traffic flow to &from access road Manual classifiedjunction traffic flows

5 0+800 Traffic flows along

Gayaza Road

Manual Classified

traffic flows through

the Kalerwe area.


from access road

Manual classified


To assess the vehicle parking requirements, roadside parking surveys were

also conducted concurrently with the above traffic surveys. These surveys

covered a section from Mawanda Road (Ch 0+757) to Ch. 1+200 and were

aimed at collecting vehicle parking data such as vehicle type, duration ofparking, purpose of parking as well as the perceived adequacy/inadequacy

of the parking (i.e. in the opinion of the parking surveyor, has the driver

parked properly or not).

Analysis of the roadside parking survey data obtained indicates that while

commuter taxis constituted the biggest component of the parking vehicles

(41.9%), the average parking duration for the taxi commuters (matatus) was

only 11minutes compared with the 58minutes of parking for trucks (which

constitute only 12.3% of the parking traffic. Private cars, pajeros and

pickups also posted significant parking durations ranging from 19minutes to

24minutes. Again this data seems consistent with the logic that trucks spenda comparably longer duration offloading agricultural produce and other


13/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



13

merchandise than commuter taxis (matatus), which only stop for

considerably shorter durations to pick up and drop off passengers.


14/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



Template 7: Analysis of the current access roads traffic survey data

Traffic to access road at 0+635LHS

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 4 22 21 20 16 12 14 12 14

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 8 15 25 24 24 26 26 17 21

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 1 4 3 4 3 6 3 2 3

Medium Bus: COASTERS 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 2 4 9 3 5 3 2 1 3 Medium to Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories,Fusos 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 4

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 27 86 91 71 67 48 74 56 70

BICYCLES 2 30 30 27 21 18 26 17 25

CARTS 0 2 5 4 3 1 0 1 1

Total 44 164 187 155 141 117 147 107 138

Traffic from access road at 0+635LHS

Time 6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 6 41 34 12 13 15 19 14 17 17

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 11 48 36 22 18 26 30 22 31 29

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 4 9 7 3 6 4 2 4 11 3

Medium Bus: COASTERS 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

BUSES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 4 4 5 5 5 6 4 5 3 3

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 2 4 5 4 4 6 5 4 1 4

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 32 103 86 72 54 60 73 52 64 59

BICYCLES 7 15 22 14 17 12 18 7 15 17

CARTS 0 1 1 7 2 1 1 0 1 1

Total 65 226 197 137 118 129 151 108 141 133 1


15/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



Traffic to access road at 0+310RHS

Time

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12am

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm

18-19pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 1 2 7 8 4 7 9 6 4 9 11 5

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 2 4 4 5 7 9 8 4 7 8 8 8

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3

Medium Bus: COASTERS 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Medium-Single Unit Trucks:- 1 7 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 5 6 21 16 14 15 9 13 11 9 9 15

MOTORCYCLES 8 8 6 6 3 6 8 8 7 6 6 4

BICYCLES 1 2 3 2 4 2 3 1 2 6 1 2

CARTS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 17 30 43 40 34 41 37 35 32 39 35 38

Traffic from access road at 0+310RHS

Time

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12am

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm

18-19pm





BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Medium-Single Unit Trucks:- 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0


MOTORCYCLES 8 8 6 6 3 6 8 8 7 6 6 4

BICYCLES 1 7 3 0 1 1 1 0 2

CARTS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23 32 20 19 17 17 22 18 26 23 16 25


16/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



Traffic to access road at 0+625RHS

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm

18-19pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 3 13 11 8 14 5 7 7 10 7 5 14 18

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 1 2 8 7 7 9 2 5 6 9 6 8 12

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 2 5 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2

Medium Bus: COASTERS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

BUSES 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS andTractors 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 9 2 0 0 2 2

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 18 38 41 41 26 29 26 27 25 26 29 43 36

BICYCLES 4 8 15 14 6 7 4 3 4 8 4 7 4

CARTS 0 4 10 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Total 28 69 90 75 57 54 41 52 48 52 44 73 74

Traffic from access road at 0+625RHS

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm

18-19pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 3 10 12 13 7 10 9 6 7 8 10 17 22

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 1 6 8 7 4 7 4 6 7 7 7 14 15

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 10 45

Medium Bus: COASTERS 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS andTractors 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 3

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 10 14 10 13 17 13 16 17 10 11 12 12 18

