You are on page 1of 176

Kampala

Southern
Bypass
Draft Feasibility Study
Report
Part 3: Preliminary
Engineering Report
Volume 1A - Report
October 2013
47062380
Prepared for:
Uganda National Roads
Authority (UNRA)

UGANDA

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

REVISION SCHEDULE
Rev

Date

Details

Prepared by

Reviewed by

Approved by

October
2013

Original Submission

A.Wilson

A.Kasekende

A.Kasekende

Team Leader

Project Manager

Project Manager

Ivan Mwondha
Senior Design
Engineer
I.Muyinza
Traffic Expert
E.Zemen
Hydrologist/
Drainage
Engineer
S.Harris
Snr Geotech
Engineer
D.Jordan
Geotechnical
Expert
M.Hudson
Tunnel Expert

URS
Scott House
Alenon Link
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 7PP
UK
Tel. +44 (0) 1256 310200
Fax +44 (0) 1256 310201
www.urs.com

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Limitations
URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Uganda National
Roads Authority (UNRA)(Client) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed [(insert
Proposal no. and date)]. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor
relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and
upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested
and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless
otherwise stated in the Report.
The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this
Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between October 2012 and July 2013 and is based on the
conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the
services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.
Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the
information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may
become available.
URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which
may come or be brought to URS attention after the date of the Report.
Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forwardlooking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such
forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections
contained in this Report.
Copyright
This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage
by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

ii

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

GLOSSARY OF TERMS, REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS


AASHTO

American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, USA

connector road

An existing road improved to provide access to the expressway link road or


access junction.

Consultant, The

URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd

Designer, The

In the context of this document, synonymous with The Consultant

DaSTS

:Delivering a Sustainable Transport System DfT

DfT

Department for Transport (UK)

DMRB

Design Manual fpr Roads and Bridges, Highway Authority (UK)

Kampala Southern Bypass


(KSB)

In the context of this project, synonymous with the Project

link road

A section of new road dedicated to access only to the expressway.

MCA

Multi-criteria Analysis

NATA

New Approach to Transport Appraisal.

New Kampala - Jinja Road

Option selected by UNRA for Detailed Design

NPV

Net Present Value

Overbridge

A bridge passing over the road under consideration

P90

Ninetieth Percentile

Project, The

Kampala Southern Bypass

Road Design Manual, The

Ministry of Works, Housing and Communications (MoWHC) Road Design Manual

RR

Rate of Return

Route Assessment Report

Report on Initial Routes considered (August 2012)

SADC

Southern African Development Community

SMART

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound

ToR

Terms of Reference for the consultancy project Capacity Improvement Projects Lot
C Kampala-Jinja Road .

Traffic Signs Manual, The

Ministry of Works, Housing and Communications (MoWHC) [2005]

UK

United Kingdom

Underbridge

A bridge that carries the road under consideration

Underpass

An underbridge formed by a box culvert or portal frame.

UNRA

The Uganda National Roads Authority.

US

United States of America

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

iii

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0
1

FOREWORD ...................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 2

1.1

Road Sector Framework ................................................. 2

1.2

Formalization of Services ............................................... 2

1.3

Background to Kampala Southern Bypass ................... 2

1.4

Route Assessment and Conclusions ............................ 3

1.4.1

Baseline Conditions and Initial Options ........................ 3

1.4.2

Development of Options ................................................. 5

1.4.3

Options Carried Forward to Feasibility Srage .............. 7

1.5

Base Topographic Information ....................................... 8

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC ALIGNMENT DESIGN .................. 10

2.1

Alignment Options ......................................................... 10

2.1.1

Option1 ........................................................................... 10

2.1.2

Option2 ........................................................................... 10

2.1.3

Option 3 .......................................................................... 11

2.1.4

Option 4 .......................................................................... 11

2.1.5

Option 5 .......................................................................... 11

2.1.6

Option 6 .......................................................................... 11

2.1.7

Option 7 .......................................................................... 12

2.1.8

Option 8 .......................................................................... 12

2.1.9

Option 1A ........................................................................ 12

2.1.10

Option 1B ........................................................................ 12

2.2

Highway Link Design ..................................................... 12

2.2.1

Design Speed ................................................................. 13

2.2.2

Stopping Sight Distance ............................................... 13

2.2.3

Horizontal Alignment ..................................................... 13

2.2.4

Vertical Alignment ......................................................... 14

2.3

Expressway Standards and Lane Requirements ....... 14

2.3.1

Expressway Lane Requirements During Design Period


......................................................................................... 14

2.3.2

Ancillary Component Requirements During Design


Period .............................................................................. 15

2.3.3

Lane Requirements Beyond the Design Period (2037


2047) ................................................................................ 16

2.3.4

Climbing Lanes .............................................................. 16

2.3.5

Expressway Standards and Coordinated Link Design16

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

iv

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.3.6

Departures and Relaxations ......................................... 17

2.4

Layout of Grade Separated Junctions ......................... 18

2.4.1

Design Procedure .......................................................... 19

2.4.2

Junction Layout Options .............................................. 19

2.4.3

Portbell Road Junction.................................................. 20

2.4.4

Gaba Road Junction ...................................................... 20

2.4.5

Lukuli Junction .............................................................. 22

2.4.6

Salama Junction ............................................................ 23

2.4.7

Munyonyo Spur Road Junction .................................... 25

2.5

Geometric Standards for Connector Roads/Slip Roads


......................................................................................... 26

2.6

Cross-section and Headroom ....................................... 27

2.6.1

Mainline Cross-section.................................................. 27

2.6.2

Connector Road Cross-sections .................................. 28

2.6.3

Headroom and Structures ............................................. 29

2.7

Expressway Roadside Features ................................... 30

2.7.1

Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process & Vehicle


Restraint Systems.......................................................... 30

2.7.2

Requirements for Road Restraint Systems ................ 31

2.7.3

Identified Hazards .......................................................... 31

2.7.4

Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB) ................................... 32

2.8

Provision for Non-motorised Users (NMU) ................. 33

2.8.1

NMU Project Objectives ................................................ 33

2.8.2

NMU Project Proposals ................................................. 34

2.8.3

Option s 1&2 Northern section ..................................... 34

2.8.4

Options 1&2 Central Section 1 ..................................... 34

2.8.5

Options 1&2 Central Section 2 ..................................... 35

2.8.6

Options 1&2 Southern Section ..................................... 35

2.8.7

Developmental Plans that may increase flows of NMUs


......................................................................................... 35

2.8.8

Geometric Design of NMU Routes ............................... 36

2.9

Minor Alterations to existing Roads ............................ 36

2.9.1

Lana Road ....................................................................... 37

2.9.2

Amka Road ..................................................................... 37

2.9.3

Kitintale Road ................................................................. 37

2.9.4

Portbell Road .................................................................. 37

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.9.5

Ringotho Road ............................................................... 37

2.9.6

Luthuli Avenue ............................................................... 37

2.9.7

Gaba Road ...................................................................... 37

2.9.8

Lukuli Road .................................................................... 38

2.9.9

Acacia Road ................................................................... 38

2.9.10

Salama Road .................................................................. 38

2.10

Toll Plazas ...................................................................... 38

2.10.1

Location of Toll Plazas .................................................. 38

2.10.2

Toll Plaza Layout Geometry .......................................... 39

2.10.3

Other Considerations .................................................... 41

2.11

Design of Tunnels .......................................................... 46

2.11.1

General ............................................................................ 46

2.11.2

Tunnel Cross-section .................................................... 46

2.11.3

Geometric Design .......................................................... 46

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS .......................................... 51

3.1

Introduction .................................................................... 51

3.1.1

General ............................................................................ 51

3.1.2

Scope and Objectives.................................................... 51

3.1.3

Climate, Soils and LandUse/Land Cover ..................... 54

3.2

Methodology of Hydrological Study ............................ 57

3.2.1

Review of Previous Studies and Existing Data .......... 57

3.2.2

Delineation of Catchments and Parameters ............... 57

3.2.3

Analysis of Meteorological Data .................................. 58

3.3

Hydrological Analysis ................................................... 58

3.3.1

Hydrological Design Criteria ........................................ 58

3.3.2

Analysis of Rainfall Data ............................................... 59

3.4

Flood Estimation Methods ............................................ 64

3.4.1

SCS Rainfall Runoff Relation ........................................ 64

3.4.2

TRRL East African Flood Model ................................... 70

3.4.3

Rational Method ............................................................. 70

3.4.4

Comparison of Different Estimation Methods ............ 72

3.5

Design Floods ................................................................ 74

3.6

Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations ............................. 74

3.6.1

Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations of Culverts ......... 75

3.7

Impact of Lake Victoria Levels on KSB ....................... 76

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

vi

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

3.8

Side Drains ..................................................................... 78

3.8.1

Option 1 .......................................................................... 78

3.8.2

Option 2 .......................................................................... 87

3.9

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................... 87

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................... 89

4.1

Introduction .................................................................... 89

4.2

Pavement Loading ......................................................... 89

4.3

Subgrade Strength......................................................... 92

4.4

Pavement Design ........................................................... 93

4.4.1

Flexible Pavement with Granular Base and Subbase 94

4.4.2

Rigid Pavement for Toll Plazas .................................... 94

4.5

Maintenance and Design 2037 - 2047 .......................... 95

4.6

Summary of Proposed Pavement Designs ................. 96

PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES DESIGN .................................... 98

5.1

Introduction .................................................................... 98

5.2

Type of Structures ......................................................... 98

5.3

Design Standards .......................................................... 98

5.4

Description of Structures .............................................. 98

5.4.1

Interchange Overbridges .............................................. 98

5.4.2

Interchange Underbridge .............................................. 99

5.4.3

Viaducts .......................................................................... 99

5.4.4

Vehicular Overbridges................................................. 100

5.4.5

Vehicle Underpasses ................................................... 100

5.4.6

Pedestrian Underpasses ............................................. 100

5.4.7

Drainage, Lighting and other Incidental Items ......... 100

5.5

Preliminary Bridge Lists ............................................. 101

5.5.1

Option 1 Preliminary Bridge Proposals ..................... 101

5.5.2

Option 2 - Preliminary Bridge Proposals................... 102

5.5.3

Option 1a Bridge Requirements ................................. 104

5.6

Preliminary Structures Drawings ............................... 105

5.7

Detailed Design ............................................................ 105

ANCILLARY ASPECTS ......................................................... 106

6.1

Standard Details ........................................................... 106

6.2

Traffic Sign and Road Markings ................................. 106

6.2.1

Traffic Sign Standards................................................. 106

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

vii

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

6.2.2

Traffic Signs and Road Marking Requirements ........ 108

6.3

Lighting ......................................................................... 111

6.3.1

Availability of Local Lighting Guidelines .................. 111

6.3.2

Standards Recommended for Adoption .................... 111

6.3.3

Lighting Levels to BS 5489 EN13201 (2003)


Fundamentals ............................................................... 111

6.3.4

Recommended Lighting Levels and Classes ........... 115

6.3.5

Recommended Principles for Project Roadway Lighting


....................................................................................... 115

6.3.6

Recommended Positions of Lighting Columns ........ 115

6.3.7

Variable Lighting Systems .......................................... 116

6.3.8

Power Supply ............................................................... 116

6.4

Toll Plazas .................................................................... 116

6.5

Tunnel Design .............................................................. 117

6.5.1

Codes and Standards .................................................. 117

6.5.2

Tunnel Cross-section and Geometric Design ........... 117

6.5.3

Detailed Geological/Hydrogeological Investigations 118

6.5.4

Tunnel Design/Administration .................................... 119

6.5.5

Risk Management ........................................................ 119

6.5.6

Documentation Outline ............................................... 120

6.6

Existing Utilities ........................................................... 120

6.6.1

Introduction .................................................................. 120

6.6.2

Background .................................................................. 120

6.6.3

Approach Used ............................................................ 120

6.6.4

Relocation Cost Estimates ......................................... 121

6.6.5

Utilities Drawings ......................................................... 121

6.6.6

Detailed Design Stage ................................................. 121

CONTINGENCIES AND RISK ............................................... 123

7.1

Introduction .................................................................. 123

7.2

Risk Register ................................................................ 124

7.3

Monte Carlo Analysis .................................................. 124

7.4

Risk Analysis Results.................................................. 125

7.4.1

Option 1 ........................................................................ 125

7.4.2

Option 1a ...................................................................... 126

7.4.3

Option 1b ...................................................................... 127

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

viii

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.4.4

Option 2 ........................................................................ 128

7.5

Summary ....................................................................... 129

MULI CRITERIA ANALYSIS ................................................. 130

8.1

Introduction .................................................................. 130

8.2

Assessment Methodology .......................................... 130

8.2.1

The Overall Methodology ............................................ 130

8.3

Multi Criteria ................................................................. 131

8.3.1

Primary Criteria - Economic Viability......................... 132

8.3.1.1

Secondary Criteria - Affordability (Opportunity Cost);


....................................................................................... 132

8.3.1.2

Secondary Criteria - Transport Economic Efficiency;132

8.3.1.3

Secondary Criteria - Economic Indicators such as IRR,


NPV and BCR; .............................................................. 132

8.3.1.4

Secondary Criteria - Wider Economic Impacts; ....... 133

8.3.2

Primary Criteria - Strategic Transport Objectives .... 133

8.3.2.1

Secondary Criteria - Capacity Improvement; ............ 133

8.3.2.2

Secondary Criteria - Traffic Segregation;.................. 133

8.3.2.3

Secondary Criteria Transport Integration; ............. 134

8.3.2.4

Secondary Criteria Accessibility and Mobility within


Kampala and Entebbe; ................................................ 134

8.3.3

Primary Criteria - Commercial/Financial Viability .... 135

8.3.3.1

Secondary Criteria Feasibility of Tolling and Payback


Period of Investment i.e. Ability to toll the road; ...... 135

8.3.3.2

Secondary Criteria Envisaged Procurement Strategy


i.e. Public Private Partnership; ................................... 135

8.3.3.3

Secondary Criteria Financial Sustainability NPV/RAC;


....................................................................................... 135

8.3.3.4

Secondary Criteria Financial Indicators NPV/CAP;136

8.3.3.5

Secondary Criteria Ability to attract bilateral support;


....................................................................................... 136

8.3.4

Primary Criteria - Sustainability ................................. 137

8.3.4.1

Secondary Criteria Environment;............................ 137

8.3.4.2

Secondary Criteria Social Impact Assessment; .... 137

8.3.4.3

Secondary Criteria Acceptability; ........................... 138

8.3.4.4

Secondary Criteria Safety; ....................................... 139

8.3.5

Primary Criteria - Constructability and Buildability . 139

8.3.5.1

Secondary Criteria Buildability and Engineering


Feasibility; .................................................................... 140

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

ix

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.3.5.2

Secondary Criteria Complimentarity and Conflicts;140

8.3.5.3

Secondary Criteria Utilities Diversions; ................. 140

8.4

Pair wise Weighting System ....................................... 140

8.5

Multi Criteria Analysis ................................................. 142

8.5.1

Summary of Weights ................................................... 142

8.5.2

The MCA Summary Assessment ................................ 147

8.5.2.1

Primary Criteria Northern Section ........................... 147

8.5.2.2

Primary Criteria Central Section 1 .......................... 151

8.5.2.3

Primary Criteria Central Section 2 .......................... 155

8.5.2.4

Primary Criteria Southern Section .......................... 159

8.6

Conclusion ................................................................... 162

APPENDICES .................................................................... 164

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

FOREWORD
This report forms part of a suite of seven Parts which together comprise the Feasibility Study
reporting for the Kampala Southern Bypass Road Capacity Improvement Project.
The complete Study includes the following:
Part 1:

Introduction and Executive Summary

Part 2:

Traffic Study
Volume 1: Traffic Survey Report
Volume 2: Traffic Modelling Report

Part 3:

Preliminary Engineering Report


Volume 1a: Report

This Document

Volume 1b: Appendixes


Volume 2: Preliminary Engineering Drawings
Part 4:

Preliminary Geotechnical Report

Part 5:

Preliminary Assessment of External Impacts


Volume 1: Preliminary Environmental and Social Assessment
Volume 2: Preliminary Evaluation of Affected Property

Part 6:

Preliminary Cost Estimation (Confidential)

Part 7:

Preliminary Economic Evaluation

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Road Sector Framework


The Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA), whose mission is to develop and maintain a
national road network that is responsive to the economic needs of Uganda, for the safety of all
road users, and to the environmental sustainability of the national roads corridors, is
responsible for managing, maintaining and developing the national road network across
Uganda.
Much of the network currently requires substantial improvement or development to meet the
current and forecast traffic demands, and to promote equal distribution of, and access to, the
economic and social development across the country. Consequently, the Government of
Uganda has committed to fund a sizeable programme of works in the next few years under
UNRA vote 113.
Both the
Feasibility Study, Detailed Engineering Design, Tender Assistance and Project Management
for Capacity Improvement of Kampala-Jinja Road
and the
Feasibility Study and Detailed Design of the Kampala Southern Bypass,
are being undertaken under the auspices of UNRA vote 113.

1.2

Formalization of Services
The Consultant was commissioned by UNRA to undertake the Feasibility Study, Detailed
Engineering Design, Tender Assistance and Project Management for Capacity Improvement
of Kampala-Jinja Road by an Agreement formalized on 23 April 2010.
On 13 January 2012 an Addendum to that Agreement was agreed and formalized to
incorporate the Feasibility Study and Detailed Design of the Kampala Southern Bypass (KSB).

1.3

Background to Kampala Southern Bypass


The present primary road network of southern Kampala consists of a series of radial roads
connecting the central city area with outlying suburbs and intermediate localities. The radial
roads are aligned along ridges separated by swampy salients of Lake Victoria that have been
revealed by recession of the lake.
Lateral roads of reasonable quality providing for direct traffic movement between suburbs are
non-existent. In effect traffic movement other than very local journeys between outlying areas
of southern Kampala require to either make use of existing poor quality unmade roads and
tracks serving residential areas which have developed on the ridges, or, use the radial roads
to travel first into then from the central part of the city. This places an additional burden on,
and congestion of, the primary road network of the inner city. .
Kampala Southern Bypass is intended to provide a section of high standard road which, in
conjunction with part of Kampala - Entebbe Expressway, will provide a complete bypass of the
southern zones of Kampala city and together with the Northern Bypass, will form a complete
city ring road.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

As shown in the project location plan in Figure 1-1, KSB commences in eastern Kampala at
the proposed Butabika Interchange of the new Kampala - Jinja Road passes through the
zones of southern Kampala ending at an intersection with Munyonyo Spur Road, part of
Kampala - Entebbe Expressway.
The initial identification of route options and preliminary geometric design was presented in the
Route Assessment Report submitted to UNRA. Initial route identification was a complicated by
no corridor having been identified previously and preserved free of development. As a result
the whole project area was found heavily developed and it was clear that for an effective
bypass to be developed, considerable property acquisition and associated displacement of
population would be unavoidable.
The approximate length of KSB is 17 to 18km depending on the alignment option considered.
Due to its 'circumferential' nature, KSB requires to cross the intervening ridges and wetlands
between its termini at Butabika Interchange and Munyonyo Spur Road. KSB has been located
not only to perform as a bypass but to also provide a lateral connection between existing radial
roads and facilitate direct traffic movement between city suburbs,.
KSB is mostly situated in Kampala District but depending on the final location of the
intersection with Munyonyo Spur Road may protrude into Wakiso District.
1.4

Route Assessment and Conclusions


The fundamental requirement of KSB is to link the Northern Bypass with Kampala - Entebbe
Expressway. At its north end a 1.8 km section between Namboole and Butabika which would
eventually form part of KSB, is to be constructed as a component of the proposed new
Kampala - Jinja road including a major interchange in the vicinity of Butabika. This interchange
then became the northern end of KSB.
The route assessment process was described in the Route Assessment Report submitted to
UNRA in August 2012. Potential route identification was conducted through site visits and
familiarization with prospective corridors. This permitted the study team to identify, refine and
adjust potential options in response to issues raised including their relative requirements for
land- and property acquisition. This approach allowed the study team to progress from initial
investigation of an area to preferred route corridors while providing an informed justification for
discounting other options.

1.4.1

Baseline Conditions and Initial Options


During scoping existing conditions in the study area were reviewed by,
Prospective corridor identification using satellite imagery.
Walkover surveys of prospective corridors to assess the density and nature of communities.
A desk review of topographic information from satellite imagery.
Preliminary identification of prospective route corridors followed by data collection of
potential constraints.
This visual examination of corridor characteristics, issues and constraints of the study area
(land use, social, hydrological, technical and economic perspectives) allowed potential route
options commensurate with the observed conditions to be developed.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 1-1 Project Location Plan


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The main considerations of the Consultant when locating potential alignments included:
provision of a facility for free movement of traffic around the south side city to avoid travel
through the city centre,
provision of a lateral connection between middle/ outer suburbs established along radial
roads
positioning the road to serve as wide a catchment on either side of the alignment to
maximize area of influence,
examination of possibilities for upgrading and utilising some sections of existing roads as
parts of the main KSB alignment, and,
minimising the potential for adverse environmental and social impact particularly associated
with the displacement and relocation of settled communities along the corridor.
Based on this approach a "Route Options" presentation was made by the Consultants to
UNRA on 3rd May 2012, to inform them of physical conditions in the Project area,
discuss in general terms the impact of the project on land and property;
draw attention to the fact that, due to the intense development of the area, much use would
have to be made of wetlands as they represent most of the remaining open space available
for road construction; and
to identify the range and locations of tentative road corridors considered, and,
obtain feed-back from UNRA before further continuing.
The main outcomes of the discussion were that,
UNRA expressed general accord with the Consultants proposals.
Two options were discarded, namely;
upgrading the existing Kireka Road between Kinawataka village and the Port Bell Road; and
upgrading a section of existing road through Port Bell..
UNRA stated that the new road should be of 'Expressway' standard and that the Consultant
should undertake an initial evaluation of the potential use of tunnels to pass beneath the
ridges as this could offer a shorter, higher quality alignment and greatly reduce social
disruption.
1.4.2

Development of Options
Routes identified as practicable during the scoping which had received approval of UNRA in
May 2012 were further reviewed and refined against
data gathered during further site visits;
further consideration of project and technical design objectives;
available topographic information;
constructability / buildability, and
preliminary social and environmental impact feedback

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Additional routes were also identified, particularly in response to the possible use of tunnels,
and fhe study focus area was sub-divided into four sections based on terrain blocks and to
provide a modular approach to the route assessment process. These were;
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2; and
Section 4 (S4) - Southern Section.
Tentative vertical alignments were designed for each section of road to obtain a better
understanding of potential curvature, gradients and cut/fill magnitudes. Table 2.-1 summarises
descriptions of the four sections including indicative lengths of tunnel originally identified.

TABLE 2-1:DETAILS OF PROJECT SECTIONS, AND OPTIONS REVIEWED


SECTION

SECTION
No.

SUBSECTION
No.

SECTION DESCRIPTION

REMARK

NORTHERN
SECTION

S1

1MTB(t)

Option 1 Mutungo B (tunnelled)

Tunnel Length = 1.96Km

S1

1MTA(t)

Option 1 Mutungo A (tunnelled)

Tunnel Length = 0.74Km

S1

1MTA(nt)

Option 1 Mutungo A (nontunnelled)

S1

2MT(t)

Option 2 Mutungo (tunnelled)

S1

2MT(nt)

Option 2 Mutungo (nontunnelled)

CENTRAL
SECTION 1

S2

MY(t)

Muyenga (Tunnelled)

SECTION 2

S2

C1(nt)

Central Section 1 (non-tunnelled)

CENTRAL
SECTION 2

S3

C2(t)

Central Section 2 (tunnelled)

SECTION 3

S3

C2(nt)

Central Section 2 (non-tunnelled)

SOUTHERN
SECTION

S4

1S(nt)

Option 1 Southern (nontunnelled)

S4

2S(nt)

Option 2 Southern (nontunnelled)

SECTION 1

Tunnel Length = 2.45Km

Tunnel Length = 1.06Km

Tunnel Length = 1.12Km

SECTION 4

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The end points of each Section were located where changing between the various section
options was considered practicable. This allowed the Consultant to assess each section
individually and identify the preferred option for each.
The study area includes five significant, independent wetlands and numerous flow paths. Any
infrastructure constructed in a flow path has the potential to impact on natural flood levels,
depths, velocities and flows. The route assessment study therefore included a preliminary
assessment of existing flood conditions by reviewing the Kampala Drainage Master Plan
(KDMP).
When crossing wetlands, the alignments considered for KSB have attempted to minimize
environmental and engineering impacts on wetlands and Lake Victoria by, where possible,
following the shoreline. Where crossing main channels and other flow paths drainage has
been maintained by providing bridges or culverts.
1.4.3

Options Carried Forward to Feasibility Srage


A further meeting was held in the UNRA offices on 01 October 2012 for an initial discussion on
the Route Assessment Report which had been submitted by the Consultants in August 2012
then a follow-up meeting with UNRA at which they advised the Consultant of their selection of
preferred route options to carry forward to the feasibility study.
Minutes of the meeting were prepared by the Consultants and a copy of the final agreed
minutes sent to UNRA by letter ref 47062380/AW/KSB/FEAS-02/255 dated 06 October 2012
for their records. Prior to finalizing their comments, however, UNRA requested a joint site visit
with the Consultant to help assess the impact of the various options and conditions at site.
A joint visit (UNRA/ Consultant) was undertaken to the Northern Section and the connection to
Kampala Jinja Road at Butabika on 16 October 2012, a presentation of the Route
Assessment Report by the Consultant on the morning of 17 October 2012 and a final site vist
th
to the remaining central and southern sections in the afternoon of the 17 October 2012.
At the presentation the full range of options was described, indicating and giving reasons for
those recommended for carrying forward to the feasibility study. After discussion UNRA
approved the Route Assessment Report on the basis that all options carried forward would be
new alignment as this would provide for better access control. The options approved for
carrying forward to the feasibility study and shown in Figure 1-1 were as follows.
Northern Section
1MTA(nt) non-tunnelled new alignment crossing Mutungo Hill, and,
1MTA (t) an option on a similar horizontal alignment to 1MTA (nt) but incorporating a
tunnel through Mutungo Hill.
Central Section 1:
MY(t) - new alignment incorporating a tunnel passing through Muyenga Hill, and
C1(nt) - non-tunnelled new alignment (different from that of MY(t), circumnavigating
Muyenga Hill by crossing Nakivubo Swamp then continuing around the Northern edge of
Kansanga Swamp at the toe of Muyenga Hill.
Central Section 2:
C2(nt) conventional alignment mostly in cutting crossing over Makindye Ridge, and,
C2 (t) option on the same horizontal alignment as C2 (nt) but passing through Makindye
Ridge by means of a tunnel.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Southern Section:
1S(nt) - new alignment along the western shore of Kawagga Swamp between the location of
the proposed Salama Road Interchange and Munyonyo Spur Road near the western end of
the crossing of Kawagga swamp by the Spur Road
This decision was confirmed by UNRA's letter dated 18 October 2012 and by the subsequent
exchange of email between UNRA and the Consultant.
1.5

Base Topographic Information


As already stated, the decision was taken by UNRA that the Consultants should prepare and
compare preliminary designs for the eight alternative routing options for the Project road.
Although suitable corridors for the eight options had been identified at the Initial Assessment
stage of the Project a wide band of topographic information was required for each in order to
subsequently facilitate the preliminary optimization of the alignment for each option in relation
to the ground profile and surrounding infrastructure.
The time period which would be required to prepare detailed ground survey over a sufficiently
wide band of terrain for each corridor, together with the associated considerable expenditure,
a large proportion of which would be irrelevant once the choice of the single Option for
Detailed Design has been taken, would be impractical and unnecessarily consumptive of
resources for this stage of the design process.
The essential criterion was that the eight options should be compared on an equal basis and
that the level of detailing should permit the realization of a reasonably indicative cost estimate
for each.
Accordingly, the Consultants, after consultation with UNRA, acquired satellite-captured Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) information for the entire Project area and its environs (this being a
digital model, or 3-D representation of the ground surface within the selected corridors of
interest that only presented ground elevation information, without any other detail information
about the surface). This was obtained already digitally rectified to the World Geodetic System
(WGS) 84 which is currently the reference system being used by the worldwide Global
Positioning System (GPS). Northing and easting accuracy is claimed to be 1.0 meter, and
elevation accuracy is 1.0 to 2.0 metres depending on the location on the earths surface.
Within a relatively small portion of the earths surface such as the Project area the errors were
expected to be relatively uniform. The controlling grid of surface elevations provided was
based on 20 metres by 20 metres 2 dimensional spacing. This was considered sufficient for
initial conceptual design of alignments and earthworks.
When the candidate route option for the Detailed Design stage had been chosen detailed
topographic survey was performed over the area of land expected to impact on the alignment
design. This was prepared using the Arc 1960 / UTM zone 36N projection system, i.e.
consistent with that used within Uganda, in order to ensure compatibility with other national
data archived on a coordinate basis. This would however generate levels that were
numerically dissimilar from those of the equivalent locations in WGS84. However, in principle,
it was expected that this situation would simply require a relatively uniform adjustment of the
controlling levels of the alignment in order to optimize it to the new ground model shape.
That is to say, the profile was expected to remain substantially the same shape, but would
require moving vertically bodily together with the occasional adjustment to fine-tune it,
especially bearing in mind that the detailed topographic survey will encompass a considerably

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

greater density of spot heights and consequently a much greater relative accuracy of ground
representation when it is done.
It is important to realize that the foregoing only related to the shape of the ground surface.
With regard to the surface details such as buildings, roads, areas of water etc, these would
have to be obtained by employing satellite imagery rectified to fit exactly onto the DEM.
This will also be replaced during the Detailed Design stage as a component of the detailed
topographic survey

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC ALIGNMENT DESIGN


Preliminary geometric design of the selected options described in Section 1.4.3 finalised to
date are presented in this report. The procedure was complicated by the fact that no corridor
had previously been identified and preserved free of development pending implementation of
the bypass.
The two main options considered were (1). a wholly cut/fill or viaduct alignment, and, (2) with
tunnels through the steep ridges of Mutungo, Muyenga and Makindye. Division of the project
corridor into the four sections described in Section1.4.3 provided a 'modular' approach to the
feasibility study process. Different combinations of the layouts of the four sections of the two
options generated the possibility of a total of eight options.
Later in the design process two further variants of Option 1, both wholly open cut/fill, were
developed to review the effects of (a) shifting the alignment around the base of Muyenga Hill
further inland, and, (b) reducing the geometric design standards adopted in Option 1. These
were,
Option 1A Retaining the original design standard but shifted the alignment around Muyenga
Hill further inland permitting a reduction in the extent of viaduct considered in Option 1, and,
Option 1B Based on the Option 1A alignment but with reduced geometric design standards.

2.1

Alignment Options
Brief descriptions of the ten alignment options considered for the feasibility study are given in
Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.10.

2.1.1

Option1
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;
A new alignment commencing at Butabika Interchange of the proposed Jinja-Kampala
Highway, running in a westerly direction through Kinawataka swamp crossing the saddle
between Mutungo and Mbuya hills continues along the saddle through the informal
settlements on Mutungo Hill before crossing Portbell Road enroute to Nakivubo swamp.
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;
Aligned around the bases of Bugolobi then Muyenga hills near the shorelines of Nakivubo
and Kansanga Swamps en-toute to Gaba Road. Because of the ater depth much of this
alignment is on viaduct.
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2;
Continues as a conventional cutting alignment through Makindye ridge crossing Lukuli Road
en-route to Salama Road.
Section 4 (S4) - Southern Section;
After Salama Road, it continues as a new alignment along the south shore of Mayanja
/Kalidubi swampbefore merging with Munyonyo Spur Road.

2.1.2

Option2
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

10

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

A new alignment commencing at Butabika Interchange of the proposed Jinja-Kampala


Highway, running in a westerly direction through Kinawataka swamp through Mutungo Hill in
tunnel on a similar horizontal alignment to that of Option1 over the saddle between Mutungo
and Mbuya hills to Portbell Road enroute to Nakivubo swamp.
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;
Also a new but different alignment to that of Option ! in tunnel through Muyenga hill before
crossing Kasanga swamp to Gabba road.
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2;
In tunnel through Makindye ridge to the intersection with Salama Road.
Section 4 (S4) - Southern Section;
Follows the conventional alignment of Option 1 from Salama Road, it proceeds as a new
alignment running almost parallel to Salama road to end at its merge with Mnyonyo Spur
Road..
The conventional cut/fill alignment of Section 4 is common to both Option 1 and Option2.
Options 3 to 8 inclusive are therefore different combinations of the Sections 1, 2 and 3 of
Options 1 and 2 plus the common Section 4.
2.1.3

Option 3
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;
It adopts the new Option 2 alignment in tunnel through Mutungo hill to Portbell Road.
Sections 2, 3 and 4;
All three sections adopt the new Option 1 alignment.

2.1.4

Option 4
Sections 1, 3 and 4;
Adopt the Option 1 alignment.
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;
As in Option 2, adopts the different alignment in tunnel through Muyenga hill before crossing
Kasanga swamp to Gabba road.

2.1.5

Option 5
Sections 1, 2 and 4;
Adopt the Option 1 alignment.
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2;
In tunnel through Makindye ridge to the intersection with Salama Road

2.1.6

Option 6
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;
Adopts the new Option 2 alignment in tunnel through Mutungo hill to Portbell Road.
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

11

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

As in Option 2, adopts the different alignment in tunnel through Muyenga hill before crossing
Kasanga swamp to Gabba road.
Sections 3 and 4;
Adopt the Option 1 alignment.
2.1.7

Option 7
Section 1 (S1) - Northern Section;
Adopts the new Option 2 alignment in tunnel through Mutungo hill to Portbell Road.
Sections 2 and 4;
Adops the Option 1 alignment.
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2;
In tunnel through Makindye ridge to the intersection with Salama Road

2.1.8

Option 8
Sections 1 and 4;
Adopt the Option 1 alignment.
Section 2 (S2) - Central Section 1;
As in Option 2, adopts the different alignment in tunnel through Muyenga hill before crossing
Kasanga swamp to Gabba road.
Section 3 (S3) - Central Section 2;
In tunnel through Makindye ridge to the intersection with Salama Road

2.1.9

Option 1A
Sections 1, 3 and 4
Follows the alignment of Option 1
Section 2
Generally follows the alignment of Option 1 with the exception of the stretch around the base
of Muyenga Hill where the alignment has been shifted landwards out of the wet swamp to
dryer ground near the shoreline. This permits the length of viaduct considered in Option 1 to
be reduced along with the extent of ground treatment (excavate and replace) under
embankment.

2.1.10

Option 1B
Generally follows the alignment of Option 1A through but with a reduction in geometric design
standard

2.2

Highway Link Design


The standard adopted in the design of the Kampala Southern Bypass is typical for an urban
expressway dual carriageway and is the basis for defining design speed and the values of
geometric parameters used in the vertical and horizontal alignment i.e. the three dimensional
design of the road.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

12

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The design standards adopted aim to maximize value for money without compromising the
functionality and safety of the road and may in some cases vary from those quoted in the
Design Base Statement (Edn2 May 2013) . Economic design is achieved by incorporating
relaxations and departures from standards for design speed and geometric parameters in the
severely constrained terrain conditions reducing construction costs and the environmental and
social impacts of the proposed project.
2.2.1

Design Speed
Road alignments were designed to ensure that standards for horizontal and vertical curvature,
visibility, super-elevation, transition curves, tapers and road cross-sections catered for a
design speed consistent with those projected on the road.
The design speed was calculated as shown in Appendix 2.1 to be 100A and formed the basis
for deriving geometric parameters. However, due to its sinuosity and location in densely
settled hilly urban terrain, it is expected that 85th percentile design speed on the road will be
less than the computed value of 100kph.
Physical restrictions on the alignment, such as the steep escarpments of Mutungo and
Makindye hills, render it impractical to achieve alignment geometry for higher design speeds.
Selection of a lower design speed ensured that economical design would deliver maximum
value for money. Alignment curvature for a lower design speed was found to fit well with the
urban setting where land acquisition costs are a significant concern. Wherever possible,
desirable minimum parameters for stopping sight distance, horizontal curvature and vertical
crest curvature were used.

