Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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.
ii
connector road
Consultant, The
Designer, The
DaSTS
DfT
DMRB
link road
MCA
Multi-criteria Analysis
NATA
NPV
Overbridge
P90
Ninetieth Percentile
Project, The
RR
Rate of Return
SADC
SMART
ToR
Terms of Reference for the consultancy project Capacity Improvement Projects Lot
C Kampala-Jinja Road .
UK
United Kingdom
Underbridge
Underpass
UNRA
US
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0
1
FOREWORD ...................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.5
2.1
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
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
iv
2.3.6
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.5
2.6
2.6.1
Mainline Cross-section.................................................. 27
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.8
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
2.8.5
2.8.6
2.8.7
2.8.8
2.9
2.9.1
2.9.2
2.9.3
2.9.4
2.9.5
2.9.6
2.9.7
2.9.8
2.9.9
2.9.10
2.10
2.10.1
2.10.2
2.10.3
2.11
2.11.1
General ............................................................................ 46
2.11.2
2.11.3
3.1
Introduction .................................................................... 51
3.1.1
General ............................................................................ 51
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.5
3.6
3.6.1
3.7
vi
3.8
3.8.1
Option 1 .......................................................................... 78
3.8.2
Option 2 .......................................................................... 87
3.9
4.1
Introduction .................................................................... 89
4.2
4.3
Subgrade Strength......................................................... 92
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
4.6
5.1
Introduction .................................................................... 98
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
Viaducts .......................................................................... 99
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.6
5.7
6.1
6.2
6.2.1
vii
6.2.2
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.4
6.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2
6.6.3
6.6.4
6.6.5
6.6.6
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
viii
7.4.4
7.5
8.1
8.2
8.2.1
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.1.1
8.3.1.2
8.3.1.3
8.3.1.4
8.3.2
8.3.2.1
8.3.2.2
8.3.2.3
8.3.2.4
8.3.3
8.3.3.1
8.3.3.2
8.3.3.3
8.3.3.4
8.3.3.5
8.3.4
8.3.4.1
8.3.4.2
8.3.4.3
8.3.4.4
8.3.5
8.3.5.1
ix
8.3.5.2
8.3.5.3
8.4
8.5
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.2.1
8.5.2.2
8.5.2.3
8.5.2.4
8.6
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:
Part 2:
Traffic Study
Volume 1: Traffic Survey Report
Volume 2: Traffic Modelling Report
Part 3:
This Document
Part 5:
Part 6:
Part 7:
INTRODUCTION
1.1
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
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
1.4.1
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
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.
SECTION
No.
SUBSECTION
No.
SECTION DESCRIPTION
REMARK
NORTHERN
SECTION
S1
1MTB(t)
S1
1MTA(t)
S1
1MTA(nt)
S1
2MT(t)
S1
2MT(nt)
CENTRAL
SECTION 1
S2
MY(t)
Muyenga (Tunnelled)
SECTION 2
S2
C1(nt)
CENTRAL
SECTION 2
S3
C2(t)
SECTION 3
S3
C2(nt)
SOUTHERN
SECTION
S4
1S(nt)
S4
2S(nt)
SECTION 1
SECTION 4
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
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
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
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;
10
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;
11
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
12
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
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.
13
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
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
2.3.1
14
Reference
91009175
AM
TrafficFlow
Expressway
Lanes
1606 NB
1.34
91759100
1819 SB
1.52
Section 2 Central
Section 1
(Northbound)
90989099
1554 NB
1.30
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Comments
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
71809093
1554 NB
1.30
2.3.2
90937180
2065SB
85
85
1.72
15
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
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
16
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
17
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
Urban Expressway
2 Steps
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
18
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
19
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
2.4.4
20
21
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.
22
2.4.6
Salama Junction
Also a two bridge grade separated roundabout passing under the Expressway catering for
traffic movements in all directions..
23
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.
24
2.4.7
25
2.5
Urban 100kph
70
70
Radial Roads
100 or 85
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;
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.
Length of Entry
Taper
Nose Ratio
Nose Length
95
1:15
50
95
1:15
50
26
2.6
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
27
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
Slip Roads
Merge/Diverge Single
Lane Layout A
Varies
Varies
2.0
Hardshoulder
Single Lane
3.0
3.65
0.70
28
2.6.3
New
Construction
Headroom (m)
Maintained
Headroom (m)
5.30 +S
5.30 +S
5.70 +S
5.70 +S
6.45 +S
6.45 +S
6.10 +S
6.10 +S
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.
1000
80
1200
70
1500
55
2000
45
3000
25
6000
15
Nil
29
2.7
2.7.1
30
2.7.2
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.