BICYCLES 3 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 1 2

CARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 18 32 33 36 32 37 33 32 29 27 30 53 104


17/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



Traffic to access road at 0+757RHS (Mawanda Road)

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 56 36 55 36 34 37 35 30 37 13

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 34 23 37 30 44 38 40 33 34 23

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 12 0 2 2 1 13 5 8 14 4


BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 9 4 9 7 10 11 10 7 10 6

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 2 2 11 2 13 5 11 10 15 4

TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 1 8 0 2 7 2 3 1 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 71 47 86 46 80 42 64 51 37 26

BICYCLES 21 7 10 5 12 10 1 12 7 1

CARTS 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 205 131 211 130 199 155 170 151 154 74

Traffic from access road at 0+757RHS (Mawanda Road)

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

1 6 1 7

SALOON CARS and TAXIS 114 148 146 50 51 57 92 72 56 44 10

LIGHT GOODS VANS, PICKUP and 4WD 25 9 10 5 10 33 33 33 5 5 4

Small Bus: MINIBUSES and MATATUS 78 41 46 6 1 14 9 3 2 0 4


BUSES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and Tractors 4 5 2 9 10 24 27 9 13 6 1

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 9 4 4 6 6 4 30 8 2 5 TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 4

MOTORCYCLES 40 26 31 26 46 52 139 67 24 37 9

BICYCLES 8 1 2 0 0 11 3 2 0 0

CARTS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 281 236 243 101 123 195 333 194 102 100 30


18/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



Traffic to access road at 1+137RHS (Through market)

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm





BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1


MOTORCYCLES 28 35 32 19 25 18 11 8 7 9 14 15

BICYCLES 25 19 24 21 19 15 13 10 7 7 9 12

CARTS 21 34 32 17 13 10 1 3 1 3 2 4

Total 74 87 88 57 56 44 26 23 15 19 26 33

Traffic to access road at 1+137RHS (Through market)

Time

6-7am

7-8am

8-9am

9-10am

10-11am

11-12pm

12-13pm

13-14pm

14-15pm

15-16pm

16-17pm

17-18pm





BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light Single Unit Truck: DYNAS and TRACTORs 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Large -Single Unit Trucks:- Lories, Fusos 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 TRUCK TRAILER AND SEMI TRAILER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOTORCYCLES 17 30 40 22 19 12 19 10 4 8 10 21

BICYCLES 18 22 26 18 24 19 7 8 3 4 5 11

CARTS 21 23 22 11 8 3 1 0 1 0 2 3

Total 57 75 88 51 53 35 26 20 12 14 26 81


19/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



19

Template 8: Analysis of the roadside parking survey data

Vehiclecategory

No. documented insurvey

%age of totalAverage duration of

parking (min)

Taxis 246 41.9 11

Cars 205 34.9 19

Trucks 72 12.3 58Pickups 52 8.9 24

Pajero 9 1.5 22

Mini Buses 3 0.5 17

Total 587 100

2.4 Identification, survey and mapping of existing road drainage facilities

The proposed dual carriageway section of Gayaza road being in a low-lying flat

area, surface water drainage is likely to be a major design problem. In order toassess the existing surface drainage facilities, the consultant has identified,

surveyed and mapped all existing road drainage facilities along the proposed dual

carriageway section. The details captured at this stage include the following:

The location of all drainage channels crossing the existing road (in terms oftheir X, Y and Z coordinates)

The existing cross drainage culverts, including their location, sizes, condition,inlet and outlet invert levels as well as invert levels of the immediate inlet and

outlet channels draining into and out of the culverts respectively.

Location, type and condition of the existing side drainage channels along theexisting road; including their invert levels.

This information has been included on drawings in appendix 1. Notable from

information obtained from this activity is the following:

The existing side drains clearly fall within the limits of the proposed dualcarriageway pavement and will inevitably have to be shifted outwards.

Given the flat low-lying terrain of the proposed dual carriageway section, itsvirtually impossible to drain most of the surface water into the main drainage

channel near Ch 1+300. It may therefore be preferable to drain most of the

surface water into the identified 8 no. intermediate drainage channels identifiedalong this section.

Most of the existing cross drainage culverts are 900mm dia size culverts in asilted condition and therefore it is likely that these will need replacement

2.5 Identification, survey and mapping of all building structures and visible/overheadutility services within and adjacent to 15m from the existing road centreline.