2.2.2

Stopping Sight Distance


The visibility envelope for Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) was measured from a driver's eye
height of between 1.05m and 2.00m, to an object height of between 0.26m and 2.00m both
above the road surface. Details the achieved stopping sight distance and requirements are
given in Appendix 2.2.
Sight distance round tight left hand bends was evaluated based on the assumption that care
shall be taken to ensure that no substantial fixed obstructions within the sightlines including
road furniture such as traffic signs. However, isolated slim objects such as lamp columns, sign
supports, or slim footbridge supports of width 550mm or under were ignored.
Similarly, the effect of short intermittent obstructions, such as bridge parapets of minor roads
passing under e.g. Lana Road, Kitintale Road, Portbell Road, Gaba Road, Lukuli Road,
Salama Road, Kyamula Road, Lwasa Road, Lukyamuzi Road and Lusala Road were ignored.
Toll Plaza layouts were, wherever possible, sited on straights or on the outside of curves,
where stopped vehicles would not obstruct sightlines.

2.2.3

Horizontal Alignment
On sections of alignment with radii greater than that shown in the associated Design Based
Statement, (i.e. V/R < 5) the cross fall or camber was designed to be 2.5% from the central
reserve of the dual carriageway to the outer channels.
On sections of alignment with radii less than that shown in the associated Design Based
Statement corresponding to minimum radius with super elevation of 5%, (i.e. V/R < 7), super
elevation was provided such that: S = V2/2.828XR.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

13

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The desirable minimum radii corresponding with a super elevation of 5% and radii below
desirable minimum with a super elevation of 7% are presented in the associated Design
Based Statement (i.e. V/R greater than 14 desirable, 20 absolute maximum).
Transition curves were provided on curves of radius less than that shown in the associated
Design Based Statement as minimum R without elimination of adverse camber & transitions.
Transition lengths were derived from the formula;
L = V3/46.7*q*R;
Where
L = length of the transition in meters,
V = design speed in kph
3

q = rate on increase of the centripetal acceleration (m/sec ), and,


R = radius in m.
The value q was limited to 0.3 and in constrained sections was limited to 0.6.
A detailed account of the horizontal alignment is presented in Appendix 2.3
2.2.4

Vertical Alignment
The desirable maximum gradient for the design was limited to 6% due to the hilly terrain.
Given the terrain, adopting gradients steeper than the desirable maximum of 4% was thought
make significant savings in construction and environmental costs but would also result in
higher user costs from delays, increased fuel consumption and accidents. in the Option 1
Some of the cuttings are up to 23m deep due to profile constraints such as crossings of the
existing road network and steep sided ridges.
The trade- off between construction/environmental savings and disbenefits to traffic flows of
adopting steeper gradients on the expressway was considered in the economic assessment
For effective drainage, a minimum longitudinal gradient of 0.5% was maintained wherever
possible. In flatter areas of the Southern Section and Central Section 1, Vertical curves have
not introduced simply to achieve a minimum surface drainage profile. In flat sections, drainage
will mainly depend on pavement cross fall.
Vertical curves have been provided at all changes of gradient with curvature that
corresponding to Design Based Statement parameters to satisfy driver comfort and stopping
sight distances for safe stopping at design speed. A detailed account of the vertical alignment
is presented in Appendix 2.4.

2.3

Expressway Standards and Lane Requirements


Traffic forecasts are described in Part 2:- Traffic Study, Volume 2 -Traffic Modelling Report,
Section 6 and lane requirements for different sections of the expressway in the design year
(2037) summarized in Table 6-3 of that report.

2.3.1

Expressway Lane Requirements During Design Period


Lane requirements for main roads are based on a maximum capacity 1,200 vehicles per hour
per lane. Based on the projected traffic flows, provision two lanes in each direction for all
sections of the expressway is recommended by the consultant as summarized Table 2-1.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

14

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF LANE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPRESSWAY (2037)


Link
Description

Section 1 Northern Section


(Northbound)

Reference

91009175

AM
TrafficFlow

Expressway
Lanes

1606 NB

1.34

Section 1 Northern Section


(Southbound)

91759100

1819 SB

1.52

Section 2 Central
Section 1
(Northbound)

90989099

1554 NB

1.30

Design
Speed
(km/h)

Comments

85

Provide two lanes in each direction

Provide two lanes in each direction.


85

Section 2 Central
Section 1
(Southbound)

90999098

2606 SB

2.17

Section 3 - Central
Section 2
(Northbound)

90949095

1554 NB

1.30

Section 3 - Central
Section 2
(Southbound)

90979095

2067 SB

1.72

Section 4 Southern Section


(Northbound)

71809093

1554 NB

1.30

Section 4 Southern Section


(Southbound)

2.3.2

90937180

2065SB

(lane requirement for each


direction)

The marginal shortfall in capacity of


the southbound carriageway at the
end of the design life may result in
limited queuing

85

Provide two lanes im each direction.

85

Provide two lanes im each direction.

1.72

Ancillary Component Requirements During Design Period


Ancillary components examined for lane requirements during the feasibility stage included,
Slip Roads/ Ramps at grade-separated intersections - either single or double lane one-way
roads constructed as part of the intersections;
Link Roads - relatively short sections of dual carriageway road linking the local road network to
the grade-separated intersections an example being the Portbell Road junction; these roads
will be dedicated to the new main through road;
Connector Roads - existing roads upgraded as part of the project to provide access from
centres of population, but will remaining available to general traffic in line with their current
usage.
The traffic modelling analysis generated a very detailed matrix of traffic flows from which
turning movements at intersections were determined, along with traffic flows on link and

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

15

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

connector roads. In general, the lane requirements for such roads, have been assigned
capacities ranging between 600 900 vehicles per hour per lane due to their relatively short
length, interaction with other local traffic, and (in the case of connector roads) moderate
geometric design standards.
2.3.3

Lane Requirements Beyond the Design Period (2037 2047)


Due to the magnitude of the Project and to inform the planning process, a check was made of
lane requirements for a 10-year period beyond the design year (2037).
In general the capacities of all sections of the Expressway and ancillary components based on
traffic projections for 2047 were found to be sufficient although, by then, the capacity of all
links start to approach their limits of capacity. However it should be noted that traffic
projections over a 30 year period are very speculative and subject to considerable error. It is
recommended that UNRA maintains a watching brief on traffic on all sections of the
expressway and ancillary links to assess if any capacity improvements are required.

2.3.4

Climbing Lanes
For expressway standard roads the Design Based Statement stipulates that a climbing lane is
required on gradients of 3% over 500m long. All alignment options considered (see Section
2.1) were tested for climbing lanes based on this criterion and found not to require any
provision.
In Option 1, the effects of providing with steeper gradients (particularly from Km 3+850 to Km
4+030, Km 12+180 to Km 12+530, and Km 13+630 to Km 14+030) on construction cost,
earthworks and visual intrusion was also tested but was not found to be beneficial..

2.3.5

Expressway Standards and Coordinated Link Design


As described in Sections 1.4.3 and 2.1 the project corridor was divided into 4 Sections based
on blocks of terrain and the existing road network. This allowed a modular approach to be
adopted for design of the two main alignment options (Option 1 and Option 2) and permitted
designs for sections of the two main options to be interchangeable and generate Options 3 - 8.
This coordination of expressway cross-section and junction layouts ensured that the overall
layout as is acceptable in terms of traffic safety and operation, and economic/environmental
effects.
A uniform expressway cross-section has been adopted for the all options except at toll plazas
and tunnel which require a wider median for geotechnical stability. Tapers at changes in crosssection at these locations comply with the provisions of the Design Based Statement.
Combined vertical/horizontal alignments have been designed to follow the topography as
much as possible. The expressway design permits light vehicles to maintain the design speed.
Subject to traffic conditions drivers are free to overtake and travel at a speed controlled only
by alignment and layout constraints. Neither gaps in the central reserve for turning traffic nor
major/minor junctions have been provided.
Access to the expressway has been provided only at main radials of the existing road network
by means of grade separated interchanges to minimize delay costs. Minor side roads such as
Amka Road have been either re-aligned or stopped up without connection to the expressway.
Interchange types, which include conventional grade separated roundabouts, have been
determined by site conditions, traffic demand, and economic/environmental impacts.
Some principles adopted in the coordinated link design included;

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

16

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Minimizing breaks in the natural skyline by embankments and cuttings, balancing up-gradients
with depth of cut and limiting embankment height through wetlands.
avioding the use of short curves and straights where possible.
Avoiding major changes of direction except at grade-separated junctions
Introducing either a flat curve or extending adjacent transition curves between intervisible
curves
phasing horizontal and vertical alignment to coincide whenever possible.
achieving flowing horizontal and vertical alignments using large radius curves while avoiding
long straights where possible.
applying super elevation at the start of horizontal curves.
providing large radius horizontal and vertical curves to enhance sight distances.
Avoiding sharp radius horizontal curves at crests
The Consultant considers that the high standard of Expressway design shall result in high
running speeds by eliminating access other than at grade-separated interchanges. However if
UNRA determine that toll plazas are to be provided traffic will require to stop at these.
As a limited access road the Expressway can be used by motorised vehicles only. Nonmotorized traffic (NMT) sucg as pedestrians, animal drawn vehicles, bicycles and some
classes of motorcycle are prohibited as is the use of the hard shoulders except in
emergencies. Provision for non-motorized traffic will be off carriageway.
2.3.6

Departures and Relaxations


The Design Based Statement defines values of geometric design criteria as a hierarchy of
related to Design Speed. To enable a flexible approach to be applied to the varying physical
circumstances at site where strict application of Desirable Minimum Standards would lead to
disproportionately high construction costs or severe environmental/social impact, the design of
all options was based on a three hierarchy.
First tier Desirable Minimum standards
Second tier apply relaxation defined by the given number of Design Speed steps below
Desirable Minimum as stated in the Design Based Statement.
Third Tier Apply a Departure from Standard in exceptionally difficulty situations which
could not be overcome by the relaxations in Table 2-2 .
The design speed for the project road was derived as Band A category for Urban Expressway.
Details of permissible relaxations for sight distance, horizontal alignment and vertical
alignment are presented in Table 2-2. Relaxations were introduced at the discretion of the
Consultant after taking relevant local factors into consideration.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

17

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-2:RELAXATIONS
Geometric Parameter

Road Standard

Design
Speed
Band

Permissible
Number of
relaxation steps

Sight Distance

Urban Expressway

2 Steps

Horizontal Alignment

Urban Expressway

3 Steps

Vertical Alignment (Crest


curves)

Urban Expressway

2 Steps

Vertical Alignment (Sag


curves)

Urban Expressway

1 Step

Details of relaxations and departures incorporated in the design together with bases for their
inclusion are presented in Appendix 2.5.
2.4

Layout of Grade Separated Junctions


As a road of expressway standard access to Kampala Southern Bypass is limited to
designated classes of vehicle by means of free-flow grade-separated interchanges at selected
crossings of the existing road network. Crossing any particular road does not imply that a
junction must be provided, or that if one is provided that it should be fully directional.
The space required for ramps, speed change lanes and weaving traffic dictate that the
minimum distance required between interchanges is of the order of 2km to 3km. Crossing
points of the main radials (Portbell, Gaba, Lukuli, Salama and Munyonyo Spur Roads)nwhich
fit this criterion were therefore selected as junction locations.
Foremost among the design considerations for the grade-separated junctions were their safety
and efficiency when catering for forecast traffic flows both on the expressway and radials. That
a junction may not be able to cater fully for predicted demand was also taken into
consideration. The junction layouts proposed are intended to present drivers and other road
users clear information of what is required of them. In the past poor junction layout has been
led driver confusion, indecisiveness and rash decisions that contribute to accidents.
Among the objectives of the junction designs were therefore to provide;
Advance notification of the layout on all approaches to a junction.
Conspicuous junction locations and clear layouts,
Clarification of permitted changes in direction of travel,
An understanding of other traffic movements, and,
Avoidance of potential hazards.
The proposed layouts of the grade separated junctions were based on the design hourly flows.
The hierarchy of geometric standards in the Design Base Statement range from rural
motorway to urban expressway. Urban design standards are relatively lower than those of
rural motorways. However, the lower standards provide greater design flexibility to enable the
designer to accommodate the existing urban infrastructure and are consistent with lower driver
expectation, particularly with respect to running speed, in urban areas, Combined with higher

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

18

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

driver perception of the urban nature of the alignment from the presence of kerbs, limited ues
of hardstrips, narrow median, lighting and speed limits offset any increased risks from reduced
standards. Including earthworks and landscaping along slip roads and gyratories as integral
parts of junction design also help emphasize the urban nature of the junction layouts.
2.4.1

Design Procedure
Initial considerations in the design of the grade separated junctions included;
Identify the strategic network using a comprehensive traffic model and determine key
intersection delays at main radial roads. Grade separation is assessed based on projected
design year traffic flows on the network.
Define geometric standards for use in the design of junctions. For this project all junctions
were designed to Urban Expressway standards.
Identify key radials to be connected to the expressway and roads that shall not. Broadly
assess the scale of time savings and formulate a junction strategy. The latter includes the
types of connection to be made i.e. only left in and left out or full directional. All junctions
identified in this study were designed to be fully directional in all alignment options with the
exception of those options which included Makindye Tunnel the layout of which eliminated
the possibility of a junction at Lukuli Road.
Derive hourly flows on the expressway and ancillary links from the network model for use in
the design and to confirm their lane requirements, the locations of junctions along the
expressway and the need for link roads to reduce on the frequency of direct access points as
in Portbell Road junction layout. A further benefit of using a link road is to eliminate substandard weaving lengths to promote free flow to minimize accident potential and preserve
expressway capacity.
Determine merge and diverge provision and check weaving sections against desirable the
minimum. Based on the projected hourly flows of the expressway and slip roads the use of
conventional tapers was considered sufficient with no lane drop or gain.
Assess if the desirable geometric standards can be achieved give the proposed junction
locations and layouts.

2.4.2

Junction Layout Options


The most efficient form of grade separation is that which presents the driver with the minimum
number of clear unambiguous decision points as they drive through the junction. On the
expressway consistency of successive junctions in terms of layout and design speed was also
a significant consideration. Consistency of road signage and marking is also considered
fundamental to the safe operation of grade separated junctions as they are an interface
between UNRA and KCCA responsibilities.
Among design aspects taken into account in the choice of layout included;
Junction efficiency - assessed as the extent to which all turning movements were provided
for and the throughput of the junction especially at peak hours.
Junction safety - the ease with which drivers could comprehend and undertake a manoeuvre
in a safe and efficient manner.
Junction consistency uniformity and simplicity of junction layout to provide similar entry/exit
conditions throughout the expressway.
Junction location these were determined as crossings of the main radials. Where possible
all junctions were to be free-flow and cater for all traffic movements.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

19

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Junction maintenance - the ease with which future maintenance operations could be
undertaken without unduly affecting expressway and radial road operations including the
implementation of diversions.
Environmental effects when considering suitable junction layouts environmental conditions
were taken into account.
Land take - this translates into displacement of population and financial implications of
acquiring prime land.
Capital cost - related to other factors such as number of bridges, extent of land take and
property acquisition.
Economic Assessment - related to the delay incurred if an at-grade intersection were to be
used in place of a grade separated junction.
Existing Physical Constraints terrain of approaches and existing utilities.
Provision for Non-Motorised Traffic - conventional junction layouts such grade separated
roundabouts that provide pedestrian access were favoured in peri-urban areas.
The layouts of proposed grade-separated interchanges are described in Sections 2.4.3 to
2.4.7. Preliminary drawings of proposed interchanges are provided in the Draft Feasibility
Study Report, Part 3 Preliminary Engineering Report, Volume B Preliminary Drawings.
2.4.3

Portbell Road Junction


Because of the steep terrain, a conventional grade-separated roundabout centred on the
expressway was not feasible. To provide for all traffic movements between Portbell Road and
the Expressway, a complex junction layout was therefore developed as shown in Figure 2-1.
This consists of an at-grade roundabout and underpass on Portbell road and a gradeseparated roundabout with two bridges under the Expressway. A dual carriageway connector
road links the two roundabouts.. This layout limits the impact of land and property in a
physically constrained location and simplifies the Expressway alignment where the route
changes direction before crossing the less built-up areas of Nakivubo swamp.

2.4.4

Gaba Road Junction


The proposed junction layout shown in Figure 2-2 is conventional two bridge grade separated
roundabout passing under the Expressway which caters for traffic movements in all directions.
This location is complicated by the presence of seven high pressure water mains. Two very
prominent mains are located just off-shoulder to the East of Gaba road the others, some of
which are buried, approach Gaba Road from the North-west to meet it in the vicinity of the
proposed junction.
The mains supply the reservoirs which serve the whole of Kampala and require protection by
portal frame structures or similar to provide access to the mains for future maintenance. These
obstructions have a major influence on the geometry of the interchange.
Further investigation of this location and the proposed junction layout will be required at
detailed design stage,

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

20

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 2-1: Portbell Road Junction

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

21

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 2-2: Gaba Road Junction

2.4.5

Lukuli Junction
As shown in Figures 2-3A and B, this layout is a conventional two bridge grade-separated
roundabout passing under the Expressway which caters for traffic movements in all directions.
The presence of social amenities such as health clinics and places of religious worship close
by restrict the amount of space available for the junction.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

22

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 2-3A: Lukuli Road Junction

Figure 2-3B: Lukuli Road Junction Overview

2.4.6

Salama Junction
Also a two bridge grade separated roundabout passing under the Expressway catering for
traffic movements in all directions..

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

23

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The nature of this site, curvature of the Expressway and the presence of social amenities such
as health clinics restrict the amount of space available for the full junction layout shown in.
Figures 2-4A and B and require a skewed oval rotary.

Figure 2-4A: Salama Road Junction

Figure 2-4B: Salama Road Junction Overview

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

24

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.4.7

Munyonyo Spur Road Junction


Munyonyo Spur road is part of the Kampala Entebbe Expressway linking the Kajansi area
along the existing Kampala Entenne road to Munyonyo on the shore of Lake Victoria. The
final approach of the Spur road to Munyonyo is a crossing of Kaagawa swamp for which the
o
Spur road alignment rotates approximately 90 from South to East.
The Expressway merges with the southern arm of the Spur road with the connection to the
Eastern arm to Munyonyo being provided for by means of a three way trumpet junction as
shown in Figures 2-5A and B.

Figure 2-5A: Trumpet Junction

Figure 2-5B: Trumpet Junction Overview

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

25

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.5

Geometric Standards for Connector Roads/Slip Roads


Design speeds for the Expressway were described in the Section 2.2.1. Corresponding design
speeds for connector/slip roads were are given in Table 2-3; Details of the Expressway and
connector roads cross sections are given in Section 2-5. The ranges design traffic flows
corresponding to the proposed cross sections are given in the Design Based Statement.

TABLE 2-3: CONNECTOR ROAD DESIGN SPEED


Mainline Design Speed
Connector/Slip Road
Design Speed

Urban 100kph

Butabika Interchange Link

70

Junction Slip Roads

70

Radial Roads

100 or 85

Portbell Link Road

70

Geometric standards for horizontal and vertical alignment and stopping sight distance for the
Expressway and connector roads at grade separated junctions were provided in accordance
with the Design Based Statement. Absolute maximum gradient for the Expressway and
connector roads was given as 4% but were relaxed to 6% because of the hilly terrain.
Minimum radii adopted for loops at the trumpet junction at Munyonyo Spur Road are given in
Table 2-4. Superelevation was applied in accordance with the Design Based Statement;

TABLE 2-4: LOOP RADII USED


Minimum radius for
Expressway Standards
(On or off Mainline)

Trumpet Junction
(Off Mainline)

Trumpet Junction
(On to Mainline)

75

100

90

Desirable minimum stopping sight distances were provided on all slip/connector roads in
accordance with the adopted design speed and the Design Based Statement. Details the
standards achieved for the vertical alignment of each slip road are given in Appendix 2-6.
Geometric parameters applied to merges and diverges are given in Table 2-5.

TABLE 2-5:GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS FOR MERGING AND DIVERGING LANES


Road Class

Length of Entry
Taper

Nose Ratio

Nose Length

Urban Expressway Merge

95

1:15

50

Urban Expressway Diverge

95

1:15

50

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

26

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.6

Cross-section and Headroom

2.6.1

Mainline Cross-section
The various cross-section elements are described in the following sub-sectionss including
details of their design. A main objective of the Consultant in the design process was to
minimize the number of changes in cross-sections were and provide a uniform width along
the route.
Design Process
Developing the original concept defined by UNRA, the preliminary design is to limited access
urban expressway standards for a two lane dual carriageway. This was later tested based on
output from the traffic modelling. Variation in width was required only at toll plazas and tunnel
sections. Considerations such as future maintenance operations and road functionality were
also taken into consideration when selecting the cross-section.
Any further variations in the cross-section components were made to accommodate other
considerations such as landscaping, drainage and environmental requirements.
Paved Width
Dimensions of components of the paved width are described in the following paragraphs. The
resulting total paved width of each carriageway was 10.5m.
Traffic Lane Width
To minimize the impact of the project on residential development and wetland areas a lane
width of 3.5m was selected for the preliminary design. This does not materially affect the
capacity of the Expressway or its fubctionality.
Hard Strips
A 0.5m hard strip was provided at the median for edge strengthening and stability of the
carriageway. Other advantages include provising an overrun facility in case of driver error or
evasive action, support for edge road markings,, reducing the risk of vegetation
encroachment; providing a location for road studs outside the vehicle wheel path and to assist
with the removal of surface run-off on superelevated bends.
Hard Shoulders
3.0m hard shoulders are provided at the outer edge of each carriageway of the Expressway to
cater for emergencies and additional road space for temporary traffic management.
Depending on actual traffic volumes at the project design period the hard shoulder could be
modified to act as a running lane during peak hours.
Median/Central Reserve
The 3m wide central reserve provides physical separation between carriageways and includes
a Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB). The road inner edges of both carriageways are at the same
elevation and no gaps within the central reserve have been permitted. Kerb lines separate the
central reserve from the adjacent carriageways with no earthworks or landscaping permitted.
Verges
A 3m wide verge has been provided at either shoulder for the erection and maintenance of
traffic signs and vehicular restraint systems. The verge width is sufficient to cater for the full

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

27

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

1.4m width (0.6m offset and 0.8m working width) of the vehicle restraint system and provide
an area which stranded motorists could use to reach an emergency telephone or await for the
arrival of a rescue vehicle.
Berms and Side Slopes
Berms and side slope widths were based on local conditions. The 2.5m berm width selected
allowed for drainage where required and working width during maintenance operations.
Side slopes in fills were generally 1.5H:1B. in the embankment proper and 1H:1V on the lower
supporting platform. In cuts, side slopes were 1.5H:1V in the lower slope and 1H:1V in the
upper slope.
VRS Set-back
Obstructions immediately adjacent to the road edge often result in drivers reducing speed and
moving away from the obstruction. To avoid this effect the traffic face of the Vehicle Restraint
System (VRS) was set-back 0.6m from the edge of the hard shoulder and 1.2m from the road
edge at the median.
Rate of Change of Cross-section Width
Where the Expressway cross-section width requires to change, i.e. at toll plazas and tunnel
approaches, the rate of change of cross-section adopted is 1:45.
2.6.2

Connector Road Cross-sections


Connector road cross-section dimensions used at grade separated junctions are given in
Figure 2-6 Based on the projected traffic flows single lane connector roads (capacity 1350vph
on merges and 900vph on diverges) are sufficient for all interchanges on the Expressway.
Some components vary in width over the length of the slip road.

Figure 2-6 Connector Road Cross-scetion Dimensions


Connector Road

Slip Roads
Merge/Diverge Single
Lane Layout A

Varies

Varies

2.0

Hardshoulder

Single Lane

3.0

3.65

0.70

1.0 Varies Varies

Figure 2-5 Cross-section Dimensions


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

28

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.6.3

Headroom and Structures


Headroom provided at all new structures along the Expressway were equal to or greater than
those defined in Table 2-6. Headroom greater than the minimum in Table 2-6 was provided in
the following cases;
grave risk of vehicular impact (extremely high loads) in particular cases
provision for adequate forward visibility in sags
possible of future pavement overlays and implications for structural maintenance
considerations for whole life costs of structure and pavement
accommodation of services or apparatus in the future
Allowance for cross-fall and super-elevation of paved width.
TABLE 2-6: STANDARD MINIMUM HEADROOM AT STRUCTURES
Type of Structure

New
Construction
Headroom (m)

Maintained
Headroom (m)

Under bridges to KSB i.e. Overbridges to local roads

5.30 +S

5.30 +S

Footbridges and other structures vulnerable to vehicle impact

5.70 +S

5.70 +S

All Permanent structures over theexpressway

6.45 +S

6.45 +S

Other structures over the Railway

6.10 +S

6.10 +S

Other structures (viaduct) over the ground level

5.70 +S

5.70 +S

S is the sag curve compensation in accordance with the Table 2-7. All sag radii were greater
than 6000m radius therefore no sag curve compensation was required.

TABLE 2-7 SAG CURVE COMPENSATION


Sag Radius (m)

Additional Clearance S (mm)

1000

80

1200

70

1500

55

2000

45

3000

25

6000

15

Greater than 6000

Nil

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

29

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.7

Expressway Roadside Features

2.7.1

Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process & Vehicle Restraint Systems


The Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process (RRRAP) adopted is derived from the UK
standard TD 19/06 and provides a means for controlling and mitigating risks to an acceptable
level providing a justification for the outlay of expenditure on vehicle restraint systems (VRS).
The RRRAP highlights standards used, provides an audit trail of risks identified, assessing
their severity in addition to documenting the process. This included the nature, parameters,
position and extent of the VRS, hazards present or known of at the time, benefits of and
justification for decisions made in the provision.
The RRRAP includes the risk analysis of a host of factors that could influence the safety of the
road project and typically include: carriageway and junction alignment; lane width and
hardshoulder / hardstrip width; verge and slope cross-sections and type of surface; type and
location of drainage; the offset of embankment edges, arrangement and form of the hazards
themselves i.e. buildings, water bodies, vertical drops and other roads or railways in the
immediate vicinity of the expresswa.
A hazard was considered a feature (e.g. embankment) or object (e.g. lighting column) that
could cause harm or damage where as a risk was considered as the chance (high or low) that
somebody or something would be harmed by the hazard. This meant that the risk was the
likelihood of the hazard being reached or hit by an errant vehicle (chance) multiplied by the
resulting consequence if the hazard is reached or hit (harm). Hazards were considered to be
within or beyond the expressway boundary provided that they presented a viable risk to the
users of the expressway.
The RRRAP was undertaken sequentially to identify possible risks, assess the level of each
risk at each location and provide a decision making framework for eliminating, minimizing or
controlling hazards and mitigating risk. Most measures adopted provision of safety barrier at
an appropriate set back as recorded in the RRRAP spreadsheets in appendix 2.7.
The As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle was used weighing accident risk
and residual effects against the overall cost to control or remove them.Typical measures
undertaken to reduce and eliminate some of the hazards included;
Removal of the hazards i.e. placing signs/ gantries and lighting columns in safe locations.
Relocation of the hazards i.e. the re-alignment of some of the local roads and drainage
ditches.
The installation of safety barriers where the risk level without the safety barrier was
unacceptable.
Increasing the verge width to 3m to lower the risk from embankment and cuts.
After reviewing options a solution that provided an acceptable level of risk.was selected
RRRAP spreadsheets are enclosed in appendix 2.7 recording level of risk, options to eliminate
or control hazards and/or mitigate risk and their impact on the risk level. Default containment
level for the VRS assessed in the RRRAP was Normal Containment Level N2. Benefit/Cost
ratio was computed by the default value for the cost of the N2 Containment Level safety
barrier over a 20 year life. Using an N2 VRS usually provided an acceptable level of risk and
the Benefit/Cost analysis the practicable length of need.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

30

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.7.2

Requirements for Road Restraint Systems


In the absence of any known local standards all safety barriers have been reviewed for
compliance with the Test Acceptance Criteria requirements of BS EN 1317-2.nThe
Performance Class for each safety barrier installation has been considered in terms of
Containment Level (e.g. N1, N2, H1, H2 or H4a), Impact Severity Level (ISL) (e.g. ISL Class
B) and the Working Width Class (W1 to W8).
Containment level requirements for permanent deformable and rigid safety barriers on the
expressway are;
Normal Containment Level = N2
Higher Containment Level = H1 or H2
Very High Containment Level = H4a
A working width class of 0.8m is recommended, which complies with the project geometry.

2.7.3

Identified Hazards
Permanent Deformable or Rigid Safety Barriers are recommended where indicated in the
RRRAP. Hazards identified in the RRRAP likely to cause a danger to occupants of errant
vehicles or give rise to a secondary event were as follows,
Culvert headwalls and lined drainage ditches.
Retaining walls
Exposed rock cuttings, filled gabions, crib walling or similar structures
Cutting faces and earth bunds exceeding 1 m high with a slope of 1H:1V or steeper. The
critical height of cuttings flatter than 1H:1V were assessed according to Table 2-8.
Embankments and vertical drops over bridges and other structures.
Expressway boundary fences and walls.
Permanent or expected water hazard with a water depth of 0.6 m or more.
Trees having, or expected to have, girths of 250 mm or more at maturity
Non-motorised User (NMU) subway entrances or under bridge passing under the
expressway.
Adjacent road or carriageway.
Public meeting places where a number of people would be present for some time such as
schools, hospitals, recreational, retail facilities or factories.

TABLE 2-8 SLOPE AND CRITICAL HEIGHT


Slope Conversion
H:W

Critical Slope Height (m)


%

Steeper than 1:1


1:1

100

1:25

80

1.2

1:1.5

66.7

1.6

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

31

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-8 SLOPE AND CRITICAL HEIGHT


Slope Conversion
H:W

Critical Slope Height (m)


%

1:1.67

60

1.8

1:2

50

2.3

1:2.5

40

3.4

1:2.75

36

4.0

1:3

33

6.0

1:3.5

28.6

7.0

1:4

25

9.0

Shallower than 1:4

None

The collation of data on identified hazards and the corresponding VRS summary output are
summarized in Appendices 2-8 and 2-9 respectively.
2.7.4

Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB)


The use of a Vertical Concrete Barrier (VCB), as illustrated in Figure 2-7; is recommended in
the central reservation and profiled steel barriers in the verge. Initial installation costs of VCB
are greater than those of a profiled steel barrier, however, maintenance and other costs of
VCB throughout their working life are lower thereby making VCB the more cost effective.
Factors considered in selecting the VCB option included;
Lower initial installation costs.
Effectively eliminating crossover accidents;
Minimal barrier repairs generally following an impact;
Lower routine maintenance costs;
Longer working life - no need to replace the system after 25 years;
The verge and central reservation were designed as nominally flat areas for this purpose.
A profiled steel barrier is recommended in verges as it is provided only at obstacles and is not
continuous unlike the VCB in te central reserve which is provided throughout the length of the
project. The profiled steel also compliments the off-shoulder drainage of the carriageways
employed on the Expressway.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

32

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 2-7: Vertical Concrete Barrier Dimensions

2.8

Provision for Non-motorised Users (NMU)


For the purpose of this assessment NMU considered were pedestrians and cyclists. the needs
of whom were reviewed with respect to KSB and the provision of Off-Carriageway Routes
including crossings such as underpasses and junctions.
Future physical planning of Kampala proposes an integrated, sustainable transport system
which includes significant development of dedicated pedestrian walking and cycling routes
The proposed expressway is designed to carry high volumes of fast moving traffic and would
generally be unattractive to NMU. However given its location, particularly at swamp crossings,
it could provide convenient routes for NMU..

2.8.1

NMU Project Objectives


The main objective of is to maintain community links in the project area and ensure that parts
of communities through which the expressway passes are not cut off from other parts ensuing
access to places of work, health centres, retail areas, communal markets, schools and public
transport services etc. This will minimize travel distances within communities and reduce the
impact of traffic and travel on the environment. In addition to extending existing NMU networks
the proposals will improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists by separating them from fast
moving vehicular traffic.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

33

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.8.2

NMU Project Proposals


The proposed NMU routes, plans for which are included in the Draft Feasibility Study Report,
Part 3, Volume 2 Preliminary Drawings, are briefly described in Sections 2.8.3 to 2.8 6 for
Options 1 and 2. They are designed to reflect the objectives in section 2.8.1, facilitating the
desired journeys without undue deviation or difficulty, linking origins and destinations and be of
an acceptable standard and comfortable to use.
As a limited access expressway NMU provision requires to be physically separated from the
carriageways. Where not crossing the Expressway NMU provision is proposed either at either
the top of cuts or near embankment toes. Where required, the berm up to 5m in width between
the embankment toe and the boundary fence could include a 3.0m combined access track but
would require to be physically separated from the embankment to prevent access.

2.8.3

Option s 1&2 Northern section


Between the proposed Butabika Interchange and Portbell Road the initial 2.5km lies in the
valley between Mutungo and Kasokoso hills around the bases of which dense settlements
have developed. These settlements and thir shops, schools, medical facilities, places of work
and recreational areas act as trip generators and destination points and account for the heavy
pedestrian movements along and in the valley.. Planned accessibility and public transport
improvements by KCCA in this area could generate more pedestrian trips.
Due to the severance of existing pedestrian routes an NMU route is proposed at the toe of the
embankment on the southbound side with vehicular and pedestrian underpasses located
along the existing routes. In Option 1 the NMU route would continue along the alignment.
A pedestrian underpass is proposed at Ch 1+020 and combined vehicular/pedestrian
underpasses at Ch 1+884 in both Options 1 and 2. In the option 1, a combined vehicular
underpass at Ch 2+851 would mitigate severance to Kireka Road. It is proposed that this NMU
route continues on the southbound side to the junction with Old Butabika road.
Pedestrian access between Old Butabika and Kitintale Roads will be met by the re-alignment
of Amka Road which currently meets this demand Between Kitintale and Portbell Roads no
NMU severance effect is expected in the slum area of Mutungo hill as the expressway
alignment lies to one side of this community.

2.8.4

Options 1&2 Central Section 1


The central section separates Luzira, Portbell, Mutungo on one side from Muyenga, Bugolobi,
Bunga and Gaba on the other by the two swamp systems of Nakivubo and Kansanga.
At present trips between the two sides require the use of at least two radials to travel to and
fromthe city centre. The proposed alignment of KSB reduces journey times and provides an
opportunity to cater for NMU traffic along its alignment. The average travel distance between
origin and destination points for pedestrians and cyclists is of the order of 2.8 and 5 miles
respectively.
Luzira Industrial Park, Bugolobi residential area, Kitintale small scale industrial centre, Kitintale
low cost housing communities, Bukasa market and housing communities and the proposed
Green parks in the Nakivubo Swamp and Kansanga swamps are all generators of pedestrian
traffic across the swamps. At present the only such access across the swamp, the existing
railway embankment connecting Luzira/Portbell area to Bugolobi, caters the for high NMU
flows.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

34

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

An NMU route is therefore proposed along the entire distance between Portbell and Gaba
Roads variously located either to the northbound or southbound carriageway side depending
on the the NMU traffic generators. On the Option 1 three pedestrian underpasses are
proposed at, Ch 7+300 and while on Option 2 only underpasses at Ch 5+000 and Ch
11+000.are required. Collector routes approximately 500m long towards Kansanga and Bunga
could also be considered.
2.8.5

Options 1&2 Central Section 2


There are few notable NMU generators between Gaba and Salama Roads and several local
access roads, which run close to the proposed expressway alignment over Makindye ridge,
currently cater for any existing NMU traffic. Further benefit from providing an NMU route along
the Expressway is considered marginal. Severance caused by the expressway crossing
existing routes will be mitigated by providing combined vehicular/pedestrian underpasses at
Ch 12+880 and Ch 13+120 in Option 1. Because of the tunnel arrangements these
underpasses these underpasses are not required in Option 2. A third underpass could be
considered at at Ch 13+500 depending on the degree of severance and traffic demand.
No major planned developments or changes of land use etc in the study area are known of in
the study area that would generate either additional NMU or motorised traffic during the design
period.

