Dissertation
zur
Erlangung des Grades eines
DoktorIngenieurs
der Fakultt fr Bauingenieurwesen
an der RuhrUniversitt Bochum
von
Joewono Prasetijo, M.Sc.
aus Pontianak, Indonesien
Referent
Koreferent
Preface
Unsignalized intersections are a key element in urban streets and in rural road networks. The
methodology for the analysis of such intersections as it has been established for the developed
countries fails when it should be applied for cities in developing countries due to the wide mix
of vehicles with rather different characteristics and due to road user behavior. There are
already several attempts to develop alternative approaches for the analysis of unsignalized
intersections under mixed traffic conditions.
Dr.Ing. Joewono Prasetijo has contributed new ideas to solve this problem in his dissertation.
Basically the investigation is empirically oriented. However, the idea to describe traffic
demand by concentration of vehicles expressed by covered area within the intersections
ground space is rather innovative. This concept was able to express relations between quantity
of traffic and performance of operation. On this basis Dr. Prasetijo is able to develop a new
and successful procedure to quantify the level of service at unsignalized intersections under
mixed traffic conditions.
The investigations have been conducted under the sponsorship of Technological and
Professional Skills Development Sector Project (ADB Loan No. 1792INO), Deutscher
Akademischer Austausch Dients (DAAD) and Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, RuhrUniversitt
Bochum.
Contents
Contents
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Definition........................................................................................................ 2
1.3 The Objectives of the Study.......................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Methodology ................................................................................................. 5
Contents
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
Appendix A :
ii
1 Introduction
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
The third method in calculating the capacity at unsignalized intersections is the conflict
technique. This new approach is based on the method Addition of critical movement flows
(GLEUE, 1972). The theory has first been developed by WU (1999) for the American
solution of AllWay StopControlled (AWSC) intersections in such a way that the FirstIn
FirstOut discipline applies. The model considers all possible traffic streams and conflict
points at intersections simultaneously. The interaction and impact between flows at the
intersection is formulated by a mathematical approach. This procedure can also imply flows
of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the intersection. This method has been used successfully
for calculating capacity at unsignalized intersection (BRILON, MILTNER, 2005).
Traffic and transportation in developing countries are also very different to developed
countries since traffic composition and level of road side activities are in contrast to
developed countries. Traffic rules, for examples, like give way or lane discipline etc. are
1
1 Introduction
neglected in most cases. Drivers are more aggressive so that a gap acceptance behavior is
rather uncommon. In case of unsignalized intersections, almost two third (2/3) of vehicles did
not wait for a gap. If there is any critical gap which is likely to be accepted, then this is very
small with about 2 seconds.
Vehicle types in developing countries show a large variability which makes traffic flow rather
heterogeneous. This traffic flow consists of transport modes of varying dynamic
characteristics sharing the same road space. In this view, vehicles contribute to variation in
speed behavior ranging from slow vehicles to rather fastmoving cars. Typical for developing
countries, is there is also a great number of activities occurring at the edge of the road, both
on the roadway and shoulders and sidewalks. Most of these activities create numbers of
conflicts called side friction. The Indonesian manual gave much attention to such aspects
like side frictions which have great impact on capacity and performance are pedestrians,
stops by transport vehicles and parking maneuvers, motor vehicles entries and exits into and
out of roadside properties and side roads, and slowmoving vehicles (bicycles, rickshaw,
etc.). Side friction is measured qualitatively with respect to traffic engineering consideration
as high, medium and low.
Typical cities of developing countries are characterized by heterogeneous traffic (mix of non
motorized and motorized modes) and mixed landuse patterns. Nonmotorized modes are
owned and used by a large number of people. Motor vehicle ownership in Asian countries is
low compared to North America and European countries. In 1993 a figure of 29 cars per 1000
residents in East Asian countries was counted, which could be compared with 560 cars per
1000 residents in North America, or 366 in OECD countries. Although the growth rate of
motorized vehicles in Asian cities is large, most of these increasing numbers of vehicles
concern motorized twowheelers and threewheelers. These types of vehicles are estimated to
be more than 50 percent of all motor vehicles in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan.
1.2
Problem Definition
Most developing country cities have been classified as low cost strategy cities. In
comparison with cities in the West, these cities consume less transport energy. Characteristics
of these urban centers are high density, mixed land use, short trip distances, and high share of
walking and nonmotorized transport. Modes of heterogeneous traffic flow in developing
countries consist of vehicles with varying dynamics and space requirements sharing the same
road space. However, the concepts of the traffic flow theory in the United States, Europe, and
Australia are formulated for motorized fourwheel road traffic which constitutes a
homogeneous traffic flow. Traffic streams in heterogeneous traffic consist of distinct
categories of vehicles. The Indonesian Highway Administration distinguishes between 13
classes of vehicles for its routine classified counts. Traffic, thus, consists of many motorized
twowheelers, motorized threewheelers, bicycles, nonmotorized threewheelers, cars,
2
1 Introduction
buses and pull carts. Furthermore, if there is a lack of adequate pedestrian facilities, traffic
streams may also contain a significant onroad pedestrian flow.
Much less attention is given in providing adequate and suitable facilities for nonmotorized
vehicles and pedestrians. In order to solve the problems on urban streets we still concentrate
more on the motorized transport. Nonmotorized transport constitutes a significant share of
total traffic in many Asian cities. In 1985, even in a city like Jakarta, nonmotorized vehicles
such as becaks (threewheelers) and bicycles accounted for 4.6 percent and 2.4 percent,
respectively, of total trips. For some cities like Yogyakarta and Bandung (Java), this
proportion is even higher. In the same year, Jakarta had a population of more than 3.5 million
and walking still accounted for 40 percent of total trips, whereas in Bandung (population
about 1.5 million) and in Yogyakarta (population about 0.6 million in 1976) walking trips
accounted for about 49 percent and 50 percent of total trips, respectively. It can be seen that in
Indonesian cities, nonmotorized modes still have an important function as a travel mode.
However, due to a large number of speed differences between nonmotorized slowmoving
vehicles and motorized transport or fastmoving vehicles of about 45 km/h to 60 km/h, this
could be a serious problem in traffic operation with regard to capacity and safety.
The current traffic behavior patterns in developing countries is also different to those of
developed countries regarding unsignalized intersections. The common rules of give way
and priority from the left are not fully respected in most cases. The intersections are often
blocked by drivers trying to cut the corners and they become more aggressive while
approaching the intersections, especially when the degree of saturation is higher than 0.8
0.9. Previous studies have shown that twothirds of vehicles coming from minor roads cross
the intersection without waiting for gaps and critical gaps were found to be about 2 seconds.
Gap acceptance behavior is very uncommon at unsignalized intersections in Indonesia.
The Indonesian manual has described the capacity under mixed traffic flow which is based on
three aspects
geometric conditions
traffic situations
road environment.
Standard design of intersections justifies the basic capacity which has values between 2700
pcu/h and 3400 pcu/h with seven types of intersections. The proportion of traffic flow
movements, i.e. major leftturn, major rightturn and flows from the minor road are important
to select adjustment factors to get the real value of capacity. Road environment means that
several parameters such as city size, type of road, side friction and degree of nonmotorized
transport would have impacts on the capacity. Nonmotorized vehicles are counted as
movements instead of side friction factors, and its passenger car unit values are assumed to be
the same as for light vehicles/cars with a value of 1.0. The value could be regarded as
3
1 Introduction
With an empirical approach, interactions between movements flowing from different arms of
an intersection are not considered. Conflicts are normal and movement priority is not
respected. Significant studies for TwoWay StopControlled (TWSC) intersections were
already carried out in Indonesia, but only a limited number of studies handling the traffic
process at unsignalized AllWay StopControlled intersections is available. Results from
those studies could not find situations with varying conditions in the real world, because all
streams at AWSC intersections are considered to be equal in the hierarchy of the priority of
departure.
A new approach of capacity analysis is the socalled conflict technique. This method could be
an alternative solution in order to analyze more complex interactions between streams at
intersections, i.e. FirstInFirstOut intersections which are very popular in developing
countries. Although, there are no significant procedures up to now for FIFO intersections,
however, it can be treated in the same manner like AWSC because the departure priority is
similar at both types of intersection (WU, 1999). This technique is based on an idea of the
Addition of Conflict Flows (ACF) (GLEUE, 1972). General forms of this method rely on
the occupation times of cars for one specific point of the intersection under certain conditions.
For determining the capacity the occupation time of 3.6 seconds has been adapted for the
case of AWSC. Earlier studies for singlelane AWSC intersections found that turning
movements did not affect the occupation time significantly. Therefore, the capacity of a
stream can be represented as C0 = 3600/tB with departure headway, tB between 3.5 s/pc and
4 s/pc.
1 Introduction
1.3
1.4
Research Methodology
In order to achieve the objectives of this research, literature review was performed regarding
various methods to determine capacity and delays. Two different approaches are known
previously which were used an empirical and mathematical pragmatic approaches while
another (IHCM, 1997) have counted the capacity by the main three aspects of traffic
movements, geometric design and environment. Traffic movements are not assessed to be
capacity parameters directly instead of adjustment factors. Therefore, the real capacity is not
calculated by the real value of traffic flow where the real flows are the most important
assessments with regards to the interaction between the streams at the intersections.
The study has investigated 14 unsignalized intersections in the city of Pontianak, West
Kalimantan and in a secondary set of data from Yogyakarta (West Java) in Indonesia. There
were 10 threeleg unsignalized intersections which have been evaluated for the analysis due
to receiving an appropriate number of vehicles and various types of vehicles to represent the
mixed traffic flow characteristics. Both cities have very typical traffic flow characteristics,
e.g. a heterogeneous traffic (motorized and unmotorized). Each of the intersections had a
traffic performance and geometric design (different widths of legs) which are different from
each of the other. Several aspects regarding traffic flow, intersection design, and road
environment must be considered, e.g. speed, traffic volumes at the minor road and at the
major road, geometric design of the intersections, roadside activities and type of environment
(commercial, residential, limited access). These parameters were monitored by video
camcorders and were manually extracted from the videos. The selected sites of unsignalized
intersections are designed on the background of the standard manual for geometric design
published by Ministry of Public Works. Investigations have only been made at threeleg
intersections.
1 Introduction
The intersections were chosen among places where a rule of priority is not really existent and
where all streams seem to have an equal rank in the hierarchy of departure mechanism. Only a
small number of vehicles is expected to stop since the capacity has not been reached at any of
the study sites. Every stream was observed by using two camcorders (DCRTRV 270E with
additional cassette Hi8) which were placed at a 3.5 meter high tripod and each was positioned
at the edge of the road near the corners of the intersection. From these points the traffic
movements could be observed very clearly. Each intersection was investigated during two
hours in the morning (06.30 08.30) and in the afternoon (14.30 16.30). These periods were
considered as the peak period times (MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS, 1998).
Data were counted from the recorded cassettes by using a special timecode machine and by
monitors. First, data from the recorded Hi8 cassettes had to be transferred to the VHS (Video
Home System) video cassettes in order to get the timecode (The timecode recorder can only
operate VHS video cassettes). Viewing the monitor, time instants when the vehicles arrive at
specified points of the intersections were transferred into a personal computer using a specific
software. Times of arrival and departure were recorded for each vehicle from each stream.
That means: each VHS video cassette had to be observed and evaluated more than six times,
because each intersection (threelegs) has six movements. The intersection occupancy was
measured in a different way (number of vehicles that occupied the intersection area at the
certain time). Based on the arrival and departure time as well as the traveled distance of each
movement, we can simply find the speed of each vehicle. Traveled distance for each
movement were measured based on reference lines which were drawn at the intersections and
which could also be seen at the monitor (cassette recorded). Furthermore, speed and volumes
were aggregated in 1minute and 5minute intervals. In addition, intersection occupancy was
counted in 20second intervals.
2.1
Introduction
The concept of a road hierarchy is a familiar one in the field of traffic engineering and traffic
management. In Indonesian cities, reasonably clear road hierarchies exist, although use does
not always correspond to function (SOEGIJOKO, HORTHY, 1991). In Indonesia, the road
hierarchies consist of the following classes :
1. Primary arteries (intercity roads passing through the city, with road widths usually
more than 8.0 m)
2. Secondary arteries (main roads linking major activity centers in the city, including
the central business district of widths about 7.0 m)
3. Secondary collectors (roads connecting the secondary arteries with the residential
areas or other urban activity locations, of widths between 6.0 m and 8.0 m)
4. Local roads (of width between 4.0 m and 6.0 m) and roads within a community
consisting of narrow paved streets (width between 2.5 m and 4.0 m) and paved
and unpaved footpaths, often inaccessible to fourwheeled motorized transport (of
widths between 1.0 m and 2.0 m).
Conversely, urban transportation demands arise from hierarchies of activities taking place in a
hierarchy of urban communities as known in Indonesian cities: the Kecamatan (about 20,000
households), the Kelurahan (5,000 households), the Rukun Warga (250 households), and the
smallest community, the Rukun Tetangga (25 households). The location of these activities
generally determines trip distances. Average destinations of frequent trips are closer to the
residential areas and those less frequently visited are further away, the demand for shorter
trips is generally much greater than it is for long trips. Most of the short trips are at the bottom
of the speed hierarchy and at the lower levels of the road hierarchy, for maximum efficiency
the modal mix should be different at different levels of the road hierarchy, as certain modes
are more appropriate than others for certain trip lengths. Instead of that, number of transport
modes do not always rely on road hierarchies, because even for long trips, people are likely to
drive/ride lower speed vehicles/mode transport (e.g. bicycles, motorcycles). Within this
situation, traffic conditions in Indonesia differ markedly from those encountered in developed
countries.
2.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian with push cart (gerobak or kakilima)
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Automobile
The Indonesia Highway Administration distinguishes between 13 classes of vehicles for its
routine classified counts. In the Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (1997), the following
seven (7) classes were distinguished as :
Light vehicles (LVs) : passenger cars, jeeps, minibuses, pickups, microtrucks;
Medium heavy vehicles (MHVs) : twoaxle trucks with double wheels on the rear
axle, buses shorter than 8 m;
Large trucks (LTs) : threeaxle trucks;
Truck combinations (TCs) : truck plus full trailer, articulated vehicle;
Large buses (LBs) : buses longer than 8 m;
Motorcycles (MCs);
Unmotorized vehicles (UMs) : tricycles and bicycles.
From most of the resources, the modes can be arranged in four speed bands, as follows :
1. (about 5 km/h)
: Pedestrian
Pushcart
2. (10 to 20 km/h)
: Bicycle
Becak
3. (25 to 40 km/h)
: Bemo
Bajaj
Motorcycle (lowpower)
4. (50 to 100 km/h)
: Mikrolet
Minibus
City bus
Motorcar
8
Due to the obstruction per passenger at different road widths and traffic velocity, the
utilization of road space could be one of a transport modes efficiency. The road utilization
efficiency of a transport mode makes an important contribution to its true economic cost. This
road utilization function, RUF depends on more than the planned area of a transport mode; it
is a function of vehicle length and width, width of the road, modes maximum speed, free
flow speed of the surrounding traffic, number of passengers, average distance between stops,
and possibly other factors as well. The following Table 21 shows the characteristics of
transport modes in Indonesia. Further, the static characteristics (length and width) and
dynamic characteristics (average speed) of vehicles become an important parameter in order
to analyze traffic streams behavior at intersections relating to the capacity analysis.
Transport Length
Modes
[m]
Width
[m]
Official
Extra
Cruising
Passenger Freight
Speed
Capacity Capacity
[km/h]
[person]
[kg]
Private
1
30
5
Average
Speed
[km/h]
Ideal
Trip
Length
[km]
Average
Trip
Length
[km]
3.5
0.4
1.1
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
and
Pushcart
Bicycle
Motorbike
1.00
0.60
2.10
0.80
200
0.4
1.75
1.60
0.60
0.80
1/2
2
50
30
16
80
6.0

3.3

Automobile
4.05
1.60
100
100
2.8

Becak
Andong
Ojek
Bajaj
Bemo
Mikrolet I
Mikrolet II
Minibuses
City Bus
2.25
3.50
1.60
2.50
2.90
3.80
4.25
5.40
9.30
1.00
1.50
0.80
1.20
1.25
1.80
1.25
1.90
2.50
3
7
2
3
8
10
11
26
51
Public
30
100
15
30
30
70
80

10
10
60
40
40
60
60
60
60
5.3

1.5
1.6

2.3

2.3
Most of the developing countries, e.g. Indonesia, have different traffic situations from those of
developed countries. They have a large number of differences in drivers behavior, traffic
composition and level of roadside activities. In general, the traffic stream consists of two
distinct categories of vehicles, namely fastmoving (motorized) vehicles and slowmoving
(nonmotorized) vehicles. The static and dynamic characteristics of these two types of
vehicles vary widely. A vehicle from any approach can enter the intersection area only when
the sum of its required crossing time and its arrival time is lowest, and when all the
conflicting vehicles are simultaneously considered.
Most studies analyze mainly homogeneous traffic with a low percentage of slowmoving
vehicles. The models mainly belong to the poweredvehicle group. In developing countries
the traffic scene is altogether different, with a large volume of motorized twowheelers or
threewheeler autorickshaws and other slowmoving vehicles. There is mixed traffic,
consisting of power, manual (and animal) driven vehicles whose physical and operational
characteristics vary considerably. Therefore, vehiclearrival characteristics at urban
uncontrolled intersections with mixed traffic conditions are rather complex and need special
attention.
The static and dynamic characteristics of slowmoving vehicles and fastmoving vehicles
(motorized) vary widely/considerably and this will cause disturbances of traffic operation and
reduces capacity of the road. It is difficult to estimate the traffic volume and capacity of a
facility under mixed traffic flow unless different vehicle classes are converted to a common
unit, e.q. passenger car units (PCUs). These units, PCUs for each type of vehicle are designed
with consideration of static and dynamic characteristics of vehicle. It correlates of flow rates
of passenger cars only with that of mixed traffic streams that are equivalent in terms of the
drivers perception of the Level of Service (LOS).
The impacts of NMT on traffic flow have been traditionally assessed by converting NMT
traffic into passenger car units (PCUs), also known as passenger car equivalents (PCEs),
which are then added to the PCUs for motorized traffic. This approach assumes that MT and
NMT form a combined stream of mixed traffic, whose PCUsbased relationship may be
meaningfully analyzed. But it is widely accepted that PCUs values change depending on
traffic composition, number of lanes, and the degree and length of gradients. Therefore, it is
difficult to obtain standard values applicable across different road and traffic conditions.
Another approach takes the view that MT and NMT do not really mix because of difference in
their cruising speeds and other operational and physical characteristics, instead, this approach
endeavors to model the impacts of NMT on MT flows by treating two streams separately. The
flows at the various critical points in terms of the NMT flow and speeds are
Q=
3600 NMTVEL
ELNMT
(21)
where
NMTVEL
ELNMT
[m/s]
[m]
The effective capacity approach considers technical relationships concerning NMT and MT
interaction, and is convenient because the accumulated knowledge regarding capacity and
speed flow relationships can effectively be incorporated into the analysis. The drawbacks of
the effective capacity approach have given rise to an aggregate approach by using friction
10
factor or side friction. The concept of friction is used to describe the degree of NMT
impacts on the speed and capacity on motorized traffic. Various roadside activities are
combined into a single speed reduction factor, such as :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
By using the concept from HOBAN (1987), previous field studies and researches in
Indonesia (SWEROAD, 1994) have measured friction effects on speed. This concept
identified four significant friction items :
1. Pedestrian movements
2. Stopping public transport vehicles
3. Parking activities
4. Vehicles entering and leaving roadside premises
Heterogeneous traffic flow consists of modes of varying dynamic and static characteristics
sharing the same road space. Underlying concepts of the traffic flow theory in the United
States of America, Europe, and Australia are formed by motorized fourwheel road traffic
dominating in those areas, i.e., homogeneous traffic. All car following, lane changing logic
and systems measure of effectiveness used in microscopic simulation programs ultimately
use field data from these countries for calibration.
For heterogeneous traffic, having an ideal capacity per lane is misconceptual because lane
discipline is very loose. Vehicles have varying static and dynamic characteristics. These share
the same road space and move by sharing the lateral as well as the linear gaps. For example, a
motorcycle rider judges whether the lateral distance (width) between a motorcycle and bus is
acceptable to progress on the roadway. Another motorcycle rider in the same situation would
have a different critical width acceptance. If the width is unacceptable, then an entity is
constrained by preceding entities. Critical width acceptance depends on three items. First, the
travel speed of the vehicle/entity itself. Second, the physical width of the vehicle and
distribution of the width acceptances of specific entity groups, i.e., driver/rider/pedestrian
behavior. Each vehicle/entity group has its own critical width acceptance.
Heterogeneous traffic can have many motorized twowheelers, motorized threewheelers,
bicycles, nonmotorized threewheelers, cars, buses, trucks, animaldrawn carts, push and
pullcarts. Additionally, if sidewalk facilities are inadequate or lacking, this diverse mixture
11
contains significant onroad pedestrian traffic. In homogenous traffic, traffic entities form
onedimensional queues develop; in heterogeneous traffic, mass queues develop. These
queues are built lengthwise as well as laterally, see Figure 21 and Figure 22.
Traffic flow
One dimensional
queues
Traffic flow
Two dimensional
queues
The car following notion used in homogenous traffic flow models is not applicable in
heterogeneous traffic. Since cars do not comprise most of the traffic mixture, car following
is an incorrect term for heterogeneous traffic. Furthermore, since width of entities vary greatly
in heterogeneous traffic, figuring out which leading entity/vehicle it is following is difficult.
Leading entities may run parallel or in a staggered way, see at Figure 23 and Figure 24.
Traffic Flow
Lane discipline
Traffic Flow
Parallel/ staggered
In the lane changing notion, heterogeneous traffic has been derived in some extensive
models and algorithms. Microscopic studies of this traffic show that the time headway
between vehicles is an important flow characteristic that affects safety, level of service,
drivers behavior and capacity of transportation system. A minimum time headway must
always be present to provide safety in the event that the lead vehicle suddenly decelerates.
12
The percentage of time that the following vehicle must follow the vehicle ahead is one
indication of level or quality of service. The distribution of time headways determines the
requirement and the opportunity for passing, merging, and crossing. The capacity of the
system is governed primarily by the minimum time headway and the time headway
distribution under capacity flow conditions.
Traffic Flow
Lane concept
Traffic Flow
with minimum braking and acceleration. Since our infrastructure design does not account for
existing conflicting requirements of different modes, all modes have to share the road space
and operate in suboptimal conditions.
In most of the cities in Indonesia, walking is the dominant mode of transport for work,
shopping, and education trips. In larger cities such as Jakarta walking still accounts for 40
percent of total trips (1985) and this proportion has not changed much in recent years. Next to
walking, bicycles and pedicabs are other nonmotorized modes in some cities in Indonesia.
Although their use is limited, some parts of the population are still dependent on these modes.
Examples of transport mode and destination at three mediumsized cities in Java can be seen
in Table 22 and Table 23.
In 1985, even in a city like Jakarta, becaks and bicycles account for 4.6 percent and 2.4
percent, respectively, of the total trips. For some cities like Yogyakarta and Bandung, this
proportion is even higher. For example, in Bandung in 1976, 9.7 percent and 5.8 percent of
the total trips were made using becaks and bicycles, respectively. A study (MARLER, 1985)
in some highdensity communities in Bandung concluded that work trips using becaks are
even more frequent, about 12 percent of the total trips and there was also evidence that the use
of bacaks is more significant for nonwork trip purposes.
City
Area
[HA]
Population
[Thousand]
Serang (S)
11.6
111.5
10,000 (1983)
3,000
246
Tasikmalaya (T)
19.2
156.7
16,000
14,600
2,250
Cirebon (C)
60.1
275.0
9,700
3,600
876
Table 22. Profile of Three MediumSized Cities in Java (SOEGIJOKO et al., 1991)
In Indonesian cities, from the mediumsized to the larger cities, including metropolitan cities
like Jakarta nonmotorized modes such as walking, bicycles, and pedicabs still have an
important function as a travel mode. Walking is especially important, perhaps because trip
lengths in these cities are short. In general, shopping trips are especially short trips, less than
1 km. The factor might be the limitations of the motorized public transport service in terms of
area coverage and services.
14
Vehicles/
Mode
Walk
Becak
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Car
*)
Work [%]
Shopping [%]
Education [%]
City
City
City
48
9
4
12
6
21
58
8
2
7
0
25
29
6
12
11
8
34
80
4
0
0
0
16
72
3
5
15
0
5
57
1
6
23
1
12
83
3
6
0
2
6
70
4
2
8
0
16
53
7
7
5
0
28
Minibuses
Table 23. Trip Purpose and Transport Modes in Three MediumSized Cities
(SOEGIJOKO & HORTHY, 1991)
*)
2.4
Based on investigation relate to IHCM report that freespeed was determined for
unobstructed vehicles defined as vehicles with a headway to the nearest vehicle in front of
more than 8 seconds and no recent or immediate meeting with a vehicle in the opposing
direction ( 5 seconds). The regression analysis was performed with travel time (TT) as
dependent variable with the following equation :
TT =
1
= const. + B X + C Y + D Z.....
VLV
(22)
where
VLV
X,Y,Z,......
B,C,D,......
15
[km/h]
[]
[]
Typical freespeed of various types of vehicles based on the type of terrain at the certain road
section in Indonesia were investigated and presented in Table 24. The following list of base
freeflow speed are based on several years of investigation (6 years) at several roads.
Base FreeFlow Speed [km/h]
Type of
Terrain
Flat
Rolling
Hilly
68
61
55
73
62
50
Medium
Heavy
Vehicle
Large Trucks
Motorcycle
61
52
42
58
49
38
55
53
51
Table 24. Base Freeflow Speed 2/2 UD Road (BANG et al., 1995)
In Indonesia often a great deal of capacity occurs at the edge of the road, both on the roadway
and on shoulders and sidewalks, which interacts with the flow of traffic, causing it to be more
turbulent and hurting capacity and performance. Equation 23 shows that freeflow speed is
mainly affected by carriageway width, side friction and road functional class (arterial,
collector or local). The following types of side friction events which were recorded manually
in the IHCM field surveys were defined as :
PED : number of pedestrians, whether walking along or crossing.
PSV : number of stopping by public transport vehicles (motorized and non
motorized) and parking maneuvers.
EEV : number of motor vehicle entries, exits into and out of roadside properties.
SMV : slowmoving vehicles (bicycles, trishaws, etc.)
The actual freeflow speed for each vehicle type can be calculated in IHCM (1997) as
follows :
FV = (FV0 + FFVW ) FFVSF FFVRC
(23)
where
FV
=
FV0 =
FFVW =
FFVSF =
FFVRC =
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
[]
[]
Previous studies on speed and flow relationship on roads have been done at 5minute period
observations with predetermined flow classes 0 300, 301 600, ... (lvu/h) for several sites
in Indonesia (IHCM, 1997). The impact of site conditions (carriageway width, side friction,
land use, road function class, sight distance class) were analyzed with multiple regressions.
Speed flow regressions were made for each road class (e.g. 2/2 UD carriageway width 6.5 m
7.5 m) with the following linear speed flow model which would have R2 > 0.6 (Figure
27) and there was no apparent knee in the relationship. Similar linear relationships were
16
obtained for each vehicle type, with the lines converging at a speed of 35 km/h 40 km/h at a
flow level of 2,900 lvu/h. In this sense, it is difficult to have an ideal relationship between
flow and speed which follow the relationship as in the fundamental diagram of traffic flow.
Figure 27. Speed Flow Relationship for Light Vehicles Undivided Roads (cw = 7 m), Flat
Terrain (BANG et al., 1995)
2.4.2 Typical Urban Road Capacity Measurement under Mixed Traffic Flow
Due to difficulties in finding a typical apparent knee concerning the relationship between
speed flow, especially in a mixed traffic condition which results in difficulties in defining
the typical/ real capacity of a road. Therefore, there was the necessity to make different ways
of measurement. Under mixed traffic conditions, some experiments in capacity have been
done, e.g. for 2/2 UD straight 7 m wide road with no side friction and shoulders > 1 m and
the capacity was estimated in different ways :
1. Direct observation of speed and flow rate average per 5minutes. But only a few
observations can be made due to lack of road sections with maximum flow that could be
clearly identified as representing the capacity of the road section itself. The highest value
ranges from 2,800 lvu/h to 3,000 lvu/h, see Figure 27.
2. Observation of flow rates during short periods of simultaneous bunching conditions in
both directions (headways < 5 sec). The capacity was found to be ranging from 2,800
lvu/h to 3,100 lvu/h.
3. Theoretical estimation from speed flow density modeling that showing capacity of
around 3,000 lvu/h occurring at a density of 81 lvu/km.
17
(24)
where
C
C0
FCW
FCKS
FCSP
FCSF
FCCS
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Capacity
Base capacity
Adjustment factor for carriageway width
Adjustment factor for kerb and shoulders
Adjustment factor for directional split or median
Adjustment factor for side friction
Adjustment factor for city size
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
The base capacity of each type of road are presented at Table 25.
Type of Road
Four lanes one way
Four lanes undivided
Two lanes undivided
Traffic conflicts must be considered to assess the quality of traffic flow at an uncontrolled
intersection. In practice, this assessment is made to suggest appropriate traffic control
measures at an intersection. Furthermore, the exact consideration of the degrees of priority of
different traffic streams at an intersection is still an unsolved problem. A study of the
interactions between crossing vehicles is important in evaluating traffic quality at
intersections.
Studies have been undertaken to observe a comprehensive highway capacity study and
guideline for Indonesia (BANG et al., 1997) and China (BANG et al., 2000). Data were
collected from several road links to obtain passenger car equivalents, free flow speed, speed
flow density relationship, cross section characteristics, road class, side friction and terrain
19
type. It was found that traffic flow, split between major and minor road traffic, level of side
friction and road width were the main variables influencing traffic performance. The total
actual capacity for all arms of the intersection is calculated as the product between a base
capacity under ideal conditions and a number of adjustment factors which gave impact on
capacity. Assessment to the capacity measurement under mixed traffic flow is proposed under
Geometric conditions; intersection entry widths, intersection types and major road
median
Environmental conditions; road environmental type (commercial, residential and
restricted access), side friction (consider : pedestrian, stopping vehicles, slow
moving vehicles and entrance/exit vehicles) and city size class (represent driver
behavior and vehicles populations)
Traffic conditions; leftturn, rightturn and split at minor road.
So far, the Indonesian manual has been used for planning and design purpose. Instead of that,
there are also some standards to which must be referred while no details of explanation were
found in the manual, e.g. the standard design of unsignalized intersections. The standard of
geometric design for intersections is based on the manual of Standar Perencanaan
Geometrik untuk Jalan Perkotaan, (Geometric Design Standard for Urban Roads)
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF BINA MARGA (1992) and Produk Standar untuk Jalan
Perkotaan (Standard Product for Urban Roads), Directorate General of Bina Marga (1987).
Early experiments took place at two way twolane undivided intersections/UD (nomedian)
streets with a total effective width of 5 m 6 m for both lanes and each way has an
appropriate kerb/berm and sidewalks with effective width of 0.5 m 1.0 m in urban areas.
Intersections are located in urban areas with high side friction value. All streams are
considered to be equal in hierarchy of departure priority which means that no such signs of
stop and giveway.
Parameters which are taken into consideration are i.e., type of road, widths, available
shoulders, kerbs and medians with various widths. The existence of kerbs and berms at side
roads will give an opportunity to walk and ride along the edge of roads for pedestrians,
cyclists, stopping terms for public transport and other activities. All of these activities are
called side friction which cause decreasing capacity and freeflow speed, but due to small
number of freeflow speed at urban roads, therefore, impact of road alignment can be
neglected. The following Figure 28 performed geometric standards for road sections in
Indonesia (IHCM, 1997).
20
The manual explains that the geometric design has a great impact on the level of road safety
as can be estimated as :
Improvement of road widths can reduced the number of accidents between 2%
15% per meter road width.
Little traffic safety can be increased as improvement and wider road berm are
increased.
10% 30% of road accidents can be decreased if medians are built.
The number of accidents was estimated for each type of cross section and intersection
correspond to the number of vehicles entrance and it was presented below (Table 26).
However, further studies will not analyze any relationship between traffic flow performance
(flow, speed and number of conflicts) and safety (accident and fatalities), because in most of
the cases, many accidents were not recorded well by the authorities (e.g. police).
21
Cross Section/Type of
Intersections
2/2 UD, CW = 5 m
2/2 UD, CW = 6 m
2/2 UD, CW = 7 m
2/2 UD, CW = 10 m
4/2 D
4/2 D
Freeway UD
Freeway D
Unsignalized intersections
Signalized intersections
Roundabouts
2.33
2.05
1.80
1.50
1.00
0.60
0.44
0.33
0.60
0.43
0.30
Remarks
Table 26. Estimation for Number of Accidents in Indonesia Based on Type of Road Section
and Type of Intersections (IHCM, 1997)
Type of intersections incorporated with the number of legs and lanes at minor and major
roads. Actual (current) measurement of geometric design could necessarily be made to find
the real width of approaches while it is important to adjust the number of lanes of approach
and based on its type correspond to the analysis requirement from the manual. The basic
capacity can be adjusted based on intersection categories (number of lanes at each leg). The
following Table 27 identifies the type of intersections.
Type of
Intersection
322
324
342
344
422
424
444
Number of Lanes
at Minor Road
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
Number of Legs
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Number of Lanes
at Major Road
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
The adjustment factor for the number of lanes based on the average width approach can be
seen in Table 28 below. Investigation on each approach of intersections have been conducted
to have the real widths in order to adjust the number of lanes of each leg of intersections
related to the capacity analysis based on the Indonesian manual.
22
Number of Lanes
2
4
2
4
Table 28. Number of Lanes Based on Average Width Approach (IHCM, 1997)
Instead of that, it was also proved that presence of median (at the certain width) at twolane
twoway roads would have a very significant impact on the typical mixed traffic, e.g. improve
flow, capacity and safety and most of the cases, medians were installed at major roads due to
higher level of flow. This will be discussed further. The following Figure 29 shows a
different view of calculation for the average width of intersection entry. From the observation/
field investigation it is found that the intersections have a large difference in widths of legs
between one and another, therefore, in order to apply the model of capacity from the
Indonesian manual, there must be an appropriate factor to be adjusted representing varying
width of approach. Investigation at fourteen (14) intersections have also found that most of
the intersections did not meet any design standards (e.g. widths, radii). Inconsistency in
design will not be taken into account for further analysis based on developed models of
capacity analysis.
Figure 29. Number of Lanes Based on Road Entry Width, W (IHCM, 1997)
Based on average intersection entry widths, WE and type of intersections, the adjustment
factors, FW can be calculated by a linear model as shown in the following Table 29,
Type of Intersection
422
424 or 444
322
324 or 344
342
Form
FW = 0.70 + 0.0866 WE
FW = 0.61 + 0.0740 WE
FW = 0.73 + 0.0760 WE
FW = 0.62 + 0.0646 WE
FW = 0.67 + 0.0698 WE
For a simplification, a following graph (Figure 210) was created by the manual (IHCM,
1997) in order to calculate the value of adjustment factor, FW.
One of the important facilities on roads and intersections is the road median which, under the
mixed traffic flow and rule of priority, does not exist at all. This facility would have a very
significant impact on traffic flow performance. An impact of medians on major roads is that
the vehicles have an opportunity to wait at the conflict area in order to pass through,
especially a wider median and a constructed median (paved) would give a very clear
information of two different stream directions (especially when lane discipline no longer
exists). Therefore, if there is no median on major roads then the factor will be 1.00. Medians
with width < 3 m will have a factor of 1.05 and median with 3 m 1.20. Those were
performed at Table 210 as follows
Remarks
Type of Median
Adjustment Factor of
Median, FM
none
1.00
narrow
1.05
wide
1.20
Table 210. Adjustment Factor for Median at Major Road, FM (IHCM, 1997)
24
(25)
(26)
[]
[]
[%]
[%]
For a simplification, the following graphs at Figure 211 and Figure 212 are presented.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, 2000) states that the capacity of a twolane road is
nearly independent of the directional split of traffic, however, a study from CHANDRA &
SINHA (2001) on twolane roads in India shows that capacity reduces as the split moves
away from 50/50 and the capacity of such road under mixed traffic condition is a function of
the split of traffic in two directions. BANG et al. (1995) developed speedflow relationships
and simulation model for twolane roads in Indonesia. They found that under ideal conditions
free speed is considerably lower in Indonesia than in developed countries.