Item 6(c) of the Clients letter of request for proposal requires that the dual

carriageway options to be proposed by the Consultant should fit within the 30m

corridor currently being expropriated. In view of this, under this task, the

Consultant has pickup the locations (x and y coordinates) of all building structuresas well as visible/overhead utility services within the 30m corridor (i.e. 15 m on


20/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



20

either side of the existing road centerline). Results from this activity indicate no

major building structures shall be affected by the proposed dual carriageway works.

However, from the drawings of the existing buildings (refer to the appendices),

some minor roadside temporary shop buildings are affected between the access

road to the Kampala Northern Bypass foot bridge (approx Ch 1+000 LHS) and Ch

1+137 (access road into Kalerwe Market on RHS). Another minor building is also

affected at Ch 1+175 RHS.

2.6 Liaison with utility companies and identification of all underground utility serviceslikely to be affected by the proposed works.

In addition to the visible/overhead utility services identified and mapped above, the

Consultant has to date held meetings with NWSC (existing services identified and

included on the existing services drawings), UTL (existing services identified and

included on the existing services drawings), UMEME (existing services identified

and included on the existing services drawings). Zain and MTN did confirm their

services were not affected by the proposed works. The Identified existing servicesare also indicated on the drawings in appendix 1. This information shall also be

used later in determining the space requirements for the relocation of these

services.

3.0 Analysis of the feasible options

3.1 Traffic Flow Options

3.1.1 Options for traffic flow from / to all access roads connecting to theproposed dual carriageway section.

From the traffic survey results in section 2.3, it is evident that the various side road

accesses to the proposed Gayaza road dual carriageway section are mainly used as

bypasses during peak hour flow traffic congestion periods by especially saloon

cars, taxis, light goods vans, pickups, 4WD vehicles and Minibuses/Matatus. This

is evident from the access roads traffic survey data presented in section 2.3;

indicating a significant increase in the above traffic flows into access roads near the

sections where the traffic congestion usually starts in the evening (approx 300

400m from the Roundabout at Ch 0+000) and an equally significant increase in the

traffic flows from the access roads towards the end of the proposed dual

carriageway section (presumably where the traffic flow congestion is considered to

be easing). To streamline the traffic flow along the proposed dual carriageway, it istherefore essential that either very limited (for only a major access like Mawanda

road Ch 0+757 RHS) or absolutely no right turns should be permitted for traffic

joining the proposed dual carriageway. In view of this, the proposed traffic flow

options for traffic moving onto, along and off the proposed dual carriageway is as

indicated on drawings in appendices 2 and 3.

3.1.2 Options for traffic accessing the various frontage businesses and markets

Having analysed the vehicle parking characteristics (section 2.3 of this report), the

following is evident about the traffic congestion at the Kalerwe market area:

There is no dedicated parking facilities (lay-bys) for the commutertaxis, around Kalerwe area yet many shoppers embark and


21/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



21

disembark at this location. This has resulted into inappropriate

parking habits by the commuter taxi drivers; resulting into

obstruction of through traffic by the commuter taxis and more traffic

congestion.

There are no dedicated parking facilities (lay-bys) for the trucks

delivering merchandise at the Kalerwe market area; resulting inlight, medium and heavy trucks parking by the roadside for extended

long hours during offloading of agricultural produce and other

merchandise. This further reduces on the available carriageway

width for the through traffic and results in inevitable traffic

congestion.

The 2 no. markets at Kalerwe area attract a significant number ofpeople delivering fresh food stuffs to the market vendors and buyers

of the food stuffs. Indeed a significant portion of the vehicles parked

at Kalerwe area are private cars belonging to people buying things

from the markets. This has also compounded the traffic flowproblem, resulting into serious traffic congestion at the Kalerwe

market area.

In view of the above observations, decongesting the traffic at the proposed dual

carriageway section will inevitably involve provision of dedicated facilities for

accessing the various frontage businesses and markets at Kalerwe and the following

options have been considered:

1. Provision of service roads at selected locations (as indicated on drawingsno. KG/PP/TD101, KG/PP/TD1-02, KG/PP/TD2-01 & KG/PP/TD2-02 in

appendices 4 & 5), to provide access to markets or other frontage

businesses (where adequate space is considered available). This option is

considered to be suitable where it is considered necessary to remove parked

trucks delivering merchandise, from the carriageway and increase the

capacity of the road for the through traffic.