2.8.6

Options 1&2 Southern Section


This section between the Salama Road and project point and is common to all options. This
section runs along the south bank of the swamp opposite Salama Road crossing smaller
distributers (Kyamula, Kyamula-Salama, Lwasa and Lusala Roads) en-route.
This section is less developed than those further North and is characterised by clusters of
trees and isolated swampy sections. A seasonal stream drains the length of the swamp before
discharging to Kaawaga swamp. The swampy terrain and seasonal stream have influenced
settlement development, Inaccessibility has left many areas between roads undeveloped.
An NMU route at the embankment toe on the northbound carriageway side linking all crossing
roads is therefore recommended. This route would provide direct access for residents in these
communities to different social services and amenities in the area

2.8.7

Developmental Plans that may increase flows of NMUs


After the opening of KSB this major new link will provide new journey possibilities for private
transport, public services and NMU in Kampala and surrounding area.
The other transportation infrastructure improvements listed below may influence future NMU
traffic near the expressway.
Kampala Jinja Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) when fully operational the BRT will providing rapid
bus services along selected corridors to the town centre. Walking is the complimentary mode
of transport to the BRT. Bus priority measures at key junctions along Portbell, Gaba and
Salama roads will be required eventually but no specific provision is required at present at
these intersection points
Dualling of Portbell Road and Gaba Road Provision has been made in the layouts of the
intersections for the future upgrading of the radials. As the public transport system is
developed more pedestrian traffic is likely to be generated.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

35

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Green parks green park recreational areas in Nakivubo and Kansanga Swamp areas
proposed in the KCCA Physical Development Plan are likely to generate additional flows of
NMU.
Enhanced Public Transport services improved bus services along the main radials are
likely to increase NMU traffic to access them
Luzira Industrial Park will become a major generator of NMU traffic.
Future Transport Strategy - future network requirements will be driven by the citys
expansion, the need for increased highway capacity and planning constraints in future. If
public transport cannot satisfy the increased demands of the greater catchment area other
means of transportation may develop to fill the gaps including walking and cycling.
2.8.8

Geometric Design of NMU Routes


A shared use facility has been adopted as projected flows of cyclists and pedestrians are
moderate and the potential for conflict low. Although the preferred minimum width for an
unsegregated shared facility is 3.0m, such NMU facilities 2.0m wide are known to operate
satisfactorily for up to 200 pedestrian/cycle users/hour.
Design Speed - A design speed of 30kph and corresponding visibility requirements etc were
adopted for off carriageway cycle routes.
Visibility - The following criteria for adequate visibility were considered;
forward visibility for cyclists along the route to ensure appropriate Stopping Sight Distance
(SSD) and eye-object height are met; and
visibility at junctions / crossings to ensure adequate visibility for vehicle drivers and NMU
preferred minimum stopping sight distance of 30m for 30kph.
Alignment the majority of the NMU corridor is parallel to the mainline alignment in both
horizontal and vertical planes. With the exception of two locations where the NMU route
switched from the southbound to the northbound carriageway side, this ensured that
geometric criteria exceeded NMU requirements. Suitable sign and markings will be provided
throughout but particularly at the direction changes noted above.
Gradient generally followed the expressway or local conditions
Cross fall a typical maximum of 2.5%was adopted
Cross section- The NMU facility cross-section depended on a number of factors, including:
shared. Use between cyclists and pedestrians
visibility;
space available in the highway corridor;
requirements of road signs and markings
a shared facility 3.0m wide was adopted
Local requirements for access ro a range of public facilities and recreation for a range of users
will require on-going consultation with local administrations in the area during the detailed
design phase.

2.9

Minor Alterations to existing Roads


Minor alterations to the existing road network were required mainly where expressway
junctions were located and where some minor distributer roads had to be slightly realigned.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

36

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Alterations to specific roads are described in subsections 2.8.1 to 2.8.10, however, alterations
general consist of
Horizontal and Vertical Realignment
Junction improvement
Widening of carriage ways;
Provision of footpaths.
to address safety, capacity, operation and environmental aspects to ensure that net benefits
were taken into account and any unacceptable disbenefits in these aspects were avoided.
2.9.1

Lana Road
Lana Road in the northern section connects both sides of the valley. To provide as square an
underpass as possible, alterations to the horizontal and vertical realignment of a short length
of Lana road were required where crossing KSB.

2.9.2

Amka Road
Amka Road connects Kitintale and Old Butabika Roads while serving the settlements between
for access and as a local commercial hub. Horizontal and vertical realignment is required in
Option 1 (and similar) to maintain the corridor and mitigate severance.

2.9.3

Kitintale Road
Kintintale Road has a similar dunction to Amka Road but connects Portbell Road and Kireka
Roads. In Option 2 (and similar) alteration of the vertical alignment is required to provide
sufficient clearance at the southern portal of Mutungo tunnel.

2.9.4

Portbell Road
A key radial of the existing road network Portbell Road is the location of a major junction of
KSB and is also earmarked for upgrade by KCCA. The junction includes an at-grade
roundabout and underpass on Portbell Road, the layouts of which make provision for the
future upgrading of Portbell Road.

2.9.5

Ringotho Road
Ringotho Road is a local distributor serving local communities near Portbell Road. The
intersection with Portbell road was obliterated by KSB. Realignment of Ringtho Road is made
to the grade separated roundabout which forms part of the major junction and then to Portbell
Road by the new connector road linking the two roundabouts.

2.9.6

Luthuli Avenue
Luthuli Avenue serves residential properties in the Bugolobi suburbs. The embankment width
of KSB impacts its functionality. Options being considered to preserve the integrity of the
Luthuli Avenue are (1) to reduce the overall embankment width, or, (2) providing a retaining
wall to retain the horizontal alignment of the Luthuli Avenue as is. This will be finalized during
detailed design.

2.9.7

Gaba Road
Gaba Road is another major radial road serving the suburbs of Gaba, Bunga and Munyonyo
and the location of a major junction (a grade-separated roundabout) of KSB. KCCA has also

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

37

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

earmarked this route for major upgrade to dual carriageway standards, possibly including a
Light Rail Transit (LRT) system.
The site is complicated by the need to protect seven NWSC water mains located along Gaba
Road, At this location some mains are visible and others are buried. Following discussion with
NWSC the intent of the design is to leave the mains in place protected by portal frames with
junction slip roads designed to pass over the protected mains.
Alteration to both the horizontal and vertical alignments of Gaba Road will be required with slip
roads leading to the junction also being included on Gaba Road.
2.9.8

Lukuli Road
Lukuli Road is another important radial of the existing road network commencing at the
roundabout on Entebbe Road and serving the suburbs of Munyonyo and Makindye. It has lins
to Gaba and Salama Roads by way of several minor service roads,
In Option 1 and similar open cut options of a major junction (grade separated roundabout) is
proposed at this location. Minor alterations are required to Lukuli Road to tie it into the
proposed roundabout.
Option 2 and others which include a tunnel through Makindye ridge there is insufficient space
to provide a grade separated junction. In these oprions Lukuli Road passes over the tunnel
approach on an expressway overbridge without connections.

2.9.9

Acacia Road
This serves as a distributer road between Lukuli and Salama Roads and requires adjustment
of its vertical and horizontal alignment at the crossing point with KSB.

2.9.10

Salama Road
Salama Road is another major radial where a major junction (grade separated roundabout) on
KSB is proposed The horizontal and vertical alignments of Slama Road will require adjustment
to tie in with the roundabout of the proposed junction.

2.10

Toll Plazas
As discussed in Section 6 of this volume, the decision on the use of tolling on KSB has yet to
be determined by UNRA. However consideration has been taken tolling in the design and
possible locations of four toll plazas included in the design. These are shown on the
Plan/Profile drawings in Part 3, Volume B Preliminary Drawings of the Draft Feasibility Study
Report.
Layout of the toll plazas and their facilities within a total available width of 25.4m has been
based on the standards and other criteria described in this section taking consideration of
safety, environmental impact, cost, buildability, operation and maintenance.

2.10.1

Location of Toll Plazas


Toll plazas tend to be large, open, brightly lit and obtrusive and ideally need to be located
away from residential areas to mitigate their impact. Preferred locations were the less
urbanized stretches of the alignment. These were mostly wetlands because of their level
terrain and lower sensitivity to highway noise and air pollution. Operational performance
factors considered in location selection included;

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

38

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Visibility - the required sight distance for approaching traffic of at least 215 was provided at
all plazas.
Expressway horizontal/vertical alignment - a straight or large radius curve with a flat grade
was preferred.
Proximity to junctions - preferred locations were close to major junctions of the Expressway
Safety and security for staff - toll plazas were located for ease of access to and from KSB in
case of emergencies.
Consistency with any other toll plazas for uniformity a similar cross-section to that of toll
plazas on Kampala-Entebbe Expressway lane width and provisions for extra-large vehicles
was desirable.
Environmental impact - ideal plaza locations were in wetlands but environmental
considerations were integral in their layouts. Landscaping, air quality, noise, highway runoff
and other factors impacting local habitats were taken into consideration. However, such
locations minimize displacement of population and nuisance due to air pollution and noise.
Capital cost construction in flat areas were preferred and overall width of plaza was
minimized.
Economic performance the balance of cost of additional lanes and plaza throughput, traffic
mix and tolling systems were considered.
Access to utilities preferred locations were close to existing utilities
2.10.2

Toll Plaza Layout Geometry


Figure 2-8 illustrates a typical toll plaza layout. For visibility the toll plaza was treated as a
junction, the immediate approach distance being considered as1.5 times the desirable
minimum stopping sight distance upstream of the Approach Zone.

Figure 2-8 Conceptual Toll Plaza Layout

Toll Lane Width


A toll lane width 3.2m is proposed to slow traffic and guide the driver to the toll collection
system. A 4.5m wide lane is provided at each outer edge of a plaza for passage of abnormal
wide loads. .
Maximum vehicle demand and Toll Plaza Throughput
The number of toll lanes required was derived from the maximum design year (2037) traffic
demand summarized in Table 2-9.
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

39

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-9: AVERAGE HOURLY FLOWS 2037 VEHICLES


Location
Jn 1 (Butabika) to Jn 2 (Bugolobi) - SB
Jn 2 (Bugolobi) to Jn 1 (Butabika) - NB
Jn2 (Bugolobi) to Jn3 (Bunga) - SB
Jn 3 (Bunga) to Jn 2 (Bugolobi) - NB
Jn3 (Bunga) to Jn4 (Lukuli) - SB
Jn 4 (Lukuli) to Jn 3 (Bunga) - NB
Jn4 (Lukuli) to Jn5 (Salaama) - SB
Jn 5 (Salaama) to Jn 4 (Lukuli) - NB
Jn5 (Salaama) to Jn6 (Munyonyo) - SB
Jn 6 (Munyonyo) to Jn 5 (Salaama) - NB

Ref.

AM

PM

IP

OP

WKND

ADT

91759100
91009175
90999098
90989099
90979095
90959097
90959094
90949095
90937180
71809093

1819
1606
2066
1554
2067
1554
2064
1554
2065
1554

1210
1567
750
1322
750
1322
749
1322
749
1322

1370
1436
1274
1301
1275
1301
1273
1301
1273
1301

1386
1452
1289
1316
1289
1316
1287
1316
1288
1316

1581
1656
1470
1501
1470
1501
1468
1501
1469
1501

22,837
23,923
21,232
21,686
21,240
21,686
21,213
21,686
21,221
21,686

Maximum projected peak hour flow varies from 740 to 2066 vehicles. To provide consistent toll
plaza layouts along the Expressway the maximum projected flow was considered the design
flow when computing the number of toll lanes required. This strategy would also assist in
handling any unforeseen variations in traffic demand and minimize alterations later in the
project life. Consideration was also given to factors that influence the realistic achievable
capacity of toll lanes including methods of payment, toll rates, vehicle categorization and toll
plaza operational procedures.
Based on experience elsewhere, the range of throughputs achievable for various payment
methods of payment is summarized in Table 2-10

TABLE 2-10 TOLL LANE THROUGHPUT.


Method

Explanation

Car Throughput
vph

HGV Throughput
vph

Electronic Toll
Collection
(ETC)

Transponders, contact-less reading of bar code stickers/


proximity cards, Tags(Low speed automatic vehicles reduce
speed, barrier lifts when transponder/card/tag is read)

450-900

300-500

Card Payment
(CP)

Credit, Debit or Charge Cards(Vehicles stop barrier lifts when


card is passed through reader and has been verified receipt
may be given) Note: Throughput will reduce if driver is required
to enter a PIN to verify the transaction

200-350

150-250

Cash machines/coin baskets (Vehicles stop barrier lifts when


cash has been verified change and receipts may be given)

300-500

200-350

Card/cash/voucher/token (Vehicles stop barrier operated by


attendant; change and receipts may be given)

250-550

200-300

Coin Bin
(CB)
Manual
(M)

Note:
900 vph = 4 seconds per transaction
450 vph = 8 seconds per transaction
300 vph = 12 seconds per transaction
200 vph = 18 seconds per transaction

Assuming a manual or coin bin method of payment, providing four toll lanes in each direction
should suffice. An assessment based on the other methods of toll collection is presented the
Table 2-11.
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

40

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Toll Plaza Length


The various elements of a toll plaza are shown in the Figure 2-8.
The Approach and Departure Zones are 310m long with tapers at a rate of 1:45 over their
lengths to the plaza design width of 25.4m. On the Approach Zone traffic speed reduces as
drivers choose a toll lane based on their preferred tolling method of or traffic classification
where tolling is segregated. The opposite occurs on the Departure Zone.
Leaving the Approach Zone traffic enters the Queue Zone which has been designed to be
86m long, sufficient to accommodate the design flow without extending back into the Approach
Zone. Vehicles should now be in the correct lane and with minimal lane changing.
On exiting the toll lane, delineated by 28m long toll islands, traffic enters the Recovery Zone
which is also 86m long where vehicles accelerate to regain speed to enter the Departure
Zone.
The Approach and Departure Zone tapers were designed for an assumed free-flow approach
speed of 85kph.
Toll Island Length
The length of toll islands can vary depending on the configuration of the toll category
classification equipment, payment facilities and protection devices for booths, equipment and
vehicles. Toll islands therefore require little more than sufficient length for the booth, its access
arrangements and some form of protective nosing. Toll islands were therefore designed to be
28m long to provide adequate flexibility for variations of these requirements.
Exceptional Vehicles i.e. Special Lane
Provision for exceptional vehicles, particularly wide vehicles and those carrying dangerous
goods, was made a special 4.5m wide lane at the outer edges of the toll plaza. This lane could
also be used in exceptional circumstances e.g. when peak traffic demand exceeds the design
capacity during equipment failure, accident, bf=eakdown or maintenance activity of one or
more normal toll lanes lanes,
2.10.3

Other Considerations
Methods of Payment
The efficiency and other benefits, of toll collection methods vary with factors such as toll rates
and vehicle classification The Consultant considered a range of payment methods used for toll
collection and comment as follows..
Cash to toll collector< a necessary feature of any toll plaza to deal with motorists who are
unable to use any other payment option. Not the most efficient method of toll collection but
still the most versatile.
Tickets/tokens This is beneficial where the toll level is not equivalent to a single coin.
However, it is open to abuse, particularly where discounts are offered.
Automatic Coin Machine (ACM) these are best used with low toll levels and automatic
classification. The throughput decreases if change is offered.
Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) encompasses a range of measures where modern
technology is used to identify vehicles or drivers and automatically collect tolls from the user
accounts.
ETC systems are the most effective means of collecting tolls.
Toll Prices

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

41

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The level of toll charged to motorists will have an effect on the throughput at those toll lanes
where cash is accepted. For example, a toll level equivalent to a single coin or note, will allow
a greater throughput than a toll which requires change to be given.
Methods for Dealing with Underestimated Traffic Demand
For various reasons (e.g. peak traffic demand exceeding the design provision, equipment
failure or maintenance making one or more lanes unavailable, vehicle breakdown or accidents
within the toll plaza area) traffic may build-up at the toll plaza. Such situations could be
addressed as follows within the design
Regular peak hour delays could be addressed by introducing higher toll charges during peak
periods with the aim of spreading peak demand over a longer period;
Overall throughput could be increased by encouraging drivers to adopt ETC methods of toll
collection. Discounts to the normal toll level could be used for ETC users;
For the occasional (or regular) periods of high demand, the wide load facility could be used
for all vehicles;
Further Infrastructure Requirements
Each plaza will require a toll administration building with traffic monitoring and secure cash
handling capabilities and staff welfare facilities. Detailed consideration of these provisions and
of access arrangements between the toll administration buildings and the local road network
should be considered at a later stage.
Toll Plaza Pavements
The Consultant recommends the use of concrete pavement in the toll lanes and the Queue
and Recovery Zones for the following reasons:
To reduce pavement rutting;
To reduce damage caused by discharge of oils, fuel, and grease;
To prevent surface layer undulation caused by vehicle braking and acceleration
To facilitate a simpler and effective maintenance regime by way of washing.
Details of the concrete pavement design are given in the Section 4 of this Volume and in the
Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Part 3, Volume A.
Plaza Drainage
The Consultant recommend using a standard minimum cross-fall of 2.5%.and longitudinal
gradient of 0.5% drain toll plazas. Each of toll lane will drain along the adjacent islands.
Because of the carriageway width of the toll plazas a continuous edge drainage system may
be required.. Specific provisions to prevent the accumulation of surface water in the approach
and departure zones and toll lanes will be considered at a later stage.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

42

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-11 TOLL PLAZA ASSESSEMENT


Section & Direction

Traffic
Flow (vph)
from traffic
modelling

Southbound

1819

Northbound

Method of
Toll
Payment

Throughput (vph)
Range

Lanes
Required

Average

ETC

450-900

675

2.7

CP

200-350

275

6.6

CB

300-500

400

4.5

250-550

400

4.5

ETC
CP
CB
M

450-900
200-350
300-500
250-550

675
275
400
400

2.4
5.8
4 .02
4.02

1606

Section 2
(Central
Section 1)

Southbound

2066

ETC
CP
CB
M

450-900
200-350
300-500
250-550

675
275
400
400

3.1
7.5
5.2
5.2

Average
No. of
Lanes
needed

Lanes
Provided

4.58

4.07

5.25

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

43

Remarks

The most efficient method of payment will be ETC


followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
Surges in traffic flows can be accommodated by the
special wide-load lane acting as fifth lane.
This toll plaza is co-located with the northbound plaza
in terms of cross-sectional location although it shall
operate independently.
The most efficient method of payment will be ETC
followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
The provision of 4 lanes appears to be perfectly
adequate.
In the unlikely event of an overflow, surges in traffic
flows can be accommodated by the special wide-load
lane acting as fifth lane.
This toll plaza is co-located with the southbound plaza
in terms of cross-sectional location although it shall
operate independently.
The most efficient method of payment will be ETC
followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
Surges in traffic flows can be accommodated by the
special wide-load lane acting as fifth lane.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-11 TOLL PLAZA ASSESSEMENT


Section & Direction

Traffic
Flow (vph)
from traffic
modelling

Northbound

1554

Section 4
(Southern
Section)

Southbound

Method of
Toll
Payment

Throughput (vph)
Range

Lanes
Required

Average

ETC

450-900

675

2.3

CP

200-350

275

5.7

CB
M

300-500
250-550

400
400

3.9
3.9

ETC
CP
CB
M

450-900
200-350
300-500
250-550

675
275
400
400

3.1
7.5
5.2
5.2

2065

Northbound

ETC
CP
CB
M

450-900
200-350
300-500
250-550

1554

675
275
400
400

Average
No. of
Lanes
needed

Lanes
Provided

3.95

5.25

3.95

2.3
5.7
3.9
3.9

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

44

Remarks

The most efficient method of payment will be ETC


followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
The provision of 4 lanes appears to be perfectly
adequate.
In the unlikely event of an overflow, surges in traffic
flows can be accommodated by the special wide-load
lane acting as fifth lane.
The most efficient method of payment will be ETC
followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
Surges in traffic flows can be accommodated by the
special wide-load lane acting as fifth lane.
This toll plaza is co-located with the northbound plaza
in terms of cross-sectional location although it shall
operate independently.
The most efficient method of payment will be ETC
followed by M and CB. A mix of all three should ensure
that the 4 lanes provided are adequate based on the
projected demand.
The provision of 4 lanes appears to be perfectly
adequate.
In the unlikely event of an overflow, surges in traffic
flows can be accommodated by the special wide-load
lane acting as fifth lane.
This toll plaza is co-located with the southbound plaza

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-11 TOLL PLAZA ASSESSEMENT


Section & Direction

Traffic
Flow (vph)
from traffic
modelling

Method of
Toll
Payment

Throughput (vph)
Range

Average

Lanes
Required

Average
No. of
Lanes
needed

Lanes
Provided

Remarks

in terms of cross-sectional location although it shall


operate independently.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

45

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

2.11

Design of Tunnels

2.11.1

General
The overall design of tunnels on some alignment options considered for KSB are outlined in
Section 6.11 of this volume and described in detail in an advice note enclosed as Appendix 6
of the Draft Feasibility Study Report, Part 3 Preliminary Engineering Design, Volume A2
Appendices.
Some aspects which influence geometric design requirements with respect to tunnels are
described in the advice note. This section outlines the basic geometric design requirements for
highway alignments in tunnels
Options including tunnels through Mutungo, Muyenga and Makindye hills (Section 2.1 referrs)
were developed in a bid to mitigate the impact of KSB on existing settlements and offset the
social and environmental costs associated with the open road options, The horizontal
alignment of the road tunnels is almost coincident with that of the open road options. However
The vertical alignments in tunnels varied from those of the open road options in part to provide
sufficient cover over the tunnel soffit.

2.11.2

Tunnel Cross-section
As described in the advice note (Appendix 6, Volume B) the tunnels are conceived as twin
bore, double lane structures with cross passages at regular intervals. Each tunnel of 11.6m
diameter is designed to accommodate two uni-directional traffic lanes, a 1m security walkway,
sufficient headroom for a high load route (i.e. 6.45m + S) and all the electrical, mechanical and
safety equipment required. Safety facilities are required was in accordance with the Category
A tunnel classification based on the design traffic loading in the design year, 2037.

2.11.3

Geometric Design
For this preliminary design the tunnels and their geometry have been designed to conform
with the requirements of BD 78/99, Tunnel Design Standards, part of the DMRB.
Maximum allowable gradient was 4% although the maximum adopted was 0.5% due to the
need to provide sufficient cover to the tunnel soffit, the minimum horizontal curve radius of
255m required for the design speed and cross section of the approach roads (taken as a
length equivalent to 1.5 times the Stopping Sight Distance from the portal location) and the
proximity of tunnel portals to any junctions while providing the minimum SSD. Complying
withing SSD requirements was considered crucial for driver awareness of the approach to a
tunnel and any need to adjust their driving style.
The nature and extent of any modification of the standards in Table 2-14 required at each
tunnel depended local circumstances and are discussed in in part d of this section.
a)

Tunnel Traffic;

Maximum permissible hourly design flows are given in Table 2-12 and correction factors for
gradient and HGV in Table 2-13. When applying the correction factors to the alignment
designs, the gradient adopted was the average of a 0.5 km section in each tunnel, usually
0.5%

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

46

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3.12: MAXIMUM HOURLY DESIGN FLOW


Tunnel
Flow/Type

Design Flow (veh/hr/lane)


Cut and Cover

Bored

Uni-directional

1800

2000

Bi-directional

1590

1800

TABLE 2-13: CORRECTION FACTORS


% HGVs

Gradient
<2%

>2% <4%

b)

-15

10

-5

-20

15

-10

-25

20

-15

-30

Design Speed, Curvature and Stopping Sight Distance;

Stopping sight distance (SSD) was derived conventionally from design speed, drivers reaction
time and average deceleration rate to stop. The desirable SSD was therefore based on a 2
second reaction time and 0.25g deceleration as shown in Table 2-14.
Table 2-14 shows the recommended relationship between speed limit, design speed and
stopping sight distances (SSD). Table 2-15 the relationship between design speed and
horizontal curvature.
TABLE 2-14: DESIGN SPEED, STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCES
SPEED LIMIT

MPH)

70

60

50

40

30

Design Speed

Km/hr

120

100

85

70

60

Desirable SSD

295

215

160

120

90

One Step
Relaxation

215

160

120

90

70

Two Step
Relaxation

160

120

90

70

50

Table 2-15 compares SSD for open roads and in tunnel curvature. On tight curves on open
roads, the required SSD can be achieved by widening verges to provide the necessary sight
lines. This is impractical in tunnels therefore the degree of horizontal curvature was
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

47

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

determined by the need to achieve the minimum SSD for the tunnel cross-section specified in
Table 2-15.
TABLE 2-15: HORIZONTAL CURVATURE IN TUNNELS TO PROVIDE SSD STANDARDS
DESIGN SPEED

Km/hr

120

100

Superelevation
Desirable Minimum for
Open Road from the
DBS

85

70

60

360

255

Radius (m)

5%

1020

720

510

Typical SSD Determined Min Horizontal Radii for 2 lane One way tunnels with 3.5m Lane width, 1.0m raised
platforms on both sides
Desirable Min

5%

2850

1510

840

470

265

One Step Relaxation

7%

1510

840

470

265

160

Two Step Relaxation

7%

840

470

265

160

80

c)

Vertical Alignment

The vertical alignment was designed to the standards in the design based statement. Table 216 summarizes the maximum cover achieved at each tunnels for the vertical alignment as
designed.

TABLE 3.16: TUNNEL COVER


Tunnel

Maximum Cover
attained (m)

Maximum Cover
Chainage

Tunnel Length
between Portal
Headwalls (m)

Chainage of
Portal
Headwall

Level Diff at
Portal
Headwall with
5.8m cover

Mutungo

33.593

3+315

769.630

2+966.681

14.5m

3+736.311

14.5m

7+392.782

14.5m

8+093.241

14.5m

11+190.500

14.5m

12+375.030

14.5m

Muyenga

Makindye

32.123

47.369

7+621

11+740

700.459

1184.530

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

48

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

d)

Achieved Geometry

Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Alignment are summarized in Table 2-17 and 2-18 and
details of tunnel portal locations and the factors considered in their design given in Table 2-19.

TABLE 2-17: HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF THE TUNNELS

Mutungo
Tunnel

Element 1

Element 2

Element 3

Element 4

Element 5

Element 6

Element 7

Element 8

Arc Radius
280m

Straight
Length
300m

Arc Radius
600m

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Straight
Length
141m

Arc Radius
470m

Straight
Length
456m

Arc Radius
265m

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Straight
Length
487m

Arc Radius
3000m

Straight
Length
140m

Arc Radius
800m

Straight
Length
150m

Arc Radius
1000m

Straight
Length
50m

Arc Radius
510m

(1245m)
Muyenga
Tunnel
(1116m)
Makindye
Tunnel
(1557m)
TABLE 2-18: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT OF THE TUNNELS
Element 1

Element 2

Element 3

Mutungo Tunnel (1245m)

Grade 0.5%

N/A

N/A

Muyenga Tunnel (1116m)

Grade 0.5%

Vertical Curve (Hog) K = 200

Grade -0.5%

Makindye Tunnel (1557m)

Grade 0.5%

Vertical Curve (Hog) K = 200

Grade -0.5%

e)

Gradients

Maximum gradients allowable on open roads are defined in the design based statement.
Maximum allowable gradient for tunnels is 4%, however, 0.5% was adopted partly to cater for
the physical cover required for a tunnel and partly because capacity reduction for steep
gradients in tunnels are more severe than for open roads.
f)

Super-elevation and Cross-falls

Super-elevation was provided in accordance with the design based statement and a normal
cross-fall of 2.5% was provided.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

49

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2-19: PORTAL LOCATIONS


Tunnel

Portal

Mutungo

Muyenga

Makindye

Elevation
at Start
of Portal
Cut
Section

Elevation at
End of Cut
Section
(Tunnel
Portal
Location)

Chainage
(Start of
cut
section)

Chainage
(End of
cut
section
i.e. Portal
location)

Length in
cut
preceding
portal (m)

Northern
Portal

1154.022

1170.378

2+567.3

2+966.681

399.981

Southern
Portal

1160.141

1173.937

3+867.3

3+736.311

130.989

Northern
Portal

1142.138

1157.459

7+231

7+392.782

161.782

Southern
Portal

1142.047

1157.985

8+395.3

8+093.241

302.059

Northern
Portal

1158.027

1173.745

10+950.1

11+190.500

240.400

Southern
Portal

1162.129

1177.402

12+550.1

12+375.030

175.07

Factors Considered

Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.


Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1151m asl.
Aligning the road between two major pylons.
Keeping the local road network intact i.e. Unknown Road 1 at Ch 2+851.
Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.
Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1153m asl.
Keeping the local road network intact i.e. Kitintale Road 1 at Ch 3+813.
Achieving clearance over Portbell Road at Ch 4+280.
Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.
Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1147m asl.
Avoiding unnecessary costly property destruction.
Avoiding unnecessary infrastructure destruction i.e. Mast in the vicinity.
Keeping above the 100 year flood line estimated at 1138m asl.
Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.
Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1146m asl.
Avoiding unnecessary costly property destruction.
Avoiding unnecessary infrastructure destruction i.e. Power Lines.
Keeping above the 100 year flood line estimated at 1138m asl.
Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.
Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1155m asl.
Avoiding unnecessary costly property destruction.
Avoiding unnecessary infrastructure destruction i.e. Power Lines.
Connection to Lukuli Road if possible at Ch 11+114.
Maintaining Local Road Network.
Achieving a maximum cover of atleast 1.5D at the tunnel portal.
Water source i.e. Protected Spring at an elevation of 1159m asl.
Grade Separated clearance at Salama Road at Ch 12+674

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

50

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1

General
The project road (KSB) crosses a number of major rivers, i.e. the Kinwataka, Nakivubi
channel, Mayanja and Kaliddubi, which have catchment areas ranging from 19 to 34 km2 and
a number of smaller rivers and streams either perennial or intermittent in nature. It crosses
various geomorphologic units which are expressed as undulating ridges and flood plains. In
places KSB may require side drains and cross drainage in the form of pipe culverts and
multiple cells box culverts or bridges to convey design floods. Climate. In the project area is
classified as tropical humid.
Because no gauged river data is available, design floods at proposed cross drainage locations
have been estimated as a function of local geomorphology, geology, rainfall, soil and land use/
land of the river and stream catchments using different rainfall/runoff models.
The hydrological analysis has been carried out for the two main alignment option s 1 and 2, as
these include all the elements of other options.
The study consisted of the following.
Review of previous reports and field survey
Analyses, interpretation and utilization of available topographic maps, satellite imagery,
DEM, soil, land use/land cover mapping.
Collection and analysis of available meteorological data.
Preliminary hydraulic analysis of proposed drainage structures for preliminary sizing of the
proposed structures to convey design floods

3.1.2

Scope and Objectives


In addition to the aspects described in Section3.1.1 the report also discusses
field observations and literature review of the corridor geomorphology, soil and land use/
land cover.
rainfall analysis and determination of different return period flood magnitudes for rivers,
streams and flood paths crossing the corridor
Preliminary sizing and recommendations for proposed drainage structures (bridges, major
and minor culverts) required to convey design floods.
The alignments of Options 1 and 2 overlaid by the drainage catchments which cross the road
corridor are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 respectively.
Both alignment options and the catchments of the rivers, streams and flood paths crossing
them fall in a single geological formation of basement rocks ( i.e. amphibolite, gneisses,
migmatite, etc.) which have developed undulating hills / ridges with steep side slopes and
overlain by thick laterite deposits and separated by broad river valleys (wetlands) with thick
alluvial deposits.
All river and stream systems which drain towards and cross the project road have dendritic
feeder systems.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

51

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

455000

460000

40000

40000

126

0m

11
118
m

12

20

12

1 26 0 m

20

12
60

00

C-02

\
C-03 &

11

60

C-04

35000

40

116 0 m

\
&

116 0 m
12

20

\ C-05
&

20

S
#

0m

120

00
12

12

m
12
20

12
m

20

11 8

0m

\
&

1 22

12 00 m
11 80 m

C-06

[%C-07
0m

12 0
0

C-08

\ C-09
&
124 0 m

S
#
20

60

0m

C-11

\
&

\
&

C-10

\
&
30000

00

m
m

80
11
m

00

60

11
m
8 0 12 0 0 m

11

[%C-17

12

40

0m

12 0

120

12
20

12

12 0 0 m
m

60

12 2 0

m
12
6

0
20

1 2 00

\ C-18
&

25000

20

20
12

12 6 0 m
1 30 0 m

128

12
4

12

# C-16
S

60

\& C-15

60

1 18 0

12
4

0m

C-12

12

20

11

1 24 0 m

C-13
C-14

128 0 m

4
12

12

0m
126
0m

30000

11 6

12

12

12 4

12

12

25000

[%C-01

\
&

12

4
12

35000

12

12

124 0 m

12

80

0m

40
m
13
00
m

1 22

0m

80

1 24 0

DRAINAGES CHATCHMENT AREAS OF OPTION-1

LEGEND
Proposed drianage structures

[%

Multiple c ell box culvert

Slab culvert

\
&

Box culvert

S
#

Pipe culvert

Proposed Route (Option1)

800

800

1600 Meters

1:50000

Catchment areas (option1)

455000

460000

Figure 3-1 Drainage Catchments of Option 1


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

52

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

450000

455000

460000

40000

40000

126

0m

11
0

0m

1 24 0

12

20

12

1 26 0 m

20

124 0 m

12
60

[
%

00

\
&

\
&

c-01BC-01A

116 0 m
11

60

35000

40

12

4
12

35000

12

12

80

1 22

0m

00

0m

13

118
m

12 4

C-02

0m

C-04

m
12

12 0

11 8
0m
0m

20

12
m

20

[
%

1 22

20

0m

12

C-03

120

00
12

12

20

116 0 m

12 00 m
11 80 m

124 0 m

C-06
20

C-05

\
&

\
&

[
%
30000

0
0

0
m

m
80

11

00

60

C-08

11
m
8 0 12 0 0 m

[
%
60

C-09

#
11

60

C-10

m
00
m

20

12

60

1 18 0

12

40

0m

C-11

\
&

0m

25000

20

0
12

1 2 00

1 30 0 m

12

20
12

12 6 0

128

12
4

12
6

1 24 0 m

[
%

12

120

12

12 0 0 m
0m
12 2

0m

c-07A

\
&

12

20

11

12
4

25000

C-07

128 0 m

4
12

12

30000

60

0m

0m
126
m
40
12

12

12

11 6

12

12

DRAINAGES CHATCHMENT AREAS OF OPTION-2

LEGEND
Proposed drianage structures

450000

[%

Multiple c ell box culvert

%
\
&

Slab culvert

S
#

Pipe culvert

Proposed Route (Option 2)

800

800

1600 Meters

1:50000

Catchment areas (option 2)

Box culvert

455000

460000

Figure 3-2 Drainage Catchments of Option 2

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

53

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Indicative profiles along Options 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 3-3. Because of the difference in
alignment and configuration both options cross ridges and wetlands. When crossing ridges in
open cut both options will require side and cross-drains and a combination of embankment
and viaduct when crossing wetlands formed by alluvial deposits in the river and stream deltas
along the periphery of Lake Victoria.
The extent and elevation of the wetlands are influenced by both changes in lake level and
flooding of the rivers. A simultaneous rise in lake level with flooding of the rivers may cause a
backwater effect causing water levels in wetlands to rise and their areas to expand. This has
implications for the road corridor the embankment elevation of which must be based on an
analysis of lake levels over a long period.

Indicative Longitudinal road route Profile


1300

elevation, m

1280
1260

Option 2

1240

Option 1

1220
1200
1180
1160
1140
1120
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Distance, km

Figure 3-3 Indicative Longitudinal Ground Profiles along Options 1 and 2


3.1.3

Climate, Soils and LandUse/Land Cover


The magnitude of floods crossing the road corridor depend on the geomorphology, soils, land
use/ land cover and rainfall conditions of the catchments as described below.
Climate and Soils
As shown in Figure 3-4, rainfall in the area is bi-modal with peaks over the periods MarchApril
and August-December and minimum mean monthly rainfall in June July. The Met-station
closest to the road corridor is at Kampala where the mean annual rainfall is 1174 mm (see
Table 3-1). As shown in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-1 mean monthly temperature ranges from a
minimum of 17 c to a maximum of 28 C. On average 38% of annual rainfall occurs during the
heaviest rain period in March and April.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

54

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Mean Monthly Rainfall @ Kampala


180
160

Rainfall in mm

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb
Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Months

Oct

S1
Nov

Dec

Figure 3-4 Mean Monthly Rainfall at Kampala

TABLE 3-1 MEAN MONTHLY CLIMATIC DATA AT KAMPALA


Month

Mean Rainfall (mm)

Mean monthly temp, oC


Min

Max

Jan

46

18

28

Feb

61

18

28

Mar

130

18

27

Apr

175

18

27

May

147

17

26

Jun

74

17

25

Jul

46

17

25

Aug

86

16

25

Sep

91

16

27

Oct

97

17

27

Nov

122

17

27

Dec

99

17

27

mean

1174

17

27

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

55

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Mean monthly Max and Min temperature @ Kampala


30
25
20
Tem perature 15
in deg.C
10

Min

Dec

Oct

Nov

Months

Sep

Aug

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

Jul

Max

Figure 3-5 Mean Monthly Maximum and Minimum Temperatures at Kampala

The major soil class of catchments crossing the project road was extracted from 1:250,000 soil
map of Uganda complied by the Department of Agriculture in 1971. The dominant soil group is
loamy clay underlain by laterites. Their categorization by permeability is given in Table 3-2 for
flood estimation by the SCS, Rational and TRRL methods.