On intersection under mixed traffic flow would be more complicated several streams consist.
In such a case, split of traffic flow was defined as flow at minor road. This value depends on
such number of portion of vehicles, MI (= 0.01 SP%) which pass through at minor road at the
certain time period. SP% is defined as percentage of portion split, MI (portion number of
vehicles at minor road). Empirical data measurements were graphically drawn in Figure 213.
26
City Size
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
Inhabitant (million)
< 0.1
0.1 0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 3.0
> 3.0
Table 211. Adjustment Factor for City Size, FCS (IHCM, 1997)
27
Another typical characteristic on the roads and intersections in developing countries, e.g.
Indonesia, is the peoples activities along the edge of the road or even at the lane of the roads.
Activities along the road are very common in Indonesia which result in more conflict (side
friction) and influence the flow. Side frictions could impact on capacity and road traffic
performance and activities that have been taken into consideration are
pedestrians;
public transport and stopping vehicles;
slowmoving vehicles (e.g. rickshaw, pushcart, etc.);
entrance and exit vehicles from along the edge of roads
CHANDRA & SINHA (2001) and CHANDRA & KUMAR (2003) stated that the capacity on
twolane roads was influenced by directional split of traffic. The capacity reduces as split
moves away from 50/50. The capacity of a twolane road also increases with total width of
the carriageway. IHCM (1997) determined the capacity of a road segment based on basic
capacity with various adjustment factors such as carriageway width, kerb and shoulders,
median and directional split, side friction and city size. In such a case, it is very difficult to
measure the capacity due to poor lane discipline which exists including a tendency to cut
corners while drivers making rightturn which results in a blockage of other traffic
movements. Studies of the drivers behavior in China showed that only 40% of the vehicles
that had a choice between gapping and pushing actually waited for a gap in the major
road flow, i.e., gap acceptance models could not be used to predict intersection performance
for unsignalized intersections.
28
(27)
where
QEF
A or QA
p
p=
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[]
(28)
where
QTOT
[pcu/h]
LT
RT
MI
ALT, BLT, CLT, DLT
ART, BRT, CRT, DRT
QEF
QLV, QHV, QMC, QUM
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
[]
[]
[]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
(29)
where
QV
QLV
QHV
QMC
QUM
=
=
=
=
=
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
Base capacity, C0 is defined as capacity under ideal traffic conditions with no impact of such
side frictions, leftturn traffic, rightturn traffic and unmotorized. The value of this capacity
solely depends on the types of intersections (Table 212).
Type of Intersections
322
342
324 or 344
422
424 or 444
(210)
where
C
C0
FW
FM
FCS
FRSU
FLT
FRT
FMI
=
=
=
=
=
=
Capacity
Base capacity
Adjustment factor for width of approach
Adjustment factor for median at major road
Adjustment factor for city size
Adjustment factor for type of environment, side friction and
unmotorized
= Adjustment factor for leftturn
= Adjustment factor for rightturn
= Adjustment factor for ratio of traffic at minor road
30
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Since there are no clear definitions of major and minor roads and the model is not based on
gap behavior, the current model can only measure the capacity of intersections (all legs) as
the total capacity of intersections while the capacity of each stream at the intersection could
not be measured.
2.5
Conclusions
The Indonesian traffic flow situation has a typical mixed traffic flow which is consisting of
various types of vehicles travelling at the same lane of a road. More than 13 classes of
vehicles which can be defined as fastmoving vehicles and slowmoving vehicles, which
have a large difference in static and dynamic characteristics exist. Instead of that, lack of lane
discipline could also promote a great impact on capacity and performance of traffic on roads
and intersections. Such drivers behaviors, e.g. no gap acceptance behavior and no lane
discipline, would indicate that models from developed countries would not be suitable for
Indonesia.
Therefore, a method of capacity analysis has been created in the Indonesian manual and it has
been used for planning and design purposes. So far, the manual could be implemented for
unsignalized intersections in condition that the rule of priority and gap acceptance do not
exist. The method used an empirical approach by the analysis of a large amount of data from
intersections at several cities in Indonesia which took three years of observations. From the
manual, the real capacity of unsignalized intersections was calculated by using a basic
capacity value adopted from an ideal traffic condition and several (adjustment) factors as an
impact from geometric design, traffic composition, and environment of intersections.
However, the method has not given any information on how the streams interacted with each
other. Interactions between streams corresponding to the speed and flow were not clearly
described. This method has calculated the capacity as the total capacity of intersections based
on all traffic streams. That means, it could not be determined how large the traffic flow from
each stream has contributed to the capacity and it is difficult to find an ideal condition of
unsignalized intersections in order to adopt the basic capacity because each city in Indonesia
has its own traffic and environmental characteristics. Therefore, all adjustment factors related
to the geometric design, traffic flow, and intersection environment have to be considered and
checked further in order to receive results suitable for the intersections observed.
31
3.1
Introduction
Another common type of intersection has the rule prioritytotheright over another. This
type of intersection does not have a sitespecific priority control and it does exist in Great
Britain and some developing countries, namely in relatively dense areas and residential areas
or when roadworks are carried out. Many countries have adopted the basic priority rules to
apply specifically to this kind of intersection. Although they are very different in some
aspects, they evolved from a basic principle of the type; a driver should give way to a vehicle
approaching the intersection from his right (also called nearside priority rule in countries
where vehicles use the right side of the road and offside priority rule in countries using the
left side). It has been noted, however, that frequently drivers understanding of the rule is poor
and, perhaps because of that, in some cases the intersections seem not to be working correctly
from the priority rule point of view.
(FIFO) intersections are used in most of the developing countries. Studies concerning AWSC
and FIFO are very limited and some studies have been conducted with regard to the general
analytical procedures for AWSC. However, it is not possible for it to handle more varied
conditions in the real world. Because the departure priority is similar for both types of
intersection, AWSC and FIFO intersections can be treated in the same manner.
Capacities under mixed traffic/heterogeneous flow are different from those of homogeneous
traffic flow. Since there are no traffic signs or traffic signs exist (priority junctions) but due to
lack of traffic discipline, the drivers tend not to follow the rules of the priority. With those
current points of view the available procedures to handle a systematic and realistic analysis
of the traffic process is very important. Therefore, since there are neither available signs at
intersections nor common rules (give way and traffic behavior model based on gap
acceptance) the traffic mechanism at FirstInFirstOut intersections might not be followed.
3.2
One of the concerns of investigators studying uncontrolled intersections has always been the
development of a hierarchy of priority regulations together with a comprehensive set of rules
which ought to enable the determination of the most adequate solution for each intersection
depending on its geometry and traffic characteristics. Many countries in the world have a
basic near/offside priority rule which applies to all intersections where no priority signs or
markings are shown. It has been noted, however, that frequently drivers understanding of the
rule is poor and, perhaps because of that, in some cases the intersections seem not to be
working correctly from the priority rules point of view.
Three areas of research were identified as important : study of drivers approaching patterns;
description of drivers interactions and decisions when trying to enter an intersection working
under the prioritytotheright rule and evaluation of the performance of the priority rule
both in relation to its ability to regulate light traffic conditions and in relation to safety. It was
thought that the detailed study of drivers behavior during their approach to intersections
could be very helpful as a complement to the studies directed to the evaluation of the priority
rule performance: the analysis of the regulation ability by the priority rule is very much
concentrated on the drivers action at the entrance to and inside the intersection, with any
events happening before being ignored, the safety evaluation is based on the integrated
quantification of a number of subjective parameters which, although enabling the
identification and classification of dangerous situations, does not allow any attempt to relate
the occurrence of those events to the different driving styles during the approach to the
intersections and in the application of the priority regulations.
A typical threeleg unsignalized intersection under near/offside priority rule with six types
of movements (streams) is performed in Figure 31. Three streams (EN, NW and WE) have
33
priority in any circumstance and can be considered to be firstlevel priority movements. Each
of the other three movements has priority over one of the remaining two (NE over EW, WN
over NE, EW over WN) and has to give way to the other as well as to one conflicting first
level priority movement. These three movements can be considered to be secondlevel
priority movements. However, it is important to record that the EW movement is of the type
where incorrect behavior based on natural expectancies was identified in previous studies.
He found that lower percentages of accepted lags did occur when the previous departure was
of type EW or NE and happened less than 4 seconds before the WN vehicle arrival. The
higher percentages corresponded almost always to the situations when the previous movement
also was of type WN and happened less than 4 seconds before the WN conflicting vehicle
arrived. It can be concluded that in case of conflicting streams EW, NE and WN where a
34
stream is superior over another lags in a range of 3.0 seconds 6.0 seconds would be
produced. However, such analysis requires a condition of traffic that follows a wellknown
prioritytotheright rule which does not exist in most of the developing countries.
KOCKELKE (1991) has investigated some intersections in Germany regulated by the rule
prioritytothe right (RechtsvorLinks Prinzip) (Figure 32). This type of intersection
would have the same behavior compared with near/offside priority as has been previously
explained, but he has made investigations in advance corresponding to the typical speed
behavior at the intersection. KOCKELKE & STEINBRECHER (1983) conducted an
experiment at intersections under the prioritytotheright rule (rechtsvorlinks) which
relates to the quality measurement. The quality of an intersection was performed by lost
time [additional (lost) time] while vehicles travel through the intersection. Within the
slowing phase (decreasing speed) of a vehicle, the experiment has a distance s 90 m
and s 40 m and would take additional (lost) time 1.8 seconds and 0.8 seconds. Results
showed that the average decreasing speed is about v 18 km/h (see Figure 33). The studies
have given an indication of existence of speed reductions of vehicles while travelling through
conflict areas of intersections and they decelerated the speed instead of totally stopping. As
can be seen in Figure 33, vehicles travelling from major road A straight to road D would
have an average speed at the conflict area of about 27 km/h.
Figure 32. Typical Speed Pattern at priority to the right Intersections (KOCKELKE,
1991)
35
Figure 33. Typical Speed Profile with Priority to the Right Rule (KOCKELKE,
STEINBRECHER, 1983)
3.3
q1, C1, x1
q1, C1, x1
q1, C1, x1
q1, C1, x1
Figure 34. Scheme of Traffic Flow Blocking at Priority to the Right Intersection
(Wu, 2003)
36
Ci = (1 xi +1 ) C0,i
(31)
with
Ci
= Capacity of stream i
C0,i
tf,i
tg,i
i
qi
=
=
=
=
=
xi+1
3600
q
1 i +1 e
3600
t f ,i
[veh/h]
t f ,i
q
i +1 t g ,i
3600
2
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[sec]
[sec]
[sec]
[veh/h]
[]
In Equation 31 we can see that the capacity of stream i, Ci is a function from Ci+1 and Ci+1 is
a function from Ci+2 and so on. If we consider that i = 1 to N, therefore, an example for
N = 3 we find
C1 = (1 x2 ) C0,1
q2
= 1
C0,1
q3
1
C0 , 2
q4
1 C C0,3
From the equation, it is requested to have an appropriate gap and followup time of each
stream at the intersection which is almost not possible to measure it at the intersection under
mixed traffic flow, therefore, this approach might not be applied to such condition,
appropriately.
3.4
The theory of gap acceptance is a commonly used to predict the capacity, in which the
vehicles of a nonpriority stream are assumed to move into naturally occurring gaps in the
appropriate priority stream. However, although gapacceptance theory describes an important
aspect of vehicle interactions, there are several difficulties when it is used for practical
37
estimations of capacity (KIMBER, COOMBE, 1980). The time gaps are not easy to measure
and the capacity calculations are sensitive to the values used. The rules governing the
interactions of more than two streams are not very clear.
Major/minor priority is the most common form of intersection control. Mostly, it is
appropriately used at intersections where it is desirable to give priority to one route, usually
that is carrying the greater traffic volume. The vehicle vehicle interactions that determine
the capacities are complex and in most cases it is straightforward to determine the
relationships between the stream capacities and the factors affecting them empirically to
deal directly with the traffic flows themselves. Linear function was developed between stream
capacity and controlling major road flows,
C = C0 i qi
(32)
where
C
i
C0
qi
= Stream capacity
= Degree of traffic interaction between stream i and controlled stream
= Saturation flow the value the capacity would take if all major road
flows were zero
= Major road flows
[pcu/h]
[]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
The essential structure for determining each of the coefficients as functions of the intersection
geometry was analyzed in two parts. The first is to determine which major road flows affect a
given controlled stream and second is to develop the geometric relationships specifying the
coefficients of those. The flows and notation of major/minor priority is shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35 .Flows and Notation of Major/Minor Priority Intersection (KIMBER et al., 1980)
38
Effects of traffic composition on the stream capacities from two sources variations of
composition in the controlling major road flows and in the minor road streams and the
decision which major road flows are relevant to the determination of a given minor road
stream were investigated by using the equation which includes all four major road flows with
different portions of types of vehicles (light and heavy vehicles) with a form of equation
(33)
where
=
=
=
=
=
=
Cmi
qLV and qHV
qAC(LV), qAC (HV)
1, 2, 1', 2' , ...
p
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[]
[]
Concerning the major/minor priority rule not each stream would have the same opportunity
while travelling cross the intersection. Therefore, further investigation on vehicles
interactions between streams should be taken into account. The effects of the major road
streams were assessed from the values of the regression coefficients 1, 2, 1', 2', 1'', 2'',....
In general, all major road flows have an effect on the minor road rightturning and left
turning stream capacity, interactions between streams can be formed as
leftturning capacity,
CB C = C0 ,B C 1q A C 2 q A B
(34)
CB A = C0 ,B A 1 q A C 2 q A B 3 qC A 4 qC B
(35)
rightturning capacity,
Corresponding to other streams (minor and major), interactions between the rightturning
major road flow controls qBA and is controlled by qAC and qAB (give away) and follow
the form of
CC B = C0 ,C B 1 q A C 2 q A B
(36)
A straightthrough major road stream, CCA at some of geometric layouts could be blocked
when a queue exists by rightturning vehicles, qCB. If arrivals and departures are random for
39
rightturns vehicles, the probability of a queue can be simply presented by qCB / CCB,
therefore, the straightthrough capacity, CCA is given by
q
CC A = C0 ,C A 1 C B
CC B
(37)
where
CBC
=
CBA
=
CCB
=
CCA
=
C0,BC
=
C0,BA
=
C0,CB
=
C0,CA
=
1 , 2 , 1 ', 2 ',
1'', 2'',....
=
qAC
=
qAB
=
qCA
=
qCB
=
3.5
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
The following procedure (conflict technique) would have the ability to count the total
intersection capacity considering (a) the number of lanes at the approaches, (b) the
distribution of traffic flow rates, (c) the number of pedestrians at the approaches, (d) the flared
area at the approaches, and (e) the interaction between the different streams. By using this
40
method, capacity was calculated corresponding to the interactions between streams which
thought to be more realistic for such rule of equal hierarchy of departure streams.
Since all streams at AWSC/FIFO intersections are considered to be equal in the hierarchy of
the priority of departure, the vehicles of different streams must enter the intersection
alternatively, see Figure 36.
2
2
3
3
Figure 36. Three Streams in A Departure Sequence (WU, 1999)
The vehicles in different streams have to pass the same conflict area alternatively one after
another. Every vehicle of the stream i occupies the conflict area by exact tB,i seconds. In the
case of only two streams this corresponds to the rule of zipping. That means all streams must
have the same capacity in a departure sequence if all traffic flows Qi exceed their capacities Ci
(total overload) (WU, 1999). That is, the capacities of all streams in one departure sequence
have under overload condition the same value of
Ci = C =
3600
for Qi C
t B ,i
(38)
where
Ci
Qi
tB,i
= Capacity of stream i
= Flow of stream i
= Headways departure of stream i
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[sec]
The capacity C is equal to the number of the seconds within an hour divided by the sum of the
average departure headways of all involved streams, tB,i.
A further investigation found that intersections with more than 12 streams flow would be
more complex, therefore, the model should be advanced for several departure vehicles. The
41
model has performed that the capacity of a stream in several departure sequences is the least
capacity that this stream obtains in all of the departure sequences,
(39)
2
B
B
2
A
1
1
3
And at intersections of two twolane streets, there is only one traffic lane in each of the
approaches. It is assumed that each turning movement has its own traffic lane at the
intersection. The sharelane situation is computed later using the well known sharelane
formula from HARDERS (1968).
The streams are incompatible with each other and they can only enter the intersection
alternatively. A stream at AWSC/FIFO intersections is always involved in several departure
sequences. The smallest capacity, which a stream can achieve from these departure sequences,
is the decisive capacity. It is hereby assumed that vehicles of two streams, which are
compatible with each other, can enter the intersection simultaneously.
3600 ( Q .t B ) j
j =1 , j i
C i = max 3600 ( t B ) i
n (t )
B j
j =1
n
(310)
where
Ci
tB
i
j
=
=
=
=
[veh/h]
[sec]
[]
[]
3.6
Conclusions
However, capacity analysis based on such a rule of priority sounds to have a departure and
arrival pattern because vehicles enter one after another, therefore, those methods are also
found very difficult to be applied properly under such a mixed traffic flow. Methods of
capacity analysis based on such rules (priority and departure and arrival pattern) should
possess a kind of a drivers discipline. The drivers have to really understand the rule and
should obey it, otherwise, the method could not be implemented well. Lack of driving
discipline and poor understanding of such a rule would cause the intersections to work
correctly from the priority rules point of view. Typical traffic behavior in developing
countries is the lack of discipline, vehicles stop/wait less than 2 seconds and every vehicle
from streams has the tendency to cut corners while making right turns, therefore, again, the
methods used in priority rule could not be implemented in developing countries appropriately.
43
4.1
Introduction
In order to find representative data base which gives an overview of the real situation of
mixed traffic flow and unsignalized intersections where rules of priority do not exist,
investigations have been undertaken in two cities, Pontianak (West Kalimantan) and
Yogyakarta (West Java) in Indonesia. Both cities would have typical mixed traffic flow which
contents various types of vehicles, motorized and unmotorized vehicles. The cities are located
on different islands, but people and traffic flow represented the same behavior. However,
most of the intersections were observed in the city of Pontianak. Different to many developed
countries traffic travels on the left.
Like other cities in Indonesia, Pontianak is a developing city but it is located on the largest
island. Most of the people work in the office and business, because the area is not good
enough for people to cultivate their land and there are only two seasons, dry and rainy
seasons. People tend to travel with their own vehicles (private) due to a lack of suitable public
transport, and also due to a lack of suitable road infrastructures. Most people chose economic
(low cost) and efficient vehicle, e.g. motorcycles, because they feel that this type of vehicles
are cheaper than others and very suitable to operate them at the narrow streets which are
predominant in the city. Therefore, motorcycle ownership has increased each year and the
percentage of motorcycles is higher than of other types of vehicles.
4.2
Investigations at fourteen intersections which all consist of various width of lanes have been
undertaken. However, not all the intersections have been measured and analyzed. Ten
unsignalized threeleg intersections have been investigated with various average widths as
can be seen in Table 41. These intersections have been investigated and counted further.
They are located in the city of Pontianak, West Kalimantan and secondary data was collected
from Yogyakarta, Java. Those places have been chosen because they have a highly varied
mode of transport, e.g. motorized and unmotorized which is very important for further
analysis.
The city of Pontianak is one of the developing cities in Indonesia. Its distance is not more than
1000 miles away from Jakarta with a number of residents of about 2 millions. Data from
1998 show that there are 16,825 km of primary arterial roads, 35,075 km of secondary arterial
roads, 7,250 km of primary collector roads and 39,149 km of secondary local roads. Based
on investigation, each road has large different width even at the main road (e.g. approach A
differs from approach C at the intersection). Typical geometric performance/layout can be
seen in Figure 419. The location of all intersections is shown in Figure 41. In addition to 10
44
threeleg intersections, four others were also investigated but are not included in the analysis
due to the small number of vehicles.
WEST KALIMANTAN
INDONESIA
1
2 7
6
4
10
Threeleg intersections have been investigated which have typical layouts that approach
A and C as the major road and approach B as the minor road. Referring to Figure 419 each
approach would have large different widths. However, in further analysis, it does not matter
where the major and the minor road are placed, because advanced methods would only use a
number of vehicles (flows) without considering the geometric design. Of course, in the
Indonesian Manual it is indicated that each type of road would be given an adjustment factor.
45
Therefore, this criterion is an important parameter if we use the manual. Details of geometric
design/effective width of each approach can be seen in Table 42. Widths of each approach
were measured based on the original pictures designed by the authority and they were also
measured manually on the field.
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Roads
Hasanuddin Komodor Yos Sudarso Pak Kasih
K. H. Wahid Hasyim Hasanuddin
Komodor Yos Sudarso Tebu
Tanjung Raya Panglima Aim
Sultan Abdurrahman Putri Candramidi
Alianyang K. H. Wahid Hasyim K. H. Ahmad Dahlan
Hasanuddin Merdeka
R. E. Martadinata Tabrani Ahmad
Dr. Wahidin Husein Hamzah
W. R. Supratman R. Suprapto
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Approach B
10.7
19.5
6.5
5.0
6.5
8.8
9.0
5.8
7.5
9.0
Approach C
9.0
10.6
8.0
6.2
10.0
12.4
9.2
5.0
7.2
9.4
It has been explained in section 3 that effective lanes width of roads are determined based on
the manual. They have a range between 2lanes and 4lanes as can be seen in Figure 29. The
data has been presented in Table 43. The number of lanes of each approach have various
differences one and another, sometimes a minor road would have wider lanes than a major
road. The type of intersections is determined based on the number of lanes as indicated in the
manual, see Table 27 and Table 44. Each of the investigated intersections has been defined
as can be seen in Table 42 and Table 43.
46
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Approach A
Approach B
Approach C
Width [m]
No. Lane
Width [m]
No. Lane
Width [m]
No. Lane
16.4
10.6
9.6
7.4
10.0
11.8
9.2
6.7
7.2
7.3
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
10.7
19.5
6.5
5.0
6.5
8.8
9.0
5.8
7.5
9.0
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9.0
10.6
8.0
6.2
10.0
12.4
9.2
5.0
7.2
9.4
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
Intersection
Type of Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
324
342
322
322
322
324
322
322
322
322
4.3
In order to have detailed information of the traffic flow, we have used two cameras and we
have chosen the intersections whose geometric design was classified as medium category.
Ordinary two camcorders with specification of DCRTRV 270E PAL and two hours duration
cassette model Hi8 are used to monitor each intersection. Additionally, a 3.5 meter high
support is positioned at the edge of road nearly at the intersection corner. A total height of 3.5
meters is enough to cover the essential points and have a very good view of the intersection,
see Figure 42. Those cameras are placed at the edge of the roads or intersections with a good
view for monitoring the traffic movement (Figure 43).
47
3.5 m
4.4
The Indonesian Highway Administration distinguishes between 13 classes of vehicle for its
routine classified counts. The study from BANG et al. (1995) has been carried out with the
following seven vehicle classes and the criteria for vehicles were distinguished as in Table 45. In this study, the type of vehicles is given in five main classes (LT, MHV, LV, MC, UM)
while each main class could consist of several other vehicles. Furthermore, those main classes
are considered based on the speed performance corresponding to the static (width and lengths)
and dynamic (speed) characteristics. Vehicle types were grouped as LT (Light Trucks), MHV
(Medium Heavy Vehicles), LV (Light Vehicles), MC (Motorcycle) and UM (Un
Motorized) see Table 46. This grouping is mainly based on the dynamic characteristics of
each type of vehicle, e.g. speed, which one performed slightly different with another.
48
Types of Vehicle
Classes
Passenger cars
Jeeps
Minibuses
Pickups
Microtrucks
Truck twoaxle with double wheels on the
rear axle
Buses shorter than 8 m
Truck threeaxle
Truck plus trailer
Articulated vehicle
Buses longer than 8 m
Motorcycles
Tricycles
Bicycles
LV (Light Vehicle)
Type of Vehicle
Classes
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Bus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
LT
MHV
LV
MC
UM
49
The type of unmotorized vehicles from the field investigation which consists of five different
vehicles and they would have large different in dynamic characteristic (speed) and also
different purposes, see Figure 44 to Figure 47. Therefore, it is necessary to make another
classification for them for further analysis. Classification for unmotorized vehicles might
change and is more complicated than what has been made previously, e.g. UM is
differentiated by UM1 (bicycle), UM2 (rickshaw/pedicab), UM3 (tricycles), UM4 (pushcart). It
was also justified that category Medium Heavy Vehicle (MHV) was divided into MHV1 (truck
2axle) and MHV2 (Minibus). All categories are defined as shown in Table 47.
Vehicles
Category
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw/becak/pedicab
Tricycles
Pushcart
LT
MHV1
MHV2
LV
MC
UM1
UM2
UM3
UM4
In order to look at the detailed behavior of traffic movement with regard to the total flow of
every stream at the intersection, investigation and measurement are made within 1minute
and 5minute intervals for traffic flow and speed of the intersection. In addition, flows of
every types of vehicle from every stream were also measured. Each of the stream flows is
measured based on each direction of flow [C A (1), C B (2), B C (3), B A (4), A
C (5), A B (6)] as can be seen in Figure 419.
50
Since there are no actual passenger car units (PCUs) of every type of vehicle in the actual
situation of the intersection, the traffic flow measurements are based on a number of vehicles
within a certain time, e.g. veh/1minute or veh/5minutes. In this study, the traffic flows were
analyzed within actual 2 (two) hours (120 minutes). However, a further analysis has shown
that the flow remains stable. Therefore, only 1 (one) hour data is used for analysis and there
would be 60time group (1minute) and 12time group (5minutes).
Investigations and measurements have been conducted at 10 (ten) threeleg intersections with
various numbers of types of vehicles and large differences in composition as can be seen in
Table 48 to Table 411 below. In general, each of the intersections has almost performed the
same proportion of vehicles where motorcycles would have the highest portion compared to
others. It was requested to have a bigger portion than 1.0% for each type of vehicle in order
to use it for the further analysis (e.g. regression).
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
2
1
75
2
544
4129
136
36
4
1
4928
3
N.A
48
21
357
4262
199
10
2
3
4902
4
N.A
29
1
240
3285
161
1
3
4
3724
5
N.A
44
17
876
6084
196
19
3
1
7240
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
6
1
39
6
789
4186
113
36
2
7
N.A
38
10
384
3030
212
59
N.A
8
N.A
10
7
157
2056
112
13
1
9
N.A
20
2
142
2107
168
12
1
10
N.A
13
N.A
547
1525
64
3
4
Pushcart (2wheels)
5173
3734
2358
2453
2158
51
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
2
0.0
1.5
0.0
11.0
83.8
2.8
0.7
0.1
0.0
3
N.A
1.0
0.4
7.3
86.9
4.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
4
N.A
0.8
0.0
6.4
88.2
4.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
Pushcart (2wheels)
Table 410. Traffic Composition of Intersection1 to Intersection5 [%]
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
7
N.A
1.0
0.3
10.3
81.1
5.7
1.6
N.A
0.0
8
N.A
0.4
0.3
6.7
87.2
4.7
0.6
0.0
0.1
9
N.A
0.8
0.1
5.8
85.9
6.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
Pushcart (2wheels)
Table 411. Traffic Composition of Intersection6 to Intersection10 [%]
4.5
5
N.A
0.6
0.2
12.1
84.0
2.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
10
N.A
0.6
N.A
25.3
70.7
3.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
The traffic flow on any given section of road is composed of vehicles of different types,
which have all different roadspace requirements due to their respective size and performance
characteristics. In order to allow this in highway capacity measurements, traffic volumes are
expressed in passenger car units (PCUs) which represent the equivalent traffic impedance
values of various types of vehicle as compared with a value of unity for the passenger car.
This study defined passenger car units as a function of static and dynamic performance of
each type of vehicle from each stream which is considered to be more realistic. There are two
basic principles which should be applied to the estimation of PCUs values for any of the
roadway types identified in capacity analysis procedure :
The first principle links the concept of passenger car equivalency to the level of
service (LOS) concept.
The second principle emphasizes the consideration of all factors that contribute to
the overall effect of trucks on traffic stream performance.
Standard values for passenger car units which vary according to the type of the road or the
location are used in European countries and the United States. Previously, the standard from
52
the United Kingdom (U.K.) was thought to be more applicable, especially for Jakarta. There
has been similarity of vehicle sizes and road networks between Jakarta and cities in England.
However, there are many additional and different types of vehicles operating on the road in
Indonesia (e.g. Jakarta), for example various types of public transport, e.g. bajaj with tricycles
and becak/pedicab. Slowmoving vehicles such as the bajaj and becak have created
considerable disruption where there is insufficient road space to permit overtaking. Minibuses
which stop frequently and randomly have similar effects. Therefore, it is necessary to expand
the limited method for PCUs factors from developed countries.
N HV /(1HV )
N pc /(observed passenger cars / h)
(41)
where
pc
HV
Npc
NHV
=
=
=
=
Passenger car or LV
HV class, B for buses, and T for trucks
Number of overtakings for LVs overtook LVs
Number of overtakings for LVs overtook one HV
[]
[]
[veh]
[veh]
HUBER (1982) derived a framework for estimating PCE values for level terrain based on the
fact that a truck occupies more space than a single passenger car and therefore reduces
capacity. For any given LOS with proportion of trucks, p and proportion of cars, (1 p), it is
possible to calculate the corresponding flow rates qb and qm. Solving for PCE, the results are
1 q
PCE = b 1 + 1
p q m
(42)
where
with
qb
qm
qi =
[cars/h]
[veh/h]
(3.600)
(43)
hi
where
q
= Flow rate of vehicles per hour for either a basic stream (i=b) or
an equivalent mixed stream (i = m)
hi
= Mean time headway in seconds at flow rate qi
53
[veh/h]
[sec]
PCE = (1 / p ) m 1 + 1
hb
(44)
MORALES (1989) has shown that PCE for nonstandard vehicles PCEi at intersection
approaches can be approximated as follows
PCEi =
or
PCEi =
[Z(mix) 1] + 1
(45)
S f (c) S f (mix)
(46)
Pf (i)
Pf (i) S f (mix)
with
Z(mix) =
Sf (c)
Sf (mix)
S f (c)
S f (mix)
= saturation flow for infinite sized platoon with standard
vehicles only
[cars/h]
= saturation flow for infinite sized platoon with a mixed stream [veh/h]
hs(i)
hs(c)
(47)
[sec]
[sec]
Within a mixed traffic situation, where different types of vehicles share the same roadway
space without any physical segregation, the amount of interaction is expected to change with
the mix characteristics. The most intense interaction among the vehicles appears during peak
periods on urban roads. The common practice to analyze mixed traffic flow is to convert all
vehicles into equivalent numbers of passenger car units (PCUs).
Variety of road modes are typical in such developing cities. As a result, delay and accident
problems are very common on the roads. Vehicles that have maneuver difficulties cause
54
friction to other vehicles in the traffic stream. It is rather difficult to estimate the capacity of
roadway under mixed traffic flow unless different vehicle classes are converted to one
common unit. The most accepted unit is that of passenger cars. All vehicles of heterogeneous
traffic stream are converted into homogeneous equivalent in terms of passenger car units
(PCUs). In general, values for PCUs are derived considering the effects of :
lane width
per cent grade
heavy vehicles, etc.
(traffic volume on the road important variable for measuring interaction on
urban roads are overlooked).
CUTHBERT (1983) has promoted an analytical approach to define PCUs factors on surveys
of traffic flows at selected locations (in Indonesia) which offer the following conditions :
saturated flow for significant periods;
no end constraints on the link under survey; and
mix of vehicle types
As the most suitable predictive equation which follows a simpler linear relationship is found
P = af + b
(48)
and
f =
L (1 + 0.015 s )
vf
E 2 1 + 0.3
v
where
P
W
L
s
v
vf
E
a
b
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
[]
[m]
[m]
[stop/km]
[km/h]
[km/h]
[m]
By using this approach, values of passenger car units for each type of vehicles at different
road sections can be concluded as in Table 412 below. This approach represents the traffic
under saturated conditions and number of stops, but it almost difficult to find the situations at
every roads in every city in Indonesia (instead of Jakarta).
55
Type of Vehicle
(manual count
classification)
Car, taxi
Truck
Small truck
Large bus
Minibuses
Opelet
Threewheeled
vehicles
Motorcycle
Becak
Bicycle
A
dual
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.3
1.0
dual
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.1
single
1.0
1.7
1.0
2.6
1.8
1.2
dual
1.0
1.6
1.0
2.4
1.7
1.2
single
1.0
2.3
1.0
3.3
2.6
1.7
N.A
N.A
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
N.A
N.A
0.6
N.A
N.A
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
A expressway
B suburban
C urban
Instead of passenger car units (PCUs), lightvehicle units (LVUs) were determined since
there is a low frequency of passenger cars. It has been studied that freeflow speed for a
passenger car is typically 5 km/h to 10 km/h higher than for an average light vehicle (BANG
et al., 1995). The assumptions for the regression analysis were that the speed flow
relationship is linear and that LVUs therefore could be determined from leastsquare fits of
speed flow data with a different traffic composition :
VLV = A K LV QLV K MHV QMHV .... K MC QMC
(49)
where
VLV
A
Q
K
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[]
[veh/5min]
[]
The LVUs were obtained as the ratio between the Kcoefficient for a specific vehicle type and
for light vehicles,
LVU MHV =
K MHV
K LV
(410)
where
LVUMHV
KMHV
KLV
56
[]
[]
[]
The manual (IHCM, 1997) has adopted another way to measure the PCUs factor by using
parameters of headways of each type of vehicles. The headways have to be measured
according to the types of leader and follower. This means, the headways have to be measured
between two consecutive vehicles of the same type,
LVU MHV =
H MHV
H LV
(411)
where
LVUMHV
HMHV
HLV
[]
[sec]
[sec]
This method of passenger car units measurement is based on a socalled vehicle interaction or
interaction between different types of vehicle and light vehicles (LV). While performance of
each type of vehicles from each of the streams is different according to the number of conflict,
therefore, further analysis on actual passenger car units value for each type of vehicles were
calculated. This analysis included all types of vehicles with 5 (five) classes (Table 47) and 9
(nine) categories (LT, MHV1, MHV2, LV, MC, UM1, UM2, UM3, UM4) and six (6) streams
(C A, C B, B C, B A, A C, A B). The general form for speed and flow
relationship or vehicles interactions of conflict stream, for example C A (1) and B A (2)
can be read as :
VLV CA = A (K LT CA QLT CA ) (K LT BA QLT BA ) (K MHV 1 CA QMHV 1 CA ) (K MHV 1 BA QMHV 1 BA )
(K MHV 2 CA QMHV 2 CA ) (K MHV 2 BA QMHV 2 BA ) . . . . (KUM 3 CA QUM 3 CA )
(412)
and level of interactions between vehicles as passenger car unit can be written as :
PCU LT CA =
where
VLVCA
A
KLTCA
QLTCA
Kij
Qij
K LT CA
K LV CA
and
PCU LT BA =
K LT BA
and so on
K LV BA
(413)
[km/h]
[]
[]
[veh/h]
[]
[veh/h]
CHANDRA & SIKDAR (1999) have developed a PCUs factor for a vehicle type based on
dynamic and static vehicle performance and geometric variables. The procedures of analyzing
the capacity calibrates for a specific set of ideal conditions, one of them is that the traffic
stream contains only passenger cars. The adjustment factor for the presence of vehicles other
57
than cars is based on PCUs. This adjustment factor correlates with the flow rates of passenger
cars only and mixed traffic streams that are equivalent in terms of drivers perception of the
level of service (LOS). LOS on a segment of highway is defined in terms of two variables :
speed and volume. These two variables alone should be able to explain the relative effect of
individual vehicles on traffic stream in terms of PCUs.
In a mixed traffic situation where many categories of vehicles share the same roadway space
the proportion of a particular type of vehicle may vary between 10 percent and 60 percent
(CHANDRA et al., 1999). The volume of traffic (in terms of vehicles/hour) does not give the
impression of the congestion on a road unless it is accompanied by its traffic composition.
The volume of different vehicle types affects the operational characteristics of a highway in
different ways and to different degrees. Therefore, the composition of a traffic stream is an
important variable which should be used to define the PCU factor. The PCUs of a vehicle
type are taken as given by
PCU i =
Vc /Vi
Ac /Ai
(414)
where
= Mean speeds for cars (c) in the traffic stream
= Mean speeds for vehicles type i in the traffic stream
= respective projected rectangular areas of cars
on the road
= Respective projected rectangular area of vehicle type i
VC
Vi
AC
Ai
[km/h]
[km/h]
[m2]
[m2]
Although the lanes are marked for motorized fourwheeled vehicles, they can accommodate
more than one small sized vehicle conveniently. Vehicles do not move in lanes due to the
poor lane discipline of many road users. In traffic with lane discipline, the occupancy is
controlled by the length of a vehicle. However, in the condition where vehicles do not follow
lanes strictly, then the occupancy is better reflected by area (length and width of a vehicle).