2. Provision of lay-bys for parking of commuter taxis and other small cars.Details of these are also given on drawings no. KG/PP/TD101,

KG/PP/TD1-02, KG/PP/TD2-01 & KG/PP/TD2-02 in appendices 4 & 5).

3. Provision of access roads to the market area where deemed appropriate.Details of these are given on drawings no. KG/PP/TD101, KG/PP/TD1-

02, KG/PP/TD2-01 & KG/PP/TD2-02 in appendices 4 & 5).

3.1.3 Options for pedestrian sidewalks and crossings

The proposed dual carriageway area has got a significant level of pedestrian traffic

activity; being a heavily built up area. The Uganda Road Geometric Design Manual

(2005), Section 7.15.2, recommends that raised, kerbed footways (sidewalks)

should be provided in the larger built-up areas. Having carefully examined the

existing situation along the proposed dual carriageway section, the locations

proposed for the provision of the sidewalks is indicated on the typical cross

sections in appendix 6.


22/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



22

3.2 Drainage layout options

3.2.1 Median drainage option

Given that the proposed dual carriageway road is located in a low-lying area to the

left of the Mulago/Kyebando hills, the major catchment area for the surface water

anticipated onto the proposed dual carriageway is coming from the higher grounds

on the RHS of the proposed dual carriageway. In view of this, it would be

technically unwise to locate the surface water drainage channel in the median area

as this would allow all the storm water onto the RHS carriageway, with its

attendant problems of storm water becoming a nuisance to road users and possible

undermining of the pavement structural integrity.

Secondly, with a median drain, there would be no temporary refuge for pedestrians

crossing the dual carriageway; increasing the risk of injury to pedestrians.

In view of the above concerns, the option of the median drain has been ruled out ofconsideration.

3.2.2 Side drainage option

In view of the above observed short-comings of median drains, the preferred

surface water drainage option is the side drains. Because of the flat low-lying

nature of the terrain for the proposed dual carriageway and the urban nature of the

proposed road section, the key principles to be considered in the design of these

drains are as follows:

There should be sufficient discharge points and culverts to ensure that the drainnever gets very deep

In built-up/urban areas channel drains deeper than 250 mm should be coveredfor the safety and convenience of both pedestrians and vehicles

The drains should terminate or discharge in a satisfactory manner without riskof causing erosion or other problems

The drain should be capable of being cleaned and maintained easily.

With the above considerations taken into account, the 2 considered surface water

drainage system lay-outs are presented in appendices 2 & 3.

3.3 Dual carriageway geometric layout options

3.3.1 Typical cross section options

A review of the design report by M/S Phoenix Engineering and Research Ltd

clearly defines the proposed dual carriageway section as an urban road section,

with a design speed of 50kph. Indeed the 2005 Ministry of Works, Housing and

Communications Road Design Manual (Table 4-3) also specifies a design speed of

50kph for urban and peri-urban dual carriageway roads; the recommended Right of

Way from table 4-3 is 40m (i.e. more than the 30m corridor available for this

project).


23/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



23

In view of this severe land access problem and given the urban environment of the

proposed dual carriageway section, recourse has been made to the July, 2004 Road

Safety Revision of the Road Design Manual (prepared by TRL Ltd), section 4.3.2,

cross section class T2, which, for a design speed of 50kph, allows for the lane

widths to be reduced up to 3.0m each and the median island to be as narrow as

1.2m. For the proposed dual carriageway however, the Consultant proposes lane

widths of 3.25m each.

The typical cross sections for the following scenarios are given in appendix 6:

Scenario 1 Sidewalks on both LHS & RHS

Scenario 2 Sidewalk on LHS & RHS plus service road to frontage

businesses on LHS

Scenario 3 Sidewalk on LHS & RHS plus service road to frontage

Businesses on RHS

Scenario 4 Section with lay-bys on LHS plus service road on RHSScenario 5 Section with lay-bys on RHS plus service road on LHS

3.3.2 Access roads junction layout options

Given the minor nature of most of the access roads junctions, it is considered that

these junctions be designed as unchannelised T-intersections with the proposed

dual carriageway traffic having the priority over the side road traffic, probably with

the exception of the Mawanda road junction which may be suitable for part -

channelisation

4.0 Presentation of the best evaluated two dual design options

4.1 Option 1

4.1.1 Traffic flow onto and along the proposed dual carriageway section

This option requires that no right turns are allowed for traffic joining the proposed

dual carriageway section. Consequently, all motorised traffic joining the proposed

dual carriageway would have to follow the general traffic flow direction of the

proposed dual carriageway until the next roundabout where it would turn to join the

intended carriageway. Drawings no. KG/PP/TD1-01 & KG/PP/TD1-02 illustrate

this option.

