Powerpoint presented in the 5th ATRANS Symposium last August 24, 2012

1. 8/15/2012
Problem Setting
MODELING THE IMPACT OF ON-STREET
PARKING ON VEHICULAR TRAFFIC  On–street parking in Metro Manila
– not monitored and regulated properly
(except for Makati CBD)
Marc Alvin Lim  Disruption in the flow of traffic
Eriko Luis Hallare  Contribute to causes of accidents
Jesus Gerard Briones
Civil Engineering Students
De La Salle University – Manila
Philippines
Main Objective of the Study Specific Objectives of the Study
 To develop a model that could measure  Characterize on-street parking behaviour
the impact of on-street parking on of the study areas.
moving traffic  Effects of different parking designs
 Effect of on-street parking on the
capacity of the road.
 Recommend solutions to improve traffic
flow
1

2. 8/15/2012
Scope of the Study Significance of the Study
 Metro Manila Area  Improved means of transportation
– Roxas Boulevard, San Juan and Makati  Benefit a lot of people
 Parallel, perpendicular and angled – Better vehicular flow
 One side or two sided – Less accidents with regards to on-street
 Private and public vehicles parking
 Road capacity estimation
 Background literatures for future
researchers
Theoretical Framework Research Methodology
 Analytical survey and experimental
methods
 Site selection
- Secured and safe location for videotaping
- Elevated (provide sufficient view)
- on-street parking
 Designate trap length
- travel time
- time delay
2

3. 8/15/2012
Research Methodology Presentation of the Results of the Study
 Record videos Site Locations
 Analysis of Videos
 Correlation
 Multiple regression
- dummy variables, 1s and 0s
- t-stat
- coefficients
 Statistical Analysis
 Generate Model
Figure 5.1 General Map Overview for All Locations
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
 Site A: Annapolis Street Video Length: 8 hours  Site B: Aguirre Street Video Length: 10 hours
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
60 Degree Angled 1 (WB) 136 (EB)
Two-way 7649 31 30 1 (WB) 6 (EB)
to the Curb 2 (EB) 129 (WB) Parallel to the Curb Two-way 939 124 145
1 (EB) 19 (WB)
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound Eastbound
Figure 5.2 Trap Length for Annapolis Street
Figure 5.7 Trap Length for Aguirre Street
3

4. 8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
 Site C: Chino Roces Avenue Video Length: 6 hours  Site D: Roxas Boulevard Video Length: 8 hours
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Parking Design Flow Direction No. of Lanes for Moving Vehicles Total Vehicles Average Vehicles per 15 minute Cars In Cars Out
Perpendicular 1 (WB) 78 (WB)
Parallel to the Curb One-way 4 (WB) 7218 375 (WB) 58 50 Two-way 3974 28 28
to the Curb 1 (EB) 47 (EB)
Westbound Eastbound
Eastbound Westbound
Figure 5.12 Trap Length for Chino Roces Avenue Figure 5.17 Trap Length for Roxas Boulevard
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Freeflow Time Site A: Annapolis Street Freeflow Time
Table 5.2 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
120 109 113 100.00% Table 5.18 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples
Samples Time (secs) Confidence
100 80.00% Westbound 113 9.38 9.04 < µ < 9.72 80 100.00%
68 No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
Eastbound 198 9.46 9.22 < µ < 9.70
Frequency
80 51 80.00% Samples Time (secs) Confidence
Frequency
60.00% Both Dir. 311 9.43 9.23 < µ < 9.63 60
60 39 60.00% Westbound 188 10.93 10.62 < µ < 11.24
41 45 Table 5.3 Average Freeflow Speed 40
40.00% 24 40.00%
40 No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of 20 6 20.00% Table 5.19 Average Freeflow Speed
20 20.00% Samples Time (m/s) Confidence
3 0 0.00% No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
Westbound 113 6.78 6.51 < µ < 7.05
0 0.00% 8 10 12 14 More Samples Time (m/s) Confidence
5 7 9 11 More Eastbound 198 6.70 6.50 < µ < 6.90
Both Dir 311 6.72 6.56 < µ < 6.88 Westbound 188 5.93 5.73 < µ < 6.13
Intervals (seconds) Intervals (seconds)
Figure 5.3 Histogram for Freeflow Time Figure 5.13 Histogram for Freeflow Time
Site D: Roxas Boulevard
Site B: Aguirre Street Table 5.26 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples
Table 5.10 Average Freeflow Time and No. of Samples No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of 500 100.00% Samples Time (secs) Confidence
60 50 100.00% Samples Time (secs) Confidence 409
400 80.00% Westbound 540 5.44 5.32 < µ < 5.56
50
Frequency
80.00% Westbound 70 9.43 9.11 < µ < 9.75
Frequency
Eastbound 191 5.20 5.04 < µ < 5.36
40 300 246 60.00%
27 60.00% Eastbound 31 9.61 9.21 < µ < 10.01 Both Dir 731 5.38 5.28 < µ < 5.48
30 24 200 40.00%
40.00% Both Dir 101 9.49 9.24 < µ < 9.74
20 Table 5.27 Average Freeflow Speed
Table 5.11 Average Freeflow Speed 100 29 42 20.00%
10 20.00% 5 No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of
No. of Average Freeflow 95% Level of 0 0.00%
0 0.00% Samples Time (m/s) Confidence
Samples Time (m/s) Confidence 3 5 7 9 More
8 10 More
Westbound 70 7.69 7.41 < µ < 7.97 Intervals (seconds) Westbound 540 7.82 7.65 < µ < 7.99
Intervals (seconds)
Figure 5.8 Histogram for Freeflow Time Eastbound 31 7.48 7.15 < µ < 7.81 Figure 5.18 Histogram for Freeflow Time Eastbound 191 8.05 7.80 < µ < 8.30
Both Dir 101 7.63 7.41 < µ < 7.85 Both Dir 731 7.88 7.74 < µ < 8.02
4