100
1:25
80
1.2
1:1.5
66.7
1.6
31
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
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
32
2.8
2.8.1
33
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
34
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
2.8.6
2.8.7
35
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
2.9
36
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
37
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
38
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
39
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
Explanation
Car Throughput
vph
HGV Throughput
vph
Electronic Toll
Collection
(ETC)
450-900
300-500
Card Payment
(CP)
200-350
150-250
300-500
200-350
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
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
41
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.
42
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
43
Remarks
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
44
Remarks
Traffic
Flow (vph)
from traffic
modelling
Method of
Toll
Payment
Throughput (vph)
Range
Average
Lanes
Required
Average
No. of
Lanes
needed
Lanes
Provided
Remarks
45
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%
46
Bored
Uni-directional
1800
2000
Bi-directional
1590
1800
Gradient
<2%
>2% <4%
b)
-15
10
-5
-20
15
-10
-25
20
-15
-30
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
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
7%
1510
840
470
265
160
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.
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
48
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.
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
Grade 0.5%
N/A
N/A
Grade 0.5%
Grade -0.5%
Grade 0.5%
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 was provided in accordance with the design based statement and a normal
cross-fall of 2.5% was provided.
49
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
50
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
51
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
LEGEND
Proposed drianage structures
[%
Slab culvert
\
&
Box culvert
S
#
Pipe culvert
800
800
1600 Meters
1:50000
455000
460000
52
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
LEGEND
Proposed drianage structures
450000
[%
%
\
&
Slab culvert
S
#
Pipe culvert
800
800
1600 Meters
1:50000
Box culvert
455000
460000
53
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.
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
54
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
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
55
Min
Dec
Oct
Nov
Months
Sep
Aug
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Jul
Max
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.
Soil Class
56
3.2
3.2.1
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
57
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
3.3
Hydrological Analysis
3.3.1
Geometric Design
Standard PIa, PIb
Side Ditches
10
10
25
58
3.3.2
Geometric Design
Standard PIa, PIb
50
50
100
Check/Review Flood
200
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
59
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
60
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.
61
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
Figure 3-6 Frequency Analysis of 24 Hour Max. Rainfall (mm) for Imaginary Station Kampala
58
77
10
90
25
108
50
123
100
138
62
I ntensity (m m /hr
1000.0
100.0
10
25
100
50
10.0
1.0
1
10
100
1000
10000
Duration(mm)
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
63
3.4
3.4.1
64
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
Qu
QT
Fp
Where:
Figure 3-8 SCS Relation between Direct Runoff, Curve Number and Precipitation
65
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
66
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.
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
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
0.076
0.152
Trash fallow or minimum tillage cultivation; contour or strip cropped; woodland (overland
flow)
0.213
68
0.274
0.305
0.457
0.491
0.619
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
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
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
Surface slope
(Cs)
Permeability
(Cp)
CLASSIFICATION
<300
300-600
>600
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.12
0.16
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
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.11
Grass lands
0.13
0.17
0.21
No vegetation
0.24
0.26
0.28
Vegetation (Cv)
71
Ft
Cultivated land
0.8
0.6
Steep >11%
0.8
1.0
3.4.4
Cf
1.0
10
1.0
25
1.1
50
1.2
100
1.25
72
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
6
8
10
|Rational method flood estimate, m3/s
12
14
16
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
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
73
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.
3.6
Slab/box culverts
Pipe culverts**
Route Option
Option 1
11
Option 2
74
n = 0.015
n = 0.030
75
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
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
76
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
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
77
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.
78
Side drains
Return Period
100
10
10/5
Surfaces type
Runoff Coefficient
Asphalt concrete
0.95
0.90
0.60~0.80
Aggregate pavement
0.40~0.60
0.10~0.30
0.40~0.65
0.70~0.85
0.50~0.75
0.75~0.90
10
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
0.70~0.80
79
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.
Roughness Coefficient
0.013
0.02
0.10
0.20
0.40
80
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
0.013
0.016
0.014
0.016
0.025
0.032
0.027
0.025
0.035
81
10
0.035~0.050
11
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.
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
0,5 m /s
1,8 m/s
1,2 m/s
82
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
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.
83
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
<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
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
85
Parallel to the
Road (
Approx.
Chainage), m
Approx. coordinates
From
Approx.
Length,
m
To
Xo
Yo
X1
Y2
Q100,
m3./s
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
86
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
87
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.
88
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).
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.
89
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.:
Range in Traffic
(mESA)
<0.3
90
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.
91
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: .