TABLE 3-2 SOILS OF DRAINAGE CATCHMENTS ALONG CORRIDOR


SN

Soil Class

Soil Categorization for Flood Estimation by Method


SCS

loamy clays underlain by


laterites

Hydrologic soil group C

Rational and TRRL


Semi-permeable

Land Use / Land Cover


As was confirmed during site inspections, with the exception of .the wetland crossings land
use / land cover of the catchments consist largely of built up areas. General descriptions of
these areas are as follows
Built up areas: Mainly residential and industrial in character with a high percentage of
impervious surface area with poor hydrological conditions which impair infiltration and increase
runoff
Wet lands (swamps): Most wetlands lie in broad valley plains with sand deposits. These are
very good hydrological conditions favouring infiltration and ponding and reducing runoff, If in
future the development of wetland areas is permitted to continue as at present, flood
discharge will increase the wetlands will require drainage by channels or similar. The flood
estimation calculations for cross-drainage structures has taken this possibility into account.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

56

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

3.2

Methodology of Hydrological Study

3.2.1

Review of Previous Studies and Existing Data


Previous Studies:
The major previous hydrological study of the project area is Kampala Drainage Master Plan by
BKS ACRES in association with DAR AL HANDASH datedJuly 2002. The Master Plan
concludes that,
(i)

most existing channels and culverts only have capacities capable of passing
discharges for return periods of less than 2 years, implying that most existing
channels and culverts will be regularly overtopped causing temporary damming and
retention of floodwater,

(ii)

the major problems of flooding of the roads are undersized culverts and channels and
inadequate road drainage,

(iii)

the impact of future urbanization will be minimal and limited to specific subcatchments,
however, the channelization associated with this future urban development can affect
the roughness, length and gradient of catchments and drainage paths and peak floods
in flatter catchments may increase by up to 50% as a result.

Meteorological Data:
In addition to the, mean monthly rainfall and maximum / minimum temperature records for
Kampala, annual daily maximum 24 hour rainfall intensity records were obtained for seven
met-stations in Kampala and used to estimate floods with a range of return periods by
applying several rainfall runoff models (SCS dimensionless hydrograph, TRRL and the
Rational Method) in accordance with the Road Design Manual, Volume 2: Drainage Design,
Ministry of Works and Transport (2010).
Maps and Satellite Imagery:
The following topographic data were used to determine the catchment areas and conditions,of
rivers and streams crossing the project road alignment,
Topographic map scale 1:50,000.
Geological map Scale 1:250,000
Soil Map 1:250,000
Land use/land cover map scale 1:250,000
Satellite Imagery of Google earth and
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 30x30 m
Kampala Master Plan Maps Volume 6 Figures and Maps
3.2.2

Delineation of Catchments and Parameters


Delineation of catchments crossing the road have been determined from 1:50,000 scale
topographic maps and the DEM. Areas of the delineated catchments were determined by
using ArcView 3.2 software.
Catchments parameters such as slope, length of the longest water course, difference in
elevation between the crossing point and water divide, soil type and land cover of the
catchments etc were all determined using Global Mapper 12 from 1:50,000 scale

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

57

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

topographical maps, soil and land-use mapping, satellite imagery, the DEM and a review of
previous reporting.
Among the main parameters calculated is catchment shape factor (ratio of the average length
to the average width of a catchment),nAll other parameters of a catchment being the same,
those with a shape factor approaching 1 (fan shaped catchments) give higher peak flows than
those with a higher shape factor (elongated catchments). More than 50% of the catchments
crossing the road have fan shaped catchments with shape factors vary from 1.2 to 3.1.
The analysis of topographic, climatic, land use/ land cover and geological data confirmed that
all catchment areas draining to the project road fall into a single category in terms of rainfall
intensity for the calculation of floods of different return period. The main parameters of river,,
stream and flood path catchments are given in Appendix-1.
3.2.3

Analysis of Meteorological Data


Based on the mean annual rainfall and maximum / minimum temperature records in Table 4-1,
catchments that drain to the project road are considered homogenous. Rainfall intensityduration-frequency analysis using met-stations for Kampala was therefore considered
appropriate and the whole length of the project considered as a single section.
Mapping and other data indicate that, (i) the predominant soil type is loamy clay and
categorized as a semi-permeable soil of Hydrological Soil Group C, and, (ii) land use at
present is mainly built-up. Further development in future will further increase runoff and impair
infiltration.
The whole catchment area of drainage crossing the project road is therefore consider
hydrologically homogeneous.

3.3

Hydrological Analysis

3.3.1

Hydrological Design Criteria


The hydrological analysis was carried out in accordance with the Road Design Manual,
Volume 2: Drainage Design from the Ministry of Works and Transport (MWT), Uganda 2010,
as follows;
Flood Estimation. no gauged river data is available therefore flood estimation was carried out
using rainfall-runoff models (SCS, TRRL and Rational methods)
Return Periods. design floods were based on return periods given in the MOWT Road
Design Manual, Volume 2 for the geometric design standard of the proposed road PIa & PIb
as shown in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3 DESIGN FREQUENCY (RETURN PERIOD)


Structure Type

Geometric Design
Standard PIa, PIb

Gutters and Inlets

Side Ditches

10

Culvert, pipe Span < 2m

10

Culvert, 2m < span < 6m

25

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

58

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-3 DESIGN FREQUENCY (RETURN PERIOD)


Structure Type

3.3.2

Geometric Design
Standard PIa, PIb

Short Span Bridges, 6m < span < 15m

50

Medium Span Bridges 15m < span < 50m

50

Long Span Bridges Spans > 50m

100

Check/Review Flood

200

Analysis of Rainfall Data


The short duration Annual Daily 24 Hour Maximum Rainfall Data for seven met-stations
nearby shown in Table 3-4 were obtained from the Meteorological Department.

TABLE 1-4 ANNUAL 24 HOURS MAXIMUM RAINFALL (MM) KAMPALA


Year

Met-station Annual daily (24 hours) Max Rainfall (mm)


21030

21030

2103021010

21030
21010
20920

21030
21010
20920
20340

21030
21010
20920
20340
20910

1943

53.3

61.7

1944

56.3

47

1945

65.7

71.6

1946

57.8

80.3

1947

51

56.9

1948

54.8

61.7

1949

44.4

78.2

1950

46.7

1951

53.3

1952

42.6

1953

52.3

1954

53.3

1955

55.8

1956

48.2

1957

68.5

1958

52

1959

38.1

58.6

1960

54.9

57.1

21010
20920
20340
20910
20220

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

59

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 1-4 ANNUAL 24 HOURS MAXIMUM RAINFALL (MM) KAMPALA


Year

Met-station Annual daily (24 hours) Max Rainfall (mm)


21030

21030

2103021010

21030
21010
20920

21030
21010
20920
20340

21030
21010
20920
20340
20910

1961

61

68.8

1962

96

67.3

1963

118.4

104.1

55.4

76.2

132.1

1964

62

60.5

106.5

67.6

55.4

1965

55.1

61.7

69.2

73.7

62.2

1966

49

45.7

58.8

82

45.7

1967

59.9

94

66.7

71.1

1968

66.3

73.6

82.4

70.2

1969

55.9

45

81

52.5

1970

61

53

36.2

54.4

1971

62.2

43.5

52.5

55.2

1972

99.3

89.8

50.7

64.3

1973

50.5

50

57.4

86

1974

74

62

46.7

58.3

1975

38

43.2

42.7

47.5

1976

51.6

65.4

63.5

54.4

1977

64.3

106.1

54.5

1978

55.8

93.2

92.2

52.2

1979

52.4

37.1

85.8

52.5

1980

50

92.5

48.7

51.9

1981

50

70.3

42.9

1982

52.1

1983

61.9

51.6

1984

39

36.9

39.5

1985

71.9

70

47

1986

40.2

70.4

47

1987

37.8

55.5

1988

64.4

1989

128.7

22.5

59.7

21010
20920
20340
20910
20220

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

60

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 1-4 ANNUAL 24 HOURS MAXIMUM RAINFALL (MM) KAMPALA


Year

Met-station Annual daily (24 hours) Max Rainfall (mm)


21030

21030

2103021010

21030
21010
20920

21030
21010
20920
20340

21030
21010
20920
20340
20910

1990

54.7

48.5

1991

49.5

76.4

68

107.5

1992

66.6

60.6

50.8

38.8

1993

51.8

78.3

102

1994

46.2

69.3

75.9

1995

61.6

76.8

1996

86.5

81.5

1997

61

57.3

1998

125.4

61.3

1999

63

51.8

1994

53.3

61.7

1995

56.3

47

1996

65.7

71.6

Average

60.1

67.8

61.8

58.6

62.2

69.4

21010
20920
20340
20910
20220

All meteorological stations have similar climate conditions and similar mean annual rainfall.
For analysis purposes therefore, the records were combined to provide an imaginary
representative station for Kampala, referred to as the Imaginary Station Kampala.
Hazen, Weibull, Lognormal, Gumbel (EVI) and Log Pearson Type III distributions frequency
analysis of the Imaginary Station Kampala maximum 24 hour duration records were carried
out and the results are shown in Figure 3-6. All of the distributions fitted closely with the
observed data. However for further analysis the Gumbel distribution is considered the most
appropriate and the results are of this are shown in Table 3-5.
Rainfall Intensity - Duration - Frequency analysis was then carried out on the basis of the 24
hours rainfall intensity results for the Imaginary Station Kampala using the Rainfall Ratio [2]
method for tropics. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 3-7 and Table 3-6.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

61

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Fittting Parametric
and Non-Parametric Distributions for Kampala Met-stations

Rainfall in mm

1000

100
HAZEN
WEIBULL
Gumbel (EV1)
Log Normal
Log Pearson Type III

10
1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

Return Period (year)

Figure 3-6 Frequency Analysis of 24 Hour Max. Rainfall (mm) for Imaginary Station Kampala

TABLE 3-5 GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION FREQUENCY ANALYSIS


MAX. ANNUAL 24 HRS RAINFALL (IMAGINARY STATION KAMPALA)
Return Period (T) Years

Maximum 24 hours Rainfall (mm)

58

77

10

90

25

108

50

123

100

138

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

62

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

IDF curve for Imaginary station (Kampala Met-Stations)

I ntensity (m m /hr

1000.0

100.0

10

25

100

50

10.0

1.0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Duration(mm)

Figure 3-7 Intensity Duration-Drequency Curves for Imaginary Station Kampala

TABLE 3-6 RAINFALL INTENSITY DURATION-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS


(IMAGINARY STATION KAMPALA-)
Rainfall intensity (mm) & Return Period (yrs)

Duration
2

10

25

50

100

113.4

146.5

167.5

193.6

214.5

233.7

10

95.0

122.7

140.3

162.2

179.7

195.8

20

72.2

93.2

106.6

123.2

136.5

148.8

30

58.5

75.6

86.4

99.9

110.7

120.5

48

47.2

61.0

69.7

80.6

89.4

97.3

60

37.8

48.8

55.8

64.5

71.5

77.9

120

22.6

29.2

33.4

38.6

42.8

46.6

240

12.9

16.6

19.0

22.0

24.4

26.5

480

7.1

9.2

10.5

12.2

13.5

14.7

720

5.0

6.5

7.4

8.5

9.5

10.3

1080

3.5

4.5

5.2

6.0

6.6

7.2

1440

2.7

3.5

4.0

4.6

5.1

5.6

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

63

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

3.4

Flood Estimation Methods


The following rainfall/runoff methods were applied for flood estimation in accordance with the
MoWT Road Design Manual 2010, recommendations of AASHTO guidelines (1), ERA 2002
and SNRAL 2006,
SCS Rainfall Runoff Relation
TRRL East African Flood Model
Rational method; for catchment areas less than 0.8 km2
Each of which is briefly described below.

3.4.1

SCS Rainfall Runoff Relation


This method of runoff assessment is based on physical considerations of rainfall runoff and
takes into account specific catchment parameters such as slopes, area, infiltration rates and
catchment shape factors. These physical characteristics are combined with rainfall intensityduration-frequency to yield estimates of peak runoff.
The method enables the magnitude of floods for different return periods to be determined by
introducing a parameter known as the Curve Number (CN), which is estimated from the
classification of one of four hydrological soil groups together with the classification of land use.
The curve number for each catchment has been derived from topographic maps, satellite
imagery of Google earth, soil maps, land use/land cover maps and field inspection. The SCS
runoff equation is used for estimating direct runoff from 24-hour or 1-day storm rainfall by the
equation given below or from the figure given in figure 3-8.
Q = (P- Ia)2 / (P - Ia) + S
where:
Q = accumulated direct runoff, mm
P = accumulated rainfall (potential maximum runoff), mm
Ia = initial abstraction (surface storage, interception & infiltration prior to runoff), mm
S = potential maximum retention, mm
The relationship between Ia and S was developed from experimental catchment area data. It
removes the necessity for estimating Ia for common usage. The empirical relationship used in
the SCS runoff equation is:
Ia = 0.2S
Substituting 0.2S for Ia in the equation above, the SCS rainfall-runoff equation becomes:
Q = (P - 0.2S)2 / (P + 0.8S)
S is related to the soil and cover conditions of the catchment area through the CN. CN has a
range of 0 to 100, and S is related to CN by:
S = 1000/CN 10
The peak discharge is determined using 24 hr return period rainfall (P) and the direct runoff
(Q) determined from Figure 3-8. The initial abstraction (Ia) is obtained from Table 3-7 and the

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

64

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

ratio of Ia/P is, thereafter, obtained. From Figure 3-9 the unit peak discharge (Qu) is
determined using Tc and Ia/P. The peak discharge is then calculated using the formula:
QP

Qu *A* QT*Fp

QP

Peak Discharge in m3/s

Qu

Unit peak discharge m3/s/100ha/mm

QT

Direct Runoff (T-years return period), mm

Fp

Adjustment factor for pond and swamp areas

Where:

Source Soil Conservation Service (USBR)

Figure 3-8 SCS Relation between Direct Runoff, Curve Number and Precipitation

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

65

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Source Soil Conservation Service

Figure 3-9 Time of Concentration vs Unit Discharge

TABLE 3-7 LA VALUES FOR RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS


Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

40

76.2

60

33.9

80

12.7

41

73.1

61

32.5

81

11.9

42

70.2

62

31.1

82

11.2

43

67.3

63

29.8

83

10.4

44

64.6

64

28.6

84

9.7

45

62.1

65

27.4

85

9.0

46

59.6

66

26.2

86

8.3

47

57.3

67

25.0

87

7.6

48

55.0

68

23.9

88

6.9

49

52.9

69

22.8

89

6.3

50

50.8

70

21.8

90

5.6

51

48.8

71

20.6

91

5.0

52

46.9

72

19.8

92

4.4

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

66

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-7 LA VALUES FOR RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS


Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

Curve
Number

Ia (mm)

53

45.1

73

18.8

93

3.8

54

43.3

74

17.9

94

3.3

55

41.6

75

16.9

95

2.7

56

39.9

76

16.1

96

2.1

57

38.3

77

15.2

97

1.6

58

36.8

78

14.3

98

1.0

59

35.3

79

13.5

99

0.4

For flood estimation studies the volume of rainfall is required. Therefore one must also
consider the rainfall variability. For a given catchment, the average rainfall over the catchment
depends upon the size of the catchment and storm duration. The aerial reduction factor (ARF)
in this study is given by an expression proposed for East Africa (see ref 3 detailed at the end
of the report). No areal reduction factor is used for catchment areas of up to 10 km2. For
larger catchments, the following areal reduction factor equation developed for East Africa by
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of the Environment (TRRL Laboratory
Report 623) is used.
ARF = 1-0.044 A0.275
Where:
ARF = Areal reduction factor
T

= Duration, hr.

=Catchments area, km2

Kampala Southern Bypass catchment areas are considered to be in Wet Antecedent Moisture
Conditions.
Time of Concentration:
Time of concentration is the time required for water to flow from hydraulically remote point of
catchments area to the point under investigation. The most intense rainfall that contributes to
the out flow will be that duration equal to the time of concentration. The time of concentration
is the sum of sheet flow travel time, shallow concentrated flow travel time and open channel
flow travel time.
A. Sheet Flow Travel Time
This is computed applying the following formulae in accordance with Uganda Drainage Design
Standard 2010.
For rural areas SCS overland (sheet flow) formula
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

67

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

0.87 L3

Tc
H

0.385

Where
Tc = Time of concentration, hr
L = Flow path, km
H = Elevation difference in meters
For Urban areas, Airport overland (sheet flow) formula

Tc

3.6141.1 C L0.83
H 0.33

Where
C = Rational Coefficient
L = Flow path, km
H = Elevation difference in meters
B. Shallow Concentarted Flow Travel Time
This is determined from average velocity computed in from the following expression

Tt

L
V and V KS 0.5

Where:
Tt = travel time of the sheet flow, second
L = flow length, meter
V= average velocity in m/s
S = slope in (%)
K = see table below (Table 3-8)
Table Intercept Coefficients for Velocity vs. Slope Relationship of (Source: HDS 2, MWT, DD
2010)
TABLE 3-8 INTERCEPT COEFFICIENTS FOR VELOCITY VERSUS SLOPE
k

Land cover / floe regime

0.076

Forest with heavy ground litter; hay meadow (overland flow)

0.152

Trash fallow or minimum tillage cultivation; contour or strip cropped; woodland (overland
flow)

0.213

Short grass pasture (overland flow)

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

68

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-8 INTERCEPT COEFFICIENTS FOR VELOCITY VERSUS SLOPE


k

Land cover / floe regime

0.274

Cultivated straight row (overland flow)

0.305

Nearly bare and untilled (overland flow)

0.457

Grassed waterway (shallow concentrated flow)

0.491

Unpaved (shallow concentrated flow)

0.619

Paved area (shallow concentrated flow); small upland gullies

C. Channel Flow Travel Time


Once cross section dimension of the open channel (stream cross section for the entire reach)
is obtained, the average velocity of the open channel flow can be calculated using Mannings
equation

1 2 / 3 1/ 2
r s
n

Where,
V = average velocity, m/s
r = hydraulic radius, m (equal to A/Pw)
A = cross section area of the flow, m2
Pw = wetted perimeter, m
S = slope of the hydraulic grade line, m/m
n = Mannings roughness coefficient
Travel time can be computed for each stream segment from average velocity of flow
computed using the above expression and reach length. As it is known, the cross section of
the stream cannot be obtained from the available top maps. Acquiring the cross sectional
information of the stream along entire length is difficult. But Kirpichs equation for time of
concentration computation in the open channel depends only on the stream length and stream
slope. These parameters can be easily determined on the topographic map and DEM. Hence,
Kirpichs equation is used for time of computation in open channel with caution.
i n

0.00032 Li
Tc
0.385
Si
i 1

0.77

Where:
Tc = Time of concentration (hr)
Li = Length of stream segment (m)
Si = Slope equal to H/L, where H is difference in elevation over the reach (m)
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

69

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

For all drainage crossing the road return period floods are calculated using above formulae in
an EXCEL spread sheet. The results are summarized in Appendix-2.
3.4.2

TRRL East African Flood Model


The method was developed by the Transport Road Research Laboratory for use in East Africa
and is based on soil permeability, slope, climate and other factors. The design flood is
calculated by :the formula
QT = F CA PT A
360 TB
Where,

QT = return period flood of T - years, m3 /s


CA = Percentage of catchment area contributing runoff
PT = T-years return period storm, mm.
A = Catchment area, km2
TB = Base time Hr.
F = Peak factor

The percentage of catchment area contributing runoff (CA) is estimated by the following
equation
CA = CS * CW * CL
Where,
CS = Standard value contributing area coefficient (table 9)
CW = the catchment wetness factor (table 10)
CL = the land use factor
The flood analysis is carried out according to MoWT (2010) and Transport Laboratory Report
623 (3). Floods of different return periods were calculated for all drainage crossing the project
road using the above formulae in an EXCEL spread sheet. The results are summarized in
Appendix -3.
3.4.3

Rational Method
This method is applied for small catchment areas because of its assumption that the rainfall is
of equal intensity over the entire watershed and because its frequency is not related to flood
frequency. The Rational formula, noted below, is considered appropriate for catchment areas
2
less than 0.8 km .
QT

= 0.278 * C *Cf * I * A

Where:
QT = T - years return period flood, m3 /s
A= Catchment area, km2
C= Runoff coefficient equal to Ft*(Cs +Cp +Cv) the recommended values
of Ft, Cs, Cp and Cv is given in tables 8 and 9
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

70

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Cf = Frequency Factors (table 10)


IT = T - years return period rainfall intensity during the Time of
Concentration, mm/h.
Runoff coefficient is estimated from Tables 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 based on field observations,
topographic maps, DEM, soil and land use/ land cover maps.
Time of Concentration is calculated as discussed in section 3.4.1
Rainfall intensity: As discussed in section 3.3.2 and tabulated in Table 3-6.
For all drainage crossing the road with catchment areas less than 0.8 km2 the different return
period floods is calculated by the formulae above in EXCEL spread sheet and the summarized
result is given in Appendix - 4.

TABLE 3-9 RECOMMENDED RUNOFF FACTOR FOR RATIONAL FORMULA


MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL, mm
COMPONENT

Surface slope
(Cs)

Permeability
(Cp)

CLASSIFICATION

<300

300-600

>600

Vleis and plains (<3.5%)

0.01

0.02

0.03

Flat areas (3.5 to 11%)

0.04

0.06

0.08

Hilly (11 to 35%)

0.09

0.12

0.16

Steep areas (>35%)

0.18

0.22

0.26

Very permeable

0.02

0.03

0.03

Permeable

0.04

0.06

0.08

Semi-permeable

0.08

0.12

0.16

Impermeable

0.15

0.21

0.26

Thick bush and plantation

0.02

0.03

0.04

Light bush and farm lands

0.04

0.07

0.11

Grass lands

0.13

0.17

0.21

No vegetation

0.24

0.26

0.28

Vegetation (Cv)

For urban areas: The following runoff coefficients are considered:


Residential areas = 0.4
Industrial areas = 0.6

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

71

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-10 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR C(FT)


Type

Ft

Cultivated land

0.8

100% dense wood


Flat <3.5

0.6

Steep >11%

0.8

Lakes and swamps

1.0

TABLE 3-11 FREQUENCY FACTORS FOR RATIONAL FORMULA

3.4.4

Recurrence Intervals (years)

Cf

1.0

10

1.0

25

1.1

50

1.2

100

1.25

Comparison of Different Estimation Methods


Tabulated comparisons between the various methods of estimation are given in Appendix-5.
The comparison of SCS and Rational methods in Figure 3-10 shows that flood estimations for
different return periods (10, 25 and 50 years) gave relatively poor correlation. Estimation by
the Rational Method is higher than that of the SCS Method. The Rational Method is
considered for design floods for catchment areas less than 0.8 km2.
The comparison of SCS and TRRL methods in Figure 3-11 gave a very high correlation
coefficient (0.97) for flood estimates for Q10, Q25, Q50 and Q100 return periods indicating
that result of these estimates are almost similar.
A summary comparison of different return flood estimate is given in annex 5

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

72

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

COMARISON OF DIFFERENT RETURN PERIOD FLOODS BY SCS AND RATIONAL


METHODS
20

SCS method flood estimate in m3/s

Q25 SCS= 0.7141 Q25 Rational + 4.4378


R2 = 0.5685

Q50 SCS= 0.8525 Q50 Rational+ 4.4149


R2 = 0.6257

18

Q10SCS = 0.8847Q10 Rational + 2.8522


R2 = 0.6274

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

6
8
10
|Rational method flood estimate, m3/s

12

14

16

Q50 return period flood

Q25 return period floods

Q10 return period floods

Linear (Q50 return period flood)

Linear (Q25 return period floods)

Linear (Q10 return period floods)

Figure 3-10 Comparison of Flood Periods by SCS and Rational Methods

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT RETURN PERIOD FLOODS


ESTIMATED BY SCS AND TRRL METHODS
200.0
Q100 TRRL = 0.9267Q100 SCS- 5.6135
R2 = 0.9682
Q50 TRRL = 0.9267Q50 SCS - 5.6135
R2 = 0.9682
Q25 TRRL = 0.9182Q25 SCS - 4.6799
R2 = 0.968
Q10 TRRL = 1.0916 Q10 SCS - 4.1623
R2 = 0.9682

TRRL method flood estimate in m3/s

180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0

20.0

40.0

Q100 return period floods


Q10 return period floods
Linear (Q25 return period floods)

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

SCS method flood estimate in m3/s


Q50 return period floods
Linear (Q100 return period floods)
Linear (Q10 return period floods)

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Q25 return period floods


Linear (Q50 return period floods)

Figure 3-11 Comparison of Flood Periods by SCS and TRRL Methods

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

73

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

3.5

Design Floods
2

As discussed in 3.4.4, for flood estimation of catchment areas less than 0.8 km the Rational
2
Method is appropriate and for catchment areas greater than or equal to 0.8 km SCS Method
is suitable.
Return periods for design floods for each drainage structure were chosen in accordance with
Table 3-2 as follows,
2

For small catchment areas < 0.8 km either Q10 or Q25 have been considered depending the
magnitude of the flood
2

For catchment areas 0.8 km depending the magnitude of estimated peak floods,
Q25 or Q50 is considered for major box or slab culverts depending the magnitude of the
peak floods, or,
Q50 or Q100 is considered for Major River Bridges or multiple box culverts depending on the
magnitude of the peak floods.
Design flood for proposed drainage structures calculated based on the above are given in
Appendix 6 But are subject to change during detailed design once detailed topographic survey
data is available.
Based on the design flow estimation and preliminary channel characteristics described above,
proposed minimum requirements for cross-drainage structures are summarized in Table 3-12.

TABLE 3-12 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURES


Type of drainage structures

3.6

Multiple cells box


culverts/bridges*

Slab/box culverts

Pipe culverts**

Route Option
Option 1

11

Option 2

Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations


Preliminary sizing of drainage structures along KSBwas based on data from the DEM, field
observations and engineering assumptions as follows,
Longitudinal Channel slope from DEM
Channel Manning coefficient from field observation - almost all are grassed (n= 0.03)
Clear span of the drainage structure approximated from the DEM
Channel are assumed rectangular hapein
For design discharge 100 m3/s - multiple cell box culverts (MCBC)with 3 or more cell, or,
bridges
For design discharge < 1000m3/s - slab and or box culverts (BC) for major drainage and
reinforced concrete pipes(PC) for minor drainage.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

74

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Based on preliminary observation of main wetland channel crossings, hydraulic calculations


for bridges are not considered necessary due to the vertical clearance and overall spans of
these structures.
3.6.1

Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations of Culverts


A. Hydraulic Design Criteria
The hydraulic calculations have been based on the estimated design floods using the following
Manning-Strickler roughness coefficients:
concrete pipe culverts: n = 0.013
concrete box culverts:

n = 0.015

river channels (grass):

n = 0.030

In hydraulic calculations the following design limitation has been considered.


HW/D 1.2
Where, HW = headwater depth, and,
D = culvert height
B. Hydraulic Calculations for Culverts
Hydraulic calculations have been based on the following design equation for the culverts:
HW + DZ + (Vu2/2g) = TW + (Vd2/2g) + HL
Where,
HW = Head water depth above the inlet invert (m)
DZ = Elevation difference between inlet and outlet invert (m)
Vu = Approach velocity (m/s)
TW = Tail water depth above the outlet invert (m)
Vd = Downstream velocity (m/s)
HL = Sum of all losses
g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2)
The pipe and box culverts will be designed to run with inlet or outlet control therefore the
above formula becomes:
HW + (Vu2/2g) = d + (1 + Ke)V2/2g
Where:
HW = Headwater Depth above the Inlet Invert (m)
Vu = Approach Velocity (m/s)
D = Critical or normal depth (m)
V = Inlet Velocity (m/s)
Ke = Entrance coefficient (about 0.5)
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

75

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Hydraulic calculations for culverts have been carried out using HY8 design software version
7.2 applying the input data for each proposed culverts. Results of the preliminary hydraulic
calculations of culverts and drainage structure dimensions are given in Appendix-7.
3.7

Impact of Lake Victoria Levels on KSB


Kampala Southern Bypass crosses several wetlands (Kinawtaka, Nikivubo, Kansanga etc)
close to their outflows to Lake Victoria. The wetlands are therefore directly affected by the
surface level of the Lake. At present the distance from where the project road crosses the
wetlands to the Lake shore varies but is of the order of 1km at Nakivubo and Kansanga and 3
km at Kinawataka.
The maximum water level for road design in the wetlands has been estimated considering the
consequences of runoff from the road catchments resulting from storms of 50 and 100 year
return period coinciding with a return of Lake Victoria to high levels of the same return periods
based on historical Lake levels.
Lake Victoria water level data from 1960 to 2012 were obtained from which annual maximum
lake level data was filtered, the results being summarized in Table 3-13. Frequency analyses
by Gumbel (EVI), lognormal and Log Pearson Type III distributions were carried out and the
results are presented in Figure 3-12.
The Gumbel (EVI) and Log-Pearson distributions both fit the observed data well. The Gumbel
distribution was considered the more appropriate for further analysis and the results are
presented in Table 3-13.

TABLE 2 ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY WATER LEVEL RECORD OF LAKE VICTORIA


Year

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level, masl

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level,
masl

Year

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level,
masl

10.82

1134.252

1983

11.7

1135.132

2001

11.49

1134.922

11.43

1134.862

1984

11.66

1135.092

2002

11.73

1135.162

1962

12.04

1135.472

1985

11.5

1134.932

2003

11.64

1135.072

1963

12.56

1135.992

1986

11.4

1134.832

2004

11.27

1134.702

1964

12.87

1136.302

1987

11.42

1134.852

2005

10.79

1134.222

12.41

1135.842

1988

11.56

1134.992

2006

10.53

1133.962

1966

12.33

1135.762

1989

11.7

1135.132

2007

10.90

1134.332

1967

11.93

1135.362

1990

11.54

1134.972

2008

10.98

1134.412

1968

12.35

1135.782

1991

11.9

1135.332

2009

11.09

1134.522

12.45

1135.882

1992

11.58

1135.012

2010

11.25

1134.682

12.37

1135.802

1993

11.46

1134.892

2011

11.09

1134.522

1960
1961

1965

1969
1970

Year

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

76

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 2 ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY WATER LEVEL RECORD OF LAKE VICTORIA


Year

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level, masl

1971

12.03

1135.462

1971

11.84

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level,
masl

Year

1994

11.12

1134.552

2012

1135.272

1995

11.38

1134.812

11.94

1135.372

1996

11.15

1134.582

1972

11.86

1135.292

1997

11.67

1135.102

1973

11.64

1135.072

1998

12.43

1135.862

1974

11.73

1135.162

1999

12.1

1135.532

ND

ND

2000

11.73

1135.162

12.2

1135.632

1983

11.7

1135.132

1977

12.47

1135.902

1984

11.66

1135.092

1978

12.06

1135.492

1985

11.5

1134.932

11.71

1135.142

1986

11.4

1134.832

11.59

1135.022

1987

11.42

1134.852

1981

11.7

1135.132

1988

11.56

1134.992

1982

11.66

1135.092

1989

11.7

1135.132

1972

1975
1976

1979
1980

Year

H max,
m

Annual
Max. Lake
Level,
masl

11.25

1134.492

Parameteric and Non-parameteric distribution of annual maximum water


level of lake victoria

1138.0

Lake Level, m

1137.0
1136.0
Hazen

1135.0

Weibul
Gumbel

1134.0

Log Normal
Log Pearson

1133.0
0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

Return Period, Years

Figure 3-12 Frequency Analysis of Lake Victoria Levels


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

77

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3 GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION (EV 1) OF LAKE VICTORIA WATER LEVEL


Sn

Return period, Years

Annual Max. Lake Level, masl

1135.03

1135.48

10

1135.78

25

1136.16

50

1136.44

100

1136.72

200

1137.00

The lake level for a 100 year return period is 1136.72 metres above sea level (masl).
Considering a freeboard of 1.5m the road profile level should be higher than 1138.2 metres
above sea level when crossing the wetland river channels of Kinawtaka, Nikivubo and
Kansanga.
3.8

Side Drains
Preliminary designs of side drains was carried out for the two main alignment options 1 and 2.

3.8.1

Option 1
Option 1 of KSB crosses four of the eight major drainage systems of Kampala city (KDMP,
2002) and in some places is aligned along the shoreline of primary and/or secondary channels
of Kinawataka (System 6), Nakivubo (System 1), Kansanga (System 4) and
Mayanaja/Kaliddubi (System 5).
The design of side drains must consider the following:
When crossing wetlands the main drainage channels may require some channelization to
increase their discharge capacity and ensure that no flooding of the surrounding area occurs
as a consequence of the road project. Some erosion protection to the channel may be
required where it is located close to the project road.
Much of the preliminary profile of this option is on high embankment. Consideration should
be given to providing chutes where required along the embankment slopes. Longitudinal
ditches may be required along embankment toes in some locations and in cuttings where a
covered drainage system is proposed.
Drainage of roundabouts at junctions is required to cater for the through drainage of the
existing radial road and for the roundabout bowl.
A. Return Period
A Design Return Period in accordance with the requirements of the Uganda Road Design
Manual (2010) and the recommendations of Kampala Drainage Master Plan, as summarized
in Table 3-15, was adopted.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

78

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-14 DESIGN RETURN PERIODS


Sn

Type of Drainage Structure

Channelization of the primary swampy


channels

Side drains

Gutters and inlets

Return Period

100
10
10/5

B. Design Flood Estimation


The design runoff of side drains and gutters have been calculated by the Rational Method for,
and main design by the SCS and TRRL Methods as described in scetion3.4.
Runoff Coefficients and Frequency Factors
The Runoff Coefficient was selected Table 3-15 taking rainfall intensity, concentration time,
ground slope, ground cover, soil type and humidity. Where multiple surface type are present
in a catchment area, the runoff coefficient for the whole has been calculated as a weighted
average by area of the parts.
TABLE 3-4 RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C)
N/N

Surfaces type

Runoff Coefficient

Asphalt concrete

0.95

Cement concrete pavement

0.90

Permeable asphalt pavement

0.60~0.80

Aggregate pavement

0.40~0.60

Coarse grain soil slope and road


shoulder

0.10~0.30

Fine grain soil slope face and road


shoulder

0.40~0.65

Hard rock slope

0.70~0.85

Soft rock slope

0.50~0.75

Steep hilly area

0.75~0.90

10

Undulant hilly area

0.60~0.80

11

Undulant grassland

0.40~0.65

12

Flat farmland

0.45~0.60

13

Deciduous woodland

0.35~0.60

14

Deciduous woodland

0.25~0.50

15

Paddy land and water surface

0.70~0.80

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

79

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Rainfall Intensity
The Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency results for Kampala summarized in Table 3-6
have been used in the analysis.
Time of Concentration
The Uganda Road Design Manual 2010 recommends 15 minutes rainfall duration (equal to
time of concentration) for drainage structures if the calculated value is less and that entry
time is taken as 7 min.
Time of Concentration (t) should always be the concentration time at the design control
point, the value of which is the total time from the furthest point in the system to the control
point. Time of Concentration was calculated as follows;

t t1 t 2
Where:
t1= Slope concentration time (min);
t2 = Concentration time within the ditches (min);
The Kerby Formula below was used to calculate Slope Concentration Time (t1),

rL1.5
Tc 3.03 0.5
H

0.467

Where:
Tc = Time of Concentration, hr
L = Length of overland flow, km (flow path <0.4 km)
H = Elevation in meters
r = Terrain roughness coefficients
The Roughness Coefficient used in the calculations for different types of surface are given in
Table 3-16.

TABLE 3-5 TERRAIN ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (R)


Surface Conditions
Asphalt concrete, Cement concrete pavement

Roughness Coefficient

0.013

Smooth impermeable ground

0.02

Smooth compacted ground

0.10

Spare grass land and farm land.