5. 8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out
Site A: Annapolis Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
Table 5.4 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Table 5.20 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
12 35 33
10 M. In M. Out M. In M. In M. Out
M. Out 30
10 Mean 21.94 24.37 Mean 11.79 13.48
8 8 M. In M. Out
25
Frequency
1.90188
Frequency
8 F 20 F 0.36609
6 1.85429 20
6 F Critical one-tail F Critical one-tail 0.63032
4 4 4 4 15 11 12
4 3 3 3 10 7 8
2 Table 5.5 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
4 3 Table 5.21 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
2 1 1 M. Out M. In 5 2 1 2 1
M. Out M. In
0 Mean 24.37 21.94 0
6 13 20 27 34 More Mean 13.48 11.79
9 14 19 24 29 34 More t Stat 0.67810
Intervals (seconds) t Stat 0.99520
Intervals (seconds) t Critical one-tail 1.67303
t Critical one-tail 1.65992
Figure 5.5 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Figure 5.15 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out
Site B: Aguirre Street Table 5.12 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Site D: Roxas Boulevard
80 71 16 15
70 M. In M. In M. Out 14 M. In Table 5.28 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
60 53 M. Out Mean 20.27 10.61 12 M. In M. Out
M. Out
Frequency
Frequency
50 F 4.03845 10 Mean 25.2 18.04
40 34 8 7
F Critical one-tail 1.33231 6 F 2.44254
30 26 24 5 5 5
6 4 1.92994
14 16 3 F Critical one-tail
20 10 10 4
Table 5.13 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 2
10 3 3 1 2 1 Table 5.29 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
0 M. In M. Out
0 M. In M. Out
5 13 21 29 37 More Mean 20.27 10.61 9 17 25 33 More
Mean 25.2 18.04
Intervals (seconds) t Stat 3.10543 Intervals (seconds)
t Stat 2.28641
t Critical one-tail 1.65381
Figure 5.10 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out Figure 5.20 Histogram for Vehicles Maneuvering In and Out t Critical one-tail 1.68385
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Time Delay Time Delay
Site A: Annapolis Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue
20 100.00%
17 Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis 10 100.00% Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis
15 80.00% 8
15 8 80.00% Time Delay (secs)
Frequency
Time Delay (secs) 6
Frequency
60.00% Mean 20.05
10 6 60.00%
7 Mean 35.13
40.00% 4 Median 18.5
4
Median 32.5 4 40.00%
5 3 2 Mode 16
20.00% Mode 32
2 20.00% Minimum 12
Minimum 14
0 0.00% Maximum 38
Maximum 72 0 0.00%
15 30 45 60 More Count 20
12 18 24 More
Intervals (seconds) Count 46
Intervals (seconds) Confidence Level(95.0%) 3.35
Confidence Level(95.0%) 4.57
Figure 5.6 Histogram for Time Delay Figure 5.16 Histogram for Time Delay
Site B: Aguirre Street Site D: Roxas Boulevard
10 9
8
100.00% Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis 10
8
100.00% Data Analysis: Descriptive Analysis
8 7 80.00% 8 7 80.00%
Time Delay (secs)
Frequency
Time Delay (secs)
Frequency
6
6 60.00% Mean 20.5 6 60.00% Mean 14.78
4 40.00% Median 19 4 3 3 40.00% Median 15
2
2 20.00% Mode 12 2 20.00% Mode 15
0 0.00% Minimum 12 Minimum 4
0 0.00%
14 20 26 More Maximum 34 Maximum 34
6 12 18 24 More
Intervals (seconds) Count 30 Count 23
Intervals (seconds)
Figure 5.11 Histogram for Time Delay Confidence Level(95.0%) 2.63 Confidence Level(95.0%) 3.19
Figure 5.21 Histogram for Time Delay
5