To 2027
To 2037
To 2047*
Bukasa Jn to Portbell Rd Jn
T5
T7
T8
T5
T7
T7
Ggaba Rd Jn to Lukuli Rd Jn
T5
T7
T7
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.
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.
92
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.
93
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
TABLE 4-5 PAVEMENT THICKNESS FOR S2/4 AND T5 & 7 20YEARS AFTER OPENING
Subgrade
Class
S2
S4
Pavement
Course
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
94
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.
S2
S4
Foundation
(mm)
Joint Spacing
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
4.5
95
Pavement Designs for a 30year Traffic Loading (2017 to 2047) are given in Table 4-7
Pavement Course
Class
S2
S4
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
96
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
97
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.
98
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.
99
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
100
5.5
5.5.1
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
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
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
101
Name
Chainage
(km)
No
14
15
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
102
Name
No
Chainage
(km)
Bridge Spans(m)
No.
Span
Tot
al
Kasakoso Road
0+760
Lana Road
1+882
Wabwire Road
2_865
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
10+020 &
10+120
16.6
13
Lukuli Road
11+118
14
-----
15
16
Lukyamuzi Road
17
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
103
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
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
104
5.6
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.
105
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
6.2.1
106
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
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
108
Figure 6-1 Sample Road Sign Face Limited Access Road Network
Figure 6-2 Sample Road Sign Face All Purpose Road Network
109
110
6.3
Lighting
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
111
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
Warm
<3,300
Intermediate
3,300 to 5,300
Cool
>5,300
f)
Colour appearance
Son T Plus
Ra 23
Son Comfort
Ra 65
Cosmopolitan (white)
Ra 65
CDM T
Ra 80
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
112
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
CE0
CE0
CE1
CE1
CE2
CE2
S1
CE3
CE3
S2
CE4
CE4
S3
CE5
CE5
S4
113
Type of road
general
description
Detailed description
Motorway
Limited access
Traffic
flow
(ADT)
Lighting
class
<40,000
ME1
>40,000
ME1
<40,000
ME2
>40,000
ME1
<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
Dual carriageways
Main
distributor
Major
urban
network
and
inter-primary
links, - short to
medium
distance traffic
Dual carriageways
114
6.3.4
Class
C/D
UO
UL
Ti (%)
S/R
Main carriageway
ME2
1.5
0.4
0.7
10
0.5
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
6.3.6
115
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
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
116
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
6.5.2
117
6.5.3
118
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.
119
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:
120
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
121
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
122
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.
123
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
124
7.4
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
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
95% 54,682,443
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
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
At P90, the total contingency for Option 1 is USD 39.6m. The risk amount for Option 1 is
therefore USD 13.7m.
125
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
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
95% 67,675,080
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
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%
At P90, the total contingency for Option 1a is USD 48.7m. The risk amount for Option 1a is
therefore USD 17.4m.
126
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
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
90% 43,213,305
95% 44,225,021
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
At P90, the total contingency for Option 1b is USD 31.6m. The risk amount for Option 1b is
therefore USD 11.6m.
127
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
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
95% 101,230,813
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
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
At P90, the total contingency for Option 2 is USD 55.9m. The risk amount for Option 2 is
therefore USD 40.4m.
128
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.
Option 1
366,146,759
Option 1a
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.
129
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
130
DEFINITION
-5
Extremely Adverse
-4
-3
Strongly Adverse
-2
Moderately Adverse
-1
Slightly Adverse
Neutral
Slightly Beneficial
Moderately Beneficial
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.
131
8.3.1
8.3.1.1
8.3.1.2
8.3.1.3
132
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
8.3.2
8.3.2.1
8.3.2.2
133
8.3.2.3
8.3.2.4
134
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
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
8.3.3.3
135
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)
(ii)
(iii)
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
8.3.3.5
136
8.3.4
8.3.4.1
8.3.4.2
137
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.
iii.
iv.
v.
Option Values;
vi.
vii.
viii.
Severance.
138
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
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.
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
139
8.3.5.1
8.3.5.2
8.3.5.3
8.4
ensure safety;
1/3
1/5
1/7
1/9
2,4,6,8
Intermediate Values
1/2,1/4,1/6, 1/8
Intermediate Values
140
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.
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:
141
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.
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%
17.6%
Commercial/Financial Viability
20.8%
Sustainability
24.3%
7.2%
8.5
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.