The mean velocity is defined as :
K
Vi = aij(n jV j ) + d i(
j =1
1
)
N
(415)
where
Vi
aij
di
K
nj
=
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[]
[]
[]
[veh]
n
j =1
[]
58
Passenger car units of vehicles at unsignalized intersections can also be measured by several
other approaches, e.g. capacity method, servicetime method, delay method and traffic
behavior method (IHCM, 1997). The capacity method for the analysis in previous studies uses
a multi linear regression by counting the number of every type of vehicles that passed the stop
line within a certain time under saturated conditions. The total flow is defined as :
(416)
where
QTOTALi
QLVi
QHVi
QMCi
QUMi
PCE
i
N
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[]
[]
[]
(417)
Passenger car units can also be predicted by analyzing the behavior of vehicles (individual
behavior) at unsignalized intersections based on :
1. Average speed of each vehicle, Vi
2. Average crossing time of each vehicle, CTi
SEKHAR (1999) has investigated that aggregation in speed values has a very significant
effect on the speed of other vehicles. By the assumption that other factors are constant, the
speed of a passenger car is Vc and the speed of vehicle type i, Vi, the PCUs factor of vehicle
speed, FUV is described as
FUV =
Vi
Vc
(418)
where
FUV
Vi
Vc
[]
[km/h]
[km/h]
VehicleCrossing Time (CT) is defined as the period of time required for a vehicle to pass
through the intersection area/conflict area, without causing any hindrance to the vehicles of
other streams. Since the traffic flow consists of various types of vehicles, fastmoving
59
vehicles and slowmoving vehicles, the crossing time of vehicles will be very widely spread
with regard to the direction of movement, the geometric design, the number of conflicts as
well as the vehicle types. The crossing time is sampled from an empirical distribution of
vehiclecrossing times from field surveys by considering that flows are free from impedance.
If the crossing time before the arrival is more than the free value, it means that vehicles are
forced to slow down to avoid collision and a probable conflict.
Results from field studies show that in most cases vehicles flow from each approach were not
exactly stopped but moving even at the certain very slowspeed, but in some cases, very small
number of vehicles would stop at the certain level of flows for very short time. This might
happen within conflict points. In general, light vehicles and motorcycles would have less time
compared to others, because they have a smaller projected rectangular area, and therefore,
they could move to pass the intersection easier. PCU factors of the crossing time of the
vehicles are measured as
FCTi =
CTi
CTc
(419)
where
FCTi
CTi
CTc
[]
[sec]
[sec]
Consider the relationship between some measurement of impedance along a roadway and the
flow rate along that same roadway for two different traffic streams. The flow impedance
relationship is shown in Figure 48, in which the basic curve represents a stream consisting
solely of basic vehicles (passenger cars) and the mixed curve represents a stream with a
proportion of trucks p and basic vehicles (1 p).
For any given LOS (or impedance) it is possible to calculate corresponding flow rates qB and
qM as shown. These flow rates for the basic and mixed streams will produce identical
measures of LOS and can then be equated so that qB = (1 p) qM + pqM (PCE). Solving for
PCE, the result is
1 q
PCE = B
p q M
1 + 1
(420)
where
PCE
p
qB , qM
[]
[]
[veh/h]
Traffic Flow
Light Vehicle
Lm
Wc
W
Light Vehicle
Wm
Lc
Motorcycle
61
The Greenshields model of traffic flow, which assumes a straightline relationship between
density and velocity, is used to develop the interrelationship between the variables speed (u),
density (k), and flow rate (q) for steadystate flow as it is shown in Figure 411. In a
simplified case, mixed traffic is assumed to be made up of only two types of vehicles, basic
vehicles with effective length LB, effective width wB and freeflow speed ufB and vehicles i
with effective length Li, effective width Wi and freeflow velocity ufi. The mixedflow rate
is the sum of the flow rate of basic vehicles plus the flow rate of trucks :
q M = q MB + q Mi
(421)
where
qM
qMB
qMi
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
q Mi
qM
(422)
The density of the mixed flow as it is modified as a projected rectangular area of the vehicle is
the sum of the density of basic vehicles plus the density of vehicles i :
kM = kMB + kMi
where
kM
kMB
kMi
(423)
[veh/km]
[veh/km]
[veh/km]
The proportion p' of vehicles i in the mixed stream projected rectangular area is as follows :
p =
kMi
kM
(424)
The mean velocity of the mixed stream of traffic is the harmonic mean of the velocities of the
basic vehicles and vehicles i :
uM =
1
p
u Mi
(1 p )
+
u MB
(425)
where
uM
uMB
uMi
p
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[km/h]
[km/h]
[km/h]
(426)
q OMB (1 p )qOM
=
u OMB
u OMB
(427)
k OMi =
k OMB =
Substitute Equation 426 and Equation 427 into Equation 424 yields
p =
=
kOMi
kOMi + kOMB
1
kOMB
1 +
kOMi
1
(
)
pq
u
OM
OMB
1
=
(1p ) uOMi
1 +
puOMB
63
Based on the Greenshields model of traffic flow uO = uf /2, the final expression is
p =
(428)
(1 p )u fi
1 +
p u fB
k jB =
(429a)
k jM =
L
[ p L i + (1 p ) L B ]
(429b)
where
L
Li and LB
[km]
[m]
(429c)
L W
[ p(Li Wi ) + (1 p) (LB WB )]
(429d)
k jB =
and for mixed vehicles,
k jM =
When we assume that a flow rate qB of basic vehicles will only produce the same average in
travel time t(q)B as is produced by a flow rate qM of mixed vehicles, t(q)B = t(q)M.
For any given length of roadway, this results in equal average velocities for the two or more
traffic streams, as shown in Figure 412, uB = uM = u. If we look at the Equation 420 and
note that qB = kB u and qM = kM u, it follows that qB/qM = kB/kM. Based on Figure 412,
kB =
k jB (u fB u )
u fB
64
and
kM =
k jM (u fM u )
u fM
so
u fM
qB
k
= B =
q M k M u fB
k jB
k
jM
(u fB u )
(u fM u )
(430)
The general case where ufM < ufB ; kjM < kjB, from Equation 420 we have
1 u
PCE = fM
p u fB
k jB
k
jM
(u fB u )
1 +1
(u u )
fM
(431)
Looking at Figure 412 and Equation 431 there is undefined PCE with u > ufM. For u < ufM
and by using Greenshield model of traffic flow,
1
u
u B = uM = fB 1 + (1 y )2
where
y=
qB
qOB
If we assume a flow rate qB of basic vehicles only, it will produce the same total travel time
T(q)B as is produced by a flow rate qM of mixed vehicles, so that T(q)B = T(q)M.
At any given length of roadway, this is equivalent to equal vehicle hours of occupancy per
hour for the two traffic streams, and since T(q) is numerically equal to density k, kB = kM = k,
65
as shown in Figure 413. From Equation 58 and noting that qB = k uB and qM = k uM, it
follows that qB/qM = uB/uM .
As we can see in Figure 413 and using similar triangles,
uB =
and
uM =
u fB (k jB k )
k jB
u fM (k jM k )
k jM
so that
qB u B u fB
=
=
qM uM u fM
k jM
k
jB
(k jB k )
(k k )
jM
(432)
In general cases where ufM < ufB ; kjM < kjB, and from Equation 420 :
1 u
PCE = fB
p u fM
k jM
k
jB
(k jB k ) (k jM k ) 1 + 1
(433)
Studies from HUBER (1982) have defined the mixed traffic stream that consists of two
component steadystate flows. The first component are the basic vehicles within the mixed
stream with ufMB (= ufB) and kjMB [= (1 p') kjM] and the second component are trucks within
the mixed traffic stream with ufMT (= ufT) and kjMT (= p' kjM).
Figure 414. Speed Density Relationships for Mixed Flow and Two Component Flow
(HUBER, 1982)
66
and
u
uMT = fMT
2
1 + (1 yMT )2
where
yMB =
(1 p )qM
(1 p )qOM
qM
= yMT
qOM
St. JOHN (1976) has used mean speed of basic vehicles as the criterion for determining PCE
values. A diagram of the situation is shown in Figure 415 where ufMB = ufB and uB = uMB
= u. By Equation 420,
1 q
PCE = B
p qM
1 + 1
where
qM =
q MB
uk MB
; q = uk B
=
(1 p ) (1 p ) B
so that
qM (1 p ) k B
=
qB
k MB
k jMB (u fB u )
u fB
; kB =
67
k jB (u fB u )
u fB
so that
qM (1 p ) k jB
=
qB
k jMB
and
k jMB = (1 p) k jM and
qM (1 p ) k jB
=
qB (1 p) k jM
(434)
LB
p
(LT + LB )
(1 p)
qB
=
qM
(1 p )
LB
(435)
From Equation 428 in which ufi is represented freeflow speed of truck ufT,
p u fB
p
=
( 1 p) p u fB + (1 p )u fT
p u fB
{ p u fB + (1 p )u fT (1 p )u fT } =
(1 p )u fT
] [
u L
1 + 1 = fB T
u L
fT B
When we consider Equation 429c and 429d as a modification from density to vehicles
occupancy, this follows
k jB
k jM
=
=
L W
LB WB
LB WB
68
qB
=
qM
p
[(Li Wi ) + (LB WB )]
(1 p)
(1 p )
LB WB
(436)
+ (1 p )
qM u fi (LB WB )
u (L W )
1 + 1 = fB i i
u (L W )
fi B B
u fB
u
fi
PCE =
(LB WB )
(L W )
i i
or
uOMB
u
PCE = OMi
(LB WB )
(L W )
i i
(437)
where
uOMB
uOMi
LB
WB
Li
Wi
=
=
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[km/h]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
This recent formula for passenger car units (Equation 437) is a modified approach of what
has been found out by St. JOHN (1976) which considered only an effective length of vehicles.
This modification approach considered transversal and longitudinal dimensions (length and
width) of vehicles. The dimension is very important as long as the concept of lane discipline
does not exist. Instead of the acceptance (widths) concept, consisting flow of various types of
vehicles with various dimensions/projected area is considered. This concept is rather similar
to previous formula (Equation 414) which also considered similar cases of mixed traffic
69
flow. Since the study has difficulties to find the freeflow speed of each type of vehicle, uf,
the optimum speed was used, uO or the average speed of each type of vehicle.
Results have been found for each type of vehicle from each stream based on vehicle
interaction and the projected rectangular area which can also be compared with formal values
from the manual (IHCM, 1997) for the case of intersection1; see Table 413 and Table 414.
However, in most of the cases it was found that the total number of each vehicle has not
reached more than 1% from the total number of all vehicles (e.g. trucks, minibuses and
unmotorized vehicles) and it was also found from the measurements that the relationship and
interactions between vehicle streams did not meet the standard relationship as in Equation
49, therefore, some of the PCU values based on the method of vehicle interactions could not
be measured properly and would not be used for further analysis. Alternatively, an approach
of passenger car unit measurement (projected rectangular area of vehicles) which is based on
vehicles performance were considered to be more appropriate.
Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
AB
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
3.4
0.4
0.7
N.A
0.8
2.4
N.A
1.0
0.9
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.7
N.A
N.A
1.0
2.0
N.A
N.A
1.0
1.7
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.3
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
IHCM
1.3
1.0
0.5
0.3
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
Investigations on each of the intersections have been carried out for their PCU values. Based
on the results, we have an identical value of each type of vehicle from each stream and the
values remain the same for each vehicle from each stream, especially with a digit of 1/10
(0.1), therefore, those PCU values can be resumed as an average value of PCUs of each type
of vehicle from each stream. This can be seen in Table 415. All intersections are presented in
Appendix C.
Type of
Vehicle
Intersection/PCUs
4
5
6
7
Truck
2.7
5.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.5
N.A
3 axle
Truck
2.8
2.7
3.3
2.5
3.1
2.8
3.5
2 axle
Minibuses
1.7
2.1
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.2
Car
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Motorcycle
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Bicycle
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Becak
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
N.A
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
N.A
Pushcart
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.4
0.9
1.2
(2wheels)
Table 415. Average PCUs of Each Vehicle at Each of Intersection
10
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.8
3.3
2.5
2.3
1.0
0.1
0.2
3.0
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.7
By using current values for PCUs of each vehicle of each intersection (Table 415), further
studies and analysis of flow and capacity with passenger car units (PCUs) per hour (pcu/h)
can be applied and the total flow of each intersection in passenger car units can be resumed
as at Table 416 and Table 417. The intersections described here performed a number of
vehicles in a range of 438.4 pcu/h to 2209.4 pcu/h.
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
1
54.0
593.6
17.0
819.0
696.4
11.6
16.8
N.A
1.0
2209.4
Intersection/Flow [pcu/h]
2
3
4
5.3
N.A
N.A
202.5
158.4
72.5
4.2
29.4
1.9
544.0
357.0
240
825.8
426.2
328.5
27.2
39.8
32.3
21.6
5.0
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.9
1.0
2.7
3.2
1633.8
1020.5
679.9
71
5
N.A
136.4
27.2
876.0
608.4
39.2
11.4
1.5
1.4
1701.5
Intersection/Flow [pcu/h]
7
8
9
N.A
N.A
N.A
106.4
28.0
66.0
12.0
16.1
6.0
384.0
157.0
142.0
606.0
205.6
210.7
42.4
22.4
33.6
35.4
6.5
7.2
N.A
0.4
0.5
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
6
2.50
109.2
10.8
789.0
418.5
22.6
21.6
0.8
Pushcart (2wheels)
1.8
1.2
2.4
0.7
3.4
1375.0
1187.4
438.4
466.7
912.5
10
N.A
32.5
N.A
547.0
305.0
19.2
3.0
2.4
4.6
Observation and measurement at ten (10) threeleg intersections instead of fourteen (14) have
been done. The locations are taken in the city of Pontianak, West Kalimantan. Each
intersection has been monitored during the peak hour time period, e.g. morning period (06.00
08.00 am) and evening period (16.00 18.00 pm. The total period of time observation for
each intersection is two (2) hours (120 minutes), however, the results show that in two hours
the flow fluctuation remains the same. Therefore, it was decided to take investigations and
measurements of one hour for each intersection. The total flow of each intersection is in a
range of 2158 veh/h 7240 veh/h (Table 48 and Table 49) with the largest percentage of
motorcycles (MC) of 70% 88%. The percentage of cars (LV) was in a range of 5.8%
25.3% (Table 410 and Table 411). Using values of PCUs as it was mentioned before, we can
see the total flow of each intersection in vehicles per hour (veh/h) and passenger car units per
hour (pcu/h), see Figure 416.
TYPE OF MEASUREMENT
Flow [veh/h]
Flow [pcu/h]
8000
7240,0
7500
7000
6500
6000
5174,0
5500
3734,0
4902,0
3724,0
4000
4928,0
4500
4626,0
Flow
5000
3500
1232,3
2158,0
2453,0
2358,0
500
915,4
1000
1113,8
1416,7
1232,4
1500
1753,0
2000
1983,2
2231,1
2500
2203,6
2645,4
3000
0
1
Intersection
10
In order to have detailed information, observations of flow and speed were made in 1
minute and 5minute intervals. Typical flows (number of vehicles) in 1minute intervals can
be seen in Figure 417. The figure shows small differences of vehicles flow in the 1minute
interval time. Further details for flows of each intersection can be seen in Appendix A.
120
110
100
90
Flow (veh/1minute)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Observation was also made in a 5minute interval in order to have a different view of the flow
and speed performance. Figure 418 shows difference of vehicles between interval which is
likely in a range of 50 vehicles, lower or higher. Two figures of the traffic flow with two
different interval time investigations did not show a significant/high difference flow in every
minute and every 5minutes (intersection1) while a significant number of vehicles was
required as a potential value (maximum flow) to measure the capacity. Therefore, the study
found difficulties to analyze the maximum flow (capacity) of intersection due to the
intersections which did not reach its maximum flow (capacity) during the two hours of the
investigation. The study required to consider other sources and studies relating to the critical
speed at the intersection while the maximum flow (capacity) of streams have reached. The
critical speed is defined as the average speed of streams while the capacity or the maximum
flow at the intersection is reached. It is assumed that the capacity of stream is reached at the
critical speed while other streams might not have an opportunity to pass through the
73
intersection (volume = 0.0). Furthermore, this critical speed will be used to measure the
capacity based on the new model which will be discussed further in the next chapter.
450
417
400
404
395
390
387
374
Flow (veh/5minute)
350
394
386
403
366
355
355
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
10
11
12
5minute interval
This study required counted flows of each stream (6 streams) at intersections, therefore, the
following scheme of threeleg unsignalized intersections was constructed for simplification of
further calculation. Leg A and leg C are treated as the major road because most of the traffic
flows from those legs were larger than others without any implication to the priority rule. Six
streams were defined as C A, C B, B C, B A, A C and A B (Figure 419).
Observations of flows in 1minute and 5minute intervals for all intersections are presented
in Appendix A. Flows of each stream was observed during two hours. But only one hour was
used for analysis, because it was found that each stream of intersections performed almost the
same number of vehicles (flow) in both hours. Results from the observation (Appendix A)
showed that the number of vehicles (flow) from legs C and A are higher than from legs A and
C, especially at intersection1. Only at intersection10 remain have lower numbers of
vehicles. Thus, we say that leg A and leg C are called the major road and leg B is the minor
road, a definition which is required for capacity analysis based on the Indonesian manual.
74
CA
CB
Arm A
(Major)
Arm C
(Major)
AC
AB
BC
BA
Arm B
(Minor)
Figure 419. Typical LayOut of ThreeLeg Intersection
200,0
694
600
455
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
150,0
443
421
400
119,7
100,0
74,3
68,5
63,7
200
179
CB
BC
54,5
166
0
CA
57,7
50,0
BA
AC
0,0
AB
CA
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
AB
Direction of flow
300,0
700
250,0
600
241,0
233,1
530
500
200,0
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
563
439
400
188,7
150,0
300
117,9
279
100,0
200
73,4
188
159
50,0
58,4
100
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
Di
BA
ti
AC
CA
AB
CB
BC
BA
Direction of flow
f fl
AC
AB
1.600
700,0
1.400
639,2
1.300
1.200
600,0
1.207
500,0
1.000
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
570,3
800
748
600
400,0
350,2
300,0
571
272,2
480
400
222,3
200,0
168,2
321
200
100,0
0,0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
CA
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
Direction of flow
Based on the observed traffic composition at the intersections, the traffic flow consists of
motorized and unmotorized vehicles which were defined as fastmoving vehicles and
slowmoving vehicles according to their dynamic characteristics. SOEGIJOKO & HORTHY
(1991) have classified various types of vehicles according to their static and dynamic
dimensions. The types of vehicles and their dimensions of speed at the road sections are as
follows :
Length of
Lane Width
Cruising
Average
Vehicle
Occupied
Speed
Maximum Speed
[m]
[m]
[km/h]
[km/h]
Truck
7.50
2.35
N.A
80
Minibuses
5.40
1.90
60
80
Car
4.05
1.60
100
130
Motorcycle
1.60
0.80
80
80
Bicycle
1.75
0.60
16
30
Becak (Rickshaw)
2.25
1.00
10
25
Pushcart
2.10
0.80
5
N.A
Table 418. Static and Dynamic Characteristic of Vehicles (SOEGIJOKO et al., 1991)
Type of Vehicle
The number of motorcycles of each intersection dominated the others (70% 88%) but would
have the same percentage of cars (light vehicle) in passenger car units (see Figure 423). Both
have a significant impact on traffic flow movement at intersections, especially when we
consider the area of intersection and width of road. There are more opportunities for
motorcycles to occupy and pass through the intersection compare to other motorized vehicles,
e.g. cars would occupy a larger area of the intersection.
76
4.000
1000,0
3.500
3.483
900,0
3.000
800,0
696,6
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
819,0
700,0
2.500
2.000
1.500
600,0
593,6
500,0
400,0
300,0
1.000
200,0
819
500
100,0
54,0
212
0
20
Truck 3
axles
58
10
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
0,0
24
Rickshaw
16,0
Truck 3
axles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
17,4
16,8
9,0
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
4.7
Instead of flow observations, the study has also conducted speed observations for each type of
vehicle from each stream. Camcorders were used to monitor the speed. Therefore, the study
could only measure the average speed of vehicles which was counted from the departure to
the arrival. There are known definitions of speed, e.g. average running speed (space mean
speed), average travel speed (space mean speed), u and time mean speed, v. The time mean
speed (spot speed) is defined as the arithmetic mean of all instantaneous vehicle speeds at a
given spot on a roadway section and the space mean speed, u is defined as the mean travel
speed of vehicles transversing a roadway segment of a known distance, l
1 n
u = vi
n i =1
(438)
and
vi =
li
ti
where
u
vi
n
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
Due to a large variation in speeds for different categories of vehicles, the spot speed and space
mean speed as normally calculated for homogeneous traffic cannot be considered for mixed
traffic (CHANDRA et al., 2001). Many researchers suggested the use of weighted space mean
speed or mean stream speed. To find the mean stream speed, a trap of suitable length is
marked on the road and the speed of each category of vehicles considered for counting is
calculated. The weighted average mean speed is given by
k
vm =
n v
i =1
k
i i
ni
i =1
77
(439)
where
k
vm
vi
ni
=
=
=
=
[]
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
This study concerns the speed at intersections, because it was found that during the
observation most of the vehicles maintained their speed (decelerate) without stop. E.g. data
from intersection5 with 7240 vehicles per hour have only less than 0.5% of stopped
vehicles. Concluding from data of all intersections, vehicles tend to decelerate while
approaching the intersection without stopping (98% traffic flow) while the rest have to wait
in average less than 2 seconds (gap is less than 2 seconds), therefore, this study has not taken
into account stops of vehicles.
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/km]
[%]
In order to study mixed traffic in a comprehensive manner, speed models must be developed
on the basis of these results which help in understanding the problems of interactions between
78
vehicles in the stream. In addition, it was possible to derive expressions for the average speed
of each class of vehicles :
VCAR = 101.42 21.48 log Q 30.38 P
VBUS = 95.12 20.75 log Q 30.39 P
VTRUCK = 92.8 21.81 log Q 19.61 P
VAUTO = 85.0 18.35 log Q 30.02 P
VMOTORCYCLE = 85.9 16.7 log Q F 2 23.41 P
In general, the form of relationship between speed, flow, density and percentage of slow
moving vehicle can be concluded as
V
= A K D log D K P P
= A K Q log Q K P P
where
V
VLV
Vi
A
ALV
Ai
KD
KQ
KP
P
D
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[%]
[veh/km]
A previous study from BANG et al. (1995) which is used as the basic consideration for the
IINDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997) derived the speed and flow
relationship from empirical data as
VLV = A K LV QLV K MHV QMHV .... K MC QMC
(440)
where
VLV
A
Q
K
=
=
=
=
[km/h]
[]
[veh/5min]
[]
One of the concerns in studying uncontrolled intersections has always been the development
(hierarchy) of priority regulations together with a comprehensive set of rules which ought to
enable the determination of the most adequate solution for each intersection depending on its
geometry and traffic characteristics. Formally, threeleg and fourleg intersections in
Indonesia are managed by the common rule of prioritytotheleft (IHCM, 1997).
79
However, drivers behavior during their approach to the intersection do not fulfil this
requirement. Drivers are found more aggressive while approaching intersections and drivers
understanding of the rule is very poor and, perhaps because of that, in most of the cases the
intersections seem not to be working correctly from the rule point of view.
Speed distributions of every type/group of vehicles at the intersection could be the most
important characteristic to be measured. Based on the assumption that speed or crossing time
will be affected by the number of interactions between flow streams and impacts of the
number of vehicle types at the intersection, and the number of conflicts. By using the time
code device and field measurements recorded with camcorders, the real speed of every type of
vehicle at the intersection can be measured. Technically, the speeds were measured based on
arrival and departure time of every type of vehicle (as they are recorded) and each distance of
every direction could also be measured using the given line references at the intersection.
Speeds of every vehicle type and flow directions were measured and the average speed was
calculated based on the 1minute and 5minute interval of traffic movement. The speed is
measured based on travel time of each vehicle k, e.g. tCA passing through the intersection at a
certain length, e.g. distance tC tA or tC tB. In order to find the time of departure tC and
arrival tA or tB, line references were made on each leg of the intersections (A, B, C) and an
average distance/path of tC tB is considered. The reference lines with white color were made
visable enough to be seen from the video during observation, see Figure 424.
tCA
tC
tA
kC
kA
A
kB
tB
A, B, C
tC
tCA
kC
The measurements were conducted at each intersection and each type of vehicle. The results
can be seen in Table 419 (e.g. intersection1) with performance of average speed and
80
maximum speed of vehicles at the intersection. However, since each type of vehicle from the
streams has had a different movement behavior, the speed of each stream has to be measured
separately while the speed of each vehicle from all traffic streams was also measured (all
directions : C A, C B, B C, B A, A B, A C. Table 420 and Figure 426 show
different speeds of each stream and each type of vehicle. The data from intersection1 are
typical also for other intersections (Appendix C). In general, the speeds of vehicles from the
major road (C A and A C) are higher than for other streams due to the straight path
with less conflicts. Vehicles from major roads (streams: C A and A C) were found to be
more aggressive, because the flow is found higher than others and the streams are considered
to be more frequent. From the tables (Table 419, Table 420 and Appendix C) we can see
that motorcycles were found to be faster than others due to their small projected rectangular
area. Motorcycle have high engine displacement (e.g. 125 cc) with average maximum cruising
speed of 80 km/h (SOEGIJOKO et al., 1991), therefore, motorcycles would have a better
opportunity to pass through the intersection and complete their travelling in a short period of
time. Also bicycles would almost be in the same situation while they have the opportunity to
complete their travelling without any obstructions, due to their small projected rectangular
area.
Average Speed
[km/h]
24.76
19.54
20.66
21.14
25.81
15.12
11.28
N.A
5.40
Type of Vehicles
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Maximum Speed
[km/h]
33.70
32.60
29.30
29.68
34.62
31.70
16.70
N.A
5.40
Type of Vehicle
CA
CB
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
27.0
26.5
27.1
27.6
31.8
16.4
13.2
N.A
N.A
11.2
N.A
11.6
14.9
9.3
5.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
30.6
14.0
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
N.A
10.9
16.6
N.A
N.A
11.9
17.6
17.9
22.6
12.1
12.8
7.3
8.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
AC
AB
21.4
22.1
17.7
21.9
25.9
17.3
13.4
N.A
N.A
18.7
21.4
21.4
28.2
17.6
13.8
N.A
N.A
5.4
24.9
26.2
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1  minute interval
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
Figure 426. Typical Mean Speed of Each Vehicle at Each Stream (intersection1)
The typical speed performance shown in Figure 425 is the result of one intersection while
others remain in the same proportion based on their direction of stream (see also Appendix A)
while the average speed for every type of vehicle from each stream is shown in Figure 426.
The speed range collected from all intersections can be resumed in Table 421 while details
can be found in Appendix C.
82
Range
Average Speed
[km/h]
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
30.6
12.74
20.30
14.00
14.97
9.10
22.56
10.78
25.00
10.93
35.60
10.00
Stream
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
Every streams speed seems to have a normal distribution and small deviation while the
measurement contents all types of vehicles with different flow rates and speed range. Figure
427 to 432 show the indication. The figures represent normal distribution of speed of
streams at intersections and this finding is of significance for further work on the relationship
between speed and flow.
Flow direction C  A
Flow direction C  B
200
50
190
180
170
160
40
150
140
120
Frequency
Frequency
130
110
100
90
80
30
20
70
60
50
40
10
30
20
Mean =30,596
Std. Dev. =2,5196
N =1.207
10
Mean =14,043
Std. Dev. =2,3475
N =321
0
0,0
2,5
5,0
7,5 10,0 12,5 15,0 17,5 20,0 22,5 25,0 27,5 30,0 32,5 35,0 37,5 40,0 42,5
0,0
Speed (km/h)
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0
12,5
15,0
17,5
20,0
22,5
25,0
27,5
30,0
Speed (km/h)
83
Flow direction B  C
Flow direction B  A
70
80
70
60
60
Frequency
Frequency
50
40
30
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
Mean =20,836
Std. Dev. =3,5422
N =571
Mean =16,619
Std. Dev. =1,8798
N =480
0
0
0,0
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0
12,5
15,0
17,5
20,0
22,5
25,0
27,5
0,0
30,0
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0
12,5
15,0
17,5
20,0
22,5
25,0
27,5
30,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
Flow direction A  C
Flow direction A  B
200
190
100
180
90
170
160
80
150
140
70
120
Frequency
Frequency
130
110
100
90
80
60
50
40
70
60
30
50
40
20
30
20
10
Mean =24,852
Std. Dev. =2,6209
N =1.300
10
0
Mean =26,171
Std. Dev. =2,8664
N =748
0
0,0
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0 12,5 15,0 17,5 20,0 22,5 25,0 27,5 30,0 32,5 35,0
0,0
Speed (km/h)
2,5
5,0
7,5
10,0 12,5 15,0 17,5 20,0 22,5 25,0 27,5 30,0 32,5 35,0
Speed (km/h)
It was expected to find a speed distribution of each stream in order to get a correlation with
the flow of each conflict stream. Both parameters are very important for further analysis of
the maximum flow (capacity) of an intersection corresponding with the speed flow
relationship of conflict streams. Instead of speed distribution of each stream, the cumulative
percentages of speed of each type of vehicle have also been calculated in order to have an
average speed of each type of vehicle from each stream. Previous data have shown (Table 410 and Table 411) that the numbers of motorcycles (MC), cars (LV) and truck 2axles
(MHV2) occurred more often than others and this is the case at all intersections. Therefore, we
found a smooth line of cumulative percentage of speed for those vehicles (see Figure 433).
Motorcycles have demonstrated a higher flow and average speed than others, but cars would
have a significant impact on intersections under mixed conditions which relate to the
opportunity of maneuvering others due to its projected rectangular area.
84
100,0%
90,0%
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
56,7
49,3
45,0
41,4
38,4
35,8
33,5
31,8
30,0
28,4
26,9
25,6
24,4
23,3
22,3
21,4
20,6
19,8
19,1
17,5
16,6
8,3
15,4
13,5
0,0%
Speed (km/h)
Figure 433. Typical Cumulative Distribution of Speed of Each Type of Vehicle of Stream
C A (1)
4.8
Road occupancy is expressed as total area covered by vehicles in relation to the road area. As
previously mentioned every type of vehicle has its own vehicular area or its dimensions which
vary widely. Intersection occupancy is defined as the physical area of the vehicles relative to
the intersection area. This measurement is adopted since the vehicles of heterogeneous traffic
mix have wide variations in their dimensions. Intersection occupancy was constructed from
reference lines that have been marked at the intersections and from that we can simply find
the total area of conflict (Figure 434).
MARWAH & SINGH (2000) have observed the level of service (LOS) of urban
heterogeneous traffic flow condition at the Kanpur roads, India. They used a method of road
concentration (number of vehicles per km) which can also be realistically expressed in terms
of vehicle road occupancy (total projected rectangular area of vehicles per total area of road
sections). Road concentration is observed at an interval of every 100 seconds. Results show
that concentrations increase almost on a linear basis with the flow level. We also observed
that road occupancy increases at a certain rate up to 1800 veh/h and beyond this flow, the rate
of increase is higher. The analysis and results have demonstrated that speed and concentration
are affected by flow level. It was also observed that mean journey speed of all vehicles varies
almost linearly with concentration.
85
Stream
CA
CB
Reference line
4
6
Area of conflict
5
AC
AB
Travel stream
2
BC
BA
For the estimation of the intersection occupancy, the intersections field area has been
reconstructed as shown in Figure 434 which line references at each leg of the intersection and
edges of the road were used to determine the total area of conflict. The total area of conflict
could easily be determined by using the reference lines (at the leg of intersections and the
edge of a road), results from measurement can be seen in Table 422. The reference lines were
drawn on the field by a special paint and color (white) and these lines have to be made as
bright as possible so that they can be seen from the camcorder, clearly. By using data of static
dimensions of each type of vehicle (length and width) mentioned in Table 418, vehicles
occupancy in certain areas of intersections can simply be measured (Table 423).
Intersection1 found to have a larger area of conflict than others due to its geometric design.
This would be an opportunity for vehicles to maintain their speed during their travelling
across the conflict area. Appendix C shows that the speed of vehicles at intersection1 is
higher than of others.
86
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
434.43
361.67
121.00
85.00
163.35
167.92
215.20
66.90
127.37
215.49
Vehicles Occupancy
[m2]
Type of Vehicles
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
17.28
17.28
10.26
6.48
1.28
1.05
2.25
1.68
1.68
The intersections occupancy was observed within 20second intervals to have an average
value of 1minute intervals in which a certain number of vehicles was monitored while they
pass over the intersection in a certain time. This observation has been done by monitoring the
vehicles movements at the monitor and timecode machine. Then we could count the number
of vehicles at the conflict area within every 20seconds. The results (e.g. intersection1) can
be seen in Figure 435 which have demonstrated intersection occupancy (%) within a range of
1.0% 8.0% (maximum). From the results of flow and intersection occupancy relationship,
this study would try to look further on the impact of traffic flow and maximum flow
(capacity) related to the occupied percentage (%) area of conflict. Typical intersection
occupancy for all intersections is shown in the figures in Appendix A. We found only that the
intersections occupancy would likely to be in the range of 8% to 17% where intersection9
and intersection10 performed the smaller percentage of 8%.
87
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
11,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
4.9
Conclusions
Ten threeleg unsignalized intersections have been investigated and analyzed. They have
various widths of legs (geometric design). Flows and composition (type of vehicles) would
contributed to various traffic speeds. Types of vehicles were classified into nine (9) categories
differing in static and dynamic characteristics. Motorcycles have the largest percentage of
70% 88% and higher average mean speed than others. Each vehicle movement from each
stream was observed by using video. Furthermore, speed and flow of each type of vehicle
from each stream and total vehicles occupancy were counted.
A large number of vehicle types which differ in characteristics give impacts in traffic
performance while they mixed. Therefore, this study has determined values for passenger car
units (PCUs) based on performance of speed and projected rectangular area of vehicles.
Results showed that each vehicle performed at different speeds. Also the same type of vehicle
has also performed at different speed between streams flow. The values have been used for
further analysis of flows stream in passenger car units (PCUs).
88
Speed and flow were counted in every 1minute and 5minute interval time while intersection
occupancy was counted in every 20second interval. By analysis of one hour from two hour
field observation, numbers of vehicles (flows) in 1minute and 5minute intervals have
shown some fluctuation. It was not possible to observe the real of flow and at the
intersections. But, from the total ten hours of investigation from ten unsignalized intersections
the real condition of mixed traffic streams could be represented.
89
5.1
Introduction
Evidence shows that a relationship between speed and flow was found in every case of mixed
traffic at a certain segment of road. This relationship might be more complex if vehicle of all
types (MHV, LV, MC, etc.) and the percentage of slowmoving vehicles were taken into
account. This idea of a relationship between speed and flow was used for further experiments.
Investigated data did not only include speed and flow of each stream but also speed and flow
of each type of vehicle from each stream. However, for the first step, each stream should be
grouped based on its conflict pattern.
5.2
Recent analyses are based on interactions between streams which include parameters of
journey speed, flow and road occupancy. Due to these circumstances, each of the parameters
of each stream has to be analyzed related to other streams included. The scheme consists of
six (6) streams (C A, C B, B C, B A, A C, A B) and six (6) conflict points (1, 2,
90
3, 4, 5, 6). Furthermore, it is proposed to have six (6) groups of conflicts (I, II, III, IV, V, VI)
which include all streams conflicts and each group has its own subject stream (see also Table
51). Because this study does not use any of the priority rules, six subject streams have to be
defined for a further step of analysis. Each stream (C A, C B, B C, B A, A C,
A B) remains the subject stream of its conflict group. Each of them should be considered
further in order to find their maximum flow. In general, the conflict groups were defined as
the subject streams which met conflict movement with other streams, e.g. subject stream
C A has only met one conflict movement with stream B A, but subject stream B A
would meet more streams (C A, C B and A C).