0.20

Pasture and grassland

0.40

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

80

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Concentration Time in Ditches


When calculating concentration time in ditches (t2), the system must be split into segments
based on changes in cross-section, slope and at the points of entry of sub-ditches. The
concentration time of a system is the sum of the concentration times of segments of the
longest (in terms of time) line in the system as described in the following equation.
n

li

60v
i 1

Where:
t2 = Concentration time within the ditches/pipes (min);
n and I = Total number of segments and ith segment;
li = Length of segment i (m);
vi = Average flow velocity for segment i (m/s).
Average flow velocity in the ditch can be calculated using Mannings formula as follows with
the roughness coefficient of the ditch (or pipe) being taken from yje valies in Table 3-17.
2

1
1
vi R 3 S i 2
n

Where:
n = The roughness coefficient of the ditch/pipe wall, which can be
determined as per Table 17
R = Hydraulic radius (m),
Si =Hydraulic slope, which can utilize the gradient of the bottom in
the ditch
TABLE 3-6 ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (N) OF DITCH (OR PIPE)
Sn

Type of the Ditch/pipes

Asphalt pavement (smooth)

0.013

Asphalt pavement (rough)

0.016

Cement concrete pavement (plastered)

0.014

Cement concrete pavement (rough)

0.016

Mortar rubble open ditch

0.025

Dry rubble ditch

0.032

Soil open ditch with grass

0.027

Sand gravel open ditch

0.025

Rock open ditch

0.035

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

81

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-6 ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (N) OF DITCH (OR PIPE)


Sn

Type of the Ditch/pipes

10

Turfing open ditch (flow velocity 0.6m/s)

0.035~0.050

11

Turfing open ditch (flow velocity 1.8m/s)

0.050~0.090

Estimated peak floods for the main channels (Appendix-6) and for the Wankolokolo river,
estimated by the SCS Method, are summarized in Table 3-18.

TABLE 3-7 PEAK FLOODS OF PROPOSED CHANNELIZATION


Sn

River
name

Channel
index

Approx.
Chainage,
km

Approximate coordinates
From

Length
approx.
(m)

To

Xo

Yo

X1

X2

QT
3

(m /s)
Q50

Q100

Wankolokolo

CH-1

0+100 to
0+675

461656

36829

461678

36314

566.7

21.9

23.1

Kinawataka

CH-2

2+500 to
0+675

459975

36448

461678

36134

1889.4

112.1

133.9

Kinawataka

CH-3

Along C-01
0+700

461678

36134

461814

36245

210.0

134.0

157.0

CH-4

4+450 to
4+900 issues
to C-05

458776

34980

458853

34471

629.0

34.4

40.4

CH-5

Issues to
C-14

456185

31061

457926

31010

2080

47.5

Estimate design flows from pavement and adjacent surfaces to side drains, calculated as
above, are given in Appendix-8.
Permissible Velocity
Limiting values for velocity of flow in ditches of different type are given in Table 3-19.
TABLE 8 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES IN OPEN DITCH (M/S)
N/N

Description

Max. Permissible velocity (m/s)

No vegetation, sandy material

0,5 m /s

Well established grass

1,8 m/s

Bunch grasses, exposed soil

1,2 m/s

C. Design of Channels and Side Drains


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

82

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The cross section area of channels and side drain are designed using the Manning equation.
2

QT

1
A R 3 I 2 A Vmax
n

Where:
QT = Capacity of ditch for 10 years return period flood (m3/s)
A = Cross sectional area of the ditch (m2)
Vmax = Maximum permissible velocity (m/s)
R = Hydraulic radius A/P where P is the wetted perimeter in m and A is
the area in square meter
I

= Average longitudinal slope of ditch (m/m)

Hydraulic Design of Side Drains


Hydraulic design of the side drains took the following site specific conditions into considerion:
Much of Option 1 is aligned across and along the periphery of wetlands and their channels
which have slopes of <2%. In most such cases channelization is recommended at the
crossing of KSB. At this preliminary design stage the side drains have been considered
unlined trapezoidal earth channels (V:H= 1:2) with well established grasses. This will be
subject to adjustment during detailed design on receipt of the detailed geotechnical
investigation results.
Crossing the ridges, the alignment of KSB rises over existing ground slopes > 2%. In such
locations lined trapezoidal channels are proposed.
In deep cuts rectangular side drains are proposed
At roundabouts closed pipe side drains are proposed.
The freeboard of the side drains is estimated by the formula

FreeBoard 0.2E
Where

E h

v2
2g

E = Specific energy, m
h = calculated flow depth in the channel, m
v = calculated velocity in the channel, m

The hydraulic calculations for trapezoidal side drains are given in Appendix -9 the results of
which are summarized in Table 3-20.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

83

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR SIDE DRAINS


No.

Q, m3/s

Slope in %

Velocity,
m/s

Size B x H, m

Remark

6.0

4.0

1.3

2.0 x 0.9

Earth channels

1-4

0.5 - 6.0

1.1 -2.5

1.0 x 0.6

Proposed lined channels


for channels slopes > 2%

<1

0.2 4.0

0.2 1.3

0.5 x 0.4

Earth channels

In deep cuts (along SD-4 to SD-7) and on steep slopes rectangular concrete lined channels
are proposed. Results of the calculation of channel sizes by the Manning equation are given
in Table 3-21. Based on the hydraulic calculation, three sizes of rectangular channel are
proposed along the alignment as follows:
1. Rectangular concrete channels maximum slope 3% and width x height (1.0 x 1.0 m)
that can convey flood discharge up to 3.1 m3/s
2. Rectangular concrete channels maximum slope 3% and width x height (1.5 x 1.0 m)
that can convey flood discharge up to 4.9 m3/s
3. Rectangular concrete channels maximum slope 3% and width x height (2.0 x 1.0 m)
that can convey flood discharge up to 6.4 m3/s

TABLE 3-10 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS OF RECTANGULAR SIDE DRAINS


Shape &
Material

Q10,
m3/s

B, m

Cal. H,
m

R, m

Qcal,
m3/s

V,
m/s

Free
board
,m

Proposed
H, m

Rectangle,
Concrete

1.7

0.017

1.0

0.7

0.3

3.1

4.5

0.3

1.0

ditto

2.7

0.017

1.0

0.7

0.3

3.1

4.5

0.3

1.0

ditto

3.2

0.017

1.5

0.7

0.3

4.9

5.0

0.4

1.0

ditto

3.7

0.017

1.5

0.7

0.3

4.9

5.0

0.4

1.0

ditto

4.2

0.017

1.5

0.7

0.3

4.9

5.0

0.4

1.0

ditto

4.7

0.017

1.5

0.7

0.3

4.9

5.0

0.4

1.0

ditto

5.2

0.017

2.0

0.6

0.4

6.4

5.3

0.4

1.0

ditto

5.7

0.017

2.0

0.6

0.4

6.4

5.3

0.4

1.0

ditto

6.0

0.017

2.0

0.6

0.4

6.4

5.3

0.4

1.0

Schematic drawings of proposed trapezoidal earth side drain and rectangular concrete
channels shown in Figure 3-13
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

84

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 3-13 Schematic Sections of Earth and Concrete Channels

Hydraulic Design of Channelization


Kampala Drainage master Plan 2002 made the following recommendations:
The channelization of the main channel of the Kinawataka west of its confluence with the
Wonkolokolo stream (CH-1 and CH-2) to will increase their discharge capacity and improve
flow conditions. At this location KSB crosses and runs parallel to the Wonkolokolo stream
and the main channel of the Kinawataka wetland. Although the problem largely lies upstream
of KBS, any channelization carried out under the project to accommodate the 100 years
return period floods will assist overall.
Kansanga Drainage system 4: KDMP recommends channelization of Kansanga primary
channel up to the crossing of the current road to alleviate some of the problems associated
with the wet lands. The roundabout at 11+450 km is located at the confluence of the primary
and secondary channels of Kansanga River. Here KDMP recommends channelize (CH-5).
Channelization of Mayanja channel is recommended while Kaliddibi should be left to drain
naturally.
The preliminary hydraulic calculation of the proposed channelization is given Appendix-10
and summarized in Table 3-22.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

85

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 3-11 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CALCULATION FOR PROPOSED CHANNELIZATION


Inde
x

Parallel to the
Road (
Approx.
Chainage), m

Approx. coordinates
From

Approx.
Length,
m

To

Xo

Yo

X1

Y2

Q100,
m3./s

Proposed Trapezoidal earth channel


Parameters V:H=1:3

Width, m

Height, m

ree
board, m

Size (WxH)
m

CH-1

0+100 to
0+675

461656

36829

461678

36314

566.7

23.1

0.004

0.03

1.4

0.3

5 x1.7

CH-2

2+500 to
0+675

459975

36448

461678

36134

1889.4

133.9

0.005

0.03

10

2.4

0.6

10 x 3

CH-3

Along C-01
0+700

461678

36134

461814

36245

210

157.0

0.015

0.03

10

2.0

0.7

10 x 2.7

CH-4

4+450 to
4+900 flood
pass through
C-05

458776

34980

458853

34471

629

34.5

0.005

0.03

1.6

0.4

5x3

CH-5

Passes
through C-14

456185

31061

457926

31010

2080

47.5

0.002

0.03

10

1.8

0.4

10 x 2.2

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

86

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Hydraulic Design of Cross Drains


At km 1+877 and km 11+450 km access roads intersect with KSB crossing channelization
CH-2 and CH-5 and major culverts are required to pass their design floods
Elsewhere cross drainage box and pipe culverts are required:
at junctions of the existing road network with KSB to connect existing side drains to convey
their design floods
at local low points to drain very small catchments across the road
The results of typical hydraulic calculations for such structures are included in Appendix-11.
Closed Storm Drains at Roundabouts
At roundabout closed circular piped systems are proposed. Hydraulic calculations for these
will be carried out at detailed design stage when detailed topographic survey data is
available.
3.8.2

Option 2
The geomorphology, soil and land cover crossed by Option 2 is mostly similar to that of
option1 with the exception of the ridge crossings where tunnels have been proposed and the
different road alignment across Nakivubo wetland. The design hydrological and hydraulic
parameters and physical conditions considered for Option1 are therefore deem to hold for
Option 2.
The results the hydrological analysis and hydraulic calculations for Option 2 concluded that,
A total of 37 sections of trapezoidal side ditch channel (V:H=1:2) of different lengths are
required. Details of the preliminary sizing of these ditches is given in Appendix-12.
The channelization considered for Option 1 is also required for Option 2. Details of these are
enckosed as Appendix-11 and are summarized in Table 3-22.
A total of 35 cross culverts of different sizes are required at channelization and side drains at
existing roads. Preliminary requirements for pipe culverts on Option 2. Details are given in
Appendix-13.
At roundabout closed circular piped systems are proposed. Hydraulic calculations for these
will be carried out at detailed design stage when detailed topographic survey data is available.

3.9

Conclusions and Recommendations


Based on the preliminary hydrological and hydraulic studies described in this section, tthe
following conclusions have been drawn,:
A total of 18 main catchments drain across the proposed alignment of Option 1 and 14
catchments across Option 2. These catchments were delineated as shown on Figures 3-1 and
2
3-2 and vary in area from 0.2 to 34.5 km . Small local catchments which are expected to be
drained by small diameter pipe systems, cannot be identified from the liable avmapping and
digital elevation model but will be captured during detailed design when the topographic
survey becomes available.
It was observed during field visits that along the length of the proposed alignment thel
catchments are made up of either built up areas or wetlands. Built-up areas favour rapid runoff
while wetlands favour retention and infiltration.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

87

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The current tendency of draining, filling and developing swamps which could in future result in
increased floods discharge from rivers and streams. A higher coefficient of runoff has
therefore been considered when estimating runoff for such areas of the project to account
future changes in land cover.
Flood estimates by three different Rainfall-Runoff models (SCS, TRRL and Rational Methods)
2
compared. For catchment areas less than 0.8 km the SCS and Rational Methods gave very
similar results and the Rational Method was adopted for use in this preliminary design.
For catchment areas greater than 0.8 km2 the SCS method is gave higher results than the
TRRL method for Q25, Q50 and Q100 return period. Considering likely changes in land
use/land cover in future the SCS method has therefore been adopted for use in this
preliminary design.
Based on preliminary design flow estimates, the following 3 minimum cross drainage is
required,
Option 1: 3 multiple box culverts (or bridges), 12 major box culverts and 3 minor pipe
culverts
Option 2: 3 multiple box culverts (or bridges), 4 major box culverts and 4 minor pipe culverts
(Pipe culverts)
However, in both options the number of minor culverts will require to be increased to cater
for local circumstances
Preliminary hydraulic calculations were carried out to determine the sizes of cross drainage
structure and side ditches.
Details of small local catchments along the alignment could not be captured from available
and the available topographical mapping and the digital elevation model. Small diameter relief
culverts will be required to drain such areas and for side cross-drainage of pipe and ditch
drainage systems. Such areas and systems will be captured at detailed design stage when
detailed topographic survey data becomes available.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

88

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN

4.1

Introduction
The preliminary pavement is fully described in detail in chapter 6 of Part 4 Preliminary
Geotechnical Design of the Draft Feasibility Study Report.

4.2

Pavement Loading
Traffic projections for KSB are fully described in the Traffic Modelling Report, Draft Feasibility
Study Report, Part 2, Volume 2a.
Traffic was modelled for the nine classes of vehicle described in Table 4-1 for the Design Year
(2012) and Base Year (2017) with projections for 10, 20 and 30 years to 2047. The pavement
designs have been carried out for a working life of 20 years, however, because of the strategic
importance of the route and the extent of viaduct and possibly tunnels involved it was
considered appropriate to taken conditions beyond that time into consideration also.
The Traffic Model has yielded values of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the base year of 2017
and for 20years (2037) after opening to traffic. The model was also extended a further 10
years to 2047 as, with the strategic importance of the Bypass to development of Kampala, it
was considered worthwhile to also examine potential growth in traffic beyond the nominal
design period of the road.
The ADT predicted by the model for each vehicle type was extrapolated into the cumulative
number of vehicles over the design period of 2017 to 2037. The additional traffic for the
following 10 years was also calculated. These data were then converted to Equivalent
Standard Axles (ESA) using the following Equivalency Factors (EFs).

TABLE 6 1: EQUIVALENCY FACTORS


Car

4x4
(SUV)

Taxi
(Kamunye)

Medium bus
(Coaster)

Large bus
(Coach)

Light
truck

Medium
truck

Heavy
truck

Articulated
truck

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.1

0.18

0.18

0.19

4.17

10.1

As the Bypass is an entirely new road, no axle load surveys could be undertaken therefore EF
values derived for the design of Kampala-Jinja Road have been used for this Feasibility Study.
The cumulative traffic over 10, 20 and 30years from road opening was used together with the
EFs above, to calculate the total number of ESA over the three periods. The results for north
and southbound traffic are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2.
Note: traffic loading from Lukuli Road to Munyonyo Spur Road was modelled and found the
same as Ggaba Road to Lukuli Road.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

89

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 6 1: Cumulative Standard Axles - Northbound

Figure 6 2: Cumulative Standard Axles - Southbound

The UNRA Pavement Design Manual for flexible pavements uses a catalogue system, giving
designs for eight traffic classes and six subgrade classes. The Traffic Classes are given in
terms of millions of ESA (mESA) in Table 4-2.:

TABLE 4-2 UNRA TRAFFIC CLASSES


Traffic Class

Range in Traffic
(mESA)

<0.3

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

90

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

0.3 to 0.7

0.7 to 1.6

1.6 to 3

3 to 6

6 to 10

10 to 17

17 to 30

Traffic Classes for the north and southbound ESA in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 are given in Figures
4-3 and 4-4.

Figure 4-3: Traffic Class between Junctions - Northbound

Figure 4-4: Traffic Class between Junctions - Southbound


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

91

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

For preliminary pavement design the higher Traffic Class between junctions has been used for
both carriageways and design traffic classes by road sector are given in Table 4-3: .

TABLE 4-3: TRAFFIC CLASSES BY SECTOR


Sector

To 2027

To 2037

To 2047*

Bukasa Jn to Portbell Rd Jn

T5

T7

T8

Port Bell Rd Jn to Ggaba Rd Jn

T5

T7

T7

Ggaba Rd Jn to Lukuli Rd Jn

T5

T7

T7

Kajjansi to Munyonyo (Spur)

T4

T5

T6

The traffic prediction to 2047 is included for information only. Pavement design will be for a
design life of 20years (to 2037).
The Sector from Kajansi to Munyonyo Spur is being constructed as part of Kampala Entebbe
Expressway project. This section is included for completeness of modelling.
4.3

Subgrade Strength
The UNRA Flexible Pavement Design Manual separates subgrade strength into six classes;
Table 3-1 of the Manual is reproduced below as Table 4-4.

TABLE 4-4: SUBGRADE CLASSES (EXTRACT FROM UNRA DESIGN MANUAL)


Subgrade Class Designation
Subgrade CBR
ranges (%)

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

3-4

5-7

8-14

15-29

30+

Where KSB crosses swamp deposits the project road will be carried on either viaduct or
embankment. When on viaduct pavement will be 75mm of bituminous surfacing only. Where
on embankment the excavate/replacement described in section xx of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report has been adopted. Subgrade conditions will then be determined by the
material placed within the upper metre of embankment formation. This can be controlled a
higher strength material will result in thinner pavement layers but the reduced pavement cost
will be offset by the need to provide the quality of subgrade required.
Laboratory testing on samples of insitu materials obtained from trial pits excavated along the
Route during the Feasibility Study show that a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 15% can be
obtained after compaction to 95% of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) obtained with a heavy
compaction hammer after 4 days soaking see Figure 4-5. If the material placed over swamp
deposits comprises such material, then the Subgrade Class would be S4/5. Given the scale of
testing at this preliminary stage it is considered prudent, to adopt the lower class (S4) for
preliminary pavement design.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

92

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 4-5: CBR at 95% MDD T180

In swamp areas the lower part of the embankment will be founded on rockfill material with little
fines since it would be placed in water Therefore during detailed design consideration could be
given in to the use of unsoaked CBR values reflecting the lack of capillary action and the
excellent drainage provided by the lower embankment. For embankment other than over
swamps, a subgrade strength of S4 is considered appropriate also.
Where the route passes through deep cuttings no information is as yet available for the
strength of soils with depth or rock at formation level. For this preliminary pavement design
Subgrade Class S6 has been assumed where granular base will act as a regulating layer
where cuttings exceed 10m below original ground level.
In Option 2 where parts of the alignment are tunnel, rock has been assumed present at
formation level between tunnel portals. Such cases will be treated in a manner similar to deep
cuttings with base course material of Subgrade Class S6 acting as a regulating layer to
formation level.
The remaining lengths of the route will either be at-grade or in shallow cuts/transition zones.
CBR values measured in DCP testing along the route of the Bypass are shown in Figure 5-5
of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The soils have been divided into four layers with
differing CBR and thickness.
The upper layer varies in depth up to 7.2m in thickness, though generally about one metre,
exhibits low CBR from 3% to 10% falling in Subgrade Class S2/3. For preliminary pavement
design Subgrade Class 2 has been assumed which requires a layer of selected fill to be
placed below the pavement structure. CBR values for the second layer are generally above
15%. However, the strength measured by probing is strongly dependent on the moisture
conditions at the time of testing it is therefore considered that Subgrade Class S4 is more
appropriate for this second layer.
4.4

Pavement Design
Two main pavement designs were carried out as follows;
Flexible pavement on granular base and subbase for the main carriageway, and.
Rigid concrete pavement for use at toll plazas.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

93

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

A third pavement design for a flexible pavement on granular base course with a cement
stabilised subbase was considered as cement stabilisation is commonly used in Uganda,
usually where natural gravels are in limited supply., It was thought this might offer a more
economical solution than the main fully granular pavement but was found to be marginally
more expensive and was discarded.
4.4.1

Flexible Pavement with Granular Base and Subbase


Pavement designs for Subgrade Classes S2 and S4 have been extracted from Chart W1
(Granular subbase and base courses) of UNRA Pavement Design Manual and are presented
in Table 4-5: For Subgrade Class S2, a layer of selected fill having a CBR greater than 15% is
required to be placed below subbase.

TABLE 4-5 PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR S2/4 AND T5 & 7 20YEARS AFTER OPENING
Subgrade
Class

S2

S4

Pavement
Course

Pavement Thickness base year 2017


2037
(T5: 3-6mESA)

2037
(T7: 10-17mESA)

Surfacing

50

125

Base

200

200

Subbase

250

250

Selected layer

200

200

Surfacing

50

125

Base

200

200

Subbase

175

200

Subbase thicknesses for S4 subgrades shown in Table 4-5 are mostly for rock cutting and
tunnels. As these subgrades cannot be trimmed to a smooth surface, an additional thickness
of subbase will be required to act as a regulating layer to ensure that the full pavement
thickness is provided.
4.4.2

Rigid Pavement for Toll Plazas


A concrete pavement is desirable at Toll Plaza locations to account for the risk of fuel spillage
from parked or waiting vehicles. The UNRA Pavement Design Guide Volume 3 Part II gives
design procedures for assessing the thickness of foundations and concrete slab required for
both a Jointed Unreinforced Concrete Pavement (JUCP) and a Jointed Reinforced Concrete
Pavement (JRCP).
The Pavement Design Guide notes:
Concrete pavements are subject to thermal stresses due to variation in daily and annual
temperatures and hence thermal stresses deserve attention for the design of concrete
pavements. Concrete changes in volume with changing temperature and, to a lesser degree,
with changes in moisture content. In concrete used as a surfacing, these changes in volume
must be accommodated by the use of contraction joints, the spacing of which are determined
by the range in diurnal and annual temperature. In some tropical climates, notably in humid
low lying areas near the equator, there are only small fluctuations in temperature and joints
can be quite widely spaced.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

94

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

and
The purpose of distributed steel or temperature steel is basically one of crack control.
Temperature steel will not prohibit the formation of cracks but acts as a tie member, which
controls the width of the crack opening. It holds tightly closed any cracks that may form, thus
maintaining the pavement as integral structural unit. Transverse reinforcement is provided to
ensure that the longitudinal bars remain in the correct position during the construction of the
slab. It also helps to control any longitudinal cracking that may develop.
and also
JRCP are used where a probability exists for transverse cracking during pavement life due to
such factors as soil movement and/or temperature/moisture change stresses. The longitudinal
reinforcement is the main reinforcement. A transverse reinforcement though not absolutely
necessary in most cases is usually added to facilitate the placing of longitudinal bars.
From temperature records available from met-stations in Kampala the diurnal temperature
range is not high, therefore the use of a JUCP for toll plazas on KSB is considered acceptable.
This pavement type will be simpler to construct than a JRCP but still requires dowels and tie
bars between panels. Panel dimensions are smaller for JUCP which may prove helpful in
determining a suitable panel module for the length and width of individual plazas.
However, the Pavement Design Guide is intended for highway carriageways whereas toll
plazas are intended to permit ease of lane change. Consideration should therefore be given
during Detailed Design to the need for dowel connections on all sides of the each panel.
in this respect JRCP offers advantages such as thinner slabs, joints at greater centres thereby
reducing the number of dowelled joints. Therefore designs for both types are given in Table 46. During Detailed Design consideration should be given to the width of panels across the
expanse of plaza and the need for additional transverse reinforcement for wide panels.

TABLE 4 6: SUMMARY OF RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN


Subgrade
Class

S2

S4

Foundation
(mm)

Joint Spacing

Concrete Slab Thickness (mm)


T5

T7

T8

(3-6mesa)

(10-17mesa)

(17-30mesa)

150 subbase
350 capping
150 subbase

4m JUCP
25m - JRCP

150 - JURP

180 JURP

200 JURP

160 JRCP*

185 JRCP*

180 capping

* For 500mm2/m of reinforcing steel.

4.5

Maintenance and Design 2037 - 2047


For the ten years after the design period, from 2037 to 2047, the traffic projections in Table 4-3
indicate an increase of one Traffic Class in the road sectors from Bukasa Junction to Portbell
Road Junction and from Kajjansi Junction to Munyonyo Spur Road. Over the same period
traffic classes in the sectors from Portbell Road Junction to Lukuli Road Junction and
Munyonyo Spur Road remain unchanged.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

95

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Pavement Designs for a 30year Traffic Loading (2017 to 2047) are given in Table 4-7

TABLE 4 7: PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR 30 YEAR TRAFFIC LOADING


Subgrade

Pavement Course

Class

S2

S4

Pavement Thickness base year 2017


2047
(T6: 6-10mESA)

2047
(T8: 17-30mESA)

Surfacing

100

150

Base

200

200

Subbase

225

300

Selected layer

350

350

Surfacing

100

150

Base

200

200

Subbase

175

225

If consideration is to be given to providing lower layers (base, subbase and selected layer) for
to meet the 30year pavement requirements this would require changes in thickness of the
subbase and selected layers only as shown by comparing Tables 4-5 and 4-7. This would
provide for extending the pavement life beyond the 20 year design period by using an overlay
at that stage.
However this strategy depends on the condition of the pavement at the end of its 20year
working life. The residual strength of the bituminous surfacing (particularly the 50mm on
Munyonyo Spur Road) will have reduced due to UV exposure. It is therefore essential that a
maintenance regime is put in place both to minimise deterioration (by sealing cracks as they
appear) but also to allow an appropriate strengthening in the form of an overlay, while the
surfacing has acceptable residual strength.
4.6

Summary of Proposed Pavement Designs


Preliminary traffic and geotechnical studies for Kampala Southern Bypass identified that traffic
loading at the end of the 20 year design life of the pavement were uniform (T7) and that three
pavement subgrade conditions were present (S2, S4 and concrete bridge deck).
Because of the potential damage from fuel spills, rigid concrete pavement is recommended at
the four toll plazas..
Two types of pavement are therefore recommended for KSB, flexible bituminous pavement for
the main expressway including junctions and Jointed Unreinforced Concrete Pavement at toll
plazas to cater for fuel and oil spillage from standing vehicles which could damage bituminous
pavement. These are summarized in Table 4-8 below.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

96

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 4-8 PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTS FOR EXPRESSWAY


Pavement Construction Thickness (mm)
Pavement Type & Layer

Subgrade S2

Subgrade S4

Structures

Surfacing

125

125

75

Base

200

200

NA

Subbase

200

250

NA

Selected Layer

Nil

200

NA

Surfacing (JUCP)

180

180

NA

Subbase

150

150

NA

Capping

350

180

NA

Bituminous Pavement

Rigid Concrete Pavement

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

97

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES DESIGN

5.1

Introduction
Bridge structures on the project have been selected to provide cost effective solutions to carry
the main highway over and under roads, rivers and railway. at grade-separated interchanges
and allowing the free access of local traffic, both vehicular and non-motorised, across the
expressway. This section of the report does not include drainage culverts nor tunnels and their
approaches.
The choice of structure has taken account of both capital cost and long term maintenance
requirements and also the desire of UNRA to provide integral (jointless) bridges where
feasible.

5.2

Type of Structures
The structures therefore fall into a number of categories and within these categories a
consistent form of structure has been adopted.
These are
Interchange Overbridges - Four span, continuous reinforced concrete slabs, voided as
required.
Interchange Underbridges - Single span, post-tensioned, precast concrete beams with insitu
reinforced concrete top slab
Viaducts - Multi-span post-tensioned, precast concrete beams with insitu reinforced concrete
top slab. These are provided where the mainline crosses swamp areas
Vehicular Overbridges - Four span, continuous reinforced concrete slabs, voided as
required.
Vehicular Underpasses - reinforced concrete boxes
Pedestrian Underpasses - reinforced concrete boxes

5.3

Design Standards
Design of all structures is generally in accordance with the UNRA Road Design Manual,
Volume 4: Bridge Design and our previously submitted Design Base Statement (DBS edition
2) in particular.
For the design of integral bridges the guidance issued by the United Kingdom Highways
Agency in BA42/96 (including amendment No. 1) has been adopted.
The preliminary requirements of the railway operating authority at the time of issue of the DBS
edition 2 were that provision for future upgrades of the line to double track would require a
structure 8.6m in width with a vertical clearance above rails of 7.3m (24 0).

5.4

Description of Structures

5.4.1

Interchange Overbridges
The expressway consists of 2 no. 7000mm carriageways each with a 3000mm hard shoulder
and 3000mm earth shoulder with a 3000mm median, including 500mm wide hard strips either
side. Between carriageways.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

98

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Structures of this type are four span. Assuming a square crossing the spans between central
and intermediate piers will typically be 15000mm. The length of the back spans is determined
by the height of embankment/cut and the side-slope but is typically 11000mm from centre of
inner pier to centre of abutment. A minimum vertical clearance of 5500mm will be provided
from the soffit to the highest point of the carriageway below.
A typical single carriageway overbridge provides for a 7000mm carriageway with a 500mm
hard strip, a safety barrier and a 2000mm footway either side. The top of the bridge deck will
be protected with a proprietary waterproofing system on top of which a minimum of 75mm of
bituminous surfacing will be laid. At least two 100mm ducts will be provided in each footway
for use in future as utility crossings.
The superstructure construction will comprise a reinforced concrete slab, voided as necessary
to reduce self weight. It will be continuous over the pier columns and encastre with the
abutments. In cross section it will have relatively long edge cantilevers to provide a slim visual
appearance.
Edge parapets will be concrete, steel or aluminum post and rail or similar with a total height of
1100mm above the adjacent footway. Approaches to the bridges will be provided with highway
safety barrier which will terminate flush with the bridge parapet.
The intermediate and central median supports are circular reinforced concrete columns
supported on a single foundation at each location. The choice of founding on spread footings
or piles will depend upon the results of the ground investigation.
Abutments will typically be bankseat type, again either piled or on spread footings supported
on compacted granular fill depending on ground conditions. If piled, the layout of the pile group
will be sufficiently flexible to allow for longitudinal movement. A transition slab will be provided
behind the abutment to cater for any differential settlement between the bridge and adjacent
embankment fill.
5.4.2

Interchange Underbridge
For the most part the expressway crosses over the existing road network, both at interchanges
and overpasses. At interchanges bridge structures will typically be a 16000mm single span
with precast post-tensioned concrete beams composite with a reinforced concrete slab deck. It
will not be feasible to make these bridges integral but allowance will be made for easy access
for inspection and future maintenance of bearings and joints.
The superstructure will typically be supported on cantilever abutments with either spread
footings or on piles depending on local ground conditions. A transition slab will be provided
behind the abutment to cater for any differential settlement between the bridge and adjacent
embankment fill.

5.4.3

Viaducts
The multi-span viaducts proposed for wetland crossings consist of separate superstructures
for each traffic direction of travel with a longitudinal joint between. Superstructures comprise
30600mm long precast post-tensioned concrete beams composite with a reinforced concrete
slab deck. Together the superstructures carry two 7000mm carriageways, a 1500mm median
(including a median barrier) with a 500mm hard strip, concrete safety barrier and 2000mm
pedestrian/cycleway either side. The viaduct lengths preclude full jointless deck construction
but multiple spans will be provided with a longitudinally continuous top slab with movement
joints at approximately 200m centres. Edge parapets similar to those proposed for motorway
overbridges are recommended.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

99

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

From information collected during the preliminary ground investigation, all substructures will be
piled. Intermediate piers for each superstructure comprise three 1200mm diameter columns
and capping beam supporting the superstructure on single bearings, fixed longitudinally
except at movement joints where individual bearings will be provided to the ends of adjacent
spans. Abutments shall be bank seat type also piled.
5.4.4

Vehicular Overbridges
Vehicular overbridges will be generally similar to interchange overbridges.

5.4.5

Vehicle Underpasses
Where the vertical alignment of the highway dictates, the minor road crossings and
interchange legs may be required to pass beneath the main highway. In these locations a
reinforced concrete box structure will be provided. The level of these will be such that full road
construction is taken over their top slabs.
Lighting will be provided in the underpasses and a vertical clearance of 5500mm will be
provided from the highest point of the carriageway and footways to the lowest point of either
the lighting or soffit of the top slab.
A carriageway width of 7000mm with 500mm hardstrips either side will be provided through
the underpasses, with 2000mm wide footways either side. Overall clearance between faces of
box will be 12000mm.

5.4.6

Pedestrian Underpasses
Underpasses for non-motorised users will be reinforced concrete boxes, generally similar to
those provided for vehicles.
A total width of 6000mm will be provided, with a clear height of 3100mm to the soffit of the top
slab.

5.4.7

Drainage, Lighting and other Incidental Items


At this preliminary design stage the detailed layouts of incidental items has not been
determined.
With the exception of viaducts it is envisaged that discrete drainage gullies will not be required
on structures and that water will be allowed to flow along the carriageway and be collected in
the highway drainage off of the bridges. On viaducts over wetlands surface water will be
discharged into the swamps at locations to be determined.
Lighting will be provided to interchange overbridges, with discrete columns fixed to plinths on
the outside of the edge parapets, with particular attention paid to easy access for operation
and maintenance. In underpasses the lighting will be fixed to the roof slab.
Movement joints will not be required on integral bridges or underpasses. They will only be
required on the single span structures and viaducts which are not designed as integral. The
detailed form will be determined at a later stage.
Similarly bearings will only be required on the single span, non-integral bridges and viaducts.
The particular form of these will be determined at a later stage.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

100

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

5.5

Preliminary Bridge Lists


Summaries of preliminary bridge proposals for the main alignment options 1, 1a and 2 under
consideration at this preliminary design stage have been compiled in Tables 5.1 to 5.3
inclusive.
The bridge requirements for other alignment options made up of varying combinations of the
four sections of the route discussed in Sections 1 and 2 of this report will also be a
combination of the bridge requirements of the major options.

5.5.1

Option 1 Preliminary Bridge Proposals

TABLE 5-1 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PROPOSALS (OPTION 1)


S.

Name

No

Chainage
(km)

Bridge Spans(m)
No.

Span

Skew
o
( )

Bridge Type

Remarks

RC Box 33.25m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

Total

Kasakoso Road

0+760

30.6

12.0

Lana Road

1+882

12.0

12.0

RC Box 33.32m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

Wabwire Road

2+854

12.0

12

60

RC Box 80.74m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

Old Butakika Road

3+189

9.5+15.
8+15.8
+111.5

52.6

19

RC voided slab

Vehicular
Overbridge

Kitintale Road

3+817

12.0

12.0

RC Box 33.25m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

Portbell Road

4+281

12

12

40

RC Box 45.43m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

Portbell-RngthoRoad

4+645

16.6

16.6

4+725

16.6

16.6

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridge

Ringtho Pedestrian
Underpass

5+106

12

RC Box 55.46m
long

Pedestrian
underpass

Portbell Railway

6+686

8.6

8.6

35

RC Portal Frame
251.79m long

Railway
Underpass

10

Bukasa Pedestrian
Underpass

7+350

RC Box 62.47m
long

Pedestrian
underpass

11

Bunga-Soya Pedestrian
Underpass

11+019

RC Box 32.03m
long

Pedestrian
underpass

12

Gaba Road Junction

11+486

16.6

16.6

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridges

13

Likuli Road

12+410
12+550

14.2

RC Box Culvert

Vehicular
Underpass

14.2

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

101

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 5-1 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PROPOSALS (OPTION 1)


S.

Name

Chainage
(km)

No
14

15

Next to Acacia Road

Kabugo Hill Drive

12+869

13+109

Bridge Spans(m)

Skew
o
( )

Bridge Type

Remarks

48

RC voided slab

Vehicular

No.

Span

14.8+2
2.1+22.
1+11.8

70.8

22.8+2
2.8+16.
8+16.8
+22.8+
22.8+2
2.8

147.6

111.20 41

Total

Overbridge
30

RC voided slab

Vehicular
Overbridge

16

Lukyamuzi Road

13+460

16.6+1
6.6+19.
2+19.6
+19.6+
19.6

17

Salama Road

13+941

36.6

36.6

14+198

RC voided slab

Vehicle
Overbridge

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridges

18

Kyamula

14+653

12.0

12.0

RC Box 31.98m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

19

Kayamula-Salama

15+206

12.0

12.0

RC Box 43.62m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

20

Lwasa

15+564

12.0

12.0

RC Box 39.61m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

21

Munyonyo Spur

17+448

11+15.
2+15.2
+11

52.4

10

RC voided slab

Interchange
Overbridge

22a

Nakivubo Viaduct

6+100 to
6+400,

10

30.0

300

varies

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
Wetland

22b

Kansanga Viaduct

8+000 to
10+400

79

30.0

2400.0 varies

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
Wetland

22c

Kawagga Viaduct

16+065 to
16+365

10

30.0

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
Wetland

5.5.2

300

varies

Option 2 - Preliminary Bridge Proposals


For Option 2 several of the crossings required for Option 1 are eliminated because of the
proposed tunnels. These are identified in Table 5-2 below by NA (not applicable)

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

102

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 5-2 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PROPOSALS (OPTION 2)


S.