4.1.2 Surface water drainage layout

This option requires that side drains generally drain surface water towards Gayaza

side as the proposed dual carriageway vertical profile generally falls in that

direction. However, as previously noted, the following additional considerations are

also characteristic of this option:

Sufficient discharge points and culverts are to be provided to ensure that thedrain never gets very deep

Channel drains deeper than 250 mm shall be covered for the safety andconvenience of both pedestrians and vehicles


24/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



24

The drains are to terminate or discharge in a satisfactory manner without therisk of causing erosion or other problems

The drains should be capable of being cleaned and maintained easily.

Drawings no. KG/PP/DR01-1 & KG/PP/DR1-02 present the general layout of the

proposed drainage system.

4.1.3 Dual carriageway geometric layout; including all frontage business serviceaccesses

This option provides that 3.25m wide lanes are used with a 1.2m wide central

raised island (0.2m above the adjacent finished road levels), service roads at

selected locations on the right hand side (in front of the market area) and on the left

hand side on the approaches to the Kalerwe market area. 1.5 m wide raised

sidewalks are also proposed on both the LHS and RHS with accesses to main

business premises. Typical drawings for this option are included in the appendices.

4.2 Option 2

4.2.1 Traffic flow onto and along the proposed dual carriageway section

Option 2 provides that since Mawanda road is a major access road, traffic joining

the proposed dual carriageway section from Mawanda road be allowed to make a

right turn and the junction be designed as a partly Channelised T-intersection.

Traffic from the rest of the access roads is prohibited from making any right turn.

Drawings no. KG/PP/TD2-01& KG/PP/TD2-02 illustrate this option.

4.2.2 Surface water drainage layout

In terms of surface water drainage, this option provides that surface water runoff in

the side drains travels the minimum distance possible before discharging into the

nearest cross culvert and into the discharge channels. This therefore requires that in

some instances, the invert levels for the side drains will be adjusted to force water

to flow backwards (towards Km 0+000). However, as previously noted, the

following additional considerations are also typical of this option:

Sufficient discharge points and culverts are to be provided to ensure that the

drain never gets very deep

Channel drains deeper than 250 mm shall be covered for the safety andconvenience of both pedestrians and vehicles

The drains are to terminate or discharge in a satisfactory manner without therisk of causing erosion or other problems

The drains should be capable of being cleaned and maintained easily.

4.2.3 Dual carriageway geometric layout; including all frontage business servicelanes


25/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



25

Like option 1, option 2 also provides that 3.25m wide lanes are used with 1.2m

wide central raised island (0.2m above the adjacent finished road levels), service

roads at selected locations on the right hand side (in front of the market area) and

3.25m wide lay-bys, 50m long, on the left hand side at selected locations, where

significant vehicle parking traffic is anticipated. 1.5 m wide raised sidewalks are

also proposed on both the LHS and RHS with accesses to main business premises.

Typical drawings for this option are presented in the appendices.

5.0 The recommended dual design option

Bearing in mind that the underlying reason for the proposed dualling of this first 1.3km of

Gayaza road (through the Kalerwe market area) is the severe traffic congestion at this

location and keeping in mind that draining surface water backwards against the general

longitudinal slope of the road may present undesirably deep side drains, it is the

Consultants opinion that option 1, described in section 4.1 above be adopted and carried to

the detailed engineering design stage.


26/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



26

APPENDICES


27/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



27

APPENDIX 1:PLAN & PROFILE DRAWINGS INDICATING

EXISTING BUILDINGS AND UTILITY

SERVICES


28/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



28

APPENDIX 2:OPTION 1 DRAINAGE OUTLINE DRAWINGS


29/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



29

APPENDIX 3:OPTION 2 DRAINAGE OUTLINE DRAWINGS


30/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



30

APPENDIX 4:OPTION 1 GEOMETRIC LAY-OUT AND

TRAFFIC FLOW DRAWINGS


31/32


____________________________________________________________________________________



31

APPENDIX 5:OPTION 2 GEOMETRIC LAY-OUT AND

TRAFFIC FLOW DRAWINGS


32/32


APPENDIX 6:TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS FOR 5

DIFFERENT SCENARIOS

options report sept 09 - 28 sept, 2009.pdf

Documents