Area of conflict
Stream
Conflict point
CA
CB
4
6
5
AC
AB
2
BC
BA
Group of Conflict
Subject Stream
Conflict Point
Streams Involved
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
1
2,4,5
3
1,4,6
3,5,6
2
C A, B A
C B, B A, A C, A B
B C, A C
B A, A C, C B, C A
A C, C B, B A, B C
A B, C B
Further analysis of speed, flow and road occupancy of each stream (each type of vehicle)
always relies on this description. Interactions regarding parameters of vehicles were
performed at further steps. Investigations of conflict groups were conducted in terms of flow
and speed in each flow stream and its portion based on total flow of its group was counted.
Table 52 to 57 show examples of flow portions of each group (intersection1) in which it is
necessary to have details of the portion of vehicles/flows, because smaller portion of
flows (< 1.0 %) could not adequately be included in the analysis which could produce some
91
error in regression analysis by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Software
(SPSS version 14.0, 2006). The portion of vehicles is counted from the total number of
vehicles/flow in each conflict group. The software is required for further calculation because
the study dealt with a large number of vehicles (e.g. 7240 vehicles per hour), six subject
streams and various types of vehicles (9 types) with many types of calculations/operations
(e.g. speed, flow, occupancy). Details of traffic flow performance of all intersections are
shown in Appendix B. The tables show that most of the cases (intersections observed) have
found that only motorcycles and cars could be taken into account because they always have a
large number of vehicles.
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
12
51
2
199
927
8
7
N.A
N.A
1206
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
16
N.A
140
395
14
6
N.A
N.A
571
%
0.7
2.9
0.1
11.2
52.2
0.5
0.4
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.9
N.A
7.9
22.2
0.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
%
[veh/h]
BA
Flow
%
[veh/h]
AC
Flow
%
[veh/h]
AB
Flow
%
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0,3
N.A
N.A
24
0.8
16
0.5
69
2.3
21
0.7
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
1.7
8.2
0.1
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
4.8
13.4
0.5
5
211
987
15
0.2
7.2
33.6
0.5
3
163
546
11
0.1
5.5
18.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
480
571
1300
748
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
31
N.A
55
385
7
2
N.A
N.A
480
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
8
69
5
211
987
15
5
N.A
N.A
1300
%
N.A
1.7
N.A
3.1
21.6
0.4
0.1
N.A
N.A
%
0.4
3.9
0.3
11.9
55.4
0.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
Based on a field investigation, vehicles composition was different between one intersection
and another. This condition slightly depends on the intersections environment depending on
the fact whether it is a commercial area, a residential area or a restricted access. Intersection2
and intersection3 are located in a commercial area or traditional market. Therefore, the
intersections performed high portion of trucks and nonmotorized vehicles, because most of
the people tend to use (traditional) public transport, e.g. rickshaw (becak) and private vehicles
such as bicycles and motorcycles in order to reach the place. The drivers considered to use
such vehicles due to the short distance, an easiest way to park the vehicles and the cheapest
price to transport their belongings, e.g. rickshaw/becak.
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
Flow
%
[veh/h]
CB
Flow
%
[veh/h]
BA
Flow
%
[veh/h]
AC
Flow
%
[veh/h]
12
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.2
51
1.5
24
0.7
16
0.5
69
2.0
2
199
927
8
0.1
5.9
27.3
0.2
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
1.5
7.1
0.1
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
4.1
11.6
0.4
5
211
987
15
0.1
6.2
29.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1206
321
571
1300
However, in residential areas and restricted areas, the intersections seem to have higher
portion of motorized (e.g. motorcycle and cars) and very small percentage of nonmotorized
vehicles. Intersection8 and intersection10 are located in a residential area and the field
investigation, showed that there were 128 and 73 nonmotorized vehicles with less than 5%
from the total number of vehicles at intersections.
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
%
[veh/h]
BC
Flow
%
[veh/h]
BA
Flow
%
[veh/h]
AC
Flow
%
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.3
24
0.9
31
1.2
16
0.6
69
2.6
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
1.9
9.1
0.1
N.A
55
385
7
N.A
2.1
14.4
0.3
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
5.2
14.8
0.5
5
211
987
15
0.2
7.9
36.9
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1206
321
571
1300
Streams
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
51
242
3
1
N.A
N.A
321
AB
%
N.A
2.2
N.A
4.8
22.6
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
21
3
163
546
11
3
N.A
1
748
%
N.A
2.0
0.3
15.2
51.1
1.0
0.3
N.A
0.1
Mean speeds have been determined for each stream at its conflict group. This is counted not
only based on each type of vehicle but also on the total average speed in a stream, because
further analysis would be conducted in two different approaches. The first is the relationship
between speed and flow of streams and the second is the relationship between speed and flow
of each type of vehicle in a stream, see Table 58 and details in Appendix C.
94
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
21.4
22.1
17.7
21.9
25.9
17.3
13.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
18.7
21.4
21.4
28.2
17.6
13.8
N.A
Speed [km/h]
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
27.0
26.5
27.1
27.6
31.8
16.4
13.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
11.2
N.A
11.6
14.9
9.3
5.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
10.9
N.A
11.9
17.9
12.1
7.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
16.6
N.A
17.6
22.6
12.8
8.4
N.A
N.A
5.4
Direction of flow
CA
BA
Group conflict I
26.2
Direction of flow
CA
BA
Group conflict I
40,0
40
37,5
35,0
35
32,5
30,0
30
Flow (veh/1minute)
27,5
25
20
15
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
10
7,5
5,0
2,5
50
59
57
53
55
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
1minute interval
1minute interval
Group conflict II
21
19
17
15
13
11
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
Group conflict II
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
40,0
45
37,5
35,0
40
32,5
30,0
Flow (veh/1minute)
35
30
25
20
15
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
10
5,0
5
2,5
0,0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
1minute interval
Direction of flow
BC
AC
50
Direction of flow
BC
AC
40,0
37,5
45
35,0
32,5
40
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/1minute)
35
30
25
20
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
15
10,0
10
7,5
5,0
5
2,5
0,0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
1minute interval
1minute interval
Group conflict IV
Group conflict IV
50,0
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
50
45
40
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5
35,0
Flow (veh/1minute)
35
30
25
20
15
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
10
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
2,5
1
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
1minute interval
1minute interval
Group conflict V
37,5
35,0
32,5
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
Flow (veh/1minute)
Group conflict V
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
40,0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
1minute interval
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
1minute interval
96
Group conflict VI
Group conflict VI
Direction of flow
CB
AB
30
Direction of flow
CB
AB
40,0
37,5
35,0
25
32,5
Flow (veh/1minute)
30,0
20
15
10
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
1minute interval
1minute interval
The table shows an example of data calculated from intersection1 and performs the mean
speeds of each vehicle and average speeds of stream. The performance of speed was also
described in the following figures in detail (Figure 52 to 513). We can see from the figures
that the major flows (A C and C A) would have higher average flow and speed in most of
the cases (see also Appendix A).
It is difficult to compare data performance for intersections because each of them has several
differences, e.g. portion of streams and geometric designs. Figure 514 to 517 show a
different portion of each stream flow and mean speed from intersection2 and intersection3.
Both have different geometric designs where intersection2 has the following widths of
approaches: A=10.6 m, B=19.5 m, C=10.6 m and intersection3 : A=9.6 m, B=6.5 m, C=8.0
m. This also happens at intersection4 and intersection7 which both have almost the same
flow but perform different speeds and different widths of approaches.
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
50,0
1.400
47,5
45,0
42,5
1.238
1.200
40,0
37,5
1.097
35,0
1.000
Flow (veh/h)
32,5
800
795
681
600
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
569
549
17,5
15,0
400
12,5
10,0
7,5
200
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
AB
13
AC
BA
11
BC
CB
0,0
CA
1minute interval
Direction of flow
97
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
60,0
57,5
55,0
2.600
52,5
50,0
2.400
2.381
47,5
2.200
45,0
42,5
2.000
40,0
Flow (veh/h)
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.141
1.000
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
800
15,0
701
600
12,5
10,0
400
446
7,5
5,0
200
2,5
118
115
0
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
AB
13
AC
BA
11
BC
CB
0,0
CA
1minute interval
Direction of flow
Therefore, the study also found difficulties to analyze the general relationship between flow
and speed of each stream which can represent the relationship for all intersections, because
not each intersection has been designed very well due to some circumstances, e.g. lack of
budget and data resources (data is not accurate).
5.3
In the preliminary investigation, the speed of cars from each stream was measured in relation
to the interactions with other streams (flows) in the conflict group. The bar chart/graph of a
flow and the mean speed of each group of conflict showed that the proportion of speed has
followed the portion of flow (see also Appendix A).
Aggregated shortbased 1minute and 5minutes speed and flow data were used to test
speed flow and intersection occupancy flow models for flat/normal conditions. Each
sample in this database represents the average speed and flow value for all observed
1minute and 5minute intervals. The predetermined flows fall in range 438.4 pcu/h 2209.4
pcu/h for all sites. The database covered 10 sites with a total analysis of 10 hours flow, speed
and intersection occupancy observations. The impacts of vehicle types from each stream
within a group of conflict at each intersection were analyzed with multiple regressions. This
study has not analyzed the impact of site conditions (carriageway width, side friction, land
use, road function class, sight distance class). Multiple regressions have been made based on
speed and flow performance.
Previously, it is explained that in such a road section, speed of light vehicles could easily be
measured from interactions between vehicles in their own stream. Further steps might be done
in accordance to the nonmotorized vehicles and other factors related to side frictions and
98
other conflict streams. For further analysis of relationships and interactions between speed
and flow streams it has to be assumed that the function is linear. This has been explained in
the previous chapter and the following Equation 51.
This linear function did not consider nonmotorized vehicles due to the fact that the number
of them was less than 1%. The idea is to keep this linear function applied in intersection
analysis by also considering an idea from the method of KIMBER et al. (1980) and
RAMANAYYA (1988). The assumptions were made that the regression analysis of the speed
and flow relationship is linear where only light vehicle (LV), heavy vehicle (HV), motorcycle
(MC) and unmotorized (UM) were considered. Therefore, the speed of light vehicles of each
stream could be determined as
VLVi = Const. aLVi QLVi aHVi QHVi aMCi QMCi .... aUMi QUMi
(51)
where
VLVi
Const.
aji
Qji
[km/h]
[]
[]
[pcu/h]
Speeds of each stream have been observed based on their flow of group conflict. Speed and
flow line regressions were then made for each group of conflict for all intersections. A linear
speed and flow model of each stream at a group conflict obtained relationship with R2 < 0.5,
see Figure 518 to 523 in most of the cases. The figures show one of the observed
intersections while others still have the same performance at the same range of R2 (0.1
0.45).
Group of conflict I
Group of conflict II
Direction of flow
CA
BA
40,0
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
40,0
37,5
35,0
35,0
32,5
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
37,5
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
99
Group of conflict IV
40,0
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
37,5
35,0
35,0
32,5
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
37,5
40,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
0,0
50,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
Group of conflict VI
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
Direction of flow
CB
AB
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
30,0
Group of conflict V
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
0,0
5.4
25,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
Linear models for speed (subject stream, e.g. C A) and flow which was defined as the total
number of vehicles of streams included in conflict groups (e.g. C A and B A) were also
observed. This part of observation is necessary to find further detailed relationships between
speed and flow divided by group of conflict. A linear model for the relationship is found to
have R2 in a range of 0.2 0.45 with no apparent knee in the relationship, see Figure 524 to
529 . Since observations were only performed for one (1) hour, data are concentrated on a
small range of speed and flow, we used a linear model. Similar linear relationships were
obtained for selected intersections.
Various levels of correlation were found for the relation between subject stream and group
conflict flow. These levels are indicated at values of R2. The level could be smaller if the
stream faced more conflicts and lower number of vehicles than other streams, e.g. stream B
100
A and C B. Drivers tend to choose the easiest way to pass through the intersection,
especially when they find more space (small number of vehicles occupied the intersection
area) to make such a maneuver which could lead to unusual travel paths for their movement.
This might contribute to a higher speed then expected. This would not be suitable to represent
the speed of the specific stream. Therefore, it is necessary to have a consistency in travel
paths for each stream to have appropriate speed and vehicles travel path were neglected.
Based on the field investigation, it was found that some drivers did not use their normal travel
path or they used shorter distances in order to complete their travelling cross the intersections
which results in a higher speed than the average speed at the same travel path/distance. This
case mostly occurred at the turning movement of streams, e.g. stream C B and B A. In
this case, it is required to separate the data from vehicles with unusual travel paths which
means this data should be neglected. Every streams flow which has been observed in this
study is used for further analysis. Further relationships between the speed of light vehicles of
streams and flow of streams conflict group are constructed as :
VLVi = Const. aLV QLV (group of conflict) aHV QHV (group of conflict)
aMC QMC(group of conflict) .... aUM QUM (group of conflict)
(52)
where
VLVi
Const.
aj
Qj
[]
[]
[pcu/h]
Flow direction C  B
40,0
40,0
37,5
37,5
35,0
35,0
32,5
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
Flow direction C  A
[km/h]
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
120,0
130,0
101
Flow direction B  A
40,0
37,5
37,5
35,0
35,0
32,5
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
Flow direction B  C
40,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
Flow direction A  B
40,0
40,0
37,5
37,5
35,0
35,0
32,5
32,5
30,0
30,0
27,5
27,5
25,0
25,0
Speed (km/h)
Speed (km/h)
50,0
Flow direction A  C
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
12,5
10,0
10,0
7,5
7,5
5,0
5,0
2,5
2,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
0,0
5.5
40,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
Due to a large number of different parameter values with regard to various types of vehicles
in this study, e.g. speed and flow, it is proposed to construct relationships between parameters
including each vehicles performances (LT, MHV, LV, MC, UM, see also Table 47) from
each stream as follows
Conflict group I,
VLVCA = A K LVCA QLVCA K LV BA QLVBA K MHViCA QMHViCA
K MHVi BA QMHVi BA .... KUMiCA QUMiCA KUMi BA QUMi BA
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
conflict group V,
VLVAC = A K LVAC QLVAC K LV CB QLVCB K LV BA QLVBA K LV BC QLVBC
K MHViAC QMHViAC K MHVi CB QMHVi CB K MHVi BA QMHVi BA K MHVi BC QMHVi BC
.... KUMiAC QUMiAC KUMi CB QUMi CB KUMi BA QUMi BA KUMi BC QUMi BC
(57)
conflict group VI
VLVAB = A K LVAB QLVAB K LV CB QLVCB K MHViAB QMHViAB
K MHVi CB QMHVi CB .... KUMiAB QUMiAB KUMi CB QUMi CB
(58)
where
VLVCA
A
KLVCA
QLVCA
KMHVCA
QMHVCA
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
[pcu/h]
[]
[pcu/h]
It is expected to have a certain number of each type of vehicle for being analyzed with the
formulas mentioned above. The vehicles consist of nine (9) categories. However, those
vehicle types represented only with a portion lower than 1.0% were not be taken into account
because they were considered as elements of side friction rather than traffic flow (BANG et
al., 1995). This mostly occurred for minibuses (LT) and unmotorized vehicles (UM) and it
could produce some error in developing a regression model. Table 59 and 510 show linear
models with more than two parameters within 1minute and 5minute interval observations.
The linear model gave a suitable relationship which partly has a very close relationship
(R2 > 0.900).
103
A suitable correlation between the speed of light vehicles/cars (LV) of each stream and flow
of each type of vehicle of conflict group has been found at almost all of the intersections.
Details can also be seen in Table 516. The relationship was constructed between the speed of
light vehicles of a subject stream and the flow of each type of vehicle included in the conflict
group, e.g. speed of light vehicles of subject stream C A, VLVCA is a function of flow of
every type of vehicle in a conflict group (QMHViCA, QMHViBA, QLVCA, QLVBA, QMCCA, QMCBA,
QUMiCA, QUMiBA, ....). In most of the cases, intersections could only perform the relationship
with the flow of medium heavy vehicles (MHV), light vehicles (LV) and motorcycles (MC)
due to their number (flow) and portion which are more than 1.0%.
From the tables (Table 59 and Table 510) we can see that the relationship is even better (R2)
in 5minute interval observations than in a 1minute observations. Considering this level of
correlation between parameters, this was not just the number of vehicles stream as important
value, but also the number of each type of vehicle within the streams.
Form
VLV CA = 28.917 0.371QMHV 2 CA 0.361QLV CA
VLV CB
II
VLV BA
0.445
0.547
0.392
0.80 QMC AC
= 10.463 + 0.125 QMHV 2 CA 1.466 QMHV 2 AC +
1.605 QLV CA 0.867 QLV CB 0.189 QLV BA
IV
0.303
0.915 QMC AB
= 21.670 + 0.391QMHV 2 BC + 0.023 QMHV 2 AC
0.947 QLV BC 1.02 QLV AC 2.155 QMC BC
III
VI
R2
0.384 QMC AC
= 18.465 + 3.339 QLV CB + 0.054 QMCCB +
0.312 QLV AB 2.321QMC AB
0.910
0.901
Table 59. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each Type of Vehicle in 1minute intervals
104
R2
Form
VLV CA = 24 .658 0.02 QMHV 2 CA 0.061 QLV CA
0.405 QLV BA + 0.498 QMC CA + 0.204 QMC BA
0.739
II
VLV BA
VLV AB
0.995
0.537
+ 0.218 QMC AC
= 5.439 + 0.514 QMHV 2 CA + 0.022 QMHV 2 AC +
0.272 QLV CA + 0.811QLV CB + 0.819 QLV BA
IV
VI
1.759 QMC AB
= 5.387 + 0.048 QMHV 2 BC + 0.060 QMVH 2 AC
0.114 QLV BC 0.327 QLV AC + 1.221QMC BC
III
0.941
0.989
0.214
0.111QMC AB
Table 510. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each Type of Vehicle in 5minute
intervals
Therefore, 5minute interval observations could result in a portion number of vehicles. Thus
more types of vehicles can be included in the analysis which contribute to the higher level of
correlation. However, the relationship between the speed of light vehicles and the flow of
each type of vehicle in conflict groups, could not be used for further analysis of capacity but
only for speed and flow of streams.
5.6
Despite the speed and flow relationship between each type of vehicle from each stream, the
relationship between the flow of each stream (QCA, QCB, QBC, QBA, QAC, QAB) of each
conflict group (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) and the speed of each stream (VCA, VCB, VBC, VBA, VAC,
VAB) was also developed, because further capacity calculations would be based on each
stream performance of every conflict group. The development of this relationship was
required for further capacity analysis by the new approach, because the analysis would not be
possible if the flows of each type of vehicle were counted separately. Therefore, it is required
to measure an average speed and the total flow of each stream of all intersections. Then the
105
relationship between speed and flows of conflict groups was constructed with a function
and scheme which is presented in Table 511. From the table we can see that the red line
remains the subject stream and another color represents the streams included in a conflict
group.
The study considered that the subject streams, e.g. bCA QCA have also contributed to the
reduction of its own speed, VCA instead of other conflict streams (e.g. bBAQBA in group of
conflictI). The study has also found that group of conflictII, group of conflictIV and group
of conflictV have four streams included (C B, B A and A C) while other groups have
only two streams (C A, B C and A B).
Group of
Conflict
Function
Scheme
1
CA
VC A = aC A bC A QC A bB A QB A
BA
CB
II
VC B = aC B bC B QC B bB A QB A
AC
b A B Q A B bA C Q A C
AB
BA
III
VB C = aB C bB C QB C bA C QA C
AC
BC
106
1
CA
CB
VB A = aB A bB A QB A bA C QA C
IV
bC A QC A bC B QC B
AC
BA
CB
VA C = a A C bA C QA C bC B QC B
V
bB C QB C bB A QB A
AC
BC
BA
CB
VI
VA B = a A B bA B QA B bC B QC B
AB
Table 511. General Functions and Scheme of Speed Flow Relationship at Conflict Group
R2
SE
0.215
2.2347
0.153
2.1735
0.214
1.6706
0.084
3.3620
0.474
1.9045
0.230
2.5194
III
IV
V
VI
Table 512. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each of Stream in 1minute intervals
107
R2
SE
0.082
1.0821
0.172
0.8870
0.282
0.8672
0.531
0.6509
0.566
0.5962
0.438
1.6028
Table 513. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each of Stream in 5minute intervals
Table 512 and Table 513 show the relationship between average speed and flow in 1minute
interval and 5minute interval observations which results in R2 within a range of 0.1 0.5. It
was found that a weak relationship is given due to its number of conflicts and tendency of
drivers to avoid lane discipline. In most of the cases, drivers tend to use unusual travel paths
in order to avoid the conflict with other streams and to complete their journey (departure from
conflict area) in a very short time.
Relationships of speed and flow in Table 512 and 513 have been determined for
intersection1. Also for the other intersections analysis has given similar relations with the
same level of R2values. However, it is necessary to develop a model in general which is
suitable for every intersection. The following equations were developed from combined data
of all intersections :
In a 1minute interval,
VC A = 18.095 0.191QC A 0.075 QB A
R
= 0.119 ; S E = 1.54349
(510)
= 0.175 ; S E = 2.62974
(59)
= 0.343; S E = 0.96911
108
(511)
= 0.304 ; S E = 1.68863
(513)
= 0.195 ; S E = 1.36912
(512)
(514)
= 0.184 ; S E = 1.38990
In a 5minute interval,
VC A = 21.638 0.119 QC A 0.017 QB A
R
= 0.179 ; S E = 1.01472
5.7
(519)
= 0.395 ; S E = 0.35753
(518)
= 0.705 ; S E = 0.62539
(517)
= 0.337 ; S E = 0.29960
(516)
= 0.374 ; S E = 1.15856
(515)
(520)
= 0.845 ; S E = 0.69600
Studies of level of service at any relationship between speed, flow, and road concentration at
the urban heterogeneous traffic flow have been carried out by MARWAH & SINGH (2000).
The studies were conducted at roads with 500 meter length and 7 meter width. Simulation
runs at flow levels of 600, 900, 1200, 1800, 2400, 3000, 3600, 4200 and 4800 vehicles per
hour with every 100 second interval of observation were conducted for traffic concentration
(number of vehicles per kilometer) and road occupancy (percent of road area occupied). The
results show that the concentration increases almost linearly with increasing flow and road
occupancy up to 1800 veh/h. Beyond this volume, the rate of increase was higher. The
analysis has demonstrated that speed and concentration were affected by volume.
109
Observations also showed that the mean travel speed of all vehicles varies almost linearly
with concentration, however, for cars the speed variation was very high even at low
concentration level.
The study above gave an indication of potential parameters to measure the quality of traffic
flow at road sections and intersections based on speed, flow and intersection occupancy
(percent area of intersection occupied by vehicles). Relationships for speed intersection
occupancy as well as flow intersection occupancy for 1minute, 5minute, and 20second
interval observation were analyzed. The investigation starts with a regression analysis of the
parameters: flow of each stream and intersection occupancy which is assumed to be a linear
function,
(521)
where
IO
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Intersection Occupancy
Flow of stream C A
Flow of stream C B
Flow of stream B C
Flow of stream B A
Flow of stream A C
Flow of stream A B
[%]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
Occupancy was observed based on the sum of all vehicles area (length x width) projected
vertically relative to the area of conflict. This technique is adopted because the vehicles of
heterogeneous traffic mix have wide variations in their dimensions. Further analysis estimated
the percentage of intersectionconflict area occupied by vehicles at the certain level of flow
rate. Thus, it was expected to find out the degree of occupancy while capacity is reached. This
is an important view since traffic behavior uses width acceptance concept rather than lane
concept in lane changing/overtaking because drivers, riders and pedestrians find it optimal to
advance by accepting lateral gaps (width) between preceding entities. Those models can
ultimately produce a good estimate of roadway capacity and assessment of operations and
safety of various facility designs (TIWARI, 2001). Figure 530 and Figure 531 show the
linear trend of following relationship in 1minute interval observations where flow is defined
as the total flow of all streams (in vehicles per hour and passenger car units per hour). From
the figures, we can see that 1minute interval observation produced a suitable relationship
with R2 = 0.104 (vehicles per hour) and R2 = 0.29 (passenger car units per hour). The
correlation coefficient were higher in 5minute interval observation with R2 = 0.462 (vehicles
per hour) and R2 = 0.198 (passenger car units per hour). The speed performance of each
stream related to the percentage of intersection occupancy seems to be similar to the speed
performance in relation to the flow rate (see Figure 518 to 523). Observations in 5minute
110
intervals can be seen in Figure 533 and Figure 534. We also found a typical speed and
intersection occupancy relationship in 1minute and 5minute interval time (Figure 532 and
Figure 535). It can be seen that each movement had its own speed level. Within each
movement there is a tendency of speed decreasing with increasing intersection occupancy.
150
100,0
135
90,0
120
80,0
105
90
75
60
45
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
30
20,0
15
10,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
14,0
15,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
Direction of Flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Speed (km/h)
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
15,0
0,0
14,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
14,0
15,0
500
300,0
475
275,0
450
250,0
425
400
375
225,0
200,0
175,0
350
150,0
325
125,0
300
100,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
Direction of Flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
40,0
35,0
30,0
Speed (km/h)
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
14,0
15,0
In order to investigate the behavior of each traffic stream (six streams), more than two
dimensional regression approaches have to be developed. Every stream contributes to a
number of vehicles occupying the intersections area and causing impact on flow and speed.
112
The following Table 514 and Table 515 show an important correlation between intersection
occupancy and the volume of each stream. These tables represent the functional relations for
each intersection. The results show that all intersections to have the same level of correlation
(R2 and SE). However, we can see in Table 515 that observations in 5minute intervals
would perform at a higher degree of correlation (R2 and SE) than 1minute intervals.
Therefore, it can be concluded that a suitable relationship between flow of each stream and
intersection occupancy (conflict area occupied) can be well constructed. The idea of
developing this relationship is to identify how large the conflict area occupation is at each
traffic volume and how large it is at the maximum flow.
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Form
R2
SE
0.173 1.442
0.299 1.854
0.167 3.140
0.101 3.211
0.252 2.469
0.177 2.304
0.083 1.666
0.288 2.209
0.189 1.635
0.190 1.248
Table 514. Flow Intersection Occupancy Relationship from 1minute interval observation
113
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
R2
Form
SE
0.634 0.409
0.243 1.881
0.089 3.582
0.421 0.933
0.156 0.855
0.595 0.748
0.742 0.473
0.821 0.361
0.722 0.418
0.343 0.480
Table 515. Flow Intersection Occupancy Relationship from 5minute interval observations
The relationship between the traffic volume and intersections occupancy for all individual
intersections has been presented above. The relation based on data from all intersections has
been obtained as :
For 1minute interval,
IO = 3.298 + 0.136 QC A + 0.073QC B + 0.085 QB C + 0.156 QB A + 0.042 QA C + 0.154 QA B
(522)
R = 0.106 ; S E = 2.12935
2
(523)
R = 0.814 ; S E = 0.25424
2
Measurement in 5minute intervals produced unrealistic equations due to large various data
performance of each stream (volume) of intersections. This was not used for further analyses.
114
The following Table 516 was made from all data measurements (intersections, conflict group
and interval time observations) to perform the correlation coefficients. All regressions in this
chapter are summarized together. In most of the cases, we found the correlation are always
higher in 5minute interval observations than in 1minute interval observations.
Intersection
Time
Conflict
Interval
Group
[minute]
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
Speed Flow
Conflict
[R2]
0.215
0.082
0.153
0.172
0.214
0.282
0.084
0.531
0.474
0.566
0.230
0.438
0.100
0.339
0.086
0.245
0.119
0.003
0.387
0.232
0.354
0.030
0.114
0.340
0.085
0.418
0.105
0.149
0.024
0.059
0.069
0.375
0.262
0.092
0.062
0.134
0.025
0.158
0.733
0.089
0.256
0.247
0.301
0.288
0.548
115
Speed Flow
Conflict
(vehicles
parameters)
[R2]
0.303
0.739
0.392
0.941
0.445
0.537
0.547
0.995
0.910
0.989
0.901
0.214
0.218
0.502
0.348
0.460
0.562
0.571
0.726
0.860
0.509
0.533
0.365
0.757
0.234
0.371
0.164
0.241
0.916
0.483
0.840
0.173
0.850
0.995
0.027
0.554
0.407
0.866
0.771
0.899
0.478
0.629
0.709
0.971
0.630
0.970
Intersection
Occupancy
Flow Conflict
[R2]
0.173
0.634
0.299
0.243
0.167
0.089
0.101
0.421
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
I
II
III
IV
V
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
0.209
0.702
0.170
0.376
0.154
0.431
0.462
0.286
0.124
0.802
0.251
0.153
0.057
0.571
0.181
0.206
0.149
0.124
0.185
0.426
0.174
0.488
0.342
0.723
0.081
0.065
0.081
0.057
0.168
0.455
0.099
0.074
0.209
0.478
0.241
0.341
0.103
0.020
0.082
0.094
0.151
0.628
0.295
0.107
0.206
0.798
0.110
0.456
0.187
0.062
0.071
0.122
0.106
0.347
0.134
0.551
0.041
0.031
0.193
116
0.292
0.547
0.406
0.302
0.275
0.857
0.202
0.807
0.691
0.784
0.255
0.676
0.140
0.999
0.483
0.531
0.721
0.973
0.101
0.797
0.378
0.994
0.382
0.877
0.382
0.240
0.344
0.677
0.926
0.939
0.314
0.676
0.345
0.989
0.682
0.975
0.528
0.918
0.596
0.992
0.337
0.697
0.480
0.749
0.998
0.504
0.883
0.962
0.105
0.029
0.880
0.677
0.492
0.936
0.369
0.740
0.691
0.987
0.969
0.252
0.156
0.177
0.595
0.083
0.742
0.226
0.821
0.189
0.722
VI
I
II
10
III
IV
V
VI
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
0.547
0.078
0.252
0.063
0.014
0.243
0.511
0.312
0.163
0.205
0.352
0.169
0.714
0.023
0.023
0.290
0.394
0.898
0.701
0.347
0.779
0.907
0.070
0.253
0.975
0.962
0.248
0.654
0.295
0.526
0.190
0.343
5.8
Capacities at unsignalized intersections under mixed traffic flow with no gap acceptance
behavior have to be developed in a rather specific way. The tendency that the drivers would
not stop their vehicles and become more aggressive while they reach the intersection has to be
taken into consideration. Drivers tend to maintain their speed rather than stop, therefore,
speed is an important value to measure the quality instead of flow. Based on investigations of
each streams speed and flow behavior at its conflict group, there was a strong correlation
between these parameters. Therefore, speeds of each conflict stream were considered in
further analysis.
QA,VA
QB,VB
II
I
QB,VB
I
QC,VC
Figure 536. Stream QC influenced by one
conflict stream, QB (I)
QC,VC
The typical conflict of two different streams, QB and QC is described in Figure 536. The
conflict of QC running through more than one conflict stream, QA and QB is described in
Figure 537.
117
The relationships between speed and flow of conflict streams could be described as
VI = aI bI QB cI QC
VII = aII bII QA cII QC
(524)
(525)
where
= Average speed (spot speed) at conflict point I and II
= Constant parameter representing freeflow speed at
conflict point I and II
= Speed reduction coefficient caused by flow stream QA and QB
= Speed reduction coefficient caused by flow stream QC
= Volume of movements A, B, C
VI,VII
aI, aII
bI, bII
cI, cII
QA, QB, QC
[km/h]
[km/h]
[]
[]
[pcu/h]
VI = aI bI QB cI
with f1 =
QB
f1
QB
QC
The equations can be solved for the flow rates, QB and QC at conflict point I :
QC =
aI VI
(bI f1 + cI )
QB =
(526)
aI VI
c
(bI + I )
f1
(527)
with f 2 =
QA
QC
118
QA
f2
aII VII
(bII f 2 + cII )
a VII
QA = II
c
(bII + II )
f2
QC =
(528)
(529)
Speeds at each conflict point (VI' and VII') have to be observed and measured when streams
have reached their maximum flow (QAMAX, QBMAX, QCMAX). If one of the streams i has
reached its maximum flow QiMAX, we might assume that the intersection starts to congest
regarding speed VI' and VII' while the other two flows maintain their flow rates (maximum
that has been reached). It is also required that the maximum flow of each stream i should be
higher or equal to zero, Qi 0.0. Due to an ideal relationship between speed and flow (e.g.
Equation 524 ff.) which might not be fulfilled and the linear equation might have more than
two dimensions when the group of conflict consists of more than two streams, see also Table
511 and Figure 537, therefore the following argument can be seen in Figure 538.
V [km/h]
VCRITICAL
VCRITICAL = VA` = VC`
V = f (QC)
V = f (QA)
 QA`
QC`
QC
QA
Q [pcu/h]
Figure 538. Scheme of Speed Flow Performance of Two Conflict Streams, QA and QC
Figure 538 represents the speed flow relationship for two conflict groups with a pre
defined speed VA' = VC'. Considering Figure 537 and Equation 525 that each stream in a
group of conflict (II) would have the same average speed, in such circumstances, if the
streams of one conflict reach their maximum flow (capacity), QA, QC with average speed
(critical speed), VCRITICAL , other conflicts would produce a negative value, QA''. In this case,
it is required to have the maximum flow (capacity) for all streams, Qi' 0.0 .
119
For further analysis of the maximum flow of the intersection, the following analogy can be
made :
If flow QA has reached its maximum flow,
(530)
then
QB
a V b Q
II
II A MAX
= aI VI cI II
cII
,0
MAX
and
,0
MAX
The total flow of intersection, Qint (1) when QA has reached its maximum flow is
a V b Q
II
II A MAX
Qint (1) = QA + QB + QC = QA MAX + aI VI cI II
c
II
a V b Q
II
II
II A MAX
,0
cII
MAX
, 0
+
MAX
(531)
a V b Q
I
I B MAX
QA = aII VII cII I
c
I
,0
MAX
and
QC
a V b Q
I
I B MAX
= I
c
I
,0
MAX
The total flow of intersection, Qint (2) when QB has reached its maximum flow is
a V b Q
I
I B MAX
Qint ( 2 ) = QA + QB + QC = aII VII cII I
cI
a V b Q
I
I B MAX
I
, 0
c
I
MAX
120
,0
+ QB MAX +
MAX
(533)
When flow QC has reached its maximum flow, there are two possibilities of maximum flow
of QC ,
QCMAX = QC' at VI = VI' (conflict point I) and QCMAX = QC'' at VII = VII' (II)
(534)
therefore,
a VI bI QB
, 0
QC = I
cI
MAX
QC
a V b Q
II
II A
= II
,0
c
II
MAX
QA
a V c Q '''
II
II C
= II
,0
b
II
MAX
and
a VI cI QC'''
QB = I
, 0
bI
MAX
The total flow of intersection, Qint (3) when QC has reached its maximum flow is
a V c Q '''
a V c Q '''
I
I C
II
II C
+
, 0
+ I
,0
Qint (3) = QA + QB + QC''' = II
b
b
I
II
MAX
MAX
Q , Q
(535)
C C MAX
where
Qint (1), Qint (2),
Qint (3)
= Total maximum flow of intersection based on maximum
flow of stream
= Maximum flow of stream A = QA'
QAMAX
= Maximum flow of stream B = QB'
QBMAX
= Maximum flow of stream C = QC'
QCMAX
= Flow stream A (maximum) while another stream
QA''
reach its capacity
= Flow stream B (maximum) while another stream
QB''
reach its capacity
= Flow stream C (maximum) while another stream
QC''
reach its capacity
= Maximum flow of stream C at second conflict
with stream A at VI''
= Maximum flow of stream C from two alternatives;
QC'''
QC' and QC''
121
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
VI'
VII'
[km/h]
[km/h]
Since the speed at the maximum flow (capacity) of an intersection is not available or in a
limited resource (e.g. intersection3 which maximum capacity is likely to be reached), the
speed (VI', VII') has to be assumed and would have the same value for all streams and the
maximum flow (capacity) of intersection is defined as the minimum value of the total flows
[Qint (1), Qint (2), Qint (3)] on the intersection,
(536)
where
C
Qint (1)
Qint (2)
Qint (3)
=
=
=
=
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
This study has found difficulties in measuring speed at conflict points (e.g. conflict point I and
II) because only an ordinary camcorder was used for observation. Such instruments could
only measure space mean speed which was measured as vehicles total travel time over a
stretch of road. Speeds of each stream flow (VA, VB, VC) were observed, see Figure 539
below. Instead of the speed at conflict point I and II, QC would have an average speed through
conflict streams QA and QB.