Name

No

Chainage
(km)

Bridge Spans(m)
No.

Span

Tot
al

Kasakoso Road

0+760

Lana Road

1+882

Wabwire Road

2_865

Old Butakika Road

Kitintale Road

3+817

----

Portbell Road

4+281

12.0

12.0

Portbell-Ringtho Rd

4+645 &

16.6

16.6

----

12.0
12.0

----

----

----

----

12.0
12.0

Skew
o
( )

Bridge Type

RC Box 33.25m
long

Vehicular
underpass

RC Box 32.83m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

73.8
---39.6

----

----

Vehicular
Overbridge

----

----

Not required

RC Box 33.25m
long

Vehicular
Overbridge

40

RC Box 45.43m
long

Vehicle
Underpass

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridge

RC Box 55.46m
long

Pedestrian
underpass

RC Portal Frame

Railway
Underpass

4+725
8

Ringtho Pedestrian
Underpass

5+106

Portbell Railway

6+546

8.6

8.6

10

Bukasa Pedestrian
Underpass

-----

-----

-----

11

Bunga-Soya Pedestrian
Underpass

9+383

12

Gaba Road Junction

10+020 &
10+120

16.6

13

Lukuli Road

11+118

14

Next to Acacia Road

-----

15

Kabugo Hill Drive

16

Lukyamuzi Road

17

Salama Road Junction

18

-----

Remarks

12

----0

-----

Not required

RC Box 32.03m
long

Pedestrian
underpass

16.6

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridge

----

39.6

Post tensioned
beam

Vehicular
Overbridge

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Not required

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Not required

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Not required

12+575 &
12+832

36.6

36.6

Kyamula

13+288

12.0

12.0

19

Kayamula-Salama

13+841

12.0

20

Lwasa

14+198

12.0

Post tensioned
beam

Interchange
underbridge

RC Box 31.98m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

12.0

RC Box 43.62m
long

Vehicular
Underpass

12.0

RC Box 39.61m

Vehicular

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

103

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 5-2 PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PROPOSALS (OPTION 2)


S.

Name

Chainage
(km)

No

Bridge Spans(m)
No.

Span

Tot
al

Skew
o
( )

Bridge Type

Remarks

long

Underpass

21

Munyonyo Spur

16+082

11+15.
2+15.2
+11

52.4

10

RC voided slab

Interchange
over bridge

22a

Nakivubo Viaduct 1

5+600 to
5+800

30

210

varies

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
wetland

22b

Nakivubo Viaduct 2

6+000 to
6+300,

10

30

300

varies

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
wetland

22c

Kawagga Viaduct

14+700 to
15+000

10

30

300

varies

Post tensioned
beam

Viaduct over
Wetland

5.5.3

Option 1a Bridge Requirements


Option 1a ia a refinement Options 1 carried out following receipt of the preliminary
geotechnical and hydrological reports and initial cost estimate.
Option 1 viaducts were proposed over the complete width of all wetlands encountered.
Following input from the ESIA team and the hydrologist it became apparent that the major
problem with previous wetland crossings was that the main inflow channels could be dammed
if insufficient cross drainage is provided.
This has already occurred at Nakivubo wetland as a result of damming by the existing railway
embankment.
On that basis therefore the lengths of viaduct considered in Option 1 could be reduced so long
as more than sufficient cross drainage is provided. From the hydrological study described in
Section 3, cross-drainage requirements were calculated as follows.
Nakivubo Wetland
Kansanga Wetland
Kawagga Wetland

TABLE 5-8 VIADUCTS (OPTION 1A)


S.

Name

Chainage (km)

No

Bridge Spans(m)
No.

Length

Skew
o
( )

Bridge Type

Remarks

Total

Nakivubo Viaduct

5.400 6.991.2

52

30.6

1591.2

varies

Post-tensioned

curved

Kansanga Viaduct

8.000 10.386.8

78

30.6

2386.8

varies

Post-tensioned

Curved

Kawagga Viaduct

16.000 16.489.6

16

30,6

489.6

varies

Post-tensioned

Curved

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

104

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

5.6

Preliminary Structures Drawings


General Arrangement, Abutment, Pier and Typical Section drawings of structures
representative of those on the project will be included in Draft Feasibility Study Report, Part 3
Preliminary Engineering Report, Volume B - Preliminary Drawings.

5.7

Detailed Design
Structures proposed in this feasibility study will be reviewed at detailed design phase with the
intent of further standardization of bridge spans and a reconciliation of bridge requirements
and the local road network layout, particularly between Gaba and Salama roads.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

105

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

ANCILLARY ASPECTS

6.1

Standard Details
The Consultant has tentatively identified and prepared a number of standard detail drawings
that they consider appropriate for the Project at this stage. These are presented as a
component of Part 3: Preliminary Engineering Report, Volume 2: Preliminary Engineering
Drawings.
The standard details presented are for initial review only, and it is cautioned that the ultimate
relevance of standard details, and others to be developed, can only be finalised during the
detailed design stage as requirements for the chosen option emerge.

6.2

Traffic Sign and Road Markings

6.2.1

Traffic Sign Standards


A. Traffic Signs Manual, Uganda
The Traffic Signs Manual published by the Ministry of Works, Housing & Communications in
2004 is the current definitive manual covering traffic signs and road markings in Uganda. This
is a comprehensive document which covers all roads of standards up to and including high
speed rural roads with 85th percentile traffic speeds in excess of 80 km/h.
Subject to decisions still to be made, Kampala Southern Bypass will consist of a limitedaccess multi-lane urban expressway with a design speed of 80 km/h constructed either,
In open cut across the ridges of Mutungo, Muyenga and Makindye, or,
Passing through one or more of the three ridges by means of tunnels
Although the horizontal alignments of the alternatives vary, both alternatives entail the use of
combinations of embankment and viaduct when crossing the wetlands. In both cases
connections to the existing road network are by way of grade separated interchanges.
Where elements of the Project are covered by the manual, signs and road markings shall
comply with its requirements.
For limited-access high-speed roads, however, it will be necessary to establish additional
signing and marking criteria commensurate with the new roads characteristic parameters.
If any option including tunnels is adopted, particular signage requirements for tunnels will
apply which for the most part are related to safety issues of vehicle user, maintenance crew
and emergency personnel in tunnels.
B. International Traffic Signs Manuals
It is anticipated that the Uganda Traffic Signs Manual will apply to most situations related to
the existing town road sections of the Project at junctions. However, even in such sections
additional signs will be required to accommodate the superimposition of a higher level road
network on the existing all-purpose network.
On the high-speed limited-access expressway a new series of traffic signs and road markings
will be required to advise road users and control traffic on this higher level road.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

106

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The Uganda Traffic Signs Manual was prepared to conform to the United Nations Convention
on Road Signs and Signals (Vienna Convention) and for regional consistency was influenced
through the Transportation Facilitation Strategy of the East African Community, by the
systems adopted by neighbouring states such as Kenya and the Southern African
Development Community (SADC).
Where new signs and road markings are required for the Project these must also be
consistent with the Vienna Convention.
Where it is necessary to devise individual new signs or markings or, as in the particular case
of the developing network of high-speed limited-access roads of which the expressway is a
part, it is proposed to consult internationally recognized standards which are consistent with
the Vienna Convention. Typical such references are
The Traffic Signs Manual (UK)
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (1994) (UK)
Another common reference standard (see bullet points below) is that of the United States
(US). However, the signage system adopted in US differs somewhat as it is intended to
comply with the Inter-American Convention.
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (US)
Standards for Highway Signs (US)
Both UK and US documents specify road signs and markings within single states. Their
concepts are more defined than those of the UN Convention which in some cases provides
options to balance the future needs and existing provisions in the territories of adjacent
contracting parties or of other countries which follow the Convention rules.
The emphasis of the UK and US documents is on uniformity and standardization. Whilst there
is much to be gleaned from the US MUTCD in terms of principle, the signs are visually
divergent from those in common use in Uganda. However, the UK standards for all-purpose
roads are reasonably consistent in layout and visual impact with the Uganda standards.
Hence, UK standards as reference for road signs and markings for the developing higher level
road network of Uganda, including KSB , represents a consistent extension of the existing
Uganda Traffic Signs Manual.
Recommendations from such manuals would be suitably customized to suit Ugandan
circumstances.
C. UN Convention on Road Signs and Signals
Although derived from earlier conventions the UN Convention on Road Signs and Signals in
its current form dates from 1968 and has been amended subsequently. As of July 2007 there
were 56 Contracting Parties to the Convention, and many other countries have adopted road
signs and markings in general conformity with the Convention rules.
Through harmonized rules and uniformity of road traffic signs and markings the aim of the
Convention is to facilitate trade, transport and the development of road safety policies aimed
at a reduction in the number of road accidents and victims.
With respect to road signs, various Articles of the Convention (in so far as they would apply to
Uganda and the type of road project under consideration) require the following fundamental
criteria to be adopted, amongst many others relating to more specific circumstances.
Motorways/ high-speed limited-access roads shall be specially signed as such.
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

107

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

All road signs shall be lit or use retro-reflective sign face material.
Any sign or symbol not prescribed in the Convention shall be adopted subject to regional
agreement.
Inscriptions on sign faces shall be in the national language (English, in the case of Uganda).
The Convention includes signs related to the use of tunnels. These include signage warning of
the approach to a tunnel and warning signs and traffic lights for use in a tunnel. A particular
emphasis is placed on warning signs for dealing with tunnel emergencies.
6.2.2

Traffic Signs and Road Marking Requirements


The elements of the Project described below have different requirements got traffic signs and
road marking markings,
the limited access expressway between Butabika Interchange and Munyonyo Spur Road
Junction and other junctions with major radials of the existing road network
short sections of the existing road network at junctions
possible provisions for toll plazas, and,
special sign requirements for tunnels.
These requirements are summarized in the following sub-sections.
A. High Speed Limited Access Expressway Road and Junctions
Among the distinctive features by which a limited-access expressway and its junctions differ
from an all-purpose road are the following.
An almost complete separation of the road from the all-purpose road network, permitting only
limited access to the former at strategic locations.
Access points consisting of grade-separated connector/ link roads with slip road connections
to the high-speed road.
The provision of grade-separation at crossing points other than junctions which permit the
limited-access road and all-purpose networks to operate separately.
the expressway has higher operating speeds.
Visually different signage to clearly identify the expressway as limited access and subject to
special regulations.
The limitation of traffic categories permitted to make use of the expressway (eg exclusion of
pedestrians, animals, animal drawn vehicles, pedal cycles, small engine moped/motor
cycles, learner drivers etc).
On Kampala Southern Bypass, junctions are located only at crossings of the major radial
roads of the existing all purpose town network. Signs on limited-access roads are mainly
related to junctions where information and a greater degree of control is necessary.
Junctions on expressways are usually numbered. The numbers are normally included on
relevant direction sign faces and are among the main references used by monitoring
organizations and police for patrolling and reporting. Such numbering is also useful for general
navigation, especially when included on road maps.
A typical example of traffic sign for a limited access road in UK is illustrated in Figure 6-1.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

108

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 6-1 Sample Road Sign Face Limited Access Road Network

B. Existing Road Network at Junctions etc


At the five junctions on KSB provisions for the local roads crossed allow for upgrading the to
comply with the preferred design standards of KCCA. Ann signs and road markings required
for the short lengths of existing radial road connecting back to the existing roads will be
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Uganda Traffic Signs Manual.
A typical example of traffic direction sign based on the Uganda Traffic Signs Manual is
illustrated in Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-2 Sample Road Sign Face All Purpose Road Network

C. Sign Provisions for Toll Plazas


If tolling is adopted on KSB several toll plazas will be required. Traffic control is one of the
keys to effective operation of a toll plaza.Toll plazas and their approaches require a greater
density of signing than normal particularly where the toll plaza incorporates dedicated lanes to
cater for specific vehcle types such as left hand drive, abnormal loads, VIP traffic etc. Signs
are also required to give advice, information and instructions to motorists to guide them
through the facility. Such signs are on-standard and must be provided on a cases by case
basis but still comply with the general provisions of the traffic signs manual. In some cases
variable message signs are adopted. Typical examples are shown in Figure 6-3.
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

109

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 6-3 Sample Road Sign Face Toll Plazas

D. Sign Provisions for Tunnels


If an option which includes tunnels is selected for detailed design, sign requirements will
include warning signs of tunnels en-route plus a series of signs catering for emergencies and
traffic lights for traffic control within and approaching the tunnel portal. Typical examples of
such signes are shown in Figure 6-4.

Figure 6-4 Sample Road Sign Faces Tunnels


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

110

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

6.3

Lighting

6.3.1

Availability of Local Lighting Guidelines


There is no Uganda manual covering appropriate lighting criteria for a high-speed limitedaccess roads such as KSB.
For this preliminary design it has been assumed that as an urban expressway KSB will be lit
throughout. Typical lighting standards appropriate for such roads are summarized below.

6.3.2

Standards Recommended for Adoption


The lighting levels recommended are based on BS5489 En 13201 2003. In this preliminary
assessment the primary aspects of the lighting scheme have been considered, which include:
Lighting design standards
Light pollution
Column locations
Maintenance
Dimming
Subway lighting for pedestrian underpasses.
Power supply
Lighting of tunnels is treated separately and included in the advice note for tunnel design
enclosed as Appendix 6 of Part 3, Volume A2.

6.3.3

Lighting Levels to BS 5489 EN13201 (2003) Fundamentals


a) Light Pollution
Control of light distribution of lighting installations is necessary in order to limit obtrusive light
and sky glow.
Although beneficial for security, lighting can be intrusive at night particularly in residential
areas. Light above the horizon should be minimized in all road lighting installations by
controlling the intensity of light from luminaires at high angles.
b) Lantern Intensity Classes
Semi Cut Off = G1-G2-G3. With these categories of lantern there would be a certain amount
of upward light output which would contribute towards Sky Glow (light pollution).
Full Cut Off = G4-G5-G6. With these categories of lantern there would be no upward light
output and they would not contribute towards Sky Glow.
c) Night-time Appearance
An aspect of planning any lighting scheme is the positive contribution it can make to the
improvement of the night-time environment. Much can be done in basic design to ensure that
the lighting directly aids the creation of a pleasant and attractive after-dark atmosphere.
While efficient lighting for traffic and pedestrian safety is essential, consideration of the whole
visual scene at night is highly desirable for many reasons. In lighting urban and residential
roads, amenity and environmental requirements should always be given consideration and

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

111

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

there should be an evaluation of the assistance that lighting can offer to crime prevention.
Careful consideration should be given to the colour rendering index of lamps (Ra). For urban
and residential roads the light source used on such roads should have an Ra value >20. If
night-time pedestrian usage is high consideration should be given to raising this to an Ra
value >60.
d) Lamp Colour Appearance

Colour appearance

Correlated colour temperature (K)

Warm

<3,300

Intermediate

3,300 to 5,300

Cool

>5,300

e) Lamp Types and Ra Values

f)

Colour appearance

Correlated colour temperature (K)

Son T Plus

Ra 23

Son Comfort

Ra 65

Cosmopolitan (white)

Ra 65

CDM T

Ra 80

Lighting Classes - Motorways


A - Roads and Main Roads

Class

C/D

UO

UL

Ti (%)

S/R

ME1

2.0

0.4

0.7

10

0.5

ME2

1.5

0.4

0.7

10

0.5

ME3a

1.0

0.4

0.7

15

0.5

ME3b

1.0

0.4

0.6

15

0.5

ME3c

1.0

0.4

0.5

15

0.5

ME4a

0.75

0.4

0.6

15

0.5

ME4b

0.75

0.4

0.5

15

0.5

ME5

0.5

0.4

0.4

15

0.5

ME6

0.3

0.4

0.4

15

0.5

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

112

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

B - Conflict Zones

Class

Average (lux)

Uniformity

CE0

50

0.4

CE1

30

0.4

CE2

20

0.4

CE3

15

0.4

CE4

10

0.4

CE5

7.5

0.4

Conflict zone class is determined by the class of road entering into a zone. It will always be lit
to the higher class of road entering the zone.
C - Conflict Zones with Class of Road

Road class

Conflict class

Residential road class

CE0

CE0

CE1

CE1

CE2

CE2

S1

CE3

CE3

S2

CE4

CE4

S3

CE5

CE5

S4

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

113

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TRAFFIC FLOWS WITH CLASS OF ROAD


Hierarchy
description

Type of road
general
description

Detailed description

Motorway

Limited access

Routes for fast-moving long distance


traffic. Fully grade-separated and
restrictions on use.

Traffic
flow
(ADT)

Lighting
class

<40,000

ME1

>40,000

ME1

Main carriageway with interchanges


< 3 km

<40,000

ME2

>40,000

ME1

Main carriageway with interchanges


> 3 km

<40,000

ME2

>40,000

ME2

ME4a

<15,000

ME3a

>15,000

ME2

<15,000

ME3a

>15,000

ME2

<15,000

ME3a

>15,000

ME2

<15,000

ME3a

>15,000

ME2

Main carriageway
interchange areas

in

complex

Emergency lanes
Strategic
route

Trunk and some


principal A roads
between primary
destinations

Routes for fast moving long-distance


traffic with little frontage access or
pedestrian traffic. Speed limits are
usually in excess of 60 km/h and there
are few junctions. Pedestrian crossings
are either segregated or controlled, and
parked vehicles are usually prohibited.
Single carriageways

Dual carriageways

Main
distributor

Major
urban
network
and
inter-primary
links, - short to
medium
distance traffic

Routes between strategic routes and


linking urban centres to the strategic
network with limited frontage access. In
urban areas speed limits are usually 60
km/h or less, parking is restricted at
peak times and there are positive
measures for pedestrian safety.
Single carriageways

Dual carriageways

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

114

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

6.3.4

Recommended Lighting Levels and Classes


The recommended lighting levels for the Project are listed below.
a) Roadways
Location

Class

C/D

UO

UL

Ti (%)

S/R

Main carriageway

ME2

1.5

0.4

0.7

10

0.5

Slip roads at interchanges

ME3a

1.0

0.4

0.7

10

0.5

Emergency
shoulder)

ME4a

0.75

0.6

0.4

15

0.5

lane

(hard

b) Pedestrian Underpasses

Type

Underpass

6.3.5

Day

Night

E average

E min

E average

E min

350 lux

150 lux

150 lux

50 lux

Recommended Principles for Project Roadway Lighting


From the aspect of road lighting the Project consists basically of a new alignment with gradeseparated junctions.
The actual design of road lighting is very configuration-specific, and detailing will be
undertaken during the Detailed Design stage, customized to the actual layout of the chosen
corridor option.
The basic philosophy proposed for a suitable practical and economic lighting system for the
Project is
As it is an urban expressway lighting KSB is considered desirable, and
all the grade-separated junctions; in each case the entire junction should be lit, including
ramps, loops
Where the expressway merges with the existing road network the intensity of the lighting
should be progressively built up/ dimmed down to the lighting level at those locations over a
0.5km distance to avoid sudden changes in illumination which can momentarily disorientate
drivers.
With regard to underpasses, especially pedestrian facilities, serious consideration should be
given to internal lighting; otherwise the prospect of using them after dark by pedestrians
could be a security risk.

6.3.6

Recommended Positions of Lighting Columns


A typical lighting configuration could consist of the following.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

115

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Main carriageway columns to be sited in the roadway median to be 15 metres in height with
double-bracket configuration, and fitted with 400 watt Son T Plus lanterns. Columns would
be located at an average spacing of 50 metres.
The emergency lane or hard shoulder would not be provided with any extra lighting other
than the lighting installed in the roadway median.
At interchanges the 15 metre columns would be continued along the roadway median but
there would be additional columns on the slip roads. The slip road column heights would be
12 metres, and they would each be fitted with a single-bracket configuration 250 watt Son T
Plus lantern. This would require an average spacing of some 34 metres.
However, the actual detailed roadway configuration, and the lighting will not be known until an
advanced stage of the Detailed Design. Alternatives may be proposed at that stage which will
reflect actual configuration details, eg lighting located in the verges of the main road (instead
of the median) for other reasons than those bulleted above, or high-mast lighting at
interchanges.
Full lighting calculations will substantiate the column heights and spacings once the actual
roadway configurations have been designed.
6.3.7

Variable Lighting Systems


In some locations where user demands can vary during the course of the night, lighting
provisions can be varied by arranging multiple luminaires, lamp switching sequences or
dimming. This should be considered where traffic usage varies, for security and energy saving
purposes and where a higher level of lighting is required than can be obtained without
detracting from the visual appearance.
The primary benefits of adopting a dimming policy are as follows.
Could result in 30% reduction in energy costs
Will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Can expect 20% savings in the lamp replacement budget due to the way electronic ballasts
drive high pressure sodium lamps.
The number of on-site maintenance operations is reduced by a minimum of 30%. The
associated software enables most of the operations to be performed remotely.

6.3.8

Power Supply
The availability of suitably located power sources will be a crucial component. For
underpasses for pedestrian use (ie of small power demand) the use of solar panels may be
considered.

6.4

Toll Plazas
The decision on whether tolling is adopted for KSB or not depends on Client requirements. Of
their decision is in the affirmative a series of toll plazas will be required to collect fees. The
geometric design of toll plazas is dealt with in section 3 of this report and a review tolling
viability is included in the Traffic Modelling Report (Draft Feasibility Study Report. Part 2,
Volume B).
For this reason the estimated cost of toll plazas has been calculated but kept separate from
the overall project construction costs pending the decision. However, four possible toll plaza

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

116

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

locations were identified and are shown on the plan/profile drawings. The two plazas at either
end of the alignment are dual direction with two uni-directional plazas between.
Although included in the estimated cost, no specific locations have been identified for plaza/toll
administration make safe collected tolls and carry out other related administrative duries. The
selection of a an administrative site or sites will depend on the operating procedures being
adopted by UNRA but typically administration of some sort is provided at each toll plaza.
Consistent with the objective of collecting tolls from all users of the expressway, toll plaza
locations have been situated in the least developed sections of the alignment. These are
mostly wetland locations which provide flatter terrain, less development and reduced
sensitivity to highway noise air and light pollution. However, locations which have already
been altered by human developments were preferred to pristine wetland.
For consistency with toll plazas on other projects such as Kampala Entebbe Expressway
(KEE), the toll plazas in this preliminary design have been located near access points and
have a similar cross-section to those on KEE. The design provides for extra-large vehicles.
6.5

Tunnel Design
Tunnels through Mutungo, Muyenga and Makindye hills are integral components of some of
the alignment options considered for KSB (Sections 2.1 and 2.2 refer). If an option which
includes a tunnel or tunnels is selected by UNRA for development in the detailed design stage
significantly more information, particularly concerning geological and hydrogeological aspects
of the site, will need to be obtained.
The design of tunnels is described in general terms in Figure 6-5. In addition to meeting
geometric and capacity standards tunnels also call for considerable policy and administrative
inputs and development of UNRAs operational and maintenance capabilities.
These and other design aspects are described fully in the Advisory Note enclosed as
Appendix 6 of Volume B of Part 3, Preliminary Engineering Report and are briefly outlined in
this section. This Advisory Note considers in more detail, the feasibility of tunnel construction,
the risks associated with tunnel construction, provides further definition of estimated tunnel
costs and guidance on the codes and standards that could be used for tunnel design. In
addition, guidance is also provided of the infrastructure that would be needed if tunnelling is
selected by UNRA and guidance on the process needed for further definition of the tunnel
requirements

6.5.1

Codes and Standards


The principal design standard on which this preliminary tunnel design has been based is BD
78/99 Design of Road Tunnels from the Department of Transport (UK) This has been
augmented by other codes and standards for specific aspects such as fire-life-safety etc.

6.5.2

Tunnel Cross-section and Geometric Design


This is described in Section 2.11 of this volume but briefly the proposed tunnels are twin
11.6m diameter uni-directional tunnels each carrying two traffic lanes and an emergency
walkway. The tunnels are linked by cross passages at 300m intervals. To minimize long term
impact to the hydrogeology of Mutungo and Makindye hills an undrained tunnel cross-section
is recommended.For geotechnical reasons the reasons a clear separation of approximately
16m is required between the two main tunnels requiring the central reserve of the expressway
to be widened at both approaches to each tunnel. The gradient in any tunnel proposed is of
the order of 0.5% and the minimum radius of a tunnel or approach is 265m.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

117

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Figure 6-5: Tunnel Planning and Design Process

6.5.3

Detailed Geological/Hydrogeological Investigations


In order to fully assess the appropriate method of tunnelling for this location and the probable
extent of settlement and other disturbance that could be expected during and after tunnelling
operations, one of the most important requirements is that a full and detailed site investigation
be carried out in order to determine the geotechnical, chemical & hydrogeological properties of
the ground above, below, within and laterally surrounding the proposed tunnels and at portals.
A full impact assessment of the groundwater table will also be required before the form of the
tunnel lining can be determined and a full set of reports containing factual, in-situ and
laboratory test data will be required for the tender documentation.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

118

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

6.5.4

Tunnel Design/Administration
A Tunnel Design and Safety Consultation Group (TDSCG) will require to confirm the basis of
the detailed design and operating procedures for fully integrated traffic management and
control.
The TDSCG should include representation from the Owner, the Designer, Police or other
authority, the operations and maintenance organization (The Tunnel Manager), and
emergency services. Current regulations also include a requirement for the appointment of a
Safety Officer and an Inspections Entity and a separate Risk Management Organization.
Specific reporting and inspection requirements during tunnel design and operations must also
be considered.
Tunnels are designed to operate as fully automatic facilities without permanent operating and
monitoring staff and normally allow free passage of dangerous goods vehicles operating within
the law..This requires that the fire-life-safety systems design of the tunnel is based on the
largest fire load that can be expected from hazardous goods transport through the tunnel. This
will impact the tunnel structural, ventilation and emergency evacuation design and also impact
supervisory systems and tunnel layout and, of course, tunnel cost.

6.5.5

Risk Management
An integrated approach to road safety in tunnels requires risk analysis for operational safety,
safety inspections and safety procedures. These are incorporated into the Tunnel Operations
Procedures and Processes which will be used by UNRA after operational commencement but
initially will set the safety objectives for the design at the initial design stage of the tunnels.
These safety objectives are proposed to focus on the prevention of serious incidents in the
tunnel based on local highway design and safety parameters and the mitigation of
consequences on the basis of design of the tunnel to meet the objective of the facilitation of
self rescue in the first instance and subsequent intervention by the emergency services.
Operational risk will focus on UNRAs experience of management of their infrastructure and
their experience of major incidents. This experience will be developed into the risk analysis
and operational safety procedures to reflect local experience.
The initial stage requires risk workshops which can be facilitated by the Designer but will
require significant input by UNRA. The workshops will also incorporate lessons learned from
incidents in other major tunnels.
During construction the joint code of practice published by the British Tunnelling Society
/Association of British Insurers aimed at minimising exposure to risks resulting from tunnelling
works or similar should be referred.
This risk management approach to construction will complement the Operational Risk
Workshops and again will involve UNRAs experience of construction of projects in the vicinity
of the works. It is anticipated that a number of the mitigation measures developed during this
risk process will be incorporated in the design of the tunnels and will lead to incorporation in
the operational and safety procedures for the tunnels.
Risk management for operational and construction safety is an ongoing process during the
design and construction period and requires continuous monitoring and review during tunnel
operations to reflect ongoing changes in local requirements and regulations.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

119

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

6.5.6

Documentation Outline
On a turnkey project basis (PPP Bid) the design process will normally include:
Preparation of detailed geotechnical investigation tender documents. These will include the
requirements for testing, sampling and reporting. Right of way access will be needed to
undertake this investigation.
Completion, review and approval of geotechnical investigation reports.
Development of tunnel alignment to define the Right of Way (ROW)
Development of outline design to confirm the ROW
Development of ROW drawings
Preparation of design criteria and outline construction specifications
Preparation of operation and maintenance requirements
Preparation of outline design and construction quality requirements
Preparation of bid documents, selection of bid conditions,
Definition of tender submittal requirements
Preparation of business case justification including further definition of construction cost
estimates and development of life cycle costs,
Development of risk register including workshops and risk mitigation assessments,
Bidder prequalification.
Decisions on the design documentation to be included in the bid package

6.6

Existing Utilities

6.6.1

Introduction
This section provides a preliminary identification of the various utility services infrastructure
affected by the proposed alignment options. Location Plans of existing known utility locations
are included in the Preliminary Drawings - Draft Feasibility Study Report Part 3. Volume B.
while preliminary cost estimates for the relocation/protection of the affected utilities services
infrastructure are included in Part 6, Preliminary Cost Estimate (Confidential).

6.6.2

Background
An assessment of the potential impact on existing utility services of the proposed alignment
options considered during the feasibility study was made by the Consultants. This is important
as both the direct costs of relocating the existing services and the possible delays to the works
associated with delayed relocation of the existing services can have profound impacts on the
project implementation costs, and consequently on the economic viability of options.

6.6.3

Approach Used
It is important to note that most major existing utility lines are concentrated along the existing
radials with minor local domestic supply lines elsewhere.
Therefore, in order to reasonably identify as many of the existing utilities as possible which
would be impacted utility authorities were formally contacted and requested to provide any
available information regarding the locations of their utilities along the existing road. The
authorities contacted included:

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

120

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Airtel (formerly Zain);


Ministry of ICT;
MTN Uganda;
National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC);
UMEME;
Warid Telecom;
Uganda Telecom Limited (UTL) and;
Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL)
In response to the enquiries sent out by the Consultants, various utility authorities confirmed
whether their respective infrastructure would be impacted or not by the Project proposals and,
if they considered their infrastructure would be impacted, they also provided information on the
existing utility locations.
However, while some existing location information was provided in the form of AutoCAD
drawings that could be superimposed on the existing road preliminary alignment design to
determine the extent of the impact, some location information provided could not be accurately
delineated due to
the adoption of unrecognisable coordinate information, specifically in the case of MTN
Uganda, or
information only descriptively provided, specifically in the case of Warid Telecom.
Table 1 below summarises the existing services information requests made by the
Consultants and the responses received from the various utility authorities.
6.6.4

Relocation Cost Estimates


Preliminary cost estimates for the relocation/protection of the affected utilities services
infrastructure are included in Part 6, Preliminary Cost Estimate (Confidential). Since limited
relocation/protection cost was made available from utility authorities the preliminary estimated
costs were based in the estimated for similar works in urban areas of Kampala Jinja Road
project.

6.6.5

Utilities Drawings
Utility locations drawings obtained from service authorities have been overlaid on the project
road alignment and the exitsing road network to highlight their potential areas of conflict.

6.6.6

Detailed Design Stage


Investigations by the Consultant to date have enabled a preliminary estimate of utility
relocation and protection costs associated with each alignment option to be calculated. This
preliminary assessment is not definitive since the actual utilities, and sections thereof, that will
require attention cannot be precisely identified until the detailed geometric design has been
further refined following completion of the detailed topographic survey to be undertaken during
the Detailed Design stage.
Once the Feasibility Study stage of the Project has been accepted by UNRA, and the decision
taken regarding which option is to be carried forward into the Detailed Design stage the
Consultant will commence with detailed topographic survey of the chosen corridor.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

121

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

As a component of that survey will include recording visible evidence of utilities. This
information will be compared with the utility information already in the Consultants possession
for the relevant corridor option, to identify those utilities whose locations cannot currently be
precisely identified. As the detailed alignment work progresses to the stage where precise
areas of land required for the road construction are known, the Consultant will re-open
contacts with the various utility authorities affected with a view to accurately confirming the
positions of all utilities within the affected areas.
This stage will be followed by formal requests to the utility authorities for detailed estimates of
costs and work schedules for the various interventions required to preserve the safety and
accessibility of the utility lines impacted by the proposed construction work. 1

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

122

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

CONTINGENCIES AND RISK

7.1

Introduction
When estimating the cost for a project, there is always uncertainty as to the precise quantities
in the estimate, how work will be performed, work conditions during project implementation
and many other factors. These uncertainties are risks to the project. Some refer to these risks
as "known-unknowns" because the cost estimator is aware of them, and based on past
experience, can even estimate their probable costs. The estimated costs of the knownunknowns is referred to by cost estimators as cost contingency.
Contingency can be defined as an amount added to an estimate to allow for items, conditions,
or events for which the state, occurrence, or effect is uncertain and that experience shows will
likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs . Contingency usually excludes:
Major scope changes such as changes in project specification, project size, and location of
the project;
Extraordinary events such as major strikes and natural disasters commonly referred to as
Force Majeure;
Management reserves; and
Escalation and currency effects.
Contingency usually includes events for which the state, occurrence, and/or effect is uncertain
and include, but are not limited to, planning and estimating errors and omissions, minor price
fluctuations other than general escalation, design changes within the scope, and variations in
market and environmental conditions. Contingency is generally included in most estimates,
and is expected to be expended".
On the other hand, risk in project cost estimation is defined as an unexpected cost increase or
budget overrun, incurred in excess of a budgeted amount due to an under-estimation of the
actual cost during budgeting. Risk is to be distinguished from contingency which is usually
anticipated or expected. In other words, risk is a cost overrun over and beyond contingency
and which has a lower likelihood of occurrence than contingency.
In general, there are three most common methods used to estimate contingency and risk.
These include the following:
Expert judgment;
Predetermined guidelines (with varying degrees of judgment and empiricism used); and
Simulation analysis (primarily risk analysis judgment incorporated in a simulation such as
Monte-Carlo);
In simulation analysis using Monte Carlo, it is common to define a contingency event as one
that has a probability of occurrence of more than 50%, and a risk event as one that has a
likelihood of occurrence of less that 50%. A key phrase in the definition of contingency is that it
is "expected to be expended". In other words, contingency is an item in a cost estimate like
any other item, that would be expected to be expended. On the other hand, risk is an amount
that would not normally form part of the budget but simply a reserve to help mitigate against
the occurrence of a risk event.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

123

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.2

Risk Register
As a first step in estimating contingency and risk, a risk register was created for each of the
four project options.
To simplify the exercise, the key major cost drivers i.e. elements of the cost estimate
accounting for 5% or more of the total cost were identified. For each of the three options, six
major drivers of cost identified were:
Geotechnical issues;
Drainage;
Bituminous layers;
Structures;
Utilities; and
Land & resettlement issues.
Under each of the six areas, areas of risk were carefully identified. This was undertaken first
by individual experts in each of the areas and refined through a specifically convened risk
workshop. For each of the identified risks, the following items were included in the risk
register.
Risk ID and risk owner;
Risk title and description;
The bill or budget reference relating to the risk;
The probability or likelihood of occurrence;
Cost impact of the risk at three levels minimum, most likely and maximum cost impact;
For this study, all risks were identified for a pre-mitigation scenario and their impact would
therefore be expected to decrease if mitigation measures are identified and undertaken.
Risk registers for each of the three project options are attached in Appendix 7 Monte Carlo
Analysis of Volume A2.