6. 8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time
Site A: Annapolis Street Site B: Aguirre Street Site C: Chino Roces Avenue Site D: Roxas Boulevard
25.000
40.00 25 16.000 15.200
14.947
35.57
34.31 14.000
35.00 20.500 20.500
20.000 20.05
20
30.00 12.000
25.00 10.000
15.000
15
Seconds
Seconds
Seconds
20.00 8.000
9.61 10.93
10.000 9.43
15.00 10 6.000 5.44 5.20
9.46 9.38 4.000
10.00
5.000
5
2.000
5.00
0.000
0.00 0.000
Average Average Average Average
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average 0
Time Time Freeflow Freeflow
Time Delay Time Delay Freeflow Freeflow Time Delay Time Delay Freeflow Freeflow Average Average Time
Delay WB Delay EB time WB Time EB
WB EB Time EB Time WB EB WB Time EB Time WB Freeflow time Delay
Figure 5.3 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.8 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.13 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time Figure 5.18 Average Time Delay vs. Average Freeflow Time
Presentation of the Results of the Study Presentation of the Results of the Study
 y = Travel Time (seconds)  x6 = 1, Sample Vehicle  x13 = Site Considering  Generated Equation Model:
 x1 = Actual Number of Slowing Down due to a Tight Perpendicular Parking
Vehicles Maneuvering In Space along the Road  = if both x14 and x15 has a
 Site A:
 x2 = Actual Number of  = 0, Absence of a Sample value of 0, it automatically y = 9.5302 + 14.8674X6 + 13.6167X9
Vehicles Maneuvering Out Vehicle being Slowed Down means that the study area
 x7 = Actual Number of
considers perpendicular
 x3 = 1, Two-way parking
Pedestrians Crossing
 = 0, One-way  Site B:
x8 = Number of Sides of the  x14 = 1, Site has Parallel

 x4 = 1, Vehicle Obstruction Parking
Present
Road that has Parked y = 9.4880 + 2.5346X2 + 3.7178X4 + 5.2468X6 + 13.6167X9
Vehicles  = 0, Site has No Parallel
 = 0, No Vehicle  x9 = Total Maneuvering
Parking
Obstruction Present (Maneuvering In + Out)  x15 = 1, Site has Angled
 Site C:
 x5 = 1, Vehicle Maneuvering  x10 = Actual Width of the Parking
In or Out with Attendant Road (meters)  = 0, Site has No Angled y = 10.9505 + 5.3942X2 + 8.8538X4
 = 0, No Attendant  x11 = Number of Lanes for Parking
Moving Vehicles, Westbound  x16 = Width of Road Used for
 x12 = Number of Lanes for
Moving Vehicles (meters)  Site D:
Moving Vehicles, Eastbound
y = 5.3762 + 8.2483X4 + 4.6181X5 + 2.0783X6 + 3.80X9
6

7. 8/15/2012
Presentation of the Results of the Study Conclusions
 Generated Equation Model:
 Presence of an attendant
 Considering All Sites
 Presence of a slow moving vehicle due to tight
spacing along the road
y = 7.3967 + 9.3359X5 + 10.1611X6 + 7.4999X9
 Total maneuvering
 Where:  Actual and lessened width of the road
 y = Travel Time(seconds)  Parking designs
 x5 = Presence of an Attendant when Vehicles are Maneuvering In
or Maneuvering Out  Presence of an on-street parking
 x6 = Presence of a Vehicle Slowing Down due to a Tight Space - hindering the flow of traffic
along the Road
 x9 = Total Number of Vehicles Maneuvering
- prolongs travel time
(Maneuvering In + Out)
Recommendations Thank you . . .
 Longer time
 More locations
- provide more different types of parking designs
- two of each parking design
 Other variables that were not thought of or
considered
 Owning of a digital camera
- immediate transfer of data
- longer video length capacity
End.
7