QB,VB
QA,VA
QC influenced by two other
streams ; QA and QB
QC,VC
122
(537)
where
f1 =
QB
;
QC
f2 =
QA
QC
then
QC MAX
aC VC
,0
=
[
b
+
(b
f
)
+
(b
f
)
]
1
2
B
A
C
MAX
a V b Q
C
C
C MAX (bB f1 QC MAX )
QA = C
,0
= {(QC MAX f 2 ), 0}MAX
bA
MAX
MAX
C
C
C MAX (bB f1 QC MAX )
, 0
Qint (1) = QA + QB + QC MAX = C
+
b
A
MAX
a V b Q
aC VC
C
C
C
C MAX (bA f 2 QC MAX )
, 0
,
0
+
bB
[b + (bB f1 ) + (bA f 2 )]
MAX C
MAX
(538)
At the maximum volume QA = QAMAX for movement A the speed VA' , can be expressed as :
VA = a A bAQA MAX bC QC
VA = a A bA QA MAX bC A MAX
f2
VA = a A QA MAX bA + C
f 2
123
(539)
then
QA MAX
a A VA
=
, 0
b + bC
A f 2
MAX
a V b Q
A
A
A MAX
QC = A
b
C
Q
,0
= A MAX
f2
MAX
, 0
MAX
a VB bC QC
QB = B
, 0
= QC f1 , 0
MAX
bB
MAX
Qint( 2 ) = QA MAX
a V b Q
a A VA
B
C
C
+ QB + QC =
,0
+
+ B
, 0
bB
b + bC
MAX
A f 2
MAX
a V b Q
A
A
A MAX
A
b
C
,0
MAX
(540)
VB = a B bB QB MAX bC QC
VB = a B bB QB MAX bC B MAX
f1
VB = a B QB MAX bB + C
f1
then
QB MAX
a
V
B
B
=
, 0
b + bC
B f1
MAX
124
(541)
a VB bB QB MAX
QC = B
bC
Q
,0
= B MAX
f1
MAX
, 0
MAX
a V b Q
A
C
C
QA = A
, 0
= QC f 2 , 0
MAX
bA
MAX
a VA bC QC
Qint( 3) = QA + QB MAX + QC = A
, 0
bA
MAX
a V b Q
B
B
B MAX
B
bC
a
V
B
B
+
+
, 0
b
b + C
B f1
MAX
,0
MAX
(542)
From those three alternatives for the maximum flow of movements, the capacity of the
intersection is defined as
5.9
(543)
Further analysis was made in this study based on observed data at threeleg unsignalized
intersections. This type of intersections contains less conflict streams compared to fourleg
unsignalized intersections. The study described the intersections which consist of six streams,
six conflict points (I, II, III, IV, V, VI), and six groups of conflicts (C A, C B, B C, B
A, A C, A B) (see also Table 51 and Figure 540). Previously, it has been discussed that
observation could only measure the average speed of each stream that by unusual
measurement techniques only the average speed of each movement while crossing the
intersection can be estimated. Therefore, the new empirically based method relies on the
average speed of subject streams and the volume of each stream to determine the capacity as
the maximum possible volume at the intersection.
125
I
QCA
QCB
IV
VI
Q AC
Q AB
III
II
Q BC
QBA
As an important parameter, speed and flow of each stream were measured and analyzed for all
intersections. Each of them was observed on the basis of each group of conflict. Speed and
flow descriptions of each conflict point are :
The following coefficients are defined :
f1 =
QCA
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
, f 2 = CB , f 3 = BC , f 4 = CB , f 5 = AC , f 6 = AC
QBA
QAB
QAC
QBA
QCB
QBA
then for each conflict point the model is described by a set of equations.
At the conflict point I,
VI = a I bI QC A c I QB A
QC A
QB A
(1)
(1)
aI VI
, 0
=
b + cI
I f1
MAX
QC A(1)
aI VI
, 0
=
=
, 0
(
)
b
f
c
f
1
MAX
I 1 I
MAX
126
(544)
VII = a II bII QC B c II Q A B
QC B
QA B
( 2)
( 2)
(545)
aII VII
, 0
=
b + cII
II f 2
MAX
QC B ( 2 )
aII VII
, 0
=
,
0
=
(
)
b
f
c
f
II
II
2
2
MAX
MAX
QB C
QA C
( 3)
( 3)
(546)
aIII VIII
, 0
=
b + cIII
III
f 3
MAX
QB C (3)
aIII VIII
, 0
=
=
, 0
(
)
b
f
c
f
3
MAX
III 3 III
MAX
VIV = a IV bIV QC B c IV QB A
QC B
QB A
( 4)
( 4)
aIV VIV
, 0
=
b + cIV
IV
f 4
MAX
QC B ( 4)
aIV VIV
, 0
=
,
0
=
(
)
b
f
c
f
IV
IV
4
4
MAX
MAX
127
(547)
VV = aV bV QC B cV Q AC
QC B
QA C
(5)
(5)
(548)
aV VV
=
, 0
(bV + cV f 5 )
MAX
aV VV
, 0
=
bV + c
V
f 5
{(
= QC B
(5)
) }
f 5 , 0 MAX
MAX
QB A
QA C
(6)
( 6)
(549)
aVI VVI
=
, 0
(
)
b
c
f
+
VI VI 6
MAX
aVI VVI
(6)
, 0
= QB A f 6 , 0 MAX
=
bVI + c
VI
f 6
MAX
{(
) }
For the subject stream QCA to reach its maximum flow, QCA(1) with conflict speed VI (1),
VII (1) , VIII (1) , VIV (1), VV (1), VVI (1), the maximum flow of the intersection is calculated as
QC A
(1)
(1)
(1)
aI VI
,0
=
(1) c (1)
b + I
I
f1
MAX
128
( 2)
( 4)
QC B , MAX = QC B , QC B , QC B
(5)
MAX
(1)
(1)
a (1) V (1)
aIV VIV
II
,
0
,
,
0
,
II
(1)
(1) cIV (1)
(1) cII
bIV +
= bII + f
f 4
2
MAX
MAX
(1)
(1)
aV VV
,0
bV (1) + cV (1) f 5
MAX
MAX
QB C
( 3)
(1)
( 4)
( 6)
( 3)
( 5)
(6)
MAX
)
)
, 0 ,
MAX
MAX
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
aIII VIII
aV VV
, 0 ,
b (1) f + c (1) , 0 , (1)
III
3
MAX bV + c (1)
III
V
f 5
MAX
(1)
bVI + c (1)
VI
f 6
MAX
MAX
QA C , MAX = QA C , QA C , QA C
a (1) V (1)
aIV (1) VIV (1)
I
I
, 0 , (1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
bI f1 + cI MAX bIV f4 + cIV
=
MAX
(1)
(1)
aVI VVI
b (1) + c (1) f , 0
MAX
6
VI
VI
QA B
(1)
(1)
aIII VIII
=
,0
(1) c (1)
b
+ III
III
f 3
MAX
QB A, MAX = QB A , QB A , QB A
( 2)
The maximum flow of the intersection whose subject stream QCA reaches its maximum flow
which we call as alternative1 is
(1)
C1 = QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C
( 3)
+ QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX + QA B
( 2)
(550)
where
QCA(1)
[pcu/h]
Vi(1)
(1)
(1)
ai , bi , ci
(1)
[pcu/h]
[]
For the subject stream QCB to reach its maximum flow, (QCB(2) , QCB(4), QCB(5))MAX with
conflict speeds of VI (2), VII (2), VIII (2), VIV (2), VV (2), VVI (2), the maximum flow of the intersection
is calculated as
( 2)
( 4)
QC B , MAX = QC B , QC B , QC B
(5)
MAX
( 2)
( 2)
a ( 2 ) V ( 2 )
aIV VIV
, 0 ,
II
,
0
,
II
( 2)
( 2) cIV ( 2 )
( 2 ) cII
bIV +
= bII + f
f 4
2
MAX
MAX
( 2)
( 2)
aV VV
,0
bV ( 2) + cV ( 2 ) f 5
MAX
MAX
QC A
QB C
(1)
( 3)
( 2)
( 2)
aI VI
,0
=
( 2) c ( 2)
b + I
I
f1
MAX
( 2)
( 2)
aIII VIII
,0
=
( 2) c ( 2)
b
+ III
III
f 3
MAX
(1)
( 4)
QB A, MAX = QB A , QB A , QB A
Q
= C B , MAX
f4
(6)
MAX
(a
aIV ( 2) VIV ( 2)
, 0 , ( 2 )
,
0
,
( 2)
bI
MAX bIV f 4 + cIV MAX
( 2)
( 2)
aVI VVI
, 0
( 2)
( 2)
(
(
( 2)
I
( 2)
, 0
MAX
130
( 2)
VI
( 2)
f1 + cI
)
)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
aIII VIII
aV VV
, 0 ,
b ( 2 ) f + c ( 2 ) , 0 , ( 2 )
3
III
MAX bV + c ( 2)
III
V
f 5
MAX
aVI ( 2) VVI ( 2)
, 0
( 2 )
bVI + c ( 2 )
VI
f 6
MAX
MAX
( 3)
( 5)
QA C , MAX = QA C , QA C , QA C
(6)
MAX
QA B
( 2)
aII ( 2 ) VII ( 2)
Q
= ( 2 )
= C B , MAX
, 0
( 2)
f2
bII f 2 + cII MAX
, 0
MAX
The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative2 whose subject stream QCB reaches its
maximum flow is
(1)
C2 = QC B , MAX + QC A + QB C
( 3)
+ QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX + QA B
( 2)
(551)
where
QCB,MAX
Vi(2)
ai(2), bi(2), ci(2)
[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[]
The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative3 whose QBC reaches its maximum
flow with speed of VBC(3),
C3 = QB C
( 3)
(1)
( 2)
(552)
where
QBC (3)
Vi(3)
ai(3), bi(3), ci(3)
131
[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[]
The maximum flow of intersection at alternative4 whose subject stream QBA reaches its
maximum flow with speed VBA(4) is
(1)
( 3)
C4 = QB A, MAX + QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C
+ QA C , MAX + QA B
( 2)
(553)
where
QBA,MAX
Vi(4)
ai(4), bi(4), ci(4)
[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[]
The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative5 whose subject stream QAC reaches its
maximum flow with speed of VAC(5) is
(1)
C5 = QA C , MAX + QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C
( 3)
+ QB A, MAX + QA B
( 2)
(554)
where
QAC,MAX
Vi
(5)
(5)
(5)
ai , bi , ci
(5)
[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[]
The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative6 whose subject stream QAB reaches its
maximum flow with the speed of VAB(6) is
C6 = QA B
( 2)
(1)
+ QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C
( 3)
+ QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX
(555)
where
QAB(2)
Vi(6)
ai(6), bi(6), ci(6)
[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[]
All possibilities of maximum flows that might occur at each stream were measured one after
another and the maximum flow (capacity) of the intersection is the least maximum flow
(capacity),
C [C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6]MIN
(556)
It has been explained previously that it was not possible to observe speed at a conflict point.
Therefore, we have considered speeds of each traffic stream which are influenced by other
132
VC A = aC A bC A QC A bB A QB A
VC B = aC B bC B QC B bA B QA B bA C QA C bB A QB A
VB C = aB C bB C QB C bA C QA C
VB A = aB A bB A QB A bC A QC A bC B QC B bA C QA C
VA C = a A C bA C QA C bC B QC B bB A QB A bB C QB C
VA B = a A B bA B QA B bC B QC B
(see also Table 511).
Q (1)
(1)
VC A = aC A bC A QC A bB A C A
f1
(557)
QC A
QB A
QC B
QA C
QA B
QB C
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
VC A
a
, 0
= C A
b + bB A
C A
f1
MAX
(1)
a
QC A(1)
C A VC A bC A QC A
, 0
=
=
, 0
b
f
B A
1
MAX
MAX
a VB A bB A QB A(1) bC A QC A(1)
(1)
= f 4 QB A , 0 MAX
= B A
, 0
(bC B + bAC f5 )
MAX
{(
) }
AC
MAX
{(
QC B (1)
a VA B bC B QC B (1)
, 0
,
0
=
= A B
bA B
MAX f 2 MAX
(1)
a
VB C bA C QA C
(1)
= f 3 QA C , 0 MAX
= B C
, 0
b
B C
MAX
{(
133
) }
) }
(1)
(1)
(1)
= QC A + QC B + QB C
(1)
(1)
+ QB A + QA C
(1)
+ QA B
(1)
(558)
Q ( 2)
Q ( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
VC B = aC B bC BQC B bB A C B bA C f 5 QC B bA B C B
f4
f2
(559)
QC B
QA B
QA C
QB A
QB C
QC A
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
aC B VC B
, 0
=
b + bB A + (b f ) + bA B
3
AC
C B
f4
f 2
MAX
QC B ( 2 )
a A B VA B bC B QC B ( 2)
, 0
=
=
, 0
bA B
MAX f 2 MAX
( 2)
( 2)
aC B VC B aC B QC B a A B QA B
( 2)
=
, 0
= f 5 QC B , 0 MAX
bA C + B A
f6
MAX
{(
) }
( 2)
( 2)
( 2)
a
Q ( 2 )
VC B aC B QC B a A B QA B a A C QA C
, 0
= C B
= C B , 0
bB A
f 4 MAX
MAX
( 2)
a
VB C bA C QA C
( 2)
= f 3 QA C , 0 MAX
= B C
, 0
b
B C
MAX
{(
) }
aC A VC A bB A QB A( 2 )
( 2)
= f1 QB A , 0 MAX
=
, 0
bC A
MAX
{(
) }
( 2)
= QC A
( 2)
+ QC B
( 2)
+ QB C
134
( 2)
+ QB A
( 2)
+ QA C
( 2)
+ QA B
( 2)
(560)
Q ( 4)
( 4)
VB C = aB C bB C QB C bA C B C
f3
(561)
QB C
QA C
QC B
QA B
QB A
QC A
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
aB C VB C
=
, 0
b
A
C
b +
B C
f
3
MAX
( 3)
a
QB C ( 3)
B C VB C bB C QB C
, 0
=
=
, 0
b
f
3
AC
MAX
MAX
VA C
a
= A C
( 3)
bA C QA C bB C QB C
b
bC B + B A
f4
( 3)
QA C ( 3)
, 0
, 0
=
f 5 MAX
MAX
QC B (3)
a A B VA B bC B QC B ( 3)
, 0
=
=
, 0
bA B
f
2
MAX
MAX
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
QA C ( 3)
a
VA C bA C QA C bC B QC B bB C QB C
, 0
,
0
=
= A C
bB A
MAX f 6 MAX
aC A VC A bB A QB A( 3)
( 3)
= f1 QB A , 0 MAX
=
, 0
bC A
MAX
{(
) }
( 3)
= QC A
( 3)
+ QC B
( 3)
+ QB C
( 3)
+ QB A
( 3)
+ QA C
( 3)
+ QA B
( 3)
(562)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
VB A = aB A bB AQB A bC A f1 QB A bC B f 4 QB A bA C f 6 QB A
135
(563)
QB A
QC A
QC B
QA C
QB C
QA B
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
aB A VB A
, 0
=
bB A + (bC A f1 ) + (bC B f 4 ) + (bA C f 6 ) MAX
( 4)
a
V b Q
( 4)
= f1 QB A , 0 MAX
= C A C A B A B A , 0
bC A
MAX
{(
) }
a V b Q ( 4 ) b Q ( 4)
( 4)
B A
B A B A
CA CA
, 0
= f 4 QB A , 0 MAX
= B A
bC B + (bA C f 5 )
MAX
{(
) }
a V b Q ( 4 ) b Q ( 4) b Q ( 4 )
( 4)
B A
B A B A
CA CA
CB CB
, 0
= f 6 QB A , 0 MAX
= B A
bA C
MAX
{(
) }
a A C VA C bA C QA C ( 4 ) bC B QC B ( 4 ) bB A QB A( 4)
( 4)
= f 3 QA C , 0 MAX
=
, 0
bB C
MAX
{(
) }
QC B ( 4 )
a A B VA B bC B QC B ( 4 )
, 0
=
=
, 0
bA B
f
2
MAX
MAX
( 4)
= QC A
( 4)
+ QC B
( 4)
+ Q B C
( 4)
+ QB A
( 4)
+ Q A C
( 4)
+ Q A B
( 4)
(564)
( 5)
VA C = a A C bA C QA C bC BQC B bB AQB A bB C QB C
= a A C bA C Q A C
( 5)
Q ( 5)
Q ( 5)
(5)
bC B A C bB A A C bB C f 3 QA C
f5
f6
QA C
QB C
(5)
( 5)
a A C VA C
, 0
=
b
b
bA C + C B + B A + (bB C f 3 )
f5
f6
MAX
( 5)
a
VB C bA C QA C
( 5)
= f 3 QA C , 0 MAX
= B C
, 0
bB C
MAX
{(
136
) }
(565)
QC B
QB A
(5)
( 5)
QA B
QC A
( 5)
(5)
( 5)
( 5)
Q ( 5)
a A C VA C bA C QA C bB C QB C
=
= A C , 0
, 0
b
f 5 MAX
bC B + B A
f4
MAX
a V b Q (5) b Q ( 5) b Q (5)
Q (5)
AC
AC
AC
C B
C B
B C
B C
, 0
= AC
= AC , 0
bB A
f 6 MAX
MAX
a VA B bC B QC B ( 5)
QC B ( 5)
, 0
=
,
0
= A B
bA B
MAX f 2 MAX
( 5)
a
VC A bB A QB A
( 5)
= f1 QB A , 0 MAX
= C A
, 0
bC A
MAX
{(
) }
(5)
= QC A
( 5)
+ QC B
(5)
+ QB C
( 5)
+ QB A
( 5)
+ QA C
( 5)
+ QA B
( 5)
(566)
(6)
(6)
VA B = a A B bA B QA B bC B f 2 QA B
(567)
QA B
QC B
QA C
QB A
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
a V
A B
A B
, 0
=
(
+
b
b
C B f 2 )
A B
MAX
a V b Q ( 6)
( 6)
A B
A B
A B
, 0
= A B
= f 2 QA B , 0 MAX
bC B
MAX
{(
VC B
a
= C B
) }
(6)
(6)
bC B QC B bA B QA B
(6)
, 0
= f 5 QC B , 0 MAX
b
bA C + B A
f6
MAX
{(
) }
(6)
( 6)
( 6)
QC B ( 6 )
a
VC B bC B QC B bA B QA B bA C QA C
, 0
,
0
=
= C B
bB A
f
4
MAX
MAX
137
QC A
QB C
(6)
(6)
a VB A bB A QB A( 6) bC B QC B ( 6 ) bA C QA C ( 6)
(6)
= f1 QB A , 0 MAX
= B A
, 0
bC A
MAX
{(
) }
(6)
a
VB C bA C QA C
(6)
= f 3 QA C , 0 MAX
= B C
, 0
b
B C
MAX
{(
) }
(6)
= QC A
(6)
+ QC B
(6)
+ QB C
( 6)
+ QB A
(6)
+ QA C
(6)
+ QA B
( 6)
(568)
The total maximum flow of the intersection is the least maximum flow from all possible
maximum flows, QintMAXIMUM
(1)
( 2)
( 3)
( 4)
( 5)
Cint . = Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM
(6)
MIN
(569)
In order to simplify the calculation and performance for data and results, a matrix for capacity
analysis of the total intersection is used (Table 517).
Speed at
Maximum
Flows Subject
Stream
VCA=VCA'
VCB=VCB'
VBC=VBC'
VBA=VBA'
VAC=VAC'
VAB=VAB'
Maximum
Flows
Subject
Stream
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
QCA(1)
QCA(2)
QCA(3)
QCA(4)
QCA(5)
QCA(6)
QCB(1)
QCB(2)
QCB(3)
QCB(4)
QCB(5)
QCB(6)
QBC(1)
QBC(2)
QBC(3)
QBC(4)
QBC(5)
QBC(6)
QBA(1)
QBA(2)
QBA(3)
QBA(4)
QBA(5)
QBA(6)
QAC(1)
QAC(2)
QAC(3)
QAC(4)
QAC(5)
QAC(6)
QAB(1)
QAB(2)
QAB(3)
QAB(4)
QAB(5)
QAB(6)
Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection
Qint(1)
Qint(2)
Qint(3)
Qint(4)
Qint(5)
Qint(6)
Qint(i)MIN
Table 517 could be used as a standard matrix of maximum flow analysis based on speed and
flow of conflict streams. For further analysis, we could apply such formulas as in Equation
557 to Equation 569. For example, with using data measurement from intersection1 the
following calculation could be conducted.
At conflict groupI :
VC A = 34.521 0.32 QC A 0.148 QB A
From the field measurement we have
QAC = 639.2 pcu/h , QAB = 350.2 pcu/h , QBA = 272.2 pcu/h , QBC = 222.3 pcu/h,
QCA = 570.3 pcu/h , QCB = 168.2 pcu/h
138
f1 =
QBA 272.2
=
QCA 570.3
QB A = 0.477 QC A
Thus,
(1)
VC A = 34.521 0.39 QC A
QC A
(1)
34.521 V
CA
,0
=
0
.
39
MAX
By using QCA(1) from the calculation (input data), and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows : QBA(1), QCB(1), QAC(1), QAB(1), QBC(1). The total maximum flow
is then
C
(1)
34.521 V
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
CA
=
, 0
+ QC B + QB C + QB A + QA C + QA B
0.39
MAX
At conflict groupII :
VCB = 18.189 0.211QCB 0.268 QBA 0.084 QAC 0.229 QAB
( 2)
VC B = 18.189 1.44 QC B
QC B
( 2)
18.189 V
CB
, 0
=
1
.
44
MAX
By using QCB(2) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QAB(2), QAC(2), QBA(2), QBC(2), QCA(2). The total maximum flow is
C (2 ) = QC A
(2 )
18.189 V
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
CB
+
, 0
+ QB C + QB A + QA C + QA B
1.44
MAX
139
At conflict groupIII :
VB C = 18.880 0.288 QB C 0.091QA C
The portion of flow is
Q
222.3
f5 = B C =
QA C 639.2
QA C = 2.875 QB C
Thus,
( 3)
VB C = 18.880 0.549 QB C
QB C
( 3)
18.880 V
B C
=
,0
0
.
549
MAX
By using QBC(3) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QAC(3), QCB(3), QAB(3), QBA(3), QCA(3). The total maximum flow is
(3 )
C (3) = QC A + QC B
(3 )
18.880 V
(3 )
(3 )
(3 )
B C
+
, 0
+ QB A + QA C + QA B
0.549
MAX
At conflict groupIV :
VBA = 29.802 0.045 QCA 0.014 QCB 0.157 QBA 0.058 QAC
( 4)
VB A = 29.802 0.395 QB A
QB A
( 4)
29.802 V
B A
,0
=
0.395
MAX
By using QBA(4) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QCA(4), QCB(4), QAC(4), QBC(4), QAB(4). The total maximum flow is
C (4 ) = QC A
(4 )
+ QC B
(4 )
+ QB C
(4 )
29.802 V
(4 )
(4 )
B A
+
, 0
+ QA C + QA B
0
.
395
MAX
140
At conflict groupV :
VAC = 31.657 0.161QCB 0.44 QBC 0.265 QBA 0.311QAC
The portion of flow is
Q
639.2
Q
222.3
Q
639.2
f3 = AC =
; f5 = B C =
; f6 = AC =
QC B 168.2
QA C 639.2
QB A 272.2
QC B = 0.263 QA C ; QB C = 0.348 QA C ; QB A = 0.426 QA C
Thus,
( 5)
VA C = 31.657 0.619 QA C
QA C
(5)
31.657 V
AC
=
, 0
0
.
619
MAX
By using QAC(5) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QBC(5), QCB(5), QBA(5), QAB(5), QCA(5). The total maximum flow is
(5 )
C (5 ) = QC A + QC B
(5 )
+ QB C
(5 )
(5 )
(5 ) 31.657 VA C
+ QB A +
, 0
+ QA B
0.619
MAX
At conflict groupVI :
VAB = 29.387 0.014 QCB 0.506 QAB
The portion of flow is
Q
168.2
f2 = C B =
QA B 350.2
QC B = 0.480 QA B
Thus,
(6)
VA B = 29.387 0.572 QA B
29.387 V
A B
,0
QA B =
0.572
MAX
By using QAB(6) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QCB(6), QAC(6), QBA(6), QCA(6), QBC(6). The total maximum flow is
(6)
C (6 ) = QC A
(6 )
+ QC B
(6 )
+ QB C
(6 )
+ QB A
(6 )
+ QA C
(6 )
29.387 V
A B
+
,0
0
.
572
MAX
There are six alternatives of maximum flows (capacities) which were based on an assumption
that each speed has reached its maximum flow (capacity), QCA(1), QCB(2), QBC(3), QBA(4),
QAC(5), QAB(6).
141
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
QAC(1)
QAB(1)
Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection
[1]
[2]
VCA=VCA'
QCA
(1)
QCA
(1)
QCB
(1)
[3]
QBC(1)
QBA(1)
[4]
[5]
[1]
VCB=VCB'
QCB(2)
QCA(2)
QCB(2)
Qi(1)
[2]
QBC(2)
QBA(2)
QAB(2)
Qi(2)
QAB(3)
Qi(3)
[3]
[4]
[5]
QAC(2)
[1]
[2]
VBC=VBC'
QBC(3)
QCA
(3)
QCB
(3)
[3]
QBC(3)
QBA
(3)
QAC(3)
[5]
[4]
[1]
[2]
VBA=VBA'
QBA
(4)
QCA
(4)
[3]
QCB
(4)
QBC(4)
QBA(4)
QAC(4)
QAB(4)
Qi(4)
QAB(5)
Qi(5)
[4]
[5]
[1]
[2]
VAC=VAC'
QAC(5)
QCA(5)
QCB(5)
QBC(5)
QBA(5)
[3]
QAC(5)
[4]
[5]
[1]
[2]
VAB=VAB'
QAB
(6)
QCA
(6)
QCB
(6)
QBC(6)
QBA(6)
[4]
QAC(6)
[3]
QAB(6)
Qi(6)
[5]
142
143
5.10
Conclusions
Each of the movements at an intersection has been observed related to their speed and flow.
By those two parameters, investigations have been made further at any correlation between
conflict streams (six streams; C A, C B, B C, B A, A C, A B) as defined by
group of conflicts (I, II, III, IV, V, VI). Results of the relation between parameters show that a
suitable correlation between speed and flow of conflict groups could be developed
(corresponds to the R2 and standard error, SE values) even if there was only a small correlation
at some groups, e.g. conflict groupIV, stream B A (which is thought to be an impact of the
lack of lane discipline that drivers tend to use other lane paths passing through the
intersection with the consequence of higher speed). It was also found that a good estimation
of the relation between volumes of streams and intersection occupancy could be obtained,
especially with 5minute intervals of observation.
Further analysis has taken into account the speed at conflict points or the speed of each
movement through the intersection. The volume of each movement is the most important
parameter to calculate the maximum flow (capacity) based on the conflict streams. Maximum
flows of each stream were found to correspond to the speed and flow of other streams at a
group of conflict. There are six (6) alternatives of maximum flows at the intersection because
the maximum flow of each stream has to be counted.
Each stream was observed related to its speed and flow at its own group of conflict. Theory of
conflict was then adopted in analysis. It was assumed that each stream has reached its
maximum flow, Qi j (stream i and alternative j) at the smallest speed, Vi'. When one stream
reaches its maximum flow, e.g. QCA(1), VCA' means that other streams would not meet their
(real) maximum flow (QCB(2), QBC(3), QBA(4), QAC(5), QAB(6)) and their (real) speed (VCB',
VBC', VBA', VAC', VAB'). By using the value of maximum flow, e.g. QCA(1) , the speed, VCA'
and the streams speeds VCB, VBC, VBA, VAC, VAB, other streams flow, QCB(1), QBC(1),
QBA(1), QAC(1), QAB(1) can easily be calculated from the regression equations.
144
6.1
Introduction
Results of data performance have been presented and possibilities of the new approach have
been discovered so far. The approach performed another way to calculate the capacity based
on conflicting streams interactions. This is based on the relation of speed and flow for each
stream in its group of conflicts. A large number of data from ten observed threeleg
unsignalized intersections was used to develop the model. The model could have an ability to
estimate each stream performance while the maximum flow (capacity) has been reached at a
certain speed. In order to count the maximum flow, all possibilities of maximum flow, that
assumed each stream has reached its maximum flow, must be taken into account. It was
recommended to use such a matrix of probabilities.
The following chapter would perform the maximum flow of all intersections based on the new
approach. The results are then calibrated with the capacity analyzed from the manual (IHCM,
1997) in order to see how different the capacities from both methods are and at which speed
the intersections reached their capacity. This chapter will also investigate how different (in
percentage) the intersections were occupied by measured vehicles (field data) and by the
maximum flow that has been calculated.
6.2
A new approach of capacity measurement based on conflict streams has been created and
investigated in the previous chapter. It become clear that the correlation between speed and
flow of streams could be used to develop such an approach of conflict streams. The maximum
flow is assumed to be reached by one of the traffic streams while the traffic flow at an
intersection is congested, but traffic movements are still possible. When stream i reaches its
maximum flow (capacity) j, the total capacity of the intersection is the sum of the maximum
flow Ci of all streams,
6
Ctotal = Ci
(61)
j =1
where
Ctotal
Ci j
i
145
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
Each intersection has been investigated and measured and it is required to have all data from
the intersections in order to develop a general equation (model) which is suitable for all
intersections. The model (1minute interval observations) can be concluded in the following
Table 61.
Subject
Stream
QCA(1) = CCA
18.095 0.075 Q V
BA
CA
, 0
0.191
MAX
Ctotal = Ci
CCB
0
069
.
MAX
Ctotal = Ci
CBC
13.799 + 0.033 Q V
AC
B C
, 0
0
397
.
MAX
Ctotal = Ci
QCB(2) =
QBC(3) =
Total Maximum
Flows Stream
6
i =1
6
( 3)
i =1
QBA(4) = CBA
Ctotal = Ci
QAC(5) =
.
0
149
MAX
Ctotal = Ci
15.835 + 0.207 Q V
CB
A B
, 0
0
210
.
MAX
Ctotal = Ci
QAB(6) = CAB
( 2)
i =1
.
0
179
MAX
CAC
(1)
( 4)
i =1
6
(5)
i =1
6
(6)
i =1
6 j
Cint . = Ci
j =1 MIN
Table 61. Model for The Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Each Stream of Intersection
In order to complete the measurement above, data of speed and flow of each stream have been
provided in the previous chapter, Appendix B and Appendix C. Further analysis is guided by
the following table of matrix of maximum flow and Equation 557 to Equation 569.
Speed at
Maximum
Flows Subject
Stream
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
Maximum
Flows
Subject
Stream
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
CCA
QCB(1)
QBC(1)
QBC(2)
QBA(1)
QBA(2)
QBA(3)
QAC(1)
QAC(2)
QAC(3)
QAC(4)
QAB(1)
QAB(2)
QAB(3)
QAB(4)
QAB(5)
QCA(2)
QCA(3)
QCA(4)
QCA(5)
QCA(6)
CCB
QCB(3)
QCB(4)
QCB(5)
QCB(6)
CBC
QBC(4)
QBC(5)
QBC(6)
CBA
QBA(5)
QBA(6)
CAC
QAC(6)
CAB
146
Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection
Qi(1)
Qi(2)
Qi(3)
Qi(4)
Qi(5)
Qi(6)
Qi(j)MIN
Observations at each intersection would create their own equations of maximum flow with
measurements from the field, e.g. streams speed at the highest flow. However, it was not
always possible to have a speed at the maximum streams flow since field observation
covered only two hours for each intersection. Therefore, estimations of speed at the maximum
flow had to made for a further calculation which these speeds varied between 10 km/h and 15
km/h by considering previous studies at the current intersections. An example of capacity
analysis on intersection1 (data) is given in the following Table 63 and for speed values of
11 km/h and 12 km/h Table 64 and 65 are applicable. For values of speed of 10 km/h, 13
km/h, 14 km/h and 15 km/h see Appendix D. The following Table 64 and Table 65 show the
capacities which are close to the results from the manual with speeds of 12 km/h and 13 km/h
while calculations for other intersections are given in Appendix D.
Speed at
Maximum
Flow
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
Speed at
Maximum
Flow
Maximum
Flow
QCA
QBC
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
Speed at
Maximum
Flow
Maximum
Flow
QCA
0.00
0.00
982.31
0.00
412.16
415.19
QCB
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
11
11
11
11
11
11
1923.16
2347.69
2347.69
2343.02
1960.13
2347.69
QCB
QBC
917.91
0.00
0.00
10.08
837.96
0.00
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
423.02 895.88
0.00 1381.43 4577.34
558.28 1175.60 1627.18 4931.19 10472.23
555.89 930.35 1598.39 1686.49 6944.08
660.61
79.30 2858.22 1476.59 7368.91
541.82 167.67 1429.21 3226.15 9399.27
554.65 823.44 1583.46 2623.48 8750.53
Capacity of Intersection = 4577.34
Table 64. Capacity Intersection (Model with speed, v = 11 km/h) from Intersection1
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
1877.01
0.00
1767.17 412.80
1863.47 309.48
2197.66
96.54
2162.96 1871.46
1905.45 1260.05
QCA
QCB
QBC
1612.46
0.00
1479.87 366.67
1500.53 381.13
1889.67
63.19
1859.01 1581.83
1636.08 999.44
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
271.89 769.61
0.00 1095.71 3749.67
399.28 1107.26 1532.58 4885.72 9771.39
357.28 1054.66 1027.33 1471.40 5792.33
478.18
63.64 2481.69 1158.00 6134.36
371.31 141.72 1196.02 2654.95 7804.84
371.58 709.45 1199.32 2080.87 6996.75
Capacity of Intersection = 3749.67
Table 65. Capacity Intersection (Model with speed, v = 12 km/h) from Intersection1
147
Average speeds between 10 km/h and 13 km/h were used to predict the capacity of an
intersection which is considered from observations of intersections, e.g. intersection3, where
its maximum flow was likely to be reached. There was a total number of 4902 vehicles per
hour and various width of legs: 9.6 m, 6.5 m and 8.0 m, total average speed 15.6 km/h for
motorized vehicles (11.3 km/h for cars) and 5.8 km/h for nonmotorized vehicles. Therefore,
this intersection could be used as a reference for the speed. Also, experience from a previous
study by MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS (1999) KALIMANTAN URBAN
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KUDP) has conducted an investigation at intersection2 which
reached its maximum flow (capacity) with a degree of saturation of 0.969 (delay=17.73
sec/pcu) in peak hour morning and 0.863 (delay=14.52 sec/pcu) in peak hour evening. This
could give an indication related to average speed at the maximum flow at an intersection.
6.3
Capacity Calibrated
In the previous chapter, we have given a brief description on fundamental basic understanding
of the Indonesian highway capacity manual. Capacity at unsignalized intersections by the
manual is defined as a result of basic capacity within ideal traffic conditions related to
various adjustment factors and corrections which consider the impact of road environment,
geometric design of road and traffic conditions. As it is defined in the INDONESIAN
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997), capacity can be calculated as :
(62)
where
C
C0
FW
FM
FCS
FRSU
FLT
FRT
FMI
=
=
=
=
=
=
Capacity
Base capacity
Adjustment factor for width of approach
Adjustment factor for median at major road
Adjustment factor for city size
Adjustment factor for type of environment, side friction and
nonmotorized
= Adjustment factor for leftturn
= Adjustment factor for rightturn
= Adjustment factor for ratio of traffic at minor road
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
The required parameters, e.g. base capacity and adjustment factors were performed by data
observation (environment, traffic and geometry) in chapter five and Appendix A. The
following Table 66 below performed all adjustment factors for intersections based on a field
investigation and measurements. Since there are no other methods of capacity calculation
which are suitable for Indonesia, the manual is recently used for planning and design
purposes. Therefore, results of capacity defined by the manual are necessarily used to
calibrate those from the new method of capacity conflict. Capacities of each intersection are
given in Table 67.