7.3

Monte Carlo Analysis


The Monte Carlo analysis approach was selected as the most appropriate tool for risk
analysis. The risk register for each option was prepared and analysed through @Risk software
and resulted in three main outputs;
The contingency amount;
The total contingency and risk amount from which the risk amount was estimated; and
The appropriate S-curve, a plot of percentiles against risk or contingency amounts.
The Procedural Guide recommends that risk and contingency amounts used in cost estimates
should be at the P90 level i.e. the likelihood that a risk event that is not covered by the
contingency amount would occur is 10% or lower. Outputs from the analysis used in the cost
estimates were therefore taken at the P90 level.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

124

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.4

Risk Analysis Results

7.4.1

Option 1
The S-curve for total risk and contingency for Option 1 is presented in Figure 7-1 below.
Risk & Contingency

Option 1 - Total Risk & Contingency

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 41,401,311

100%

10% 42,860,722

90%

15% 43,897,858
20% 44,694,962

80%

25% 45,322,279

Percentile

70%

30% 45,940,992
35% 46,534,937

60%

40% 47,053,515
50%

45% 47,594,717
50% 48,051,664

40%

55% 48,591,033
60% 49,167,890

30%

65% 49,692,540
20%

70% 50,298,711
75% 50,893,481

10%

80% 51,617,081
85% 52,382,698

0%

41.4

42.4

43.4

44.4

45.4

46.4

47.4

48.4

49.4

50.4

51.4

52.4

53.4

54.4

90% 53,335,491

Risk & Contingency Total, $m

95% 54,682,443

Figure 7-1: Total risk and contingency for Option 1

At P90, the total risk and contingency combined for Option 1 is USD53.3m.
The S-curve for contingency only for Option 1 is shown in Figure 7-2 below.
Contingency Only

Option 1 - Total Contingency Only

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 21,355,067

100.0%

10% 23,307,547

90.0%

15% 24,728,588
20% 25,848,109

80.0%

Percentile

25% 26,885,298
70.0%

30% 27,743,419

60.0%

35% 28,567,213
40% 29,421,675

50.0%

45% 30,239,884
50% 30,995,734

40.0%

55% 31,806,806
60% 32,726,787

30.0%

65% 33,552,124
20.0%

70% 34,449,076
75% 35,408,953

10.0%

80% 36,596,682
85% 37,921,068

0.0%
21.4

22.9

24.4

25.9

27.4

28.9

30.4

31.9

33.4

34.9

36.4

37.9

39.4

Contingency Total, $m

40.9

90% 39,552,707
95% 41,841,174

Figure 7-2: Total contingency for Option 1

At P90, the total contingency for Option 1 is USD 39.6m. The risk amount for Option 1 is
therefore USD 13.7m.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

125

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.4.2

Option 1a
The S-curve for total risk and contingency for Option 1a is presented in Figure 7-3 below.
Risk & Contingency

Option 1A v2 - Total Risk & Contingency

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 53,498,608

100%

10% 55,028,625

90%

15% 56,131,928
20% 56,994,048

80%

25% 57,713,103
70%

30% 58,417,511
35% 58,984,075

Percentile

60%

40% 59,556,151

50%

45% 60,100,312
50% 60,647,168

40%

55% 61,221,688
60% 61,809,285

30%

65% 62,341,143
20%

70% 62,934,942
75% 63,614,932

10%

80% 64,366,594
85% 65,156,842

0%
53.5

54.5

55.5

56.5

57.5

58.5

59.5

60.5

61.5

62.5

63.5

64.5

65.5

66.5

67.5

90% 66,099,804

Risk & Contingency Total, $m

95% 67,675,080

Figure 7-3: Total risk and contingency for Option 1a

At P90, the total risk and contingency combined for Option 1a is USD 66.1m.
The S-curve for contingency only for Option 1a is shown in Figure 7-4 below.
Contingency

Option 1A v2 - Total Contingency Only

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 22,527,369

100%

10%

24,753,963

15%

26,329,372

20%

27,751,862

25%

29,171,817

70%

30%

30,505,300

60%

35%

31,936,556

40%

33,279,530

45%

34,549,403

50%

35,858,235

55%

37,157,115

60%

38,434,908

65%

39,747,690

70%

41,147,659

75%

42,602,639

80%

44,341,022

85%

46,359,430

90%

48,649,095

95%

52,156,979

90%

Percentile

80%

50%
40%
30%
20%

10%

51

49.5

48

45

42

46.5

Contingency Total, $m

43.5

40.5

39

37.5

36

34.5

33

30

31.5

27

28.5

25.5

24

22.5

0%

Figure 7-4: Total contingency for Option 1a

At P90, the total contingency for Option 1a is USD 48.7m. The risk amount for Option 1a is
therefore USD 17.4m.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

126

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.4.3

Option 1b
The S-curve for total risk and contingency for Option 1b is presented in Figure 7-5 below.
Risk & Contingency

Option 1B - Total Risk & Contingency

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 34,004,495

100%

10% 35,167,915

90%

15% 35,922,976
20% 36,576,038

80%

25% 37,157,297

Percentile

70%

30% 37,670,910
35% 38,146,500

60%

40% 38,558,587
50%

45% 38,985,974
50% 39,365,890

40%

55% 39,739,991
60% 40,142,944

30%

65% 40,551,945
20%

70% 41,014,776
75% 41,455,904

10%

80% 41,958,494
85% 42,505,886

0%
34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0

44.0

Risk & Contingency Total, $m

90% 43,213,305
95% 44,225,021

Figure 7-5: Total risk and contingency for Option 1b

At P90, the total risk and contingency combined for Option 1b is USD 43.2m.
The S-curve for contingency only for Option 1b is shown in Figure 7-6 below.
Option 1B - Total Contingency Only
100%

Contingency
Percentile Amount, $m
5% 17,195,107
10% 18,852,879

90%

15% 19,781,740
20% 20,849,404

80%

Percentile

25% 21,656,425
70%

30% 22,361,195

60%

35% 23,001,487
40% 23,624,301

50%

45% 24,306,871
50% 24,972,431

40%

55% 25,565,046
60% 26,222,718

30%

65% 26,900,370
20%

70% 27,644,934
75% 28,352,168

10%

80% 29,291,126
85% 30,311,433

0%
17.2 18.2 19.2 20.2 21.2 22.2 23.2 24.2 25.2 26.2 27.2 28.2 29.2 30.2 31.2 32.2 33.2
Contingency Total, $m

90% 31,603,642
95% 33,650,762

Figure 7-6: Total contingency for Option 1b

At P90, the total contingency for Option 1b is USD 31.6m. The risk amount for Option 1b is
therefore USD 11.6m.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

127

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.4.4

Option 2
The S-curve for total risk and contingency for Option 2 is presented in Figure 7-7 below.
Risk & Contingency

Option 2 - Total Risk & Contingency

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 55,326,254

10% 59,551,699

0.9

15% 63,016,057
20% 65,862,726

0.8

25% 68,407,229

Percentile

0.7

30% 70,657,216
35% 72,588,401

0.6

40% 74,464,563
0.5

45% 76,355,198

0.4

50% 78,115,600
55% 79,917,967

0.3

60% 81,970,152
65% 83,992,465

0.2

70% 86,163,575
75% 88,201,842

0.1

80% 90,409,209

99.2

85% 93,192,003

101.2

97.2

95.2

93.2

91.2

89.2

87.2

85.2

83.2

81.2

79.2

77.2

75.2

73.2

71.2

69.2

67.2

65.2

63.2

61.2

59.2

57.2

90% 96,328,556

Risk & Contingency Total, $m

95% 101,230,813

Figure 7-7: Total risk and contingency for Option 2

At P90, the total risk and contingency combined for Option 2 is USD 96.3m.
The S-curve for contingency only for Option 2 is shown in Figure 7-8 below.
Contingency

Option 2 - Total Contingency Only

Percentile Amount, $m
5% 18,046,549

1
0.9
0.8

Percentile

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

Contingency Total, $m

65.8

63.8

61.8

59.8

57.8

55.8

53.8

51.8

49.8

47.8

45.8

43.8

41.8

39.8

37.8

35.8

33.8

31.8

29.8

27.8

25.8

23.8

21.8

19.8

10%

19,475,904

15%

20,582,228

20%

21,534,960

25%

22,411,968

30%

23,190,173

35%

23,900,894

40%

24,711,880

45%

25,584,475

50%

26,425,751

55%

27,509,409

60%

28,679,466

65%

30,808,628

70%

33,803,826

75%

37,781,393

80%

42,552,205

85%

47,786,327

90%

55,921,531

95%

66,795,421

Figure 7-8: Total contingency for Option 2

At P90, the total contingency for Option 2 is USD 55.9m. The risk amount for Option 2 is
therefore USD 40.4m.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

128

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

7.5

Summary
The risk analysis presented in this chapter has discussed the approach taken in establishing
the contingency and risk amounts for each of the three project options. Table xx below
summarises the figures discussed above.

TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF RISK AND CONTINGENCY AMOUNTS


Risk and Contingency Amounts, P90, $m
Project
Option

Project cost incl.


land but excl.
contingency, $m

Option 1

366,146,759

Option 1a

Contingency

Total Risk &


Contingency

13.7

39.6

53,333,491

10.8%

328,275,389

17.4

48.7

66,099,804

14.8%

Option 1b

244,484,870

11.6

31.6

43,213,305

12.9%

Option 2

782,740,414

40.4

55.9

96,328,556

7.1%

Risk

%
Contingency

From the table above, Option 2 has the biggest allowance for contingency in absolute terms.
This is in line with its higher project cost. Option 1a has the highest contingency in percentage
terms.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

129

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

MULI CRITERIA ANALYSIS

8.1

Introduction
The Multi-Criteria Analysis employed in Kampala Southern Bypass feasibility study sought to
assess the degree to which the available alignment options satisfy an explicit set of objectives
at National Level and as set out under UNRA strategic objectives for improving the road
network in Uganda. Specific reference has been made to the main national objectives as
defined by the Government of Uganda, as well as UNRAs Vision and Mission. A measurable
set of criteria which was used to assess the extent to which the objectives were achieved has
been presented as well.
This was deemed appropriate because some of the key objectives related to this project were
qualitative and therefore not readily quantifiable and as such would generally not be captured
by the traditional road appraisal frameworks. Such key objectives included the comparative
impact to social benefits and poverty eradication, environmental degradation and the wider
macroeconomic consideration in relation to each of the options.
To this end, a flexible approach using the principles of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) that were
capable of combining both the qualitative and quantitative data into a single analytical
framework was designed and employed in the assessment. The MCA therefore aggregated
the data on individual criteria in order to provide indicators of the overall performance of the
various options across a holistic set of criteria.

8.2

Assessment Methodology

8.2.1

The Overall Methodology


The methodology of the scheme options assessment was based on the New Approach to
Transport Appraisal (NATA) and on the UK DfT (Department for Transport) document
Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS).
The objective of this assessment was to rank the options in the order in which each of them
scored based on the holistic consideration of the MCA.
Within this ranking, the initial assessments of the scheme options were based on how well
they achieved each of the scheme objectives. To ensure the robustness of this assessment,
the proposed objectives (known as the primary criteria in this assessment) were translated into
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound (SMART) success factors/subobjectives subsequently and these were referred to as the secondary and tertiary criteria
respectively.
The assessment of the identified scheme options against the scheme success factors was
then summarized into a ten point scale with a score range between -5 and +5 which was given
to each scheme option against each scheme objectives.
A positive score was given to the scheme option that was likely to contribute to the objective
achievement, whilst the scheme option that was not likely to deliver the objective in question
received a negative score. In any other case, the scheme option that was considered as being
neutral to the scheme objective was appropriately scored with a zero.
The proposed scoring system was as follows:

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

130

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABEL 8-1: MULTI CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SCORING CHART


SCORE

DEFINITION

-5

Extremely Adverse

-4

Very Strongly Adverse

-3

Strongly Adverse

-2

Moderately Adverse

-1

Slightly Adverse

Neutral

Slightly Beneficial

Moderately Beneficial

Strongly Beneficial

Very Strongly Beneficial

Extremely Beneficial

MEANING

To be perceived
as the extent to
which the option
supports the
objective under
consideration

Extremely Beneficial/Adverse:+5/-5
Very Strongly Beneficial/Adverse:+4/-4
Strongly Beneficial/Adverse:+3/-3
Moderately Beneficial / Adverse: +2 / -2
Slightly Beneficial / Adverse: +1 / -1
Neutral: 0.
8.3

Multi Criteria
The Ugandan road network comprises four road functional classes: National, District, Urban
and Community Access. The KSB road project under UNRAs jurisdiction serves a dual role as
a national road connecting the road network to the East and West of country, and offering a
link to Entebbe International Airport. Similarly as an Urban Road, KSB together with the spiral
road to Munyonyo, off the new Kampala Entebbe Expressway under construction, forms the
southern part of an orbital around the capital, Kampala offering direct connection between
outlying places within the southern precincts of the city.
On a national level, KSB should contribute optimally to achieve the main national objectives
defined by the Government of Uganda. These are: economic growth, growth of the agricultural
sector, poverty reduction, exports promotion, national cohesion; environmental sustainability,
social equity and re-distribution of poverty, and regional cohesion (particularly East African
Community) as mentioned in a recently concluded paper prepared for UNRA on prioritising
different road corridors for PPP.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

131

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.3.1

Primary Criteria - Economic Viability


This objective assessed the extent to which the option supports sustainable economic activity,
through getting good value for money with regard to impacts on public accounts, improving
transport economic efficiency for business users and transport providers and for consumer
users, improving the reliability and providing beneficial wider economic impacts.
The assessment of the schemes impact on transport economic efficiency was based on a
framework including the generalised cost parameters of time and distance combined with
expected flows, i.e. time benefits, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV).
The secondary criteria considered included;

8.3.1.1

Secondary Criteria - Affordability (Opportunity Cost);


For many public sector projects the government budget will be the principal source of funds to
meet investment and operating expenditures. These funds could come from various sources
including taxes, donor supports and other government income streams. As there is always
constant pressure on the available financial envelope to spend, the government has to ensure
that money is invested where maximum benefits will be accrued, hence justifying the choice of
investment. This choice of investment might mean reallocation of resources from other
competing needs. The economic indicators that best reflect the optimization of benefits are
Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR or IRR), NPV or NPV/Capital costs. Under this
criterion, the CAPEX/Km cost was considered.

8.3.1.2

Secondary Criteria - Transport Economic Efficiency;


This secondary criterion measures the efficiency of the investment made within the transport
sector where the aggregated benefits are compared to the level of road agency costs. The
benefits from a road investment are attributed to reduction in travel time for personal travel
and freight, vehicle operating costs and other user charges (including fares, tolls and tariffs). In
all of these cases, if an option leads to a benefit to users of the transport system, then the
impact would be recorded as a positive score. On the other hand, the road agency costs
include the initial investment and maintenance costs. The economic indicator that measures
transport economic efficiency is the ratio between NPV and Road Agency Costs (RAC) or the
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

8.3.1.3

Secondary Criteria - Economic Indicators such as IRR, NPV and BCR;


A benefit-cost ratio (BCR) as an indicator was used in the formal discipline of the cost-benefit
analysis that attempted to summarize the overall value for money of the project or proposal.
The BCR was the ratio of the benefits of the project or proposal, relative to its costs, both
expressed in monetary terms. For a viable project, the BCR should generally be greater than
one indicating that the benefits exceed the cost invested.
The internal rate of return (IRR) or economic rate of return (ERR) was the rate of return used
in the capital budgeting to measure and compare the profitability of the investments. The
discounting rate used was 12%, hence to justify an investment in the road sector the IRR
should generally be more than the discounting rate.
The Net Present Value was used as a standard method for using the time value of money to
appraise the long-term benefits of the projects.
The Project Financial analysis which is later referred to as the Commercial Viability was
undertaken in conjunction with Project Economic analysis. Financial indicators were

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

132

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

considered to influence the decisions of project participants; whereas the economic indicators
were considered to record the consequences of those decisions to the national economy.
8.3.1.4

Secondary Criteria - Wider Economic Impacts;


Roads have been identified by the Government as a potential engine for economic growth of
the nation. Hence the schemes are assessed to how likely they would support growth on both
macro-and micro level. On macro level, the scheme is expected to engender the connectivity
of areas with surplus to markets; the promotion of exports through the reduction of generalised
transport costs of export commodities to airports, neighbouring countries and sea ports; the
likeliness of the schemes in increasing agricultural productivity and quality; and how the
project will contribute towards lowering the costs of doing business in the country hence
increasing international competitiveness.
On a micro-level the project is expected to directly contribute towards poverty reduction and
improvement in household income within the vicinity of the project area through provision of
employment to the local populace; improved accessibility to markets, commerce and modern
information; growth in land value; better access to business inputs; promotion of tourism and
ease access to recreational areas such as Munyonyo Speke Resort and New Serena Hotel;
and creation of new business opportunities to tap into the greater economic vibrancy of the
area.

8.3.2

Primary Criteria - Strategic Transport Objectives


As part of this assessment, the strategic transport objectives in the region were established
with a view to assessing the extent to which each option delivered the overall specific scheme
aspirations in addition to meeting the traditionally established criteria. The primary scheme
objective referred to as the Strategic Transport Objective included the following sub criteria;

8.3.2.1

Secondary Criteria - Capacity Improvement;


Capacity was defined as the maximum sustainable flow of traffic passing in 1 hour, under
favourable road and traffic conditions.
This sub criterion assessed the extent of traffic redistribution within the wider Greater Kampala
Metropolitan area network and the resultant improvements in traffic capacity given the 20 year
traffic projection growth. The induced flows and change in flow patterns along the key radial
roads were incorporated into the assessment. Also the complimentary attributes of the
scheme with existing networks was assessed such. the formation of a ring road round the
central business district in conjunction with the Northern Bypass.

8.3.2.2

Secondary Criteria - Traffic Segregation;


As traffic volumes increase, it is considered appropriate that through-traffic or truck traffic
(HGVs) is segregated from local traffic or commuter traffic as the individual transport
requirements for each set of traffic is different. While through traffic is more amenable to
higher speeds and limited interaction with local communities or built up areas, local traffic
tends to be slower and lends itself to frequent stops (junctions) and requires more frequent
connection with local businesses and establishments i.e. through the central business district.
This sub-criterion assessed the reduction in congestion that the scheme offered and therefore
the improvement of safety within the wider network through the segregation of traffic.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

133

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.3.2.3

Secondary Criteria Transport Integration;


The objective to integrate transport and land use was premised on the fact that the transport
system should provide for the effective integration of transport and land use and facilitate
access to social and economic opportunities i.e. transport and land use should be effectively
integrated so as to improve accessibility and transport efficiency with a focus on;
(a) Maximizing access to residences, employment, markets, services and recreation;
(b) Planning and developing the transport system more effectively;
(c) Reducing the need for private motor vehicle transport and the extent of travel;
(d) Facilitating better access to, and greater mobility within, local communities.
(e) Regional and National Integration.
Other considerations pertained to the fact that the transport system and land use should be
aligned, complementary and supportive and ensured that the transport decisions were made
having regard to the current and future impact on land use, development and operation of the
transport system;
This sub criterion within the strategic transport objectives was related to ensuring that all
decisions were taken in the context of the Governments integrated transport policy on both a
regional and a local context and were based on whether or not the scheme option improved
the transport interchange and how likely it would integrate the transport policies with land-use
policies and with other Government policies.
A key stakeholder to this end was the Kampala Capital City Authority. Integral modes of
transport to be assessed included; Bus Rapid Transit system, Walking/Cycling, Light Rail
Transit System and other Public modes of transport such as the public service vans. The
provision of choices for travel modes was assessed thereby.
In the same vein the project, together with the Northern Bypass and Munyonyo Spur Road off
Entebbe Expressway, offers an opportunity for a much needed orbital around Kampala
Metropolitan and each scheme will be specifically assessed towards achievement of this
objective.

8.3.2.4

Secondary Criteria Accessibility and Mobility within Kampala and Entebbe;


In transportation, accessibility refers to the ease of reaching destinations. People who are in
places that are highly accessible can reach many other activities or destinations quickly;
people in inaccessible places can reach fewer places in the same amount of time. Therefore,
accessibility was the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment was available
to as many people as possible.
Improving accessibility to the existing/planned road network would inevitably improve the
efficiency of the transport system within the corridor. Among the inter-connectivity aspects of
the scheme options that were considered included the new Kampala Entebbe Expressway
and the upgraded Northern Bypass which would ensure that the traffic transiting to Jinja from
Entebbe and the south west of the city centre was efficiently distributed to the eastern parts of
the city and the country or vice versa. Connectivity to Entebbe served to improve the exports
trade in lieu of the fact that Entebbe is the only functional international Airport.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

134

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Further assessment was also considered as to how the scheme lent itself to the improvement
of mobility within the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. The connection with Key radial
roads such as Portbell, Gaba, Lukuli and Salama was considered.
8.3.3

Primary Criteria - Commercial/Financial Viability


The development of Kampala Southern Bypass will require a substantial investment that
cannot be undertaken out of public financing alone and the Government would have to
consider other non-traditional means of financing including Tolling, Concessions and Public
Private Partnerships (PPPs) used elsewhere in infrastructure development funding. This
objective assesses the extent to which each scheme lends itself to attract private capital as
well as the techno-managerial efficiencies associated with it. The envisaged procurement
strategies considered included DBFO, DBOM, D&B or the Traditional Design only and
Separate Build all under the PPP umbrella. It also considered the likelihood of donor agencies
and bi-lateral partners in supporting the proposals. Therefore the sub criteria included;

8.3.3.1

Secondary Criteria Feasibility of Tolling and Payback Period of Investment i.e. Ability
to toll the road;
As observed, the level of toll charges established and tested in the model was relatively low.
Yet, the results showed that the usage of the proposed alignment would be drastically affected
if the toll charges were imposed on the users. The model showed that the lowest reduction in
traffic was approximately 70%; however, on some links the traffic flow would be reduced to an
absolute minimum.
This analysis did not attempt to test a lower level of charges. Although a substantially low toll
charge would allow traffic to use the proposed alignment however such tolls would not be
sufficient to ensure feasible tolling operations.
The objective therefore primarily assessed the potential of tolling and the likelihood that the
investment would be recouped through the tolling operations.

8.3.3.2

Secondary Criteria Envisaged Procurement Strategy i.e. Public Private Partnership;


The assessment was based on how the option was likely to meet the key procurement
strategies that UNRA was likely to employ thereby attracting PPPs i.e.
Supporting and enabling the achievements of targets which underpinned the Governments
objectives;
Embracing the principles of Best Value;
Promoting the highest standards of professionalism in procurement;
Providing high quality management information;
Optimising savings through aggregated purchasing power and reducing the cost of
purchasing transactions.

8.3.3.3

Secondary Criteria Financial Sustainability NPV/RAC;


The Government of Uganda has recently embarked on an ambitious plan to expand the
capacity of the road network in order to improve traffic flow and as such reduce the cost of
doing business and increase national competitiveness. However it is clear that there are not
adequate funds from the government revenue stream to finance the expansion of the road
network. It is for this reason that the Uganda National Roads Authority is keen to explore less
traditional methods of procurement such as PPP that entail the use of private finance to

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

135

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

supplement government sources of finances. Therefore this objective primarily assesses the
attractiveness and readiness of the options to PPP.
The attractiveness for PPP is essentially the assessment of the project viability from a private
sector point of view taking into account the perceived risks. It assesses the extent to which the
project revenue contributes to the recovery of the capital expenditure plus a reasonable return
to investment. For this assessment, the financial viability will be based upon the Discounted
Cash flows Analysis methodology which assesses the Net Present Value of all cash flows over
a period of time discounted using a discount rate, which approximates the cost of capital i.e.
the required rates of return from the capital providers.
The cash flows include;
(i)

capital expenditures, where relevant;

(ii)

operating expenditures and;

(iii)

Revenues from user charges i.e. tolls.

The cash flow will be subject to number of factors including; Mode of Road PPP, Bidding
Parameters, Duration of Arrangement, Tolling Schemes and Rates, Traffic Growth, and
Required Rate of Return from Capital Providers.
The cash flow assessment from a private finance perspective is fairly a specialised discipline
that requires a different set of inputs compared to the economic analysis that was the
undertaken as part of this study. Hence the assessment of this objective has been based on a
preliminary study undertaken by IFC to assess Uganda readiness for PPP of August 2013
(van de Broek, Prioritising Uganda Road PPPs, August 2013).
8.3.3.4

Secondary Criteria Financial Indicators NPV/CAP;


Capital expenditures (CAPEX or capex) are expenditures creating future benefits. In this case,
the CAPEX under consideration is measured and assessed relative to the future benefits of
the scheme proposals and is given by the ratio NPV/CAP.

8.3.3.5

Secondary Criteria Ability to attract bilateral support;


This sub-section identified the social safeguard policies triggered without due course to
mitigation, if any (i.e. involuntary resettlement and displacement of indigenous people).
In each case, the sub-section confirmed that appropriate Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs)
and/or Indigenous Peoples Development Plans (IPDPs), acceptable to the bilateral
development partners, had been prepared. It also confirmed that public consultations were
held and information disclosed, and that appropriate grievance-handling procedures and
arrangements for monitoring RAP/IPDP implementation were in place.
This sub-section summarized the important environmental issues of the project and how they
had been integrated in the project design to enhance its environmental benefits thereby
identifying the environmental safeguards policies triggered.
In each case, the sub-section confirmed that appropriate Environmental Assessments,
Environmental Management Plans (EMP), and similar appropriate plans in the case of other
safeguard policies triggered, and deemed acceptable to the World Bank, had been prepared.
It also confirmed that public consultations were held and information disclosed, and that
appropriate grievance-handling procedures and arrangements for monitoring EMP
implementation (and for implementation of other Action Plans) were in place.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

136

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.3.4

Primary Criteria - Sustainability


Sustainable development emphasises the need for responsible consumption today that does
not jeopardise the future of forthcoming generations by excessively degrading the earths
resources and polluting the earths environment.
A general principle of sustainable development, that current generations should meet their
needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same, has become
widely accepted.
Due to the nature of the environment through which the road corridor traverses, i.e. an urban
environment, there are a number of very sensitive receptors (dense settlements) in an urban
environment that are highly susceptible and sensitive to the negative social and environmental
impacts of the schemes development. The pristine nature of the wetlands also compounds
the sensitivity of the environmental impact. Furthermore, the wetlands play a significant role in
the ecosystem and act as natural balance of the area. Therefore the MCA assessment
attached a relatively high significance to this objective.
The secondary criteria considered under this heading were assessed on both the qualitative
and the quantitative basis as explained below;

8.3.4.1

Secondary Criteria Environment;


This assessment was based on how likely the identified option was going to protect the builtup and natural environment, thereby considering the options impact on reducing noise,
improving local air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting and enhancing the
landscape and Townscape, protecting the heritage of historic resources, supporting
biodiversity, protecting the water environment with particular reference to the wetlands,
encouraging physical fitness and improving journey ambience.
It should be noted that much of the proposed alignment traverses areas of pristine swamp
land and vegetation.
The environment is increasingly being treated as a form of natural capital resource and
therefore damaging or using the environment is in a sense similar to the use of any other form
of capital. Some parts of this capital, for example, the ozone layer, cannot be replaced or
substituted with manufactured capital. Valuation of these resources in the context of projects
or programs was thus fundamental to the notion of sustainable development.

8.3.4.2

Secondary Criteria Social Impact Assessment;


Social Impact Assessment included the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the
intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned
interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked
by those interventions.
Its primary purpose was to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and
human environment.
In this regard, it was used to review the social effects of the infrastructure project and other
development interventions associated with the KSB.
In this assessment, there was a consensus on the types of impacts that needed to be
considered (social, cultural, demo-graphic, economic, social-psychological, and often political
impacts); on the need for the SIA to include a discussion of the proposed action (i.e., the
proposed facility, project, development, policy change, etc.); on the components of the human

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

137

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

environment where the impacts were likely to be felt (affected neighbourhoods, communities,
or regions); on the likely impacts (generally defined as the difference between the likely future
of the affected human environment with versus without the proposed policy and project); and
on the steps that could be taken to enhance positive impacts and to mitigate any negative
ones (by avoiding them, if possible, by modification and minimization, and by providing
compensation for any negative impacts that cannot be avoided or ameliorated).
The objective of the SIA was to ensure that the development maximises its benefits and
minimises its costs, especially those costs borne by people (including those in other places
and in the future).
Other considerations such as Distribution and Equity assessed the distribution of the overall
scheme options impacts in order to enable a fairness of the impacts across those affected by
the scheme; and therefore the tertiary sub criteria included;

8.3.4.3

i.

Displacement of People;

ii.

Increases access to social services;

iii.

Increased access to markets;

iv.

Increased incidence of diseases;

v.

Option Values;

vi.

Promotion of social inclusion;

vii.

Distribution and Equity;

viii.

Severance.

Secondary Criteria Acceptability;


Increasingly, the debate on transport policy involves the challenge of sustainable
development. The concept of sustainable transport is derived from the general term of
sustainable development. Sustainable transportation can be considered by examining the
sustainability of the transport system itself, in view of its positive and negative external effects
on the environment; public health; safety and security; land use; congestion; economic growth;
and social inclusion
While traditional transport problems may be solved within the transport sector (i.e. satisfying
basic needs of the movement of people and goods by the provision of large scale transport
networks), solutions to sustainability problems call for an integrated approach.
This approach should take into account the public acceptability of sustainable transport
policies that may conflict with individual short-term interests, especially when individual users
are asked to significantly adapt their lifestyles and transport behaviour with impacts on their
perceived quality of life
This sub-objective was used to assess the level of acceptability that the option entailed both
from the public and other identified stakeholders such as Government Agencies e.g. NEMA,
NFA, Uganda Museums etc.
The measure of the public acceptability of the proposals was deduced from the feedback
arising out of the consultations with the KCCA councillors and other local leaders of the
Makindye and Nakawa divisions through which the project alignment traverses.
On a stakeholder level, consultations were held with various Government agencies through
meetings organised by UNRA and follow up individual agency meetings.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

138

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Hence the tertiary sub criteria included both;


i.

Public Acceptability;

ii.

Stakeholder acceptability.

The public participation process is designed to provide sufficient, accessible and objective
information to Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) or stakeholders to assist them to
participate. During the scoping, only a limited number of stakeholders were consulted. During
the full ESIA process, the public will be consulted and is expected to participate by: Raising issues of concern and suggestions for enhanced benefits;
Verifying that their issues have been captured and considered by the technical
investigations. And,
Commenting on the findings of the ESIA, among others.
8.3.4.4

Secondary Criteria Safety;


This criterion assessed how likely the scheme would contribute towards reducing accidents
and improving personal security within the vicinity of the project area, therefore the tertiary sub
criteria included;
i.

Accidents;

Most of the fatal accidents occur due to over speeding which is an undesirable propensity that
accompanies improved riding quality or new roads. Increase in speed multiplies the risk of
accident and severity of injury during accident. Faster vehicles are more prone to accident
than the slower one and the severity of accident will also be more in case of faster vehicles.
The alignments have all been designed to achieve their respective design speeds without
compromising the safety of travelers. Sight distances and minimum radii employed all ensure
that design speeds can be achieved safely.
ii.

Highway Infrastructure Security and Emergency Management;

The security of road users and their property is paramount in ensuring that the benefits of the
new road facility are fully realised. The restricted nature of access to the route corridor also
serves to protect it from ill-intentioned users. The incorporation of surfaced hard shoulders in
the design of the scheme and also levelled earth shoulders serves to provide an access route
for emergency response if need be and designated crossing facilities for pedestrians have
been provided at opportune locations along the road. All options have been designed with
these provisions in place.
8.3.5

Primary Criteria - Constructability and Buildability


This comprised of an overview on engineering feasibility and an analysis of the impact on
other proposed schemes within the area in order to evaluate how the scheme option would
compliment or conflict with them and its impact on any planned future upgrades within the
local network. Such schemes include the proposed upgrade of the Portbell Road and the Light
Rail Transit System on the upgraded Gaba Road. The comparative assessment focused on
the relative ease of each options deliverability or constructability; disruption to existing
businesses and livelihoods within the respective corridors and a need to relocate utilities.
Sub criteria therefore included;

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

139

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.3.5.1

Secondary Criteria Buildability and Engineering Feasibility;


Buildability was mainly concerned with the design, quality of built products, ease of
construction, as well as efficient and economical construction. Constructability emphasized
integration of construction knowledge and experience at various project stages; optimization of
different project requirements to achieve overall goals; and ease of construction. Therefore,
constructability embraced the concept of Buildability. - The Buildability scores were
calculated based on the Buildable Design Appraisal System (BDAS), which was devised to
measure Buildability.

8.3.5.2

Secondary Criteria Complimentarity and Conflicts;


As mentioned above, this assessment was concerned with the extent to which the KSB
complimented the existing road network and any planned future upgrades.

8.3.5.3

Secondary Criteria Utilities Diversions;


This assessment was geared towards the efficient co-ordination of street works in places
where there was an established conflict with utility services such as water mains, telecom
masts and fibre optic cables for example.
The key objectives of this assessment were to;

8.4

ensure safety;

minimize inconvenience to people using the street as well as the services;

Protect the utility apparatus where possible.

Pair wise Weighting System


The analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a multi-criteria decision making method developed by
Dr. Thomas Saaty in the 1970s, was used to derive the weight of importance of the defined
list of objectives/criteria.
A pair-wise comparison technique was employed for use in order to evaluate the criteria
defined and a 10-point scale was used to evaluate and score the various options against the
criteria as shown above.
A normalized weight was computed based on a 9-point comparison scale which was used in
the pair-wise comparison as depicted in the Table 1 below;

TABLE 8-2: PAIR-WISE COMPARISON SCALE


1

If two criteria are EQUALLY IMPORTANT

If criterion on row is SLIGHTLY MORE


important than criterion on column

1/3

If criterion on row is SLIGHTLY LESS important


than criterion on column

If criterion on row is MODERATELY


MORE important than criterion on column

1/5

If criterion on row is MODERATELY LESS


important than criterion on column

If criterion on row is STRONGLY MORE


important than criterion on column

1/7

If criterion on row is STRONGLY LESS


important than criterion on column

If criterion on row is EXTREMELY MORE


important than criterion on column

1/9

If criterion on row is EXTREMELY LESS


important than criterion on column

2,4,6,8

Intermediate Values

1/2,1/4,1/6, 1/8

Intermediate Values

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

140

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

The pair-wise comparison scale was used to determine the relative importance of each
objective/criterion vs. the others. This was done by first comparing the first criterion versus all
of the other criteria.
For example, if Economic Viability (EV) was thought of as being STRONGLY MORE important
than the Strategic Transport Objectives (STO) then a 7 was entered in the Economic Viability
row coinciding with the Strategic Transport Objectives column i.e. the cell that connected
these two criteria.
On the other hand, the reciprocal of this entry corresponded to the Strategic Transport
Objectives row and the Economic Viability column i.e. 1/7 implying that the Strategic
Transport Objective was STRONGLY LESS important than the Economic Viability
objective/criterion.
Upon completion of the pair-wise comparison, a check for the consistency was done by
reading the consistency ratio and making sure the number was not greater than 0.3, if a larger
number was obtained, this necessitated a re-entry into the pair-wise comparison table and a
re-evaluation of the numbers entered.
The final scores in the Normalized Weight column were normalized to add up to 1. The
criteria with the highest weight represented the criteria with the highest
importance/significance.
The Figure 8-1 below shows the normalized weight formula used in the Excel spreadsheet.

Figure 8-1: Normalized Weight Formula in Excel

The consistency ratio (CR) value which was computed on the right-hand side of each pairwise table measured the consistency of the pair-wise assessment.
Thomas L. Saaty, the creator of the analytical hierarchy process, gave a measure of
consistency, called consistency index (CI), as deviation or degree of consistency using the
following formula:

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

141

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

Where n = number of facilities and Lambda max = the summation of products between the
normalized weights times the sum of the columns.
The consistency ratio was therefore a comparison between the consistency index and the
random consistency index, as shown in the following formula:

Where RI = was the Random Consistency Index provided in following Table 2 below.