142
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
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
0.0547
0.9638
0.4067
8.4438
0.2258
4.6868
0.1914
3.9739
STRATEGIC TRANSPORT
OBJECTIVES
COMMERCIAL/FINANCIAL
VIABILITY
0.1763
0.2076
TERTIARY
CRITERIA
WEIGHTS
PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE
17.6340
20.7592
143
WEIGHTS
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS
SECONDARY CRITERIA
0.2429
WEIGHTS
WEIGHTS
PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE
0.1169
2.4262
0.0592
1.2286
0.5404
24.2899
TERTIARY
CRITERIA
Noise
0.1609
2.1115
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
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
144
WEIGHTS
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS
SECONDARY CRITERIA
WEIGHTS
SUSTAINABILITY
Acceptability
Safety
CONSTRUCTABILITY
0.0717
7.1720
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
145
WEIGHTS
PERCENTAGE
WEIGHTS
AND BUILDABILITY
SECONDARY CRITERIA
WEIGHTS
TERTIARY
CRITERIA
WEIGHTS
PROPORTIONATE
WEIGHT
PERCENTAGE
0.2060
1.4775
0.0638
0.4574
146
8.5.2
8.5.2.1
147
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
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
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
148
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
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
TS
WS
BS
TWS
Comments
WS
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
149
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
-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
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
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
150
8.5.2.2
151
TABLE 8-7: PRIMARY MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT
PRIMARY CRITERIA
CFV
WS
EV
WS
STO
WS
13.55
85.62
20.00
88.17
5.90
13.99
90.37
20.00
88.17
16.82
113.55
18.00
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
1.15
13.44
5.00
32.15
1.49
17.42
5.00
1.82
21.28
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
152
Comments
TABLE 8-15: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT
CAP
WS
5.00
57.53
5.00
14.33
5.00
5.00
57.53
5.00
14.33
5.00
57.53
5.00
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
TABLE 8-19: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY CENTRAL SECTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANT
TOLLS
WS
PROC
TS
WS
BS
TWS
Comments
WS
2.50
21.11
1.00
4.69
-1.00
-3.97
-0.10
-0.24
3.50
4.30
5.90
25.88
2.50
21.11
1.50
7.03
-2.00
-7.95
-0.30
-0.73
4.50
5.53
6.20
24.99
2.50
21.11
2.00
9.37
-1.50
-5.96
-0.20
-0.49
4.50
5.53
7.30
29.57
2.50
21.11
-1.00
-4.69
-1.50
-5.96
-0.20
-0.49
5.00
6.14
4.80
16.12
153
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
-2.10
-18.76
22.50
16.73
8.00
7.07
10.00
7.00
38.40
12.03
6.05
-5.14
19.50
11.38
10.00
8.41
10.00
7.00
45.55
21.66
5.60
-3.89
18.00
10.99
10.00
8.41
10.00
7.00
43.60
22.52
13.50
18.93
17.40
16.80
10.00
8.41
8.00
5.60
48.90
49.74
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
5.00
26.19
5.00
7.39
5.00
2.29
15.00
35.86
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
154
Comments
8.5.2.3
155
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
16.37
112.25
20.00
88.17
8.50
37.44
21.10
-2.43
15.00
35.86
80.97
271.29
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
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
2.37
27.70
5.00
32.15
4.00
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
156
Comments
TABLE 8-16: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES CENTRAL SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
CAP
WS
5.00
57.53
5.00
14.33
5.00
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
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
TS
WS
BS
TWS
Comments
WS
2.50
21.11
1.50
7.03
0.50
1.99
2.00
4.85
2.00
2.46
8.50
37.44
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
157
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
-2.50
-13.93
3.60
-3.92
10.00
8.41
10.00
7.00
21.10
-2.43
-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
TABLE 8-28: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTABILITY AND BUILDABILITY OBJECTIVES- CENTRAL
SECTION 2
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
ENG FEAS
TS
TWS
Comments
WS
5.00
26.19
5.00
7.39
5.00
2.29
15.00
35.86
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
158
8.5.2.4
159
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
2.31
27.00
5.00
32.15
4.00
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
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
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.
TABLE 8-21: MULTI-CRITERIA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY SOUTHERN SECTION
DESCRIPTION OF
VARIANT
TOLLS
WS
PROC
2.50
21.11
1.50
7.03
0.60
2.38
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
-3.31
-16.38
14.30
6.98
9.00
-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
5.00
7.39
5.00
TS
TWS
15.00
30.62
Comments
WS
2.29
20.95
5.00
7.39
5.00
2.29
15.00
30.62
161
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
Comments
290.0973
312.5849
253.7704
237.0904
261.0486
287.7350
241.0086
271.2874
285.2894
236.5444
279.5914
294.8562
162
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.
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.
163
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)
164
165