148
Intersection
Adjustment Factors
C0
FW
FM
FCS
FRSU
FLT
FRT
FMI
3200
2900
2700
2700
2700
3200
2700
2700
2700
2700
1.008
1.027
1.035
0.965
1.065
0.975
1.077
0.951
1.007
1.055
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.00
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
1.399
1.270
0.965
1.321
1.092
1.237
1.185
1.479
1.174
1.380
0.937
0.952
1.068
0.901
1.069
0.934
1.005
0.968
0.964
0.899
0.882
0.903
1.379
0.921
1.101
1.011
0.944
0.851
0.951
0.849
[pcu/h]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Intersection
Type of Intersection
Capacity [pcu/h]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
324
342
322
322
322
324
322
322
322
322
3273.60
2980.15
3393.41
2703.53
3167.20
3306.43
3273.60
3393.41
2703.53
3167.20
Table 67. Total Capacity Intersection Calculated by the IHCM (1997) Method
Based on the capacity calculation, both methods are compared in the following graph in
Figure 61. In order to give an overview of the capacity analysis, results from each
intersections data analysis and their average are performed. The type of data analysis means
that each data resource (speed and flow) from each intersection was used to find a maximum
flow. Speeds range from 10 km/h to 13 km/h were applied for intersections at which the
maximum flow was reached. The figure shows that analysis from data performed very close
to the results from the manual, but some, e.g. intersection3, intersection7 and intersection8
contributed small differences (compared to the manual). The reasons might be an over
estimation in speed. In such a case, it might be necessary to consider more accurate field
observations and measurements conducted with a special apparatus/camera (speed and flow
detector).
Type of
Analysis
DATA
MODEL
2
26
3
10
4
11
5
16
6
10
7
17
8
6
9
13
10
11
12.6
13.1
10.3
13.6
10.6
12.8
10.6
10.5
13.2
11.3
Table 68. Approximate Speed to the Maximum Flow (results close to the manual)
149
CAPACITY CALIBRATION
7000
DATA
6500
6000
AVERAGE DATA
IHCM1997
5500
Capacity [pcu/h]
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
10
Intersection
CAPACITY CALIBRATION
(MODEL V = 10 km/h  13 km/h)
5000
DATA
IHCM
4500
MODEL
4000
Capacity [pcu/h]
3500
V=10.3 km/h
V=12.6 km/h
V=10.6 km/h
V=10.6 km/h
V=11.3 km/h
3000
V=12.8 km/h
V=13.1 km/h
2500
V=10.5 km/h
V=13.6 km/h
V=13.2 km/h
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
10
Intersection
The developed model with different speeds is applied (v=10 km/h, v=11 km/h, v=12 km/h,
v=13 km/h, v=14 km/h, v=15 km/h), see Figure 61. The figures show the capacity for all
intersections based on data measurement and the manual. It can be seen that the capacity
based on the manual is between results of the model with speeds range 10 km/h 14 km/h
and the results is close to the results from IHCM (1997) at the average speed of 11.86 km/h
(Figure 62) and we can also see that every intersection remains to have different speeds at a
maximum flow close to the results from the manual (see Table 68).
Speed, V
[km/h]
Capacity,C
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
10
11
12
13
14
15
4619.53
3905.10
3208.23
2514.86
1860.50
1331.94
1024.39
875.94
718.35
558.78
390.78
208.72
In a general view, all intersections would reach their maximum flow with the speeds range
of 10 km/h 13 km/h at the maximum flow which is very close to the capacity resulted from
the manual (Figure 62). A standard deviation of the resulting capacities for each speed is
presented in Table 69.
6.4
Results of maximum flows (capacity) at several intersections with various speed levels have
been presented. The average speed of vehicles at the intersections has a significant impact
SPEED AND FLOW RELATIONSHIP
18
16
Speed [km/h]
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Flow [pcu/h]
4500
5000
on total (maximum) flow where small differences of speed would indicate large differences in
maximum flow (mean difference = 575.70 pcu/h, = 293.60). While the model was
developed by the portion of streams flow, it is then necessary to create a model which is
suitable for total flow of the intersection, Qtotal and average speed of the intersection, V. Based
on data from Table 69, Figure 63 was plotted to show the relationship between speed and
flow of unsignalized intersections. It can be concluded that the freeflow speed is found to be
16.863 km/h and the speed is decreasing by 1.50 km/h for every 1000 pcu/h.
6.5
It was described in chapter five correlation between each flow and intersection occupancy.
Such an approach is important for traffic flow consisting of vehicles with various static and
dynamic dimensions where lane concepts (lane discipline) no longer exist and the width
concept applies (vehicles area = width x length). This technique could give an indication to
which extend area (conflict area) of the intersection is occupied by vehicles at a certain flow
rate during a time interval time or how many percent of the conflict area were occupied at the
same time when the maximum flow (capacity) was reached. Furthermore, the relationship
could also identify whether the traffic follows the common rule of lane concept or width
concept which both gave an indication on large conflict areas occupied by vehicles. If drivers
tend to take an opportunity to pass through the intersection by using the width concept, the
intersections might be occupied at critical stages while the maximum flow has not yet been
reached. The following Equation 63 and Equation 64 show the relationships for 1minute
and 5minute intervals which are considered to be suitable for all intersections,
(63)
R = 0.106
SE = 2.1293
where
IO
QC  A
QC  B
QB  C
QB  A
QA  C
QA  B
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Intersection Occupancy
Traffic flow of stream C A
Traffic flow of stream C B
Traffic flow of stream B C
Traffic flow of stream B A
Traffic flow of stream A C
Traffic flow of stream A B
152
[%]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
[pcu/1min]
(64)
R = 0.814
SE = 0.2542
where
IO
QC  A
QC  B
QB  C
QB  A
QA  C
QA  B
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Intersection Occupancy
traffic flow of stream C A
traffic flow of stream C B
traffic flow of stream B C
traffic flow of stream B A
traffic flow of stream A C
traffic flow of stream A B
[%]
[pcu/5min]
[pcu/5min]
[pcu/5min]
[pcu/5min]
[pcu/5min]
[pcu/5min]
Using Equation 63, the flow measurement (each stream) and the predicted maximum flow
(capacity) at the speed of 12.0 km/h, are given in Figure 64 and Table 610. According to
the model, even though the intersection has reached its maximum flow, vehicles have
occupied not more than 12% of the conflict area (in 1minute interval observation) with
average differences of 4.84%. That means drivers in this study have not followed the
tendency of using the width concept in order to pass through the intersection while the
maximum flow has been reached. This is the reason why the concept for the model was
considered to be more accurate that the maximum flow of the intersection is reached by
maximizing one of the streams.
INTERSECTION OCCUPANCY
20
Flow (measurement)
18
16
14
12
11,02
10
8 7,51
6,44
5,26
6,05
10,88
6,19
4,78
10,39
10,99
9,72
5,55
4,24
4,28
10,44
5,11
4
2
0
1
10
Intersection
Figure 64. Intersection occupancy with data measurement and maximum flow (capacity)
153
Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Based on
Maximum
Flow, Ci'
11.02
10.44
10.14
10.06
9.77
10.88
10.39
10.99
9.72
10.44
Based on Flow
Measurement, Qi
7.51
6.44
5.26
4.78
6.05
6.19
5.55
4.24
4.28
5.11
Table 610. Intersection occupancy of each intersection with data measurement and
maximum flow (capacity) in 1minute interval
Results from the flow measurement and the maximum flow related to intersection occupancy
were then used to develop a suitable model for flow and intersection occupancy appropriate
for all intersections. Figure 65 shows that a linear model would give a very good approach to
identify the area of intersection being occupied at a certain level flow rate. Interesting to find
that the intersection might be in 100% occupied when the total traffic flow at intersection was
reached its maximum value of about 1230 pcu/1minute. It can be concluded from this study,
the drivers have not take a hundred percent of an opportunity of using the width concept
during their travel across the intersection.
Flow (measurement)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
6.6
The Indonesian manual has not given any indication of measuring the performance of
intersections which in general was represented by the level of service (LOS). However, the
manual has promoted the delay and the probability of queues as parameters to measure the
traffic performance at unsignalized intersections. This study would adopt the method from the
manual to measure the delay and the probability of queue based on the actual maximum flow/
capacity from the new approach. Furthermore, a criterion from the HIGHWAY CAPACITY
MANUAL (2000) was also used in order to classify the level of service (LOS) of intersections
which has also been suggested by the MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS (1998). The level
ofservice criteria for AWSC intersections has been adopted to classify the level of
intersections performance as can be seen below.
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
0 10
> 10 15
> 15 25
> 25 35
> 35 50
> 50
Table 611. Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for AWSC Intersections (HCM, 2000)
6.6.1 Delay
Another important parameter to measure the quality of traffic flow at the intersection is delay.
It is obvious that the delay is depending on the degree of saturation (flow and capacity). But
since this study had difficulties to investigate the delay at the field because only a very small
percentage of vehicles stops (0.40% 0.50%) nor queues were observed and the average
waiting time was less than 2 seconds, the method was adopted from the manual (IHCM,
1997) where the delay was measured based on calculation (calculated delay) and the degree of
saturation. The study has to adopt the current method of delay calculation from the manual
because during the field investigations, delay could not be measured. Total delay of
intersections are estimated based on the degree of saturation which is illustrated in Figure 66.
The average delay for the whole intersection (sec/pcu) is estimated from an empirically based
delay/degree of saturation curve. Delay increases significantly with the total flow,
simultaneously with a major and minor flow and with the degree of saturation. Investigations
from the manual showed that there is no gap acceptance behavior at high flows. This means
that western models for stop/giveway behavior of the traffic from the minor road are not
applicable. The maximum stable outflow at predefined conditions is very difficult to define,
since the variance in behavior and outflow is enormous. Instead, the capacity has been defined
as the total intersection flow when the average delay per vehicle exceeds a predefined value
considered high, e.g. 15 seconds. Delay values from this method can be used together with
155
delay and travel time values from methods for other types of traffic facilities described in the
manual in order to estimate travel times along routes in networks.
Figure 66. Relationship between Delay and Degree of Saturation (IHCM, 1997)
In this study, delay (sec/pcu) was defined as an average delay per entering vehicle and it is
estimated from the empirical relationship between delay and degree of saturation. Total
average delay of vehicles at intersection is calculated by
if
DS 0.60,
D = 2 + 8.2078 DS
and
if
DS > 0.60,
D=
1.0504
(0.2742 0.2042 DS )
(65)
(66)
where
DS
D
= Degree of Saturation
= Delay
[]
[sec/pcu]
156
30
DT = 2 + 8,2078*DS  (1DS)*2 untuk DS 0,6
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,1
1,2
Figure 67. Delay at Intersection (DT1) and Degree of Saturation (DS) (IHCM, 1997)
The graph above shows the relationship between the average delay of vehicles (DT1) and the
degree of saturation (DS) at intersections. The corresponding formulas are shown below.
if DS 0.6,
D = 2 + ( 8.2078 DS) [( 1 DS) 2]
(67)
if DS > 0.6,
D=
1.0504
[( 1 DS) 2]
[0.2742 ( 0.2042 DS)]
(68)
It is very clear that traffic flow could only find delay no more than 15 seconds per passenger
car unit even if the capacity has already been reached (DS=1.00). It is still in level of service
B (LOS B) if we refer to the HCM (2000). It was a fact that an unsignalized intersection under
157
such conditions could still produce high flow even at the high degree of saturation because
vehicles do not have to wait too long in order to cross the intersection (small delay).
Instead, the common rules of priority (priority to the major road) and the rules of nearside
priority threeleg unsignalized intersections where traffic approaching on the minor road
gives way to major through and rightturning traffic, delays are experienced only by traffic in
the left and rightturning minor road streams where delays depend on the flow demand in
these streams and the capacity available to them, both of which will vary in time (KIMBER
et al., 1977). However, it has been noted that frequently drivers understanding of the rule is
poor and because of that, in some cases the intersections seem not to be working correctly
from the priority rule point of view (SECO, 1991) which is a very common situation in
Indonesia.
The study from the INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997) found that
drivers were more aggressive and risky when the degree of saturation was higher than 0.8
0.9 while drivers are scrambling limited space in conflict areas. The following method from
the manual has considered such a condition and suggested not to use the method since drivers
behavior was changed because of such rules of stop and giveways or prioritytotheleft
exist that the method was no longer suitable. Therefore, the study should have been taken into
consideration of the delays that might have occurred or almost always occur at all legs, for
vehicles at the major road and vehicles at the minor road.
25
DT = 1,8 + 5,8234*DS  (1  DS)*1,8 untuk DS 0,6
20
15
10
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,1
Derajat Kejenuhan DS
Figure 68. Delay at Major Road (DTMA) and Degree of Saturation (DS) (IHCM, 1997)
158
1,2
To calculate possibilities of delay at the legs of the intersection, the manual has presented a
method of delay analysis at the legs (major and minor roads). Delay at major roads, DMA can
be calculated as (see also Figure 68)
if DS 0.6 :
DMA = 1.8 + ( 5.8234 DS) [( 1 DS) 1.8]
(69)
if DS > 0.6:
DMA =
1.05034
[( 1 DS) 1.8]
[0.346 ( 0.246 DS)]
(610)
(611)
where
DS
DMA
DMI
QTOTAL
DT1
=
=
=
=
=
Degree of Saturation
Delay at major road
Delay at minor road
Total traffic flow
Delay at intersection
[]
[sec/pcu]
[sec/pcu]
[pcu/h]
[sec/pcu]
However, there are several sources which resulted in delay at unsignalized intersections. First,
vehicles have to slow down negotiating the intersection because they have to respond to the
system implemented and be ready to give way to priority traffic. They may have to queue
before they can enter the intersection (KIMBER et al., 1986). And two main components have
been separated conceptually; geometric delay the intrinsic delay arising from the need to
slow down, negotiate the intersection and accelerate back to running speed and congestion
delay. The first is defined for single isolated vehicles, and the second arises from vehicle
vehicle interactions.
The geometric delay, DG is one of the parameters related to the average geometric delay of all
vehicles (motorized) involved/crossing the intersection due to the geometric design of the
intersection. The geometric delay is the delay that a vehicle would incur if it passed through
the intersection in complete isolation, and if the driver knew he was travelling in isolation
(KIMBER, SUMMERSGILL, BURROW, 1986). This delay represents the difference
between two journey times: the journey time, that the driver would experience between two
arbitrary points, upstream and downstream of the intersection and remote from its influence,
and the reference journey time on such idealized comparable linkages providing an
equivalent connection. The delays following from these definitions exclude the effects of
159
queuing for entry to the intersection and those caused by drivers reducing speed in order to
check whether they will safely be able to enter the junction immediately on arrival. Geometric
delays (DG) were calculated as follows
if DS < 1 :
DG = ( 1 DS) [(pT 6 ) + ( 1 pT ) 3] + (DS 4 )
(612)
if DS 1 :
DG = 4
(613)
where
DS
DG
pT
= Degree of Saturation
= Geometric delay
= Ratio of turningflow
[]
[sec/pcu]
[]
Due to the influence of geometric design of intersection, the total delay, D of vehicles at an
intersection is measured as
D = DT1 + DG
(614)
where
D
DT1
DG
From the measured flow data and the calculated maximum flow of intersections, the
following graph (Figure 69) is plotted based on Equation 614. Assessments to the model are
based on maximum flow which was reached at a certain speed (v=11 km/h, v=12 km/h). This
speed level produced capacities from the new method which are is very close to the capacity
calculated by the manual and data (cf. Figure 61). We can see from the figure that at this
level, delay that was found from approaches remain to have almost the same value. The
maximum delay is less than 12 seconds per passenger car unit (e.g. intersection1 and
intersection5) and the minimum delay is about 6 seconds per passenger car unit (e.g
intersection4, intersection8 and intersection9). It can be concluded that the intersections
operate still in an appropriate/good performance.
160
Delay [second/pcu]
DELAY
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
DATA
IHCM
MODEL V=11 km/h
MODEL V=12 km/h
10
Intersection
Figure 69. Calibrated Delay Data IHCM Model (v = 11 km/h and v = 12 km/h)
Because the degree of saturation, DS is higher than 0.60 only at intersection1 and
intersection5, the calculated delay are a bit higher at both intersections with more than 10
seconds per passenger car unit. Unfortunately, the Indonesian manual does not mention any
parameters/values to measure the quality performance of unsignalized intersections instead of
adoption of quality measurement from the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1994). If
we refer to the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (2000), both intersections remain at
level of service B (LOS B) while others are at level of service A (LOS A), see Table 613.
In order to make a suitable relationship between delay and degree of saturation for
intersections based on actual measurements, some empirical regressions are developed. Two
different graphs were made for the degree of saturation smaller than 0.60 due to most of the
intersections performed and the other graph was made for a degree of saturation smaller than
0.90, because two other intersections could have reached such a saturation (0.69 0.71).
Approaches were made for two kinds of regression lines, linear and exponential (see Figure 610 and Figure 611 for DS < 0.60, Figure 612 and Figure 613 for DS < 0.90).
Furthermore, comparison between delays from data (calculated) and assessments from models
(IHCM, Model v=11 km/h and Model v=12 km/h) are shown in Figure 614 and from that,
we can see the delay comparisons retaining differences at a corridor of about 2 seconds lower
and higher.
161
DELAY
DELAY
12
DS < 0.60
10
10
Delay (sec/pcu)
Delay (sec/pcu)
12
D = 7.676 DS + 5.076
DS < 0.60
D = 5.348 e1.0376 DS
4
2
2
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,1
0,2
Degree of Saturation, DS
0,4
0,5
0,6
DELAY
DELAY
16
14
DS < 0.90
14
DS < 0.90
12
Delay (sec/pcu)
12
Delay (sec/pcu)
0,3
Degree of Saturation, DS
10
8
6
D = 8.9326 DS + 4.7995
10
8
6
D = 5.223 e1.1368 DS
4
2
2
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,1
Degree of Saturation, DS
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
Degree of Saturation, DS
16
MODEL V = 11 km/h
MODEL V = 12 km/h
Calculated [second/pcu]
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Figure 614. Comparison Calculated Delay IHCM Model (v = 11 km/h and v = 12 km/h)
162
There are many problems in traffic engineering under mixed traffic that require methods for
the prediction of queue lengths and vehicle delays at intersections. Some studies have
discussed the application of probabilistic queuing theory to traffic at intersections and showed
how the effects of timevarying demand and capacity could be treated theoretically. The
results were used to develop a practical flow delay relationship for major/minor road
intersections. This relationship has proved valuable: It avoids difficulties associated with
steadystate queuing relationships, which predict infinite delays when demand reaches
capacity.
Probability of queue is defined as the probability of more than two vehicles in queue at every
approach of unsignalized intersections (IHCM, 1997). There is thus a need for realistic
procedures for queue prediction that take into account demand and capacity (maximum flow)
of intersections. A range of queue probability QP% (%) is estimated from the empirical
relationship between queue probability QP% and degree of saturation DS which is described
in the Indonesian manual as
(615)
(616)
where
QP% = Queue Probability
DS
= Degree of Saturation
[%]
[]
Figure 615. Range of Queue Probability QP% (%) versus Degree of Saturation, DS (IHCM)
DATA
22,5
IHCM
MODEL V=11 km/h
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
1
10
Intersection
Figure 616. Queue Probability QP% at Lower Range (Data IHCM Model)
164
From the figure above, flow measurement and maximum flow (capacity) of each intersection,
and the range (%) of possible queues occurring at intersections can be obtained (Figure 616
for lower range queue probability, Figure 617 for higher range queue probability and
Table 612).
DATA
IHCM
MODEL V=11 km/h
MODEL V=12 km/h
45,0
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
1
10
Intersection
Figure 617. Queue Probability QP% at Upper Range (Data IHCM Model)
Analysis
Input Data
DATA
IHCM
Degree of
MODEL
Saturation
V=11 km/h
DS
MODEL
V=12 km/h
DATA
IHCM
Lower
Range
MODEL
QP%
V=11 km/h
(%)
MODEL
V=12 km/h
DATA
IHCM
Upper
Range
MODEL
QP%
V=11 km/h
(%)
MODEL
V=12 km/h
Intersection
1
10
0.69
0.68
0.57
0.55
0.28
0.30
0.24
0.25
0.51
0.54
0.41
0.42
0.35
0.36
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.29
0.29
0.49
0.34
0.34
0.13
0.57
0.29
0.39
0.14
0.10
0.28
0.59
0.42
0.42
0.16
0.71
0.36
0.48
0.16
0.13
0.33
19.41 13.99
18.93 12.88
4.39
4.87
3.49
3.74
11.44
12.43
7.85
8.10
6.01
6.49
1.94
1.53
2.02
2.23
4.64
4.56
10.45
5.96
5.95
1.60
13.93
4.70
7.32
1.66
1.17
4.30
14.79
8.17
8.32
2.05
20.44
6.37
10.10
2.10
1.50
5.61
7.03
5.87
7.25
7.79
13.20
13.05
6.07
6.25
4.76
12.50
7.34
7.45
5.78
15.10
Table 612. Range of Queue Probability QP% [%] Calculation with Degree of Saturation, DS
165
QUEUE PROBABILITY
45
40
Queue Probability, QP%
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
QP% = 8.3395 DS 3 22.872 DS 2 + 8.3029 DS + 0.0863
0
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
Degree of Saturation, DS
Figure 618. Graph for the Range of Queue Probability QP% of Intersections
Assessment data of flow measurement and maximum flow intersections were then used to
develop an appropriate range model of queue probability for intersections. Calculated queue
probability from the manual with speed ranges between 11.0 km/h 12.0 km/h would
produce regression lines,
for upper range QP%,
(617)
(618)
R = 0.999
2
where
QP% = Queue probability
DS
= Degree of Saturation
[%]
[]
The regression lines are similar to the formula from the manual (Figure 615) as can be seen
in Figure 618. There is an additional constant of 0.2307 for a upper range QP% and 0.0863
for a lower QP%.
166
6.7
Conclusions
Results of parameters related to maximum flow (capacity) and other parameters of traffic flow
quality and performance, e.g. delay and queue probability have been calculated for all
intersections. It can be concluded that the maximum flows were reached at the average speed
of vehicles within the range of 11 km/h 12 km/h which is appropriate for all intersections.
This corresponds to the results from the manual. Based on the measurements and the
maximum flows analyzed by the new model, it was found that the degree of saturation (DS) of
intersections has less than 0.35 in average and the percentage area of intersection occupied
has less than 11%.
Intersection
Degree of
Saturation
(DS)
Delay
[sec/pcu]
QP% lower
QP% upper
Intersection
Occupancy
[%]
Level of
Service
(LOS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.59
0.42
0.42
0.16
0.71
0.36
0.48
0.16
0.13
0.33
10.2
8.6
8.1
6.2
11.2
7.9
9.1
6.6
5.6
8.3
14.79
8.17
8.32
2.05
20.44
6.37
10.10
2.10
1.50
5.61
31.36
19.79
20.07
7.34
41.41
16.53
23.19
7.45
5.78
15.10
11.02
10.44
10.14
10.06
9.77
10.88
10.39
10.99
9.72
10.44
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
167
7 Pedestrians Behavior
Pedestrians Behavior
Walking is the predominant transport mode for short trips in Indonesian cities. A study has
shown (SOEGIJOKO, 1991) that 40 percent of all household trips were walking trips that
constituted 50 percent of all travel time and 32 percent of all traveled distances. Similar
results from a number of other studies indicated that walking was the most important urban
transport mode, from the point of view of economic and basic needs.
In Indonesian
categories :
At the village community level, the lack of paved surfaces and poor drainage constitute a
major lack of amenities in the rainy season.
In areas where motorized traffic predominates, the lack of continuous networks of
footpaths, sidewalks, and adequately enforced pedestrian priority crossings forces
pedestrians to compete with motorized traffic for use of the road space.
At all levels, there is a lack of an adequate standard of design of pedestrian facilities.
Pedestrians are very dominant in the part of the cities close to the central business and
activities, e.g. market, offices, schools and station. At the certain condition this might not
have any impact to other modes of transport, but when pedestrians are on the streets and
mixed with other modes while they have an equal right to use roads as the drivers, there
would be impacts for the quality of road traffic, because pedestrians have typical dynamic
characteristics as

Speed limit
Average speed
Ideal trip length
Average trip length
=
=
=
=
5 km/h
3.5 km/h
400 m
1.1 km
The study has not considered the aspects of pedestrians crossing intersections because most
intersections were not facilitated for pedestrians crossing, or there were no adequate
pedestrians crossing at intersections (e.g. sidewalks). Another problem was that pedestrians
tend to cross the intersection everywhere they want since they have enough time (gap) and
feel safe to cross. WIDJAJANTI (2001) has observed the behavior of pedestrians crossing at
intersections in Indonesia and found out that there were significant aspects between gap of
pedestrians and the speed of traffic streams/vehicles. The gap of pedestrians is defined as the
time between 2 consecutive vehicles that was required by pedestrians to cross the intersection.
At unsignalized intersections, most of the pedestrians took the first opportunity to cross the
road regardless to the fact of whether the coming drivers have noticed their existence or not.
168
7 Pedestrians Behavior
This might be due to the fact that the drivers at unsignalized intersections rarely consider
giving the pedestrians a chance to cross. Most of the drivers compliance at unsignalized
intersections was due to the slow moving traffic. Lack of education might be another reason
why, both, drivers and pedestrians revealed unaccepted behavior, especially at unsignalized
intersections.
Based on the field investigation and data measurement, it was found that, in general, the
average speed of pedestrians crossing the road close to the conflict area of intersections is
between 3.0 km/h 4.0 km/h and the number of pedestrians walking is higher than
pedestrians crossing the intersection in most cases, see also Table 71 below.
Pedestrian
Traffic Flow
Intersection
[veh/h]
4626
4928
4902
3724
7240
5173
3734
2358
2453
2158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Crossing
Number
23
43
116
33
3
50
67
47
28
18
Walking
42
361
334
81
15
68
218
85
52
19
Table 71. Number of Pedestrians Crossing and Walking at the Unsignalized Intersections
It was rather difficult to give a conclusion concerning the relationship between the number of
vehicles and the speed of pedestrians crossing, because it was found that at a large number of
vehicles, the speed of pedestrians crossing is relatively high because they fell safe to cross the
road as soon as possible, but in another case, the pedestrians have to stop at the certain point
of road (one or several times) to give way to vehicles before they completed crossing the road.
[3]
[2]
Vehicles stream
Crossing path
Vehicles stream
[1]
[1]
Pedestrians crossing
Pedestrians crossing
7 Pedestrians Behavior
In this case, they required to have more time in order to cross the road. This phenomenon is
described in Figure 71 (pedestrian crossing with 2 phases/direct crossing) and Figure 72
(pedestrian crossing with 4 phases). It was assumed that vehicle streams have the same speed
in both directions in both cases. From Figure 71 we can see that pedestrians would only have
2 phases (direct crossing) in order to cross the road as long as they feel safe to do so with
considering the speed of vehicles and their own speed (time needed) to complete the crossing.
However, Figure 72 shows that the pedestrians prefer to take 4 phases to complete the
crossing even the speed of vehicles remain the same as in the previous case. It is clear that the
second case would take more time.
During the field investigation, lack of pedestrians facilities were found at the intersections.
For example, there was no zebra crossing and side walks but instead there were road shoulder
which were used for pedestrians walking. However, in most of the cases in Indonesia
pedestrians did not use zebra crossing and the drivers did not give an opportunity to them to
cross the road even though the pedestrians should have a priority (MALKHAMAH, 2000).
JANAHI & MADANI (1998) have observed pedestrians behavior at signalized and
unsignalized intersections. They found that the rate of the compliance of both drivers and
vehicles did not show any significant difference through out the day. It was thought that the
rate of compliance would improve during night compared to other times of the day based on
the fact that drivers and pedestrians, alike, are commuting social or leisure trips where they
will be in less hurry. It was thought that the speed of pedestrians at unsignalized intersections
would be higher than at signalized intersections where they might feel more secure while
passing. The results revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups,
even though the speed of the pedestrians at the unsignalized intersections was higher.
Observations in big cities, e.g. Jakarta (WIDJAJANTI, 1999) found that speed of pedestrians
is relative higher in big cities with a common speed of 77 m/minute 79 m/minute. 50% of
the pedestrians have accepted an average gap of 36.67 meter while the average speed of
vehicles was 29.79 km/h. Results showed that for an increasing speed of vehicles of every
5 km/h, the gap would be increased by 7 meters and there was a significant relationship
between the gap required by pedestrians and the speed of vehicles at intersections.
Due to the phenomenon above, this study has not considered the pedestrians as one of the
conflict streams since they tend to cross the intersection with an appropriate gap, such that
they feel safe and because there was lack of standard facilities for pedestrians, they could
cross intersections at every point (of roads) they wanted to. Instead of that, the current
approach of capacity calculation in the Indonesian manual has considered and measured the
pedestrians as a side friction which is also included in this study and analysis.
170
However, most of the methods rely on rules and discipline (patterns) which do not exist in
most of the developing countries. Instead of gap acceptance and priority, vehicles have to
enter intersections alternatively/one after another (FIFO). Since there is no priority, and
discipline, the priority models can not be applied appropriately. Therefore, most of the
methods from developed countries were not suitable for developing countries because there
were lack of lane discipline and no gap behavior. E.g. accepted gaps are less than 2 seconds
and the traffic is more heterogeneous which consists of a large number of vehicle types. The
typical traffic behavior in developing countries is that of nonmotorized transport which is
smaller in static and dynamic dimensions are not attended. In such a case, it is necessary to
develop a new method to calculate the capacity with considering the interactions between
streams based on the relationship between speed and flow of streams.
The study has investigated the possibility of correlation between speed, flow and intersection
occupancy at threeleg unsignalized intersections in Indonesia. Each stream flow (six
streams) was observed corresponding to its speed, flow, and percentage of intersection area
occupied by vehicles. This approach has defined the streams as six (6) groups of conflict
streams where each group would have two to four streams. Speed and flow were counted in
1minute and 5minute intervals while occupancy was counted in 20second intervals with
the total time of observation of one hour for each intersection. From data recorded,
relationships between the three parameters were developed, e.g. the speed and flow
relationship and the flow and intersection occupancy relationship. The results showed that
there was a good correlation between speed flow and flow intersection occupancy in each
group of conflict.
Furthermore, the model of capacity which is defined as the maximum possible flow of the
intersection was developed corresponding to the relationship of speed and flow of streams at
each group of conflict. Based on traffic flow measurements and speed prediction at the
171
maximum flow of a stream, the total capacity of an intersection can be calculated and the
maximum flow of each stream can also be measured. Since there were no data of speed at the
maximum flow (capacity) at intersections, the study has made an assumption for the speed
which also refers to the secondary data (previous study). All possible maximum flows at
intersections have been calculated by using the model (equation) and use the matrix for
simplification. The real maximum flow as the capacity of the intersection is the least of all
possible maximum flows.
This study has also calculated the capacity based on the INDONESIAN HIGHWAY
CAPACITY MANUAL (IHCM, 1997) which is required to compare the results from the new
approach. It has been demonstrated that there were small differences in capacity between both
methods (IHCM and the new approach) at the speed range of 11 km/h and 12 km/h. It can be
concluded that the new approach could be suitable to calculate the capacity of unsignalized
intersections under mixed traffic flow, especially for Indonesia as an alternative instead of the
method by the INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997).
Since this study has not observed the real delay at intersections due to a small number of
vehicle stops (less than 0.5%), this study estimated the quality of traffic flow at unsignalized
intersections based on the delay and probability of queue calculated from the Indonesian
manual corresponding to the level of service (LOS) from the HIGHWAY CAPACITY
MANUAL (HCM, 2000). The study recommends to take the data observations in more than
one hour until the maximum flow of intersections is reached and the real speed can be
counted in order to achieve a better prediction. It is also required to make observations in
more cities to improve the representative character of the new method.
172
9 References
References
173
9 References
174
9 References
HARDERS, J. (1968) :
Die Leistungsfhikeit nicht signalgeregelter stadtischer Verkehrsknoten, Forschungberichte
Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, Bonn.
HUBER, MATTHEW J. (1982) :
Estimation of PassengerCar Equivalents of Trucks in Traffic Stream, Transportation
Research Record 869, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp. 6070.
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 2000 :
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
KOCKELKE, W.; STEINBRECHER, J. (1983) :
Untersuchungen der Vorfahrtregelung Rechtsvorlinks unter dem Aspekt
Verkehrssicherheit, Bundesanstalt fr Straenwesen, Heft 90, Bergisch Gladbach.
der
KOCKELKE, WILHELM.(1991) :
Untersuchungen zum Fahrerverhalten bei RechtsvorLinks Regelung in Tempo 30
Zonen, Bundesanstalt fr Straenwesen, Heft 236, Bergisch Gladbach.
KYTE, M.; W. KITTELSON.; Z. TIAN; B. ROBINSON; M. VANDEHEY.(1996) :
Analysis of Operations at AllWay StopControlled Intersections by Simulation,
Transportation Research Record 1555, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
KYTE,M.Z.TIAN.;Z.MIR.;Z.HAMEEDMANSOOR.;W.KITTELSON.;M.VANDEHEY.;B.
ROBINSON.;W.BRILON.;L.BONDZIO.;N.WU.;R.TROUTBECK.(1996) :
Capacity and Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) 346.
KYTE, M.; JOSEPH M. (1990) :
Estimating Capacity and Delay at a SingleLane Approach, AllWay StopControlled
Intersection, Transportation Research Record 1225, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
KIMBER, R. M.; R. D. COOMBE. (1980) :
The Capacity of Major/Minor Priority Junctions, Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
Supplementary Report 582, Crowthorne, Beckshire.
KIMBER, R. M.; E. M. HOLLIS. (1979) :
Traffic Queues and Delays at Junctions, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Report
Nr.LR909, Crowthorne.
KATAMIE, N. M. (2000) :
Nature and Frequency of Secondary Conflicts at Unsignalized Intersections, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 126(2), pp. 129133.
KATAMIE, N. M. (2000) :
Various Volume Definitions With Conflicts at Unsignalized Intersections, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 126(1), pp. 2734.
175
9 References
Intersections,
Journal
of
SIEGLOCH, W. (1973) :
Die Leistungsermittlung an Knotenpunkten ohne Lichtsignalsteuerung, Forschungsberichte
Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, Bonn.
SECO, A. J. M. (1991) :
Analysis and Evaluation of a TJunction Working Under the Nearside Priority Rule, Traffic
Engineering and Control, pp. 347351.
STEPHAN, R. R. (2003) :
Einsatzbereiche von Knotenpunkten mit der Regelungsart RechtsvorLinks , Dissertation,
Institut fr Verkehr, Technische Universitt Darmstadt.
TIWARI, GEETAM. (2001) :
Pedestrian Infrastructure in the City Transport System : A Case Study of Delhi, World
Transport Policy & Practice, 7(4), pp. 1318.