TABLE 8-3 RANDOM CONSISTENCY INDEX CHART (RI)


n

10

11

12

13

14

15

RI

0.58

0.9

0.12

1.24

1.32

1.40

.1.45

1.49

1.51

1.48

1.56

1.57

1.59

As mentioned earlier, according to Saaty, a score less than 0.3 was acceptable, and any CR
score of more than 0.3 indicated that the pair-wise comparison must be re-evaluated for
consistency.
Based on the above approach, the weighting for the primary criteria was arrived at as follows;
TABLE 8-4: NORMALIZED WEIGHTS
PRIMARY CRITERIA

ASSIGNED WEIGHTS

Economic Viability

30.1%

Strategic Transport Objectives

17.6%

Commercial/Financial Viability

20.8%

Sustainability

24.3%

Constructability and Buildability

7.2%

8.5

Multi Criteria Analysis

8.5.1

Summary of Weights
Following the Pair-wise weighting system and the associated consistency checks, values for
the normalised weights to be used were deduced in accordance with the Analytical Hierarchy
Process as presented in the Table 8-5 below.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

142

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-5: MULTI CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS


PRIMARY CRITERIA

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

WEIGHTS

0.3014

PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS

30.1448

SECONDARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

Affordability (Opportunity
cost)

0.3878

11.6898

Transport Economic
Efficiency

0.2133

6.4305

Economic Indicators such as


IRR and BCR

0.2564

7.7289

0.1425

4.2956

Capacity Improvement in
Local Network

0.6524

11.5053

Facilitating Traffic
Segregation

0.1625

2.8658

Promoting Transport
Integration

0.1304

2.2992

Providing Accessibility and


Mobility

0.0547

0.9638

Feasibility for Tolling


(Payback Period)

0.4067

8.4438

Supporting the Procurement


Strategy i.e. PPP

0.2258

4.6868

0.1914

3.9739

Wider Economic Impacts

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT
OBJECTIVES

COMMERCIAL/FINANCIAL
VIABILITY

0.1763

0.2076

TERTIARY
CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE

17.6340

20.7592

Life Cycle Costs NPV/RAC


DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

143

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-5: MULTI CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS


PRIMARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS

SECONDARY CRITERIA

Financial Indicators, CAPEX,


NPV/CAP
Encouraging Bilateral Support

Protecting and Enhancing the


Environment
SUSTAINABILITY

0.2429

WEIGHTS

WEIGHTS

PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE

0.1169

2.4262

0.0592

1.2286

0.5404

24.2899

Social Impact Assessment


Severity

TERTIARY
CRITERIA

Noise

0.1609

2.1115

Local Air Quality

0.1493

1.9599

Greenhouse Gases
and Wetlands

0.1792

2.3527

Landscape

0.0908

1.1913

Townscape

0.0929

1.2187

Heritage

0.0481

0.6307

Flora and Fauna

0.1434

1.8819

Water Environment

0.1033

1.3564

Physical Fitness
i.e. Green Modes
of Travel

0.0193

0.2532

Journey Ambience

0.0129

0.1691

Displacement of
People

0.2708

2.1889

Access to social
services

0.1255

1.0143

0.3327

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

144

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-5: MULTI CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS


PRIMARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS

SECONDARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

SUSTAINABILITY

Acceptability

Safety

CONSTRUCTABILITY

0.0717

7.1720

Buildability & Engineering


Feasibility

0.0693

0.0577

TERTIARY
CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE

Access to Portable
Water

0.0974

0.7876

Disease Incidence

0.1216

0.9824

Option Values

0.0323

0.2607

Social Inclusion
and Cohesion

0.1372

1.1089

Distribution and
Equity of Impacts

0.0852

0.6888

Community
Severance

0.1299

1.0502

Public Acceptability

0.6000

1.0094

Stakeholder
Acceptability

0.4000

0.6730

Accidents

0.7500

1.0504

Highway
Infrastructure
Security and
Emergency
Management

0.2500

0.3501

0.7302

5.2371

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

145

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-5: MULTI CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS


PRIMARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS

AND BUILDABILITY

SECONDARY CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

TERTIARY
CRITERIA

WEIGHTS

PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE

Complimentarity and Conflicts


with Planned and Existing
Infrastructure

0.2060

1.4775

Costs of Utilities Diversions


and Protection

0.0638

0.4574

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

146

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.5.2

The MCA Summary Assessment

8.5.2.1

Primary Criteria Northern Section


Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar with the exception of Economic Viability (EV) and
therefore Commercial Viability (CV) whereby Option 1B scores more due to the relaxed design
standards and therefore significantly less earthworks which translates into less construction
costs. The Option 2 which incorporates a tunnel through the Mutungo hill scores well under
sustainability issues due to the reduced displacement costs and lesser social impact. However,
it scores poorly under economic and commercial viability due to the significantly higher cost of
construction. The constructability of the tunnel through the Mutungo hill presents a conflict with
the underground water aquifers thereby inducing a significant engineering challenge as reflected
in the scores. A summary of the scores is presented in the Tables 8-6, 8-10, 8-14, 8-18, 8-22
and 8-26 below.
A closer look at Economic Viability
Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except for the Affordability and the Internal Rate of Return
which are more favourable under option 1B due to the value engineering aspects of this option.
For these very reasons, Option 2 performs poorly under these criteria due to the cost of the
tunnelling. As expected, all options present the same benefits under the Transport Economic
Efficiency and the Wider Economic impacts.
A closer look at Strategic Transport Objectives
Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except for the Accessibility and Mobility which is more
favourable under option 1/1A due to the higher design speeds and therefore higher standards of
design. Option 2 on the other hand performs marginally less under Transport Integration due to
the fact that the cross-section of the tunnelled sections do not provide for hard shoulders and
pedestrians.
A closer look at Commercial Viability
Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar comparatively except for the ability to support the
Procurement strategy and the Life Cycle costs as well as the financial indicators such as
NPV/CAP. Again, the reduced construction costs of option 1B play a major role. Due to the
required capital outlay and technical skills set needed to deliver option 2, it is seen as not being
very supportive to the procurement strategy and discouraging bilateral support. It also has
relatively poorer financial indicators and higher lifecycle costs i.e. maintenance of the tunnels
exceeds that of open roads.
A closer look at Sustainability
Options 1/1A are closely matched in comparison with only a slight difference arising out of the
environmental assessment associated with local air quality and noise for this section. All other
criteria are similar between these two options in these sections. Option 2 offers some relief to
the environment by way of a controlled ventilation system within the tunnels. Other benefits that
option 2 presents are associated with a lesser social impact i.e. the less displacement of people
although the reduced cross-section through the tunnels and loss of hard shoulders negatively
impacts this option as seen in the MCA scores.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

147

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-6: PRIMARY MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE NORTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

EV

WS

STO

WS

PRIMARY CRITERIA
CFV
WS

TS
SUS

WS

C&B

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for
85kph

16.26

110.97

20.00

88.17

14.50

54.57

29.00

0.53

15.00

35.86

94.76

290.10

Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph

17.43

120.68

18.00

86.24

18.00

67.65

27.40

2.16

15.00

35.86

95.83

312.58

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

13.45

84.06

16.00

72.44

8.20

30.47

44.30

41.42

13.00

25.39

94.95

253.77

Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar


with the exception of Economic and
Commercial viabilities where Option 1B
scores more due to the relaxed design
standards and therefore significantly
less earthworks. Option 2 which
incorporates a tunnel through Mutungo
hill scores well under sustainability
issues due to the reduced displacement
costs and social impact. However, it
scores poorly under economic and
commercial viability. The constructability
of the tunnel through the Mutungo hill
underground water aquifers presents a
significant engineering challenge not to
be ignored.

TABLE 8-10: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY - NORTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for
85kph
Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

AFF

WS

TEE

ECONOMIC VIABILITY
WS
EI
WS

TS
WEI

TWS

Comments

WS

2.26

26.42

5.00

32.15

4.00

30.92

5.00

21.48

16.26

110.97

2.43

28.41

5.00

32.15

5.00

38.64

5.00

21.48

17.43

120.68

0.95

11.11

5.00

32.15

2.50

19.32

5.00

21.48

13.45

84.06

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

148

Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar


except for the Affordability and the
Internal Rate of Return which are more
favourable under option 1B due to the
value engineering aspects of this option.
For these very reasons, Option 2
performs poorly under these criteria due
to the cost of the tunnelling. As
expected, all options present the same
benefits under the Transport Economic
Efficiency and the Wider Economic
impacts.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-14: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES- NORTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for
85kph
Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES


TS
WS
TI
WS

CAP

WS

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

5.00

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

4.00

46.02

5.00

14.33

TS

TWS

4.82

20.00

88.17

3.00

2.89

18.00

86.24

3.00

2.89

16.00

72.44

A&M

WS

11.50

5.00

5.00

11.50

4.00

9.20

Comments
Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar
except for the Accessibility and Mobility
which is more favourable under option
1/1A due to the higher design speeds
and therefore higher standards of
design. Option 2 on the other hand
performs marginally less under
Transport Integration due to the fact that
the cross-section of the tunnelled
sections do not provide for hard
shoulders and pedestrians.

TABLE 8-18: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY NORTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

TOLLS

WS

PROC

COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
FS
WS
FI

TS
WS

BS

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for
85kph

3.00

25.33

1.00

4.69

2.50

9.93

4.00

9.70

4.00

4.91

14.50

54.57

Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph

3.00

25.33

2.00

9.37

4.00

15.90

5.00

12.13

4.00

4.91

18.00

67.65

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

3.00

25.33

-1.00

-4.69

0.50

1.99

0.70

1.70

5.00

6.14

8.20

30.47

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

149

Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly


similar comparatively except for the
ability to support the Procurement
strategy and the Life Cycle costs as
well as the financial indicators such as
NPV/CAP. Again, the reduced
construction costs of option 1B play a
major role. Due to the required capital
outlay and technical skills set needed
to deliver option 2, it is seen as not
being very supportive to the
procurement strategy and
discouraging bilateral support. It also
has relatively poorer financial
indicators and higher lifecycle costs
i.e. maintenance of the tunnels
exceeds that of open roads.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-22: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES- NORTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

ENV

WS

SIA

SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES
WS
ACC
WS

TS
SAFETY

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for
85kph

-3.50

-19.38

12.50

4.49

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

29.00

0.53

Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph

-5.10

-17.75

12.50

4.49

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

27.40

2.16

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

10.00

11.73

16.30

15.67

10.00

8.41

8.00

5.60

44.30

41.42

Options 1/1A are closely matched in


comparison with only a slight difference
arising out of the environmental
assessment associated with local air
quality and noise for this section. All
other criteria are similar between these
two options in these sections. Option 2
offers some relief to the environment by
way of a controlled ventilation system
within the tunnels. Other benefits that
option 2 presents are associated with a
lesser social impact i.e. the less
displacement of people although the
reduced cross-section through the
tunnels and loss of hard shoulders
negatively impacts this option as seen in
the MCA scores.

TABLE 8-26: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES- NORTHERN
SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for
85kph
Option 1B Open
Road Option
Designed for
70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Mutungo Hill

ENG FEAS
5.00

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
C&C
WS
UTILITIES
26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

TS

TWS

15.00

35.86

Comments

WS
2.29

5.00

26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

35.86

4.00

15.71

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

14.00

25.39

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

150

All options are closely matched except


for the Buildability and engineering
feasibility of option 2 which entails the
tunnel through Mutungo hill.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.5.2.2

Primary Criteria Central Section 1


Options 1 and 1A are nearly similar with the exception of sustainability as well as constructability
and Buildability due to the fact that Option 1A is designed to run at the base of the hill and
therefore avoiding the deep swamp crossing in the Nakivubo wetland.
Furthermore, Option 1B is the best performer due to the fact that it incorporates the positive
attributes of Option 1A in addition to reducing the earthworks and therefore cost of construction
as compared to option 1A. The tunnelled option through Muyenga again will perform poorly
under economic and commercial viabilities as expected even though it scores well under
sustainability. Summary scores are presented in the Tables 8-7, 8-11, 8-15, 8-19, 8-23 and 8-27
below.
A closer look at Economic Viability
Option 1/1A/1B and 2 are nearly similar except for the Affordability and the Internal Rate of
Return which are more favourable under option 1B due to the value engineering aspects of this
option. For these very reasons, Option 2 performs poorly under these criteria due to the cost of
the tunnelling. As expected, all options present the same benefits under the Transport Economic
Efficiency and the Wider Economic impacts. The gains under option 1B are characterised by the
base of the hill corridor and reduced vertical alignment standards as compared to option 1 which
runs in the deep swamp and Option 1A which has relatively higher vertical alignment standard
as well a wider cross-section.
A closer look at Strategic Transport Objectives
Options 1 and 1A all score the same under the criteria considered with the exception of option
1B which scores marginally less under accessibility and mobility. Option 2 scores less under
Transport Integration due to the lack of pedestrian facilities and hard shoulders under the
tunnelled sections. The use of tunnels might affect driver behaviour at the onset and as such is
expected to reduce on the potential capacity before drivers become familiar with them and begin
to use them with confidence.
A closer look at Commercial Viability
Option 1A differs from option 1 in as far as the support to the procurement strategy is concerned
i.e. Option 1A is cheaper to construct and is less intrusive on the wetlands thereby likely to
attract more support from bilateral agencies. Option 1B extends this advantage by way of a
reduced design standard hence less cost. Due to the required capital outlay and technical skills
set needed to deliver option 2, it is seen as not being very supportive to the procurement
strategy and discouraging bilateral support. It also has relatively poorer financial indicators and
higher lifecycle costs i.e. maintenance of the tunnels exceeds that of open roads.
A closer look at Sustainability
Option 1 traverses the Nakivubo swamp and as such presents a detrimental impact upon the
environment by way of wetland degradation as compared to the other options. Options 1A and
1B are closely matched save for the increased vehicle emissions in option 1B as a result of
lower speeds. Option 2 seeks to ameliorate this impact. It should be noted that option 2 affects
the accessibility of portable water by affecting the presence of underground water aquifers. The
location of two schools at both tunnel portals is precariously close to the Muyenga Tunnel option
at either end. The tunnel option seeks to preserve the landscape and townscape as well, In
addition to controlling air quality and noise.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

151

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-7: PRIMARY MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT

PRIMARY CRITERIA
CFV
WS

EV

WS

STO

WS

Option 1 Open Road Option in


deep swamp Designed for 85kph

13.55

85.62

20.00

88.17

5.90

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

13.99

90.37

20.00

88.17

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

16.82

113.55

18.00

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

12.54

75.40

18.00

TS

TWS

25.39

90.85

237.09

15.00

35.86

100.74

261.05

22.52

15.00

35.86

100.72

287.74

49.74

13.00

25.39

97.24

241.01

SUS

WS

C&B

WS

25.88

38.40

12.03

13.00

6.20

24.99

45.55

21.66

86.24

7.30

29.57

43.60

74.37

4.80

16.12

48.90

Comments
Options 1 and 1A are nearly similar with the
exception of sustainability as well as
constructability and Buildability due to the fact
that Option 1A is designed to run at the base
of the hill and therefore avoiding the deep
swamp crossing in the Nakivubo wetland.
Again, Option 1B is the best performer due to
the fact that it incorporates the positive
attributes of Option 1A in addition to reducing
the earthworks and therefore cost of
construction as compared to option 1A. The
tunnelled option through Muyenga again will
perform poorly under economic and
commercial viabilities as expected even
though it scores well under sustainability.

TABLE 8-11: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT

ECONOMIC VIABILITY
WS
EI

AFF

WS

TEE

Option 1 Open Road Option in


deep swamp Designed for 85kph

1.15

13.44

5.00

32.15

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

1.49

17.42

5.00

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

1.82

21.28

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

0.54

6.31

TS

TWS

21.48

13.55

85.62

5.00

21.48

13.99

90.37

38.64

5.00

21.48

16.82

113.55

15.46

5.00

21.48

12.54

75.40

WS

WEI

WS

2.40

18.55

5.00

32.15

2.50

19.32

5.00

32.15

5.00

5.00

32.15

2.00

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

152

Comments

Option 1/1A/1B and 2 are nearly similar


except for the Affordability and the Internal
Rate of Return which are more favourable
under option 1B due to the value engineering
aspects of this option. For these very
reasons, Option 2 performs poorly under
these criteria due to the cost of the tunnelling.
As expected, all options present the same
benefits under the Transport Economic
Efficiency and the Wider Economic impacts.
The gains under option 1B are characterised
by the base of the hill corridor and reduced
vertical alignment standards as compared to
option 1 which runs in the deep swamp and
Option 1A which has relatively higher vertical
alignment standard as well a wider crosssection.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-15: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES


TS
WS
TI
WS

CAP

WS

Option 1 Open Road Option in


deep swamp Designed for 85kph

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

5.00

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

5.00

57.53

5.00

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

4.00

46.02

5.00

TS

TWS

4.82

20.00

88.17

5.00

4.82

20.00

88.17

11.50

3.00

2.89

18.00

86.24

9.20

5.00

4.82

18.00

74.37

A&M

WS

11.50

5.00

5.00

11.50

14.33

5.00

14.33

4.00

Comments

Options 1 and 1A all score the same under


the criteria considered with the exception of
option 1B which scores marginally less under
accessibility and mobility. Option 2 scores
less under Transport Integration due to the
lack of pedestrian facilities and hard
shoulders under the tunnelled sections. The
use of tunnels might affect driver behaviour at
the onset and as such is expected to reduce
on the potential capacity before drivers
become familiar with them and begin to use
them with confidence.

TABLE 8-19: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT

TOLLS

WS

PROC

COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
FS
WS
FI

TS
WS

BS

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1 Open Road Option in


deep swamp Designed for 85kph

2.50

21.11

1.00

4.69

-1.00

-3.97

-0.10

-0.24

3.50

4.30

5.90

25.88

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

2.50

21.11

1.50

7.03

-2.00

-7.95

-0.30

-0.73

4.50

5.53

6.20

24.99

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

2.50

21.11

2.00

9.37

-1.50

-5.96

-0.20

-0.49

4.50

5.53

7.30

29.57

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

2.50

21.11

-1.00

-4.69

-1.50

-5.96

-0.20

-0.49

5.00

6.14

4.80

16.12

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

153

Option 1A differs from option 1 in as far


as the support to the procurement
strategy is concerned i.e. Option 1A is
cheaper to construct and is less
intrusive on the wetlands thereby likely
to attract more support from bilateral
agencies. Option 1B extends this
advantage by way of a reduced design
standard hence less cost. Due to the
required capital outlay and technical
skills set needed to deliver option 2, it is
seen as not being very supportive to the
procurement strategy and discouraging
bilateral support. It also has relatively
poorer financial indicators and higher
lifecycle costs i.e. maintenance of the
tunnels exceeds that of open roads.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-23: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES- CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT

ENV

WS

SIA

SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES
WS
ACC
WS

TS
SAFETY

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1 Open Road Option in


deep swamp Designed for 85kph

-2.10

-18.76

22.50

16.73

8.00

7.07

10.00

7.00

38.40

12.03

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

6.05

-5.14

19.50

11.38

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

45.55

21.66

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

5.60

-3.89

18.00

10.99

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

43.60

22.52

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

13.50

18.93

17.40

16.80

10.00

8.41

8.00

5.60

48.90

49.74

Option 1 traverses the Nakivubo swamp and


as such presents a detrimental impact upon
the environment by way of wetland
degradation as compared to the other
options. Options 1A and 1B are closely
matched save for the increased vehicle
emissions in option 1B as a result of lower
speeds. Option 2 seeks to ameliorate this
impact. It should be noted that option 2
affects the accessibility of portable water by
affecting the presence of underground water
aquifers. The location of two schools at both
tunnel portals is precariously close to the
Muyenga Tunnel option at either end. The
tunnel option seeks to preserve the
landscape and townscape as well, In addition
to controlling air quality and noise.

TABLE 8-27: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES- CENTRAL SECTION 1
CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES
TS
TWS
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT
ENG FEAS
WS
C&C
WS
UTILITIES
WS
Option 1 Open Road Option in
deep swamp Designed for 85kph

5.00

15.71

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

25.39

Option 1A Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 85kph

5.00

26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

35.86

Option 1B Open Road Option at


Base of hill Designed for 70kph

5.00

26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

35.86

Option 2 Tunnelled Option


through Muyenga Hill

4.00

15.71

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

14.00

25.39

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

154

Comments

All options are closely matched except for the


Buildability and engineering feasibility of
option 2 which entails the tunnel through
Muyenga hill.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.5.2.3

Primary Criteria Central Section 2


Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar with the exception of Economic and therefore
commercial viability where Option 1B scores more due to the relaxed design standards and
therefore significantly less earthworks. The deep cuts through the Makindye Ridge under
option 1/1A only serve to increase the amount of earthworks involved. The Option 2 which
incorporates a tunnel through the Makindye hill scores well under sustainability issues due to
the reduced displacement costs and social impact. However, it scores poorly under economic
and commercial viability. The loss of a grade separated junction at Lukuli Road under option 2
affects its score under strategic transport objectives. Summary scores are presented in the
Tables 8-8, 8-12, 8-16, 8-20, 8-24 and 8-28 below.
A closer look at Economic Viability
Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except for the Affordability and the Internal Rate of
Return which are more favourable under option 1B due to the value engineering aspects of
this option. For these very reasons, Option 2 performs poorly under these criteria due to the
cost of the tunnelling. As expected, all options present the same benefits under the Transport
Economic Efficiency and the Wider Economic impacts.
A closer look at Strategic Transport Objectives
Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except for the Accessibility and Mobility which is more
favourable under option 1/1A due to the higher design speeds and therefore higher standards
of design. Option 2 on the other hand performs marginally less under Transport Integration
due to the fact that the cross-section of the tunnelled sections do not provide for hard
shoulders and pedestrians.
A closer look at Commercial Viability
Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar comparatively except for the ability to support the
Procurement strategy and the Life Cycle costs as well as the financial indicators such as
NPV/CAP. Again, the reduced construction costs of option 1B play a major role. Due to the
required capital outlay and technical skills set needed to deliver option 2, it is seen as not
being very supportive to the procurement strategy and discouraging bilateral support. It also
has relatively poorer financial indicators and higher lifecycle costs i.e. maintenance of the
tunnels exceeds that of open roads.
A closer look at Sustainability
Options 1/1A are closely matched in comparison with only a slight difference arising out of the
environmental assessment associated with local air quality and noise for this section. All other
criteria are similar between these two options in these sections. Option 2 offers some relief to
the environment by way of a controlled ventilation system within the tunnels. Other benefits
that option 2 presents are associated with a lesser social impact i.e. the less displacement of
people although the reduced cross-section through the tunnels and loss of hard shoulders
negatively impacts this option as seen in the MCA scores.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

155

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-8: PRIMARY MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

EV

WS

STO

PRIMARY CRITERIA
CFV
WS

WS

TS
SUS

WS

C&B

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

16.37

112.25

20.00

88.17

8.50

37.44

21.10

-2.43

15.00

35.86

80.97

271.29

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

17.50

121.50

18.00

86.24

10.40

43.80

18.00

-2.11

15.00

35.86

78.90

285.29

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

14.00

86.53

16.00

55.96

5.10

18.55

48.70

50.12

13.00

25.39

96.80

236.54

Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar with


the exception of Economic and therefore
commercial viability where Option 1B scores
more due to the relaxed design standards
and therefore significantly less earthworks.
The deep cuts through the Makindye Ridge
under option 1/1A only serve to increase the
amount of earthworks involved. Option 2
which incorporates a tunnel through
Makindye hill scores well under sustainability
issues due to the reduced displacement costs
and social impact. However, it scores poorly
under economic and commercial viability.
The loss of a grade separated junction at
Lukuli Road under option 2 affects its score
under strategic transport objectives.

TABLE 8-12: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

ECONOMIC VIABILITY
WS
EI
WS

AFF

WS

TEE

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

2.37

27.70

5.00

32.15

4.00

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

2.50

29.22

5.00

32.15

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

0.50

5.84

5.00

32.15

TS

TWS

21.48

16.37

112.25

5.00

21.48

17.50

121.50

5.00

21.48

14.00

86.53

WEI

WS

30.92

5.00

5.00

38.64

3.50

27.05

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

156

Comments

Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except


for the Affordability and the Internal Rate of
Return which are more favourable under
option 1B due to the value engineering
aspects of this option. For these very
reasons, Option 2 performs poorly under
these criteria due to the cost of the tunnelling.
As expected, all options present the same
benefits under the Transport Economic
Efficiency and the Wider Economic impacts.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-16: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES


TS
WS
TI
WS

CAP

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

5.00

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

2.50

28.76

5.00

14.33

TS

TWS

Comments

4.82

20.00

88.17

3.00

2.89

18.00

86.24

Option 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar except


for the Accessibility and Mobility which is
more favourable under option 1/1A due to the
higher design speeds and therefore higher
standards of design. Option 2 on the other
hand performs marginally less under
Transport Integration due to the fact that the
cross-section of the tunnelled sections do not
provide for hard shoulders and pedestrians.

5.00

4.82

16.00

55.96

A&M

WS

11.50

5.00

5.00

11.50

3.50

8.05

TABLE 8-20: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

TOLLS

WS

PROC

COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
FS
WS
FI

TS
WS

BS

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

2.50

21.11

1.50

7.03

0.50

1.99

2.00

4.85

2.00

2.46

8.50

37.44

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

2.50

21.11

2.00

9.37

0.90

3.58

3.00

7.28

2.00

2.46

10.40

43.80

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

2.50

21.11

-1.00

-4.69

-0.40

-1.59

-1.00

-2.43

5.00

6.14

5.10

18.55

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

157

Options 1/1A and 1B are nearly similar


comparatively except for the ability to
support the Procurement strategy and the
Life Cycle costs as well as the financial
indicators such as NPV/CAP. Again, the
reduced construction costs of option 1B play
a major role. Due to the required capital
outlay and technical skills set needed to
deliver option 2, it is seen as not being very
supportive to the procurement strategy and
discouraging bilateral support. It also has
relatively poorer financial indicators and
higher lifecycle costs i.e. maintenance of the
tunnels exceeds that of open roads.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-24: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES- CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

ENV

WS

SIA

SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES
WS
ACC
WS

TS
SAFETY

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

-2.50

-13.93

3.60

-3.92

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

21.10

-2.43

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

-4.10

-13.22

2.10

-4.31

10.00

8.41

10.00

7.00

18.00

-2.11

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

13.50

19.59

17.20

16.52

10.00

8.41

8.00

5.60

48.70

50.12

Options 1/1A are closely matched in


comparison with only a slight difference
arising out of the environmental assessment
associated with local air quality and noise for
this section. All other criteria are similar
between these two options in these sections.
Option 2 offers some relief to the
environment by way of a controlled ventilation
system within the tunnels. Other benefits that
option 2 presents are associated with a
lesser social impact i.e. the less displacement
of people although the reduced cross-section
through the tunnels and loss of hard
shoulders negatively impacts this option as
seen in the MCA scores.

TABLE 8-28: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES- CENTRAL
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

ENG FEAS

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
C&C
WS
UTILITIES

TS

TWS

Comments

WS

Option 1/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

5.00

26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

35.86

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

5.00

26.19

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

35.86

Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill

4.00

15.71

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

14.00

25.39

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

158

All options are closely matched except for the


Buildability and engineering feasibility of
option 2 which entails the tunnel through
Makindye hill.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.5.2.4

Primary Criteria Southern Section


Options 1/2/1A and 1B are nearly similar with the exception of Economic and therefore
commercial viability where Option 1B scores more due to the relaxed design standards and
therefore slightly less earthworks. This is the only variance between these options. Summary
scores are presented in the Tables 8-9, 8-13, 8-17, 8-21, 8-25 and 8-29 below.
A closer look at Economic Viability
The only difference between options 1/2/1A and 1B in this section is the reduced cross-section
and vertical clearance in option 1B which presents a significant cost saving and therefore
translates into improved scores under affordability and better economic indicators.
A closer look at Strategic Transport Objectives
Option 1/2/1A and 1B are nearly similar except for the Accessibility and Mobility which is more
favourable under option 1B due to the higher design speeds and therefore higher standards of
design.
A closer look at Commercial Viability
The only variance between these options is brought about by the fact that the reduced design
standards in option 1B translate into a significant cost saving hence Option 1B scores higher
than the options 1/2/1A.
A closer look at Sustainability
Option 1B presents a lesser social impact score by virtue of the loss of hard shoulders. Option
1B also is more likely to result in increased vehicle emissions. All options within this corridor
essentially follow the same alignment with a difference in the vertical alignment only.
A closer look at Constructability and Buildability
All options are closely matched except for the Buildability and engineering feasibility of option
2 which entails the tunnels through Mutungo hill, Muyenga hill and Makindye hill.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

159

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-9: PRIMARY MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/2/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for 85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph

PRIMARY CRITERIA
CFV
WS

EV

WS

STO

WS

16.31

111.55

20.00

88.17

11.60

17.44

120.80

18.00

86.24

13.40

TS

TWS

30.62

91.90

279.59

30.62

90.48

294.86

SUS

WS

C&B

WS

43.91

29.99

5.33

14.00

49.88

27.64

7.32

14.00

Comments
Options 1/2/1A and 1B are nearly similar with
the exception of Economic and therefore
commercial viability where Option 1B scores
more due to the relaxed design standards
and therefore slightly less earthworks. This is
the only variance between these options.

TABLE 8-13: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY - SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

ECONOMIC VIABILITY
WS
EI
WS

AFF

WS

TEE

Option 1/2/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

2.31

27.00

5.00

32.15

4.00

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

2.44

28.52

5.00

32.15

5.00

TS

TWS

21.48

16.31

111.55

21.48

17.44

120.80

WEI

WS

30.92

5.00

38.64

5.00

Comments
The only difference between options 1/2/1A
and 1B in this section is the reduced crosssection and vertical clearance in option 1B
which presents a significant cost saving and
therefore translates into improved scores
under affordability and better economic
indicators.

TABLE 8-17: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES - SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/2/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for 85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES


TS
WS
TI
WS

CAP

WS

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

5.00

5.00

57.53

5.00

14.33

5.00

TS

TWS

4.82

20.00

88.17

2.89

18.00

86.24

A&M

WS

11.50

5.00

11.50

3.00

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

160

Comments
Option 1/2/1A and 1B are nearly similar
except for the Accessibility and Mobility which
is more favourable under option 1B due to
the higher design speeds and therefore
higher standards of design.

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

TABLE 8-21: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
FS
WS
FI

TOLLS

WS

PROC

Option 1/2/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

2.50

21.11

1.50

7.03

0.60

2.38

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

2.50

21.11

2.00

9.37

0.90

3.58

TS

TWS

3.69

11.60

43.91

3.69

13.40

49.88

WS

BS

WS

4.00

9.70

3.00

5.00

12.13

3.00

Comments
The only variance between these
options is brought about by the fact
that the reduced design standards
in option 1B translate into a
significant cost saving hence Option
1B scores higher than the options
1/2/1A.

TABLE 8-25: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES- SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT

SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES
WS
ACC
WS

ENV

WS

SIA

Option 1/2/1A Open


Road Option
Designed for 85kph

-3.31

-16.38

14.30

6.98

9.00

Option 1B Open Road


Option Designed for
70kph

-4.16

-14.01

12.80

6.58

9.00

TS

TWS

7.00

29.99

5.33

7.00

27.64

7.32

SAFETY

WS

7.74

10.00

7.74

10.00

Comments
Option 1B presents a lesser social impact
score by virtue of the loss of hard shoulders.
Option 1B also is more likely to result in
increased vehicle emissions. All options
within this corridor essentially follow the same
alignment with a difference in the vertical
alignment only.

TABLE 8-29: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES- SOUTHERN
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
Option 1/2/1A Open
Road Option
Designed for 85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph

ENG FEAS
5.00

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES


WS
C&C
WS
UTILITIES
20.95

5.00

7.39

5.00

TS

TWS

15.00

30.62

Comments

WS
2.29

There is no comparative difference in this


regard between the options.
5.00

20.95

5.00

7.39

5.00

2.29

15.00

30.62

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

161

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

8.6

Conclusion
Following the assessment, within the Northern Section, Option 1B is the preferred option
followed by option 1/1A in the Northern Section, Option 1B is the preferred option followed by
option 1A within the Central Section 1 and Option 1B is the preferred option followed by option
1/1A within the Central Section 2. Lastly, Option 1B is the preferred option within the Southern
Section.
This therefore means that after considering all the deliverability constraints such as the
affordability, commercial viability, sustainability and the constructability and buildability of the
scheme, Option 1B is the Preferred option as shown in Table 8-30 below.
TABLE 8-30: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Section

NORTHERN SECTION
VARIANTS

CENTRAL SECTION 1
VARIANTS

CENTRAL SECTION 2
VARIANTS

SOUTHERN SECTION
VARIANTS

Description of Variant

Total Weighted Score

Option 1/1A Open Road


Option Designed for
85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through Mutungo
Hill
Option 1 Open Road
Option in deep swamp
Designed for 85kph
Option 1A Open Road
Option at Base of hill
Designed for 85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option at Base of hill
Designed for 70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Muyenga Hill
Option 1/1A Open Road
Option Designed for
85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph
Option 2 Tunnelled
Option through
Makindye Hill
Option 1/2/1A Open
Road Option Designed
for 85kph
Option 1B Open Road
Option Designed for
70kph

Comments

290.0973

312.5849

Following the assessment,


Option 1B is the preferred
option followed by option 1/1A
within the Northern Section.

253.7704

237.0904

261.0486

287.7350

Following the assessment,


Option 1B is the preferred
option followed by option 1A
within the Central Section 1.

241.0086

271.2874

285.2894

Following the assessment,


Option 1B is the preferred
option followed by option 1/1A
within the Central Section 2.

236.5444

279.5914

294.8562

Following the assessment,


Option 1B is the preferred
option within the Southern
Section.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

162

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

From the Table 8-31 below, it can be shown that Option 1B is the Preferred option with
Option 10 being the Next Best Option. Option 1A is the Next best Alternative.
Option 1B entails the use of a lower design speed and therefore reduced vertical alignment
standard in addition to incorporating a narrower cross-section with reduced Hard shoulders
and reduced Earth Shoulders. The Viaduct section in option 1B is also narrower. These cost
savings in construction costs account for the strength of Option 1B following the Multi-Criteria
Assessment given that Economic Viability and Commercial Viability account for nearly over
half of the weighted scores as shown in Table 8-4 above.
Option 1B also scores well in the Constructability and Buildability criterion given the fact that it
traverses the base of the Muyenga Hill as opposed to the depths of the Nakivubo Swamp, an
alignment that bodes well with the Environmental ethos of the project.

TABLE 8-31: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT OPTION RANKING


OPTION

Total Weighted
Score

RANK

Option 1B 1C-2C-3C-4C
Option 10-1A-2C-3A-4A
Option 1A 1A-2D-3A-4A
Option 1-1A-2A-3A-4A
Option 2-1B-2B-3B-4A
Option 3-1B-2A-3A-4A
Option 4-1A-2B-3A-4A
Option 5-1A-2A-3B-4A
Option 6-1B-2B-3A-4A
Option 7-1B-2A-3B-4A
Option 8-1A-2B-3B-4A

1180.47
1128.71
1102.02
1078.07
1010.91
1041.74
1081.98
1043.32
1045.66
1007.00
1047.24

1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
10.00
9.00
4.00
8.00
7.00
11.00
6.00

Option 1A has a similar alignment to option 1B with the only variance being the design
standards i.e. Option 1A is designed to a higher design speed/standard. It incorporates
generous vertical curvature and a wider cross-section thereby increasing its cost of
construction in a bid to improve its functionality. However, the Multi Criteria Assessment
highlights the fact that the improved functionality doesnt outweigh the additional cost required
of it and as such Option 1A ranks third in consideration.
Option 10 which includes the Option 1A alignment in the Northern Section as well as the
Central 2 Section and the Southern Section with the only variance being the Central 1 section
i.e. it adopts the Option 1B alignment in this section is the Next Best Alternative with a ranking
of 2.
Option 1B is therefore the strongest option and is therefore the Preferred Option.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

163

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

APPENDICES
Appendices for the Preliminary Engineering Report are collected in a separate volume as
follows;
Draft Feasibility Study Report, Part 3 Preliminary Engineering Report,
Volume A2 Appendices
Appendices in Volume A2 are as follows;
Appendix 2 Geometric Design Data
Appendix 3 Hydrology and Drainage
Appendix 3.1 River & Stream Parameters
Appendix 3.2 SCS Method Flood Calculations
Appendix 3.3 TRL Method Flood Calculations
Appendix 3.4 Rational Method Flood Calculations
Appendix 3.5 Comparison of Flood Calculations by Three Methods
Appendix 3.6 Design Floods and Proposed Drainage Structures
Appendix 3.7 Preliminary Hydraulic Calculations and Sizing of Drainage Structures
Appendix 3.8 Design Flood Estimates for Side Drains
Appendix 3.9 Hydraulic Calculations for Side Drains
Appendix 3.10 Hydraulic Calculations for Channelization
Appendix 3.11 Hydraulic Calculations for Side Drains and Minor Cross Drains Option 1
Appendix 3.12 Hydraulic Calculations for Side Drains Option 2
Appendix 3.13 Hydraulic Calculations for Side Drains and Minor Cross-Drains Option 2
Appendix 6 Advisory Note on Tunnel Design
Appendix 7 Risk Analysis
Appendix 7.1 Risk Registers (All Options)
Appendix 8 Multi-Criteria Analysis
Appendix 8.1 Multi-Criteria Assessments (All Options)

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

164

Uganda National Roads Authority


Consultancy Services for Capacity Improvement Projects: Lot C Kampala Jinja Road,
Kampala Southern Bypass

This Page Deliberately Left Blank

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT


PART 3 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT: VOLUME 1A - REPORT
October 2013

165

You might also like