176
9 References
177
A1
1206
480
Threelegs/324
A
B
C
4
2
4
16.4
10.7
9.0
No median at major road
Commercial and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Commercial medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
14.20 15.20 , 15.35 16.35
83 (1.8%)
65 (1.4%)
1
2
1300
748
5
6
[veh/h]
B
571
480
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A2
110
100
90
Flow (veh/1minute)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
49
51
53
55
57
59
51
53
55
57
59
47
49
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A3
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
11,0
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A4
43,5
31,0
25,1
21,6
19,3
17,2
15,6
14,1
12,6
11,0
9,4
7,5
0,0%
2,3
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
700,0
1.300
1.200
639,2
600,0
1.207
1.000
500,0
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
570,3
800
748
600
400,0
350,2
300,0
571
272,2
480
222,3
200,0
400
168,2
321
100,0
200
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
26,5%
54,2%
19,3%
A5
AB
1000,0
900,0
3.000
800,0
819,0
700,0
Flow (pcu/h)
696,6
2.000
1.500
600,0
593,6
500,0
400,0
300,0
1.000
819
200,0
500
100,0
212
0
54,0
20
Truck 3
axles
58
24
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
10
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
0,0
16,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
17,4
16,8
9,0
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
2.500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A6
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3 axles Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 3
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A7
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A8
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3 axles Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 3
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A9
Bicycle
Rickshaw
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3 axles Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 3
Truck 2
Type of vehicle
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  10
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3 axles Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 3
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  11
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CB
AB
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  12
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
A  13
1097
681
Threelegs/342
A
B
C
2
4
2
10.6
19.5
10.6
No median at major road
Commercial and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Commercial medium (300 499 activities per hour)
1.0 3.0 million inhabitants
09.00 10.00, 11.00 12.00
177 (3.6%)
404 (8.2%)
1
2
1238
569
5
6
[veh/h]
B
549
795
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  14
110
100
90
Flow (veh/1minute)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1minute interval
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1minute interval
A  15
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1,0
11,0
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  16
42,8
34,5
30,9
27,7
25,0
22,4
20,3
18,3
16,3
14,3
12,3
10,3
8,3
6,3
0,0%
3,5
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
500,0
1.238
1.200
1.097
400,0
1.000
387,1
800
795
681
600
569
549
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
362,4
300,0
244,4
200,0
203,1
237,7
199,1
400
100,0
200
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction fo flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
27,7%
47,4%
25,0%
A  17
AB
1000,0
5.500
900,0
5.000
4.130
4.000
700,0
Flow (pcu/h)
3.500
3.000
2.500
600,0
544,0
500,0
400,0
2.000
300,0
1.500
200,0
202,5
1.000
100,0
500
544
75
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
136
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
0,0
36
5,3
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
4,2
Truck 2
axles
Type of vehicle
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
27,2
21,6
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
826,0
800,0
4.500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  18
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
2,0
1,0
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  19
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
1.200
1.100
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
1.000
80,0%
900
70,0%
Percentage
700
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Type of vehicle
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
800
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  20
Rickshaw
Tricycles
1.200
1.100
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
1.000
90,0%
900
80,0%
800
Percentage
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 2
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Minibus
Tricycles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
700
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  21
Rickshaw
Tricycles
1.200
1.100
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.000
80,0%
900
70,0%
Percentage
700
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
800
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  22
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
1.200
1.100
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.000
80,0%
900
70,0%
Percentage
700
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
800
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  23
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
AB
800
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  24
Rickshaw
Tricycles
A  25
2381
701
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
9.6
6.5
8.0
No median at major road
Commercial and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Commercial medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
6.40 7.40, 7.50 8.50
214 (4.4%)
450 (9.2%)
1
2
1141
118
5
6
[veh/h]
B
115
446
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  26
130
120
110
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
1minute interval
A  27
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1
Flow (veh/1minute)
100
60,0
57,5
55,0
52,5
50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  28
55,2
36,8
31,9
28,5
26,8
25,2
23,6
22,2
20,3
18,8
17,5
16,4
15,4
14,3
13,3
12,3
11,3
10,3
9,3
8,3
7,3
6,3
5,3
4,3
3,3
0,0%
1,4
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
700,00
2.400
2.381
2.200
600,00
2.000
558,80
500,00
1.600
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
1.800
1.400
1.200
1.141
1.000
400,00
300,00
273,10
800
200,00
701
600
400
100,00
446
84,60
63,10
200
118
115
24,30
0,00
16,60
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
11,5%
16,6%
71,8%
A  29
AB
700,00
4.500
4.262
600,00
4.000
3.500
Flow (pcu/h)
2.500
2.000
426,20
400,00
357,00
300,00
1.500
200,00
1.000
158,40
100,00
500
357
0
199
48
21
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
10
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
39,80
29,40
0,00
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
5,00
2,00
2,70
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
500,00
3.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  30
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
2.200
Direction of flow
CA
BA
2.100
2.000
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
1.900
90,0%
1.800
1.700
80,0%
1.600
1.500
70,0%
1.400
Percentage
1.200
1.100
1.000
60,0%
50,0%
900
40,0%
800
700
30,0%
600
500
20,0%
400
300
10,0%
200
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.300
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  31
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
1.200
1.100
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
1.000
80,0%
900
70,0%
Percentage
700
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
800
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  32
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
BC
AC
1.100
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
1.000
90,0%
900
80,0%
800
70,0%
Percentage
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2 axles
Type of vehicle
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
Flow (veh/h)
700
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  33
Rickshaw
Tricycles
2.200
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
2.100
2.000
1.900
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.800
1.700
80,0%
1.600
1.500
70,0%
1.400
Percentage
1.200
1.100
1.000
60,0%
50,0%
900
40,0%
800
700
30,0%
600
500
20,0%
400
300
10,0%
200
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.300
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  34
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
1.100
1.000
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
900
80,0%
800
70,0%
Percentage
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
700
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  35
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
AB
800
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  36
Rickshaw
A  37
712
210
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
7.4
5.0
6.2
No median at major road
Public service and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Residential medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
14.35 15.35, 15.45 16.45
169 (4.5%)
114 (3.1%)
1
2
986
887
5
6
[veh/h]
B
681
248
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  38
110
100
90
Flow (veh/1minute)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
49
51
53
55
57
59
45
47
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
21,0
20,0
19,0
18,0
17,0
16,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
11,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  39
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1
15,0
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  40
36,5
33,1
30,4
27,8
25,9
24,3
22,2
20,7
19,5
18,3
17,0
16,0
14,9
13,9
12,9
11,9
10,9
9,9
8,9
7,9
6,9
5,9
4,9
3,9
2,9
0,0%
1,8
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
300,00
1.000
986
250,00
887
200,00
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
800
712
681
600
180,10
169,60
150,00
138,80
123,60
400
100,00
248
200
50,00
210
34,20
33,60
0,00
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
30,5%
45,6%
23,9%
A  41
AB
400,00
3.500
350,00
3.285
3.000
328,50
300,00
Flow (pcu/h)
2.000
1.500
1.000
240,00
200,00
150,00
72,50
50,00
32,20
240
0
250,00
100,00
500
29
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
161
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
0,00
1,90
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
0,70
0,90
3,20
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
2.500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  42
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
800
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  43
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  44
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  45
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  46
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  47
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
AB
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  48
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
A  49
A 5. 2
Type of Intersection
Number of Lanes
Road Entry Widths [m]
Median
Road Environment
Side Friction
Population
Time of Measurement
Number of
Unmotorized
Number of Pedestrian
2545
1030
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
10.0
6.5
10.0
No median at major road
Commercial and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Residential medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
14.40 15.40, 15.50 16.50
219 (3.0%)
18 (0.2%)
1
2
2220
240
5
6
[veh/h]
B
219
986
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  50
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
21,0
20,0
19,0
18,0
17,0
16,0
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
11,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  51
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1
Flow (veh/1minute)
120
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  52
59,7
39,4
34,7
32,0
29,2
26,8
25,2
23,8
22,5
21,2
20,1
19,1
17,8
16,6
15,6
14,6
13,6
12,6
11,6
10,6
9,6
8,6
7,6
6,6
5,6
4,6
,8
3,6
0,0%
2,5
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
700,00
2.800
2.600
2.545
600,00
2.400
2.200
562,50
500,00
2.000
1.800
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
617,80
2.220
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
1.030
400,00
300,00
986
216,70
200,00
800
231,40
600
100,00
400
200
240
219
37,80
35,30
0,00
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
16,9%
17,3%
65,8%
A  53
AB
1000,00
7.000
900,00
6.500
876,00
6.000
800,00
6.084
5.500
700,00
Flow (pcu/h)
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
600,00
608,40
500,00
400,00
300,00
2.000
200,00
1.500
1.000
100,00
876
136,40
500
0
44
17
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
196
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
19
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
39,20
27,20
0,00
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
11,40
1,50
1,40
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
5.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  54
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
2.200
Direction of flow
CA
BA
2.100
2.000
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
1.900
90,0%
1.800
1.700
80,0%
1.600
1.500
70,0%
1.400
Percentage
1.200
1.100
1.000
60,0%
50,0%
900
40,0%
800
700
30,0%
600
500
20,0%
400
300
10,0%
200
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.300
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  55
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
1.900
1.800
1.700
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
1.600
80,0%
1.500
1.400
70,0%
1.300
Percentage
1.100
1.000
900
60,0%
50,0%
800
40,0%
700
600
30,0%
500
400
20,0%
300
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.200
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  56
Rickshaw
Tricycles
2.000
Direction of flow
BC
AC
1.900
1.800
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.700
1.600
80,0%
1.500
1.400
70,0%
1.300
Percentage
1.100
1.000
900
60,0%
50,0%
800
40,0%
700
600
30,0%
500
400
20,0%
300
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.200
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  57
Rickshaw
Tricycles
2.200
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
2.100
2.000
1.900
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.800
1.700
80,0%
1.600
1.500
70,0%
1.400
Percentage
1.200
1.100
1.000
60,0%
50,0%
900
40,0%
800
700
30,0%
600
500
20,0%
400
300
10,0%
200
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.300
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  58
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
2.000
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
1.900
1.800
1.700
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.600
80,0%
1.500
1.400
70,0%
1.300
Percentage
1.100
1.000
900
60,0%
50,0%
800
40,0%
700
600
30,0%
500
400
20,0%
300
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.200
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  59
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
AB
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
800
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
900
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.000
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  60
Bicycle
Rickshaw
A  61
1429
151
Threelegs/324
A
B
C
4
2
4
11.8
8.8
12.4
No median at major road
Commercial and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Commercial medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
14.30 15.30, 15.35 16.35
153 (2.9%)
118 (2.3%)
1
2
1575
929
5
6
[veh/h]
B
887
203
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  62
130
120
110
Flow (veh/1minute)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
49
51
53
55
57
59
51
53
55
57
59
47
49
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  63
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
11,0
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  64
27,4
24,1
22,2
20,3
19,1
17,7
16,7
15,6
14,6
13,5
12,5
11,5
10,6
9,6
8,6
7,6
6,6
5,6
4,6
3,6
2,6
0,0%
1,5
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
500,0
1.600
1.575
1.400
1.429
400,0
392,3
367,8
1.000
929
887
800
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
1.200
300,0
303,6
232,6
200,0
600
400
100,0
200
203
44,2
150
36,3
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
21,9%
58,1%
20,0%
A  65
AB
900,0
4.500
800,0
4.185
4.000
789,0
700,0
3.500
Flow (pcu/h)
2.500
2.000
500,0
400,0
418,5
300,0
1.500
200,0
1.000
789
100,0
500
113
39
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
0,0
109,2
36
2,5
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
10,8
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
22,6
21,6
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
600,0
3.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  66
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
0,8
1,8
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
1.200
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
1.100
90,0%
1.000
80,0%
900
70,0%
Percentage
700
600
500
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
400
30,0%
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
800
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  67
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
1.400
1.300
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
1.200
80,0%
1.100
1.000
70,0%
Percentage
800
700
60,0%
50,0%
600
40,0%
500
30,0%
400
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  68
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
1.400
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
1.300
90,0%
1.200
80,0%
1.100
1.000
70,0%
Percentage
800
700
60,0%
50,0%
600
40,0%
500
30,0%
400
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  69
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
1.400
1.300
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.200
80,0%
1.100
1.000
70,0%
Percentage
800
700
60,0%
50,0%
600
40,0%
500
30,0%
400
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 3
axles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  70
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
1.400
1.300
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
1.200
80,0%
1.100
1.000
70,0%
Percentage
800
700
60,0%
50,0%
600
40,0%
500
30,0%
400
300
20,0%
200
10,0%
100
0,0%
0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
900
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 3
axles
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  71
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
AB
800
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  72
Bicycle
Rickshaw
1.
0
Ho
sp
ita
l
Ma
rke
t
Ca
na
l
Ca
na
l
Ho
us
e
9.2
0
1.0
A  73
Ma
rke
t
P
Se ublic
rvi
ce
ST
RE
ET
ST
RE
ET
Ma
rke
t
HA
SA
NU
DD
IN
9.0
H
os
pi
tal
1.
0
M
E
RD
EK
A
1.0
9.
20
1.0
1. 0
841
828
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
9.2
9.0
9.2
No median at major road
Public service and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Residential medium (300 499 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
06.20 07.20, 07.30 08.30
272 (7.3%)
285 (7.6%)
1
2
801
331
5
6
[veh/h]
B
261
672
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  74
100
90
Flow (veh/1minute)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,00
14,00
13,00
12,00
10,00
9,00
8,00
7,00
6,00
5,00
4,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
1minute interval
A  75
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,00
11,00
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  76
38,3
29,1
25,5
22,7
21,0
19,4
18,1
16,9
15,9
15,0
14,3
13,7
13,0
12,3
11,6
11,0
10,4
10,0
9,5
9,0
8,5
8,1
7,6
7,0
6,4
5,7
5,0
0,0%
2,3
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
500,0
841
800
828
801
400,0
347,2
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
672
600
400
300,0
271,2
200,0
204,6
331
170,2
261
200
100,0
109,4
84,8
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
26,9%
44,0%
29,2%
A  77
AB
700,0
3.000
3.030
600,0
606,0
2.500
Flow (pcu/h)
1.500
400,0
384,0
300,0
1.000
200,0
500
100,0
384
106,4
212
0
38
10
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
59
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
0,0
Truck 2 axles
Pushcart 2
wheels
42,4
35,4
Bicycle
Rickshaw
12,0
Minibus
Type of vehicle
1,2
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
500,0
2.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  78
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
800
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  79
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
1.000
90,0%
80,0%
700
70,0%
600
60,0%
Percentage
800
500
50,0%
400
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow 8veh/h)
900
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  80
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
800
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow 8veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  81
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
800
700
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  82
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
800
700
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  83
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
AB
800
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  84
Rickshaw
0
1.
T
EE
R
ST
t
ke
ar
M
E
R.
A
AT
IN
D
TA
AR
M
A
AT
IN
D
TA
AR
M
t
ke
ar
M
e
us
T
EE
R
ST
I
N
RA
B
TA
e
us
Ho
e
us
Ho
0
1.
70
6.
E
R.
o
H
A  85
AD
M
AH
T
EE
R
T
S
e
us
Ho
0
1.
0
5.
80
5.
se
ou
H
0
1.
0
1.
0
1.
455
443
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
6.7
5.8
5.0
No median at major road
Residential landuse with direct road side access for pedestrians and
vehicles
Residential low (100 299 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
14.45 15.45, 15.55 16.55
128 (5.4%)
132 (5.6%)
1
2
421
166
5
6
[veh/h]
B
179
694
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  86
60
Flow (veh/1minute)
50
40
30
20
10
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
49
51
53
55
57
59
45
47
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  87
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
11,0
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
57,5
55,0
52,5
50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
2,5
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  88
33,2
26,6
21,6
18,8
16,6
15,0
13,8
12,5
11,4
10,4
9,6
8,8
7,9
7,1
6,4
5,5
4,5
0,0%
1,7
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
200,0
694
600
455
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
150,0
443
421
400
119,7
100,0
74,3
68,5
200
63,7
57,7
50,0
179
54,5
166
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
36,5%
37,2%
26,4%
A  89
AB
300,0
2.500
250,0
2.000
2.056
Flow (pcu/h)
1.500
1.000
205,6
150,0
157,0
100,0
500
50,0
28,0
157
10
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
22,4
16,1
112
13
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
0,0
6,5
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
0,4
2,4
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
200,0
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  90
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
600
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
500
80,0%
70,0%
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
400
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  91
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
500
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  92
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
BC
AC
800
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  93
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
600
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
500
80,0%
70,0%
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
400
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  94
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
800
700
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  95
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
AB
600
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
500
80,0%
70,0%
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
400
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  96
Rickshaw
Tricycles
1.0
1.0
5
7.2
1.0
use
Ho
e
us
Ho
AH
MZ
HA
IN
SE
HU
EET
STR
use
Ho
rket
Ma
5
7.2
1.0
1.0
se
Hou
A  97
1.0
0
7.5
use
Ho
se
Hou
.
DR
ET
RE
ST
N
I
HID
WA
792
339
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
7.2
7.5
7.2
No median at major road
Residential landuse with direct road side access for pedestrians and
vehicles
Residential low (100 299 activities per hour)
0.3 1.0 million inhabitants
06.35 07.35, 07.40 08.40
182 (7.3%)
80 (3.3%)
1
2
438
324
5
6
[veh/h]
B
301
259
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  98
70
Flow (veh/1minute)
60
50
40
30
20
10
49
51
53
55
57
59
51
53
55
57
59
47
49
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  99
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
11,0
100,0
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  100
54,0
41,4
33,1
28,0
24,2
21,6
18,8
17,0
15,3
13,7
12,3
11,1
10,1
8,9
7,9
6,9
5,8
4,7
3,4
0,0%
1,6
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
250,00
800
200,00
600
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
792
438
400
164,60
150,00
100,00
339
90,30
324
301
259
63,30
200
50,00
52,80
51,60
44,10
0,00
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
CB
Direction of flow
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
23,8%
50,1%
26,1%
A  101
AB
300,00
2.107
250,00
210,70
200,00
Flow (pcu/h)
1.500
1.000
150,00
142,00
100,00
500
66,00
50,00
33,60
168
142
0
20
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
12
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
0,00
7,20
6,00
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
0,50
0,70
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
2.000
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  102
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
800
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
700
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
A  103
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
500
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
400
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  104
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
500
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  105
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
800
700
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
600
70,0%
Percentage
400
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
300
30,0%
200
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
500
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  106
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
500
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2
Minibus
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  107
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
AB
500
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
400
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  108
Rickshaw
Pushcart 2
wheels
1.0
1.0
7.30
.
W. R
1.0
ket
Mar
el
Hot
N
TMA
RA
SUP
se
Hou
EET
STR
ce
ervi
lic S
Pub
TO
RAP
UP
R. S
1.0
1.0
e
ervic
lic S
Pub
A  109
1.0
9.0
EET
STR
ity
vers
Uni
0
9.4
se
Hou
ET
TRE
NS
MA
T
A
UPR
R. S
W.
159
530
Threelegs/322
A
B
C
2
2
2
7.3
9.0
9.4
No median at major road
Public service and residential landuse with direct road side access for
pedestrians and vehicles
Residential medium (300 499 activities per hour)
1.0 3.0 million inhabitants
15.55 16.55, 17.00 18.00
73 (3.4%)
37 (1.7%)
1
2
279
188
5
6
[veh/h]
B
439
563
Schematic of Traffic Stream
A  110
50
Flow (veh/1minute)
40
30
20
10
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
1minute interval
Intersection Occupancy [ % ]
15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
1minute interval
A  111
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
11,0
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
0,0
1minute interval
Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
Speed (km/h)
A  112
35,0
26,9
24,2
22,5
21,0
19,7
18,6
17,6
16,7
15,9
15,1
14,4
13,6
12,9
12,3
11,7
11,2
10,6
10,0
9,4
8,6
7,7
6,3
0,0%
2,1
Cumulative Percentage
80,0%
300,0
700
250,0
600
241,0
233,1
530
500
200,0
Flow (pcu/h)
Flow (veh/h)
563
439
400
188,7
150,0
300
117,9
279
100,0
200
188
73,4
159
50,0
58,4
100
0,0
0
CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
CA
AB
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
Direction of flow
Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
rightturn flow
leftturn flow
20,3%
34,8%
44,9%
A  113
AB
700,0
1.500
1.525
600,0
547,0
Flow (pcu/h)
500,0
900
400,0
300,0
305,0
600
547
200,0
300
100,0
64
13
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
0,0
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
32,5
19,2
Truck 2 axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
3,0
2,4
3,4
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5
Flow (veh/h)
1.200
25,0
22,5
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  114
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
BA
500
Direction of flow
CA
BA
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
100
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Type of vehicle
A  115
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
500
Direction of flow
CB
BA
AC
AB
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  116
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
BC
AC
600
Direction of flow
BC
AC
100,0%
90,0%
500
80,0%
70,0%
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Car
Type of vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
400
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  117
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
500
Direction of flow
CA
CB
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  118
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
600
Direction of flow
CB
BC
BA
AC
100,0%
90,0%
500
80,0%
70,0%
Percentage
300
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
200
30,0%
20,0%
100
10,0%
0,0%
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Type of vehicle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
400
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  119
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Direction of flow
CB
AB
500
Direction of flow
CB
AB
100,0%
90,0%
400
80,0%
Percentage
300
200
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
100
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
0
Truck 2 axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Truck 2
axles
Type of vehicle
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of vehicle
30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5
Flow (veh/h)
70,0%
20,0
17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
Truck 2
axles
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw
Type of vehicle
A  120
Tricycles
Pushcart 2
wheels
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
1.0
4.2
0.2
16.5
76.9
0.7
0.6
N.A
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
7.5
N.A
15.9
75.4
0.9
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
6.5
N.A
11.5
80.2
1.5
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.8
N.A
24.5
69.2
2.5
1.1
N.A
N.A
AB
0.6
5.3
0.4
16.2
75.9
1.2
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.8
0.4
21.8
73.0
1.5
0.4
N.A
0.1
28.1
16.2
Percentage Movement
26.1
6.9
10.4
12.3
Intersection 2 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
2.2
N.A
8.9
85.0
2.8
0.7
0.2
0.1
N.A
0.3
0.1
10.9
86.0
2.3
0.3
N.A
N.A
22.2
13.8
N.A
0.8
N.A
3.4
92.1
2.6
1.0
0.1
N.A
0.2
2.0
N.A
23.1
72.7
1.8
0.2
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
1.9
0.1
7.4
85.8
3.9
1.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.4
N.A
22.3
73.5
1.8
0.9
0.2
N.A
25.1
11.5
Percentage Movement
16.1
B1
11.1
Intersection 3 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
1.6
0.5
7.6
85.4
4.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.9
94.2
4.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
3.8
91.5
4.3
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
1.7
N.A
5.2
87.0
5.2
0.9
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
0.6
0.7
11.8
83.8
2.7
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
3.4
89.0
6.8
0.8
N.A
23.3
2.4
Percentage Movement
48.6
14.3
9.1
2.3
Intersection 4 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
0.6
N.A
6.3
90.0
2.9
N.A
0.1
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
1.4
N.A
2.4
92.4
2.9
N.A
0.5
0.5
N.A
0.4
N.A
1.6
91.9
4.8
N.A
0.4
0.8
N.A
0.7
0.1
9.0
88.1
1.9
N.A
N.A
0.1
AB
N.A
1.1
N.A
5.5
86.8
6.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.6
N.A
8.0
86.4
5.0
0.1
N.A
N.A
26.5
23.8
Percentage Movement
19.1
5.6
6.7
18.3
Intersection 5 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
0.6
0.2
12.7
81.8
4.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
0.3
N.A
10.9
86.6
1.8
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.4
0.4
12.5
84.1
2.2
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
7.3
87.2
5.0
N.A
0.5
N.A
AB
N.A
0.9
0.4
13.1
84.3
1.1
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
4.6
91.3
3.8
0.4
N.A
N.A
30.7
3.3
Percentage Movement
35.2
14.2
13.6
B2
3.0
Intersection 6 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
0.8
N.A
16.0
79.7
2.4
1.0
N.A
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
2.6
N.A
13.2
81.5
2.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.5
0.5
5.9
91.1
1.5
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
14.0
82.9
1.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
AB
0.1
0.3
0.1
12.6
82.4
3.6
0.8
0.1
0.1
N.A
0.9
0.1
22.2
76.0
0.5
0.3
N.A
N.A
30.4
18.0
Percentage Movement
27.6
2.9
3.9
17.1
Intersection 7 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
3.1
0.8
14.6
73.6
6.1
1.8
N.A
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
0.1
N.A
4.8
87.7
6.0
1.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
4.8
87.5
4.2
3.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.3
N.A
19.9
75.1
2.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
0.5
0.2
14.6
75.4
7.9
1.2
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.3
N.A
6.0
89.7
3.9
N.A
N.A
N.A
21.5
8.9
Percentage Movement
22.5
22.2
18.0
7.0
Intersection 8 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
N.A
N.A
4.2
89.9
4.6
0.9
N.A
0.4
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
N.A
N.A
7.0
89.4
3.2
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
0.3
N.A
6.5
87.8
5.2
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.2
1.7
13.4
78.2
4.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
0.2
N.A
3.6
87.6
7.1
1.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.8
2.4
13.9
80.1
1.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
17.9
7.0
Percentage Movement
19.3
18.8
29.4
B3
7.6
Intersection 9 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
1.5
N.A
5.2
83.1
9.6
0.6
N.A
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
0.6
N.A
2.9
90.9
5.3
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.8
N.A
4.2
89.2
5.4
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.7
0.7
6.6
87.4
3.3
1.3
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
0.5
N.A
9.4
83.6
6.4
N.A
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
5.9
86.7
6.8
0.3
N.A
0.3
17.9
13.2
Percentage Movement
32.3
13.8
10.6
12.3
Intersection 10 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
N.A
N.A
N.A
19.5
73.6
6.3
0.6
N.A
N.A
Streams
CB
BC
BA
AC
Percentage Vehicle Composition
N.A
0.4
30.2
66.8
2.3
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
26.5
71.8
1.6
N.A
0.2
N.A
N.A
1.6
23.7
71.8
2.7
N.A
0.2
N.A
N.A
AB
N.A
1.1
23.3
72.8
1.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
N.A
N.A
0.5
20.2
70.2
8.5
N.A
N.A
0.5
N.A
12.9
8.7
Percentage Movement
7.4
24.6
26.1
B4
20.3
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
12
51
2
199
928
8
7
N.A
N.A
1206
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
%
0.7
2.9
0.1
11.2
52.2
0.5
0.4
N.A
N.A
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
16
N.A
0.9
N.A
N.A
140
395
14
6
N.A
N.A
571
7.9
22.2
0.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
BA
AC
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
0.8
N.A
1.7
8.2
0.1
N.A
16
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
0.5
N.A
4.8
13.4
0.5
8
69
5
211
987
15
0.3
2.3
0.2
7.2
33.6
0.5
N.A
21
3
163
546
11
N.A
0.7
0.1
5.5
18.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
480
571
1300
B5
748
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
31
N.A
55
385
7
2
N.A
N.A
480
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
8
69
5
211
987
15
5
N.A
N.A
1300
%
N.A
1.7
N.A
3.1
21.6
0.4
0.1
N.A
N.A
%
0.4
3.9
0.3
11.9
55.4
0.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
12
51
2
199
927
8
0.4
1.5
0.1
5.9
27.3
0.2
N.A
24
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
0.7
N.A
1.5
7.1
0.1
N.A
16
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
0.5
N.A
4.1
11.6
0.4
8
69
5
211
987
15
0.2
2.0
0.1
6.2
29.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1206
Group of conflict 5 :
321
571
1300
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
51
242
3
N.A
0.9
N.A
1.9
9.1
0.1
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
31
N.A
55
385
7
N.A
1.2
N.A
2.1
14.4
0.3
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1206
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
16
N.A
140
395
14
N.A
0.6
N.A
5.2
14.8
0.5
8
69
5
211
987
15
0.3
2.6
0.2
7.9
36.9
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
321
571
B6
1300
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
51
242
3
1
N.A
N.A
321
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
21
3
163
546
11
3
N.A
1
748
%
N.A
2.2
N.A
4.8
22.6
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
2.0
0.3
15.2
51.1
1.0
0.3
N.A
0.1
Intersection 2 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
98
933
31
8
2
1
1097
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
1
11
N.A
127
399
10
1
N.A
N.A
549
%
N.A
1.5
N.A
6.0
56.7
1.9
0.5
0.1
0.1
%
0.1
0.7
N.A
7.7
24.2
0.6
0.1
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
1
74
586
16
N.A
0.1
0.0
2.4
19.3
0.5
2
N.A
N.A
681
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
1
11
N.A
127
399
10
0.0
0.4
N.A
4.2
13.1
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
1
91
1062
48
N.A
0.8
0.0
3.0
35.0
1.6
N.A
8
N.A
127
418
10
N.A
0.3
N.A
4.2
13.8
0.3
0.0
12
0.4
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
549
1238
B7
569
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
6
N.A
27
732
21
8
1
N.A
795
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
1
91
1062
48
12
N.A
N.A
1238
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
1.3
36.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
N.A
%
N.A
1.2
0.0
4.5
52.2
2.4
0.6
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
24
N.A
98
933
31
N.A
0.7
N.A
2.7
26.2
0.9
N.A
2
1
74
586
16
N.A
0.1
0.0
2.1
16.4
0.4
1
11
N.A
127
399
10
0.0
0.3
N.A
3.6
11.2
0.3
N.A
24
1
91
1062
48
N.A
0.7
0.0
2.6
29.8
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
12
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1097
Group of conflict 5 :
681
549
1238
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
1
74
586
16
N.A
0.1
0.0
2.3
18.0
0.5
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
6
N.A
27
732
21
N.A
0.2
N.A
0.8
22.4
0.6
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
681
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
1
11
N.A
127
399
10
0.0
0.3
N.A
3.9
12.2
0.3
N.A
24
1
91
1062
48
N.A
0.7
0.0
2.8
32.5
1.5
0.2
0.0
12
0.4
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
795
549
B8
1238
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
1
74
586
16
2
N.A
N.A
681
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
8
N.A
127
418
10
5
1
N.A
569
%
N.A
0.2
0.1
5.9
46.9
1.3
0.2
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.6
N.A
10.2
33.4
0.8
0.4
0.1
N.A
Intersection 3 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
39
13
182
2033
107
3
1
3
2381
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
6
100
6
1
N.A
N.A
115
%
N.A
1.6
0.5
7.3
81.5
4.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.2
4.0
0.2
0.0
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
BA
AC
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
13
660
28
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.6
31.8
1.3
N.A
2
N.A
6
100
6
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.3
4.8
0.3
N.A
7
8
135
956
31
N.A
0.3
0.4
6.5
46.1
1.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
4
105
8
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.2
5.1
0.4
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.2
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
701
115
1141
B9
118
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
17
408
19
1
1
N.A
446
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
7
8
135
956
31
4
N.A
N.A
1141
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.1
25.7
1.2
0.1
0.1
N.A
%
N.A
0.4
0.5
8.5
60.2
2.0
0.3
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
39
13
182
2033
107
N.A
0.9
0.3
4.2
46.9
2.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
13
660
28
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.3
15.2
0.6
N.A
2
N.A
6
100
6
N.A
0.0
N.A
0.1
2.3
0.1
N.A
7
8
135
956
31
N.A
0.2
0.2
3.1
22.0
0.7
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.1
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
2381
Group of conflict 5 :
701
115
1141
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
13
660
28
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.5
27.5
1.2
N.A
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
17
408
19
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.7
17.0
0.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
701
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
6
100
6
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.2
4.2
0.2
N.A
7
8
135
956
31
N.A
0.3
0.3
5.6
39.8
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
446
115
B  10
1141
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
13
660
28
N.A
N.A
N.A
701
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
4
105
8
1
N.A
N.A
118
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.6
80.6
3.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.5
12.8
1.0
0.1
N.A
N.A
Intersection 4 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
N.A
45
641
21
N.A
1
N.A
712
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
5
1
61
600
13
N.A
N.A
1
681
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
3.2
46.0
1.5
N.A
0.1
N.A
%
N.A
0.4
0.1
4.4
43.1
0.9
N.A
N.A
0.1
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
BA
AC
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
5
194
6
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.2
7.0
0.2
N.A
5
1
61
600
13
N.A
0.2
0.0
2.2
21.7
0.5
N.A
11
N.A
54
856
65
N.A
0.4
N.A
2.0
31.0
2.4
N.A
5
N.A
71
766
44
N.A
0.2
N.A
2.6
27.7
1.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
210
681
986
B  11
887
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
4
228
12
N.A
1
2
248
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
11
N.A
54
856
65
N.A
N.A
N.A
986
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.3
18.5
1.0
N.A
0.1
0.2
%
N.A
0.9
N.A
4.4
69.4
5.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
N.A
45
641
21
N.A
0.2
N.A
1.7
24.8
0.8
N.A
3
N.A
5
194
6
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.2
7.5
0.2
N.A
5
1
61
600
13
N.A
0.2
0.0
2.4
23.2
0.5
N.A
11
N.A
54
856
65
N.A
0.4
N.A
2.1
33.1
2.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
712
Group of conflict 5 :
210
681
986
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
5
194
6
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.2
9.1
0.3
N.A
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
4
228
12
N.A
0.0
N.A
0.2
10.7
0.6
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
210
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
5
1
61
600
13
N.A
0.2
0.0
2.9
28.2
0.6
N.A
11
N.A
54
856
65
N.A
0.5
N.A
2.5
40.3
3.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.0
N.A
N.A
248
681
B  12
986
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
5
194
6
N.A
1
1
210
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
5
N.A
71
766
44
1
N.A
N.A
887
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
0.5
17.7
0.5
N.A
0.1
0.1
%
N.A
0.5
N.A
6.5
69.8
4.0
0.1
N.A
N.A
Intersection 5 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
16
5
324
2081
110
7
1
1
2545
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
16
191
11
N.A
1
N.A
219
%
N.A
0.6
0.2
11.7
75.3
4.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.6
6.9
0.4
N.A
0.0
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
112
892
19
N.A
0.1
N.A
3.0
24.0
0.5
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
16
191
11
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.4
5.1
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1030
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
21
8
290
1872
25
N.A
0.6
0.2
7.8
50.5
0.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
11
219
9
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.3
5.9
0.2
N.A
0.1
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
219
2220
B  13
240
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
4
123
829
22
3
1
N.A
986
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
21
8
290
1872
25
4
N.A
N.A
2220
%
N.A
0.1
0.1
3.8
25.9
0.7
0.1
0.0
N.A
%
N.A
0.7
0.2
9.0
58.4
0.8
0.1
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
16
5
324
2081
110
N.A
0.3
0.1
5.4
34.6
1.8
N.A
3
N.A
112
892
19
N.A
0.0
N.A
1.9
14.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
16
191
11
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.3
3.2
0.2
N.A
21
8
290
1872
25
N.A
0.3
0.1
4.8
31.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.0
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
2545
Group of conflict 5 :
1030
219
2220
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
112
892
19
N.A
0.1
N.A
2.5
20.0
0.4
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
4
123
829
22
N.A
0.1
0.1
2.8
18.6
0.5
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1030
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
16
191
11
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.4
4.3
0.2
N.A
21
8
290
1872
25
N.A
0.5
0.2
6.5
42.0
0.6
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
986
219
B  14
2220
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
112
892
19
4
N.A
N.A
1030
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
11
219
9
1
N.A
N.A
240
%
N.A
0.2
N.A
8.8
70.2
1.5
0.3
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.9
17.2
0.7
0.1
N.A
N.A
Intersection 6 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
12
N.A
229
1139
34
15
N.A
N.A
1429
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
9
2
124
735
10
5
1
1
887
%
N.A
0.5
N.A
9.9
49.2
1.5
0.6
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.4
0.1
5.4
31.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
N.A
20
123
4
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.6
3.5
0.1
N.A
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
9
2
124
735
10
N.A
0.3
0.1
3.5
20.8
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
151
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
1
5
2
198
1298
57
0.0
0.1
0.1
5.6
36.6
1.6
N.A
8
1
206
706
5
N.A
0.2
0.0
5.8
19.9
0.1
0.1
12
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
887
1575
B  15
929
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
1
12
185
3
1
N.A
N.A
203
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
1
5
2
198
1298
57
12
1
1
1575
%
N.A
0.1
0.1
0.7
10.4
0.2
0.1
N.A
N.A
%
0.1
0.3
0.1
11.1
73.0
3.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
12
N.A
229
1139
34
N.A
0.3
N.A
5.7
28.2
0.8
N.A
4
N.A
20
123
4
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.5
3.0
0.1
N.A
9
2
124
735
10
N.A
0.2
0.0
3.1
18.2
0.2
1
5
2
198
1298
57
0.0
0.1
0.0
4.9
32.1
1.4
15
0.4
N.A
N.A
0.1
12
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
1429
Group of conflict 5 :
151
887
1575
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
N.A
20
123
4
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.7
4.4
0.1
N.A
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
1
12
185
3
N.A
0.0
0.0
0.4
6.6
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
151
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
9
2
124
735
10
N.A
0.3
0.1
4.4
26.1
0.4
1
5
2
198
1298
57
0.0
0.2
0.1
7.0
46.1
2.0
0.0
0.2
12
0.4
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
N.A
N.A
0.0
0.0
203
887
B  16
1575
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
N.A
20
123
4
N.A
N.A
N.A
151
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
8
1
206
706
5
3
N.A
N.A
929
%
N.A
0.4
N.A
1.9
11.4
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.7
0.1
19.1
65.4
0.5
0.3
N.A
N.A
Intersection 7 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
26
7
123
619
51
15
N.A
N.A
841
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
6
N.A
52
196
7
N.A
N.A
N.A
261
%
N.A
2.4
0.6
11.2
56.2
4.6
1.4
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.5
N.A
4.7
17.8
0.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
40
726
50
N.A
0.0
N.A
1.8
32.7
2.3
11
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
6
N.A
52
196
7
N.A
0.3
N.A
2.3
8.8
0.3
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
828
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
2
117
604
63
N.A
0.2
0.1
5.3
27.2
2.8
N.A
1
N.A
20
297
13
N.A
0.0
N.A
0.9
13.4
0.6
N.A
10
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
N.A
N.A
261
801
B  17
331
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
1
32
588
28
23
N.A
N.A
672
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
2
117
604
63
10
N.A
1
801
%
N.A
N.A
0.1
2.2
39.9
1.9
1.6
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.3
0.1
7.9
41.0
4.3
0.7
N.A
0.1
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
26
7
123
619
51
N.A
1.0
0.3
4.5
22.7
1.9
N.A
1
N.A
40
726
50
N.A
0.0
N.A
1.5
26.6
1.8
N.A
6
N.A
52
196
7
N.A
0.2
N.A
1.9
7.2
0.3
N.A
4
2
117
604
63
N.A
0.1
0.1
4.3
22.1
2.3
15
0.5
11
0.4
N.A
N.A
10
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
841
Group of conflict 5 :
828
261
801
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
40
726
50
N.A
0.0
N.A
1.6
28.3
2.0
11
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
1
32
588
28
N.A
N.A
0.0
1.2
23.0
1.1
0.4
23
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
828
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
6
N.A
52
196
7
N.A
0.2
N.A
2.0
7.7
0.3
N.A
4
2
117
604
63
N.A
0.2
0.1
4.6
23.6
2.5
0.9
N.A
N.A
10
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.0
672
261
B  18
801
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
40
726
50
11
N.A
N.A
828
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
20
297
13
N.A
N.A
N.A
331
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
3.5
62.6
4.3
0.9
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
1.7
25.6
1.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
Intersection 8 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
19
409
21
4
N.A
2
455
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
3
24
140
8
N.A
N.A
N.A
179
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
3.0
64.5
3.3
0.6
N.A
0.3
%
N.A
0.6
0.5
3.8
22.1
1.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
396
14
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.6
32.8
1.2
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
3
24
140
8
N.A
0.3
0.2
2.0
11.6
0.7
0.1
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
443
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
15
369
30
N.A
0.1
N.A
1.2
30.5
2.5
N.A
3
4
23
133
3
N.A
0.2
0.3
1.9
11.0
0.2
N.A
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
179
421
B  19
166
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
45
609
36
2
N.A
N.A
694
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
15
369
30
6
N.A
N.A
421
%
N.A
0.2
N.A
4.0
54.6
3.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
1.3
33.1
2.7
0.5
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
19
409
21
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.3
27.3
1.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
396
14
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.1
26.4
0.9
N.A
4
3
24
140
8
N.A
0.3
0.2
1.6
9.3
0.5
N.A
1
N.A
15
369
30
N.A
0.1
N.A
1.0
24.6
2.0
0.3
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.4
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
455
Group of conflict 5 :
443
179
421
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
396
14
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.8
22.8
0.8
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
45
609
36
N.A
0.1
N.A
2.6
35.1
2.1
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
443
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
4
3
24
140
8
N.A
0.2
0.2
1.4
8.1
0.5
N.A
1
N.A
15
369
30
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.9
21.2
1.7
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
694
179
B  20
421
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
396
14
1
1
N.A
443
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
4
23
133
3
N.A
N.A
N.A
166
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
5.1
65.0
2.3
0.2
0.2
N.A
%
N.A
0.5
0.7
3.8
21.8
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
Intersection 9 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
12
N.A
41
658
76
5
N.A
N.A
792
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
2
20
263
10
4
N.A
N.A
301
%
N.A
1.1
N.A
3.8
60.2
7.0
0.5
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.2
0.2
1.8
24.1
0.9
0.4
N.A
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
10
308
18
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.7
22.0
1.3
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
2
20
263
10
N.A
0.1
0.1
1.4
18.8
0.7
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
339
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
41
366
28
N.A
0.1
N.A
2.9
26.1
2.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
19
281
22
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.4
20.0
1.6
0.3
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
301
438
B  21
324
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
11
231
14
1
N.A
N.A
259
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
41
366
28
N.A
1
N.A
438
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
1.6
33.1
2.0
0.1
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
5.9
52.5
4.0
N.A
0.1
N.A
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
12
N.A
41
658
76
N.A
0.6
N.A
2.2
35.2
4.1
N.A
2
N.A
10
308
18
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.5
16.5
1.0
N.A
2
2
20
263
10
N.A
0.1
0.1
1.1
14.1
0.5
N.A
2
N.A
41
366
28
N.A
0.1
N.A
2.2
19.6
1.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
792
Group of conflict 5 :
339
301
438
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
10
308
18
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.7
23.0
1.3
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
11
231
14
N.A
0.1
N.A
0.8
17.3
1.0
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
339
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
2
20
263
10
N.A
0.1
0.1
1.5
19.7
0.7
N.A
2
N.A
41
366
28
N.A
0.1
N.A
3.1
27.4
2.1
0.1
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
259
301
B  22
438
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
CB
Type of Vehicle
AB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
10
308
18
1
N.A
N.A
339
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
19
281
22
1
N.A
1
324
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
1.5
46.5
2.7
0.2
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.9
42.4
3.3
0.2
N.A
0.2
Intersection 10 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams
CA
Type of Vehicle
BA
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
117
10
1
N.A
N.A
159
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
7
N.A
104
315
12
N.A
1
N.A
439
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
5.2
19.6
1.7
0.2
N.A
N.A
%
N.A
1.2
N.A
17.4
52.7
2.0
N.A
0.2
N.A
Group of conflict 2 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
160
354
12
N.A
0.1
N.A
11.1
24.7
0.8
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
7
N.A
104
315
12
N.A
0.5
N.A
7.2
21.9
0.8
0.1
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
530
AB
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
65
203
5
N.A
0.2
N.A
4.5
14.1
0.3
N.A
1
N.A
38
132
16
N.A
0.1
N.A
2.6
9.2
1.1
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.1
439
279
B  23
188
Group of conflict 3 :
Streams
BC
Type of Vehicle
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
149
404
9
N.A
1
N.A
563
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
3
N.A
65
203
5
1
1
1
279
%
N.A
N.A
N.A
17.7
48.0
1.1
N.A
0.1
N.A
%
N.A
0.4
N.A
7.7
24.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
Group of conflict 4 :
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CA
CB
BA
AC
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
31
117
10
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.2
8.3
0.7
N.A
2
N.A
160
354
12
N.A
0.1
N.A
11.4
25.2
0.9
N.A
7
N.A
104
315
12
N.A
0.5
N.A
7.4
22.4
0.9
N.A
3
N.A
65
203
5
N.A
0.2
N.A
4.6
14.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
159
Group of conflict 5 :
530
439
279
Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
BC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
160
354
12
N.A
0.1
N.A
8.8
19.5
0.7
BA
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
149
404
9
N.A
N.A
N.A
8.2
22.3
0.5
0.1
N.A
0.1
N.A
N.A
530
AC
%
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
7
N.A
104
315
12
N.A
0.4
N.A
5.7
17.4
0.7
N.A
3
N.A
65
203
5
N.A
0.2
N.A
3.6
11.2
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.1
563
439
B  24
279
Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CB
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
2
N.A
160
354
12
1
1
N.A
530
AB
%
N.A
0.3
N.A
22.3
49.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
N.A
B  25
Flow
[veh/h]
N.A
1
N.A
38
132
16
N.A
N.A
1
188
%
N.A
0.1
N.A
5.3
18.4
2.2
N.A
N.A
0.1
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
27.0
26.5
27.1
27.6
31.8
16.4
13.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
11.2
N.A
11.6
14.9
9.3
5.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
10.9
N.A
11.9
17.9
12.1
7.3
N.A
N.A
30.6
14.0
16.6
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
24.8
N.A
23.9
26.4
14.2
11.3
9.7
6.1
N.A
22.8
14.9
16.8
20.9
13.3
9.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
7.0
N.A
9.3
13.3
11.5
7.0
7.0
N.A
25.7
20.3
N.A
16.6
N.A
17.6
22.6
12.8
8.4
N.A
N.A
AC
AB
21.4
22.1
17.7
21.9
25.9
17.3
13.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
18.7
21.4
21.4
28.2
17.6
13.8
N.A
5.4
24.9
26.2
AC
AB
N.A
17.5
12.3
18.1
20.8
12.0
10.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
31.4
N.A
30.3
37.7
25.4
15.9
20.6
N.A
20.1
35.6
20.8
Intersection 2 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
6.8
12.7
N.A
13.5
19.1
13.5
6.5
N.A
N.A
13.0
C1
17.5
Intersection 3 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
CB
N.A
18.3
18.5
16.9
21.3
13.8
10.6
2.7
5.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
9.2
15.1
12.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
N.A
N.A
5.3
9.4
6.8
4.2
4.7
N.A
N.A
4.4
N.A
7.1
22.1
20.3
12.3
N.A
N.A
AC
AB
N.A
11.6
14.6
13.3
15.0
10.0
7.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
16.3
16.8
11.1
9.0
N.A
N.A
14.6
16.4
AC
AB
N.A
20.2
N.A
16.7
20.2
14.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
9.9
N.A
12.5
17.4
15.4
6.5
N.A
N.A
19.6
16.9
AC
AB
N.A
18.6
20.2
18.0
21.2
13.9
7.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
12.3
18.0
12.7
9.6
N.A
N.A
20.7
17.5
20.5
14.9
9.1
20.9
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
18.1
N.A
20.0
23.1
13.6
N.A
10.5
N.A
N.A
17.5
N.A
11.4
17.8
14.5
N.A
16.7
2.0
N.A
9.2
N.A
6.2
12.3
10.2
N.A
6.5
3.7
22.6
17.5
12.0
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
24.1
28.7
24.0
25.9
14.0
9.5
7.0
4.5
N.A
9.0
N.A
10.8
15.2
11.8
6.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
4.6
5.4
6.8
12.5
9.7
6.8
5.3
N.A
25.0
14.6
Intersection 4 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
N.A
8.1
7.7
9.2
13.2
7.1
N.A
N.A
6.6
12.7
Intersection 5 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
N.A
N.A
N.A
6.7
20.4
23.4
N.A
9.3
N.A
11.7
C2
19.5
Intersection 6 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
11.7
N.A
10.7
13.4
6.9
5.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
10.5
N.A
10.3
16.2
14.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
5.2
6.2
6.2
10.2
7.3
4.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
6.0
8.0
7.8
11.4
8.7
8.3
8.2
2.6
AC
AB
10.5
11.3
7.8
9.9
11.4
6.3
4.7
5.5
2.3
N.A
8.4
6.6
8.8
10.5
8.2
5.1
N.A
N.A
10.9
10.0
AC
AB
N.A
21.1
21.8
16.8
20.9
10.6
7.4
N.A
3.7
N.A
7.6
N.A
11.0
14.4
11.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
19.3
14.0
AC
AB
N.A
15.8
N.A
13.1
16.9
8.4
7.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
11.1
6.6
11.7
26.6
23.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
16.0
23.7
12.7
15.2
9.8
10.8
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
20.6
25.4
19.8
25.3
12.7
10.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
14.8
N.A
15.0
17.8
12.7
11.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
10.5
7.4
10.3
7.1
6.8
N.A
N.A
23.3
17.3
Intersection 7:
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
N.A
11.7
N.A
11.9
15.0
11.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
9.9
14.2
Intersection 8 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
CB
N.A
N.A
N.A
16.9
19.5
10.7
7.8
N.A
3.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
11.8
14.9
9.5
11.7
7.2
N.A
18.9
14.5
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
5.6
N.A
6.2
9.6
8.4
6.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
12.1
13.1
15.0
25.0
13.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
9.3
C3
22.6
Intersection 9 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
25.8
N.A
26.1
30.2
13.2
10.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
27.4
N.A
31.9
53.8
59.1
18.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
11.3
N.A
20.1
45.1
53.3
22.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
12.1
8.7
16.6
23.1
24.8
7.9
N.A
N.A
AC
AB
N.A
25.7
N.A
22.0
26.4
12.0
N.A
11.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
15.6
21.9
15.3
7.8
N.A
5.5
25.0
21.0
AC
AB
N.A
11.6
N.A
19.3
20.5
6.8
6.9
6.2
2.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
14.0
17.8
11.5
N.A
N.A
3.4
19.8
16.4
28.2
53.2
44.2
22.4
CA
CB
Streams
BC
BA
Speed [km/h]
N.A
16.7
N.A
20.9
21.8
9.4
8.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
15.3
17.7
9.5
5.2
6.1
N.A
N.A
14.9
N.A
12.7
15.9
11.0
N.A
6.2
N.A
20.8
16.7
Intersection 10 :
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2wheels)
N.A
19.6
N.A
13.1
15.5
12.7
N.A
5.5
N.A
15.0
C4
14.8
N.A
2.8
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
2.9
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
2.8
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
2.7
2.6
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
3.1
1.6
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
Intersection 2 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
2.0
1.8
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
3.5
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
5.3
2.8
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
2.7
2.3
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
2.6
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
N.A
0.3
N.A
N.A
0.4
1.0
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
Intersection 3 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
4.3
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.1
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.6
N.A
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.6
1.6
N.A
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.9
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
C5
Intersection 4 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
1.7
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
1.8
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.0
1.9
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
2.2
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
3.4
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.5
0.4
0.4
N.A
N.A
Intersection 5 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
3.2
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.0
N.A
2.6
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
N.A
0.8
0.4
0.9
N.A
0.3
0.2
N.A
N.A
1.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
Intersection 6 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
2.6
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.2
1.6
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.5
1.6
1.0
0.1
0.1
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
N.A
2.8
2.1
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.7
N.A
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.2
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.8
1.1
N.A
C6
Intersection 7 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
2.7
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
N.A
1.1
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
2.7
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
2.1
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.3
N.A
3.9
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.4
N.A
0.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.2
N.A
Intersection 8 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
3.0
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.3
1.8
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
2.2
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3
N.A
2.8
2.8
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.3
N.A
0.6
N.A
N.A
0.4
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.2
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
Intersection 9 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
3.1
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
4.7
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
3.7
3.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
N.A
2.3
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.7
N.A
0.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
0.7
C7
Intersection 10 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2wheels)
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.4
N.A
2.5
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
2.3
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
N.A
2.6
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.5
N.A
3.2
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.9
1.0
N.A
N.A
1.0
N.A
N.A
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.4
1.1
Intersection/ PCUs
4
5
6
7
10
2.7
5.3
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.5
N.A
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.8
2.7
3.3
2.5
3.1
2.8
3.5
2.8
3.3
2.5
1.7
1.0
0.2
0.2
2.1
1.0
0.2
0.2
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.9
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.6
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.8
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
2.3
1.0
0.1
0.2
3.0
1.0
0.1
0.2
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
N.A
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
N.A
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.7
C8
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1923.16
2347.69
2347.69
2343.02
1960.13
2347.69
QCB
0.00
0.00
982.31
0.00
412.16
415.19
QBC
QBA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
917.91
0.00
0.00
10.08
837.96
0.00
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2141.56
0.00
2054.47 458.93
2226.42 237.84
2505.65 129.89
2466.90 2161.09
2174.83 1520.66
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
574.16 1022.15
0.00 1667.14 5405.01
717.28 1243.95 1721.78 4976.66 11173.06
754.49 806.04 2169.45 1901.58 8095.83
843.04
94.96 3234.76 1795.18 8603.47
712.34 193.62 1662.40 3797.36 10993.70
737.71 937.44 1967.60 3166.08 10504.31
Capacity of Intersection = 5405.01
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1877.01
0.00
1767.17 412.80
1863.47 309.48
2197.66
96.54
2162.96 1871.46
1905.45 1260.05
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
423.02 895.88
0.00 1381.43 4577.34
558.28 1175.60 1627.18 4931.19 10472.23
555.89 930.35 1598.39 1686.49 6944.08
660.61
79.30 2858.22 1476.59 7368.91
541.82 167.67 1429.21 3226.15 9399.27
554.65 823.44 1583.46 2623.48 8750.53
Capacity of Intersection = 4577.34
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1612.46
0.00
1479.87 366.67
1500.53 381.13
1889.67
63.19
1859.01 1581.83
1636.08 999.44
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
271.89 769.61
0.00 1095.71 3749.67
399.28 1107.26 1532.58 4885.72 9771.39
357.28 1054.66 1027.33 1471.40 5792.33
478.18
63.64 2481.69 1158.00 6134.36
371.31 141.72 1196.02 2654.95 7804.84
371.58 709.45 1199.32 2080.87 6996.75
Capacity of Intersection = 3749.67
D1
Maximum
Flow
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1453.72
0.00
1307.49 339.00
1282.76 424.11
1704.88
43.18
1676.64 1408.05
1474.45 843.07
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
181.21 693.85
0.00 924.29 3253.07
303.88 1066.25 1475.82 4858.44 9350.89
238.12 1129.25 684.70 1342.34 5101.28
368.72
54.24 2255.77 966.84 5393.62
269.00 126.16 1056.11 2312.22 6848.18
261.74 641.06 968.84 1755.31 5944.48
Capacity of Intersection = 3253.07
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1347.90
0.00
1192.57 320.55
1137.58 452.77
1581.68
29.83
1555.06 1292.20
1366.70 738.83
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
120.76 643.34
0.00 810.00 2922.00
240.29 1038.91 1437.98 4840.25 9070.55
158.68 1178.97 456.28 1256.30 4640.58
295.74
47.98 2105.15 839.41 4899.80
200.79 115.78 962.83 2083.74 6210.40
188.52 595.46 815.18 1538.27 5242.97
Capacity of Intersection = 2922.00
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1083.35
0.00
905.27 274.42
806.28 479.23
1273.70
0.00
1251.12 1002.57
1097.33 478.22
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 517.07
0.00 524.29 2124.71
81.29 970.57 1343.38 4794.78 8369.71
0.00 1222.68
0.00 996.67 3504.86
113.36
32.32 1729.26 524.29 3672.92
30.27
89.83 729.64 1512.54 4615.97
5.45 481.47 431.04 995.67 3489.18
Capacity of Intersection = 2124.71
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
818.79
617.98
600.79
965.71
948.11
827.95
0.00
228.29
326.07
0.00
686.10
217.61
QBC
QBA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
390.80
0.00 238.57 1448.17
902.22 1248.78 4749.31 7746.58
945.99
0.00 559.99 2432.84
16.66 1358.76 238.57 2579.70
61.47 496.46 914.87 3107.02
367.48
46.90 453.07 1913.02
Capacity of Intersection = 1448.17
D2
Intersection 2
Data V = 26 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
307.91 2196.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
640.15 2127.60
640.15
0.00
640.15 1405.76
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
15534.17
4700.83
76.25
4700.83
1645.25
6898.77
22687.59
6476.72
2844.01
5340.99
10976.52
Capacity of Intersection = 2844.01
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
2010.52
0.00 574.16
1928.08 734.84 695.67
1988.53 714.33 684.83
2501.87 539.09 847.98
2445.42 2764.76 686.10
1912.60 9028.90 1534.79
QBA
QAC
QAB
1355.88
1565.82
1411.87
104.56
248.33
1605.25
0.00
1461.80
1331.49
3294.22
1346.69
11556.70
1667.14
5248.63
2371.27
2198.53
4392.40
10567.06
QBA
QAC
QAB
1188.38
1479.05
1381.13
87.32
214.71
1388.28
0.00
1380.80
981.00
2900.96
1157.78
9524.36
1381.43
5175.82
2069.25
1775.76
3737.72
8756.08
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
5607.70
11634.84
8502.32
9486.27
11883.69
36205.30
Capacity of Intersection = 5607.70
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
1762.15
0.00 423.02
1648.02 660.98 537.80
1686.47 697.79 504.57
2194.51 400.04 664.16
2144.49 2390.44 519.26
1683.66 7481.53 1214.72
Qi(j)
4754.99
10882.47
7320.20
8022.75
10164.40
30048.63
Capacity of Intersection = 4754.99
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1513.79
0.00
1367.95 587.12
1384.40 681.24
1887.14 260.99
1843.55 2016.13
1454.72 5934.16
QBC
271.89
379.93
324.30
480.34
352.43
894.65
Qi(j)
1020.89
0.00 1095.71 3902.28
1392.29 1299.80 5103.02 10130.11
1350.39 630.52 1767.23 6138.08
70.08 2507.70 1352.98 6559.22
181.09 968.88 3083.04 8445.12
1171.31 7492.02 6945.10 23891.97
Capacity of Intersection = 3902.28
D3
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1265.42
0.00
1087.88 513.26
1082.34 664.70
1579.78 121.94
1542.62 1641.82
1225.78 4386.79
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
120.76 853.39
0.00 810.00 3049.57
222.07 1305.53 1218.80 5030.21 9377.75
144.03 1319.65 280.04 1465.20 4955.96
296.51
52.83 2114.43 930.20 5095.70
185.59 147.47 779.98 2428.36 6725.83
574.58 954.34 5459.68 5134.12 17735.31
Capacity of Intersection = 3049.57
Maximum
Flow
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1240.59
0.00
1059.87 505.87
1052.13 663.04
1549.04 108.04
1512.52 1604.38
1202.89 4232.06
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
105.64 836.64
0.00 781.43 2964.30
206.28 1296.85 1210.70 5022.93 9302.52
126.01 1316.58 244.99 1435.00 4837.75
278.13
51.11 2075.11 887.92 4949.35
168.91 144.10 761.09 2362.89 6553.90
542.58 932.65 5256.45 4953.03 17119.64
Capacity of Intersection = 2964.30
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1017.06
0.00
807.81 439.40
800.08 612.16
1272.41
0.00
1241.68 1267.50
996.84 2839.42
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 685.90
0.00 524.29 2227.24
64.20 1218.77 1137.81 4957.41 8625.39
0.00 1238.46
0.00 1127.70 3778.40
112.95
35.59 1724.27 524.29 3669.50
18.75 113.85 591.08 1773.68 5006.54
254.51 737.38 3427.34 3323.15 11578.64
Capacity of Intersection = 2227.24
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
768.69
0.00
527.75 365.54
596.08 416.52
965.05
0.00
941.75 864.86
767.90 1292.05
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 518.40
0.00 238.57 1525.66
0.00 1132.00 1056.81 4884.60 7966.70
0.00 956.73
0.00 649.14 2618.96
0.00
18.35 1356.19 238.57 2578.16
0.00
77.68 402.17 1091.08 3377.54
0.00 520.41 1395.00 1512.17 5487.53
Capacity of Intersection = 1525.66
D4
Intersection 3
Data V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
2975.72
2839.88
3420.47
3328.83
2853.78
2819.13
QCB
0.00
263.23
346.26
0.00
245.51
0.00
QBC
QBA
0.00
0.00
20.48
27.54
0.00
0.00
QAC
129.40 1946.40
72.47 469.00
315.81
88.64
277.40
0.00
78.29 663.77
63.77 1422.85
QAB
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Capacity of Intersection =
Qi(j)
5051.52
3644.57
4191.65
3633.77
3841.35
4305.75
3633.77
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2500.24 165.70
2393.57 659.78
2542.93
0.00
2517.23 175.21
2529.54 1210.45
2464.45
0.00
QBC
QBA
618.62
783.61
896.79
847.46
761.99
597.33
108.73
380.38
0.00
65.45
34.11
199.86
QBC
QBA
569.75
734.80
825.97
792.50
708.74
549.97
104.70
374.07
0.00
62.21
32.81
193.83
QBC
QBA
455.73
620.90
660.73
664.25
584.51
439.46
95.29
359.35
0.00
54.66
29.78
179.77
QAC
QAB
534.90
2519.78
3881.34
3287.98
2259.67
278.76
1830.47
5174.64
1667.14
1839.85
2860.30
0.00
QAC
QAB
492.47
2477.99
3574.83
3172.20
2164.58
254.45
1731.80
5155.03
1581.43
1741.01
2729.13
0.00
QAC
QAB
393.46
2380.48
2859.66
2902.03
1942.70
197.72
1501.57
5109.27
1381.43
1510.37
2423.09
0.00
Qi(j)
5758.65
11911.76
8988.20
8733.18
9656.05
3540.40
Capacity of Intersection = 3540.40
Maximum
Flow
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2407.58 152.55
2301.80 639.89
2448.69
0.00
2424.26 161.89
2435.81 1164.34
2372.58
0.00
Qi(j)
5458.85
11683.58
8430.92
8354.06
9235.42
3370.83
Capacity of Intersection = 3370.83
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2191.38 121.89
2087.69 593.47
2228.80
0.00
2207.33 130.81
2217.10 1056.75
2158.21
0.00
Qi(j)
4759.32
11151.15
7130.61
7469.45
8253.93
2975.15
Capacity of Intersection = 2975.15
D5
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1882.51
1781.81
1716.15
1897.44
1904.67
1851.96
QCB
QBC
QBA
78.07
527.15
231.40
86.42
903.06
0.00
292.84
458.18
424.67
481.03
407.03
281.59
QCB
QBC
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1573.65
34.26
1475.93 460.83
1203.01 1036.98
1587.54
42.03
1592.23 749.37
1545.71
0.00
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
129.95
68.43 110.60 843.77 2760.66
295.47 317.30 2101.87 4978.54 9629.94
188.61 1012.34 816.32 1832.17 6089.43
297.82
33.07 2130.11 851.43 4941.99
229.54
21.12 1308.77 1548.66 5449.69
123.72 139.59
35.64
0.00 1844.66
Capacity of Intersection = 1844.66
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1264.79
0.00
1170.05 394.52
755.00 1579.20
1277.64
0.00
1279.80 595.67
1239.46
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
55.00
0.00 524.29 1844.08
132.76 296.27 1962.57 4913.17 8869.33
0.00 1353.28
0.00 2080.93 5768.40
114.64
22.28 1744.58 524.29 3683.42
52.06
16.79 991.80 1111.45 4047.57
0.00 119.50
0.00
0.00 1358.97
Capacity of Intersection = 1358.97
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
955.93
0.00
864.17 328.20
565.90 1074.50
967.74
0.00
967.68 413.38
933.21
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
41.57
0.00 238.57 1236.07
0.00 275.24 1823.26 4847.80 8138.67
0.00 1034.85
0.00 1297.72 3972.97
0.00
11.48 1366.66 238.57 2584.46
0.00
11.65 674.83 646.05 2713.58
0.00
99.42
0.00
0.00 1032.63
Capacity of Intersection = 1032.63
D6
Intersection 4
Data V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
912.21
2227.27
2227.27
2206.65
1268.74
2050.80
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
QCB
QBC
0.00
83.27
252.57
0.00
70.62
160.63
136.27 1024.39
0.00 763.30 2836.18
136.27
0.00
0.00 1848.51 4295.32
71.63
0.00 383.94 815.61 3751.03
0.00
16.06 1020.05 763.30 4006.07
21.04 746.67 684.42 777.93 3569.42
136.27 137.47
0.00 796.57 3281.74
Capacity of Intersection = 2836.18
QCB
QBC
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QBA
1764.75
0.00 574.16 1981.77
1877.37 272.60 681.91 1694.96
2542.93
0.00 1035.54
0.00
2503.71
81.18 841.68
99.90
2329.78 1795.88 684.86 542.83
2065.57 419.58 607.67 1215.68
QAC
QAB
0.00
1296.31
5550.64
3218.40
1331.77
403.20
1667.14
4793.00
1667.14
1747.16
3437.37
2080.73
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
5987.82
10616.16
10796.26
8492.02
10122.49
6792.43
Capacity of Intersection = 5987.82
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1546.74
0.00
1599.59 245.20
2228.80
0.00
2196.04
60.29
2044.51 1552.65
1808.10 347.67
QBC
QBA
Qi(j)
423.02 1736.96
0.00 1381.43 5088.15
524.89 1602.38 1225.51 4765.99 9963.56
762.96
0.00 4089.56 1381.43 8462.75
659.54
83.42 2845.36 1440.86 7285.50
518.20 469.31 1144.96 2911.90 8641.53
446.29 1071.37 279.86 1724.14 5677.43
Capacity of Intersection = 5088.15
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1328.74
0.00
1321.81 217.80
1914.66
0.00
1888.37
39.39
1759.24 1309.42
1550.63 275.77
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
271.89 1492.14
0.00 1095.71 4188.49
367.87 1509.80 1154.70 4738.98 9310.96
490.38
0.00 2628.48 1095.71 6129.23
477.40
66.95 2472.33 1134.55 6078.98
351.53 395.79 958.15 2386.43 7160.57
284.90 927.07 156.53 1367.54 4562.43
Capacity of Intersection = 4188.49
D7
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1110.73
0.00
1044.02 190.40
1338.03
79.07
1580.70
18.50
1473.98 1066.19
1293.16 203.86
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
120.76 1247.33
0.00 810.00 3288.82
210.85 1417.22 1083.90 4711.97 8658.37
217.79 668.49 1167.40 887.94 4358.72
295.26
50.48 2099.29 828.24 4872.47
184.87 322.27 771.34 1860.96 5679.62
123.51 782.76
33.19 1010.95 3447.43
Capacity of Intersection = 3288.82
Maximum
Flow
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QBC
0.00
173.96
187.90
5.97
920.26
160.71
30.08 1100.44
0.00 638.57 2749.02
116.64 1361.67 1041.41 4695.76 8266.81
54.24 1100.91 290.75 823.79 3437.34
185.97
40.59 1875.47 644.45 4148.55
84.87 278.16 659.25 1545.68 4791.04
30.08 696.17
0.00 796.99 2822.63
Capacity of Intersection = 2749.02
QCB
QBC
0.00
163.00
210.47
0.00
822.96
131.95
0.00 1002.52
0.00 524.29 2419.53
53.83 1324.64 1013.09 4684.96 8005.77
0.00 1190.77
0.00 731.75 2951.80
113.15
34.00 1726.69 524.29 3671.16
18.21 248.75 584.53 1335.49 4198.66
0.00 638.45
0.00 654.35 2460.44
Capacity of Intersection = 2419.53
QCA
QCB
QBC
674.72
488.46
609.31
965.37
905.61
778.22
0.00
135.60
143.21
0.00
561.48
60.04
979.93
877.35
979.75
1396.10
1302.82
1138.68
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
QCB
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
892.73
766.24
818.81
1273.04
1188.71
1035.69
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 757.70
0.00 238.57 1671.00
0.00 1232.06 942.28 4657.95 7456.36
0.00 924.28
0.00 379.73 2056.54
0.00
17.53 1357.44 238.57 2578.91
0.00 169.71 397.72 792.03 2826.54
0.00 494.14
0.00 297.76 1630.16
Capacity of Intersection = 1630.16
D8
Intersection 5
Data V = 16 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
2398.96
2123.99
2916.43
2916.43
2321.01
2916.43
QCB
153.69
146.99
0.00
0.00
544.78
456.98
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2483.27 233.30
2425.99 828.77
2053.22 1632.51
2518.25 262.54
2536.58 1353.28
2481.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Maximum
Flow
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2299.21 195.09
2241.41 778.79
1851.20 1704.21
2332.21 222.67
2348.59 1249.56
2297.08
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
2176.50 169.62
2118.36 745.47
1716.52 1752.01
2208.19 196.09
2223.26 1180.41
2173.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D9
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1869.74 105.93
1810.72 662.17
1379.81 1871.51
1898.12 129.65
1909.93 1007.54
1865.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1562.97
42.24
1503.08 578.86
1043.11 1991.01
1588.05
63.21
1596.61 834.67
1557.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
129.87
95.63 109.66 851.64 2792.01
301.69 248.16 2176.64 5094.88 9903.31
151.33 1419.55 367.87 2772.56 7745.43
298.30
31.76 2135.95 872.30 4989.57
227.98
9.98 1289.90 1632.74 5591.87
124.80 108.60
48.67
0.00 1839.95
Capacity of Intersection = 1839.95
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1256.21
0.00
1195.44 495.56
737.22 1960.54
1277.99
0.00
1283.28 661.80
1249.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
76.86
0.00 524.29 1857.35
138.49 231.61 2031.50 5012.77 9105.37
0.00 1398.55
0.00 2456.82 6553.14
114.75
21.39 1745.93 524.29 3684.34
50.88
7.91 977.50 1176.63 4157.99
0.00
92.97
0.00
0.00 1342.85
Capacity of Intersection = 1342.85
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
949.44
0.00
887.80 412.26
553.80 1333.97
967.92
0.00
970.10 458.61
941.88
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
58.09
0.00 238.57 1246.10
0.00 215.06 1886.35 4930.66 8332.13
0.00 1065.66
0.00 1553.49 4506.92
0.00
11.03 1367.36 238.57 2584.88
0.00
5.48 665.10 690.63 2789.91
0.00
77.35
0.00
0.00 1019.23
Capacity of Intersection = 1019.23
D  10
Intersection 6
Data V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
926.69
1504.31
1504.31
1445.53
1024.70
1163.42
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
13.64
88.17
33.60
29.51
0.00
157.63
535.15
592.49
96.83
171.89
329.07
463.51
549.44
0.00
0.00
55.91
456.21
324.26
113.49
0.00
981.09
832.51
521.39
255.30
QAB
Qi(j)
1232.21
5700.31
1211.49
1215.74
1246.36
1082.76
3370.62
7885.28
3827.31
3751.09
3577.74
3446.88
3370.62
Capacity of Intersection =
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
2062.70
0.00 574.16 1223.00
1940.00 191.41 693.11 1535.46
2542.93
0.00 3639.10
0.00
2504.96
45.98 841.56
96.70
2312.42 1252.04 697.90 587.03
2112.28 283.38 596.95 1096.73
QAC
QAB
0.00
1431.08
36872.20
3216.90
1488.65
274.17
1667.14
4712.96
1667.14
1712.46
2901.30
1946.47
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
5527.00
10504.02
44721.38
8418.55
9239.33
6309.98
Capacity of Intersection = 5527.00
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
Qi(j)
1807.88
0.00 423.02 1071.92
0.00 1381.43 4684.26
1658.72 172.17 535.50 1451.80 1353.12 4693.99 9865.30
2228.80
0.00 2681.19
0.00 27166.44 1381.43 33457.85
2197.09
34.16 659.48
80.75 2844.71 1415.10 7231.29
2029.37 1083.20 529.41 507.86 1279.83 2449.15 7878.82
1849.10 234.81 437.60 966.96 175.41 1612.89 5276.77
Capacity of Intersection = 4684.26
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1553.07
1377.43
1914.66
1889.21
1746.32
1585.92
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  11
Maximum
Flow
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QBC
0.00
137.54
0.00
12.89
779.28
147.40
150.98 799.97
0.00 867.14 3167.32
251.79 1301.23 1212.78 4659.86 8715.60
956.95
0.00 9696.06 867.14 13183.51
331.76
52.05 2174.75 879.85 5094.22
226.12 365.37 903.96 1635.29 5429.90
150.98 733.38
0.00 1012.43 3419.56
Capacity of Intersection = 3167.32
QCB
QBC
0.00
133.69
0.00
10.53
745.51
137.68
120.76 769.76
0.00 810.00 2998.78
220.27 1284.50 1197.19 4656.07 8587.85
765.37
0.00 7754.91 810.00 10930.80
295.34
48.86 2100.32 820.38 4856.77
192.42 349.54 862.20 1544.86 5157.80
120.76 707.42
0.00 945.72 3234.32
Capacity of Intersection = 2998.78
QCB
QBC
0.00
114.45
164.86
0.00
576.67
89.12
0.00 618.68
0.00 524.29 2186.41
62.66 1200.85 1119.22 4637.10 7949.13
0.00 1185.36
0.00 686.79 2857.94
113.29
32.91 1728.35 524.29 3672.30
23.93 270.37 653.38 1092.71 3797.29
0.00 577.65
0.00 612.13 2338.46
Capacity of Intersection = 2186.41
QCA
QCB
QBC
788.64
533.56
0.00
965.59
899.73
796.38
0.00
95.21
112.17
0.00
393.93
40.55
1349.22
1152.40
1663.35
1642.91
1519.88
1375.38
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
QCB
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1298.26
1096.14
1600.52
1581.34
1463.27
1322.74
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
1043.45
814.85
820.93
1273.46
1180.22
1059.56
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 467.60
0.00 238.57 1494.81
0.00 1117.20 1041.26 4618.14 7405.37
0.00 920.60
0.00 349.14 1381.91
0.00
16.97 1358.30 238.57 2579.42
0.00 184.70 444.57 626.88 2549.80
0.00 447.88
0.00 278.54 1563.36
Capacity of Intersection = 1494.81
D  12
Intersection 7
Data V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
2395.42
2851.93
3468.52
3386.13
2639.41
3098.55
QCB
0.00
525.97
0.00
0.00
579.28
661.93
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
754.78
0.00 288.33 3438.53
433.69 1478.27 1363.19 6653.05
0.00 9831.43 288.33 13588.28
57.95 1273.60 288.33 5006.01
583.17 606.57 276.09 4684.53
260.23
0.00 274.35 4295.05
Capacity of Intersection = 3438.53
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
2262.94
2058.30
1878.90
2499.91
2491.30
2292.79
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Maximum
Flow
QCA
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
2095.21
1886.13
1711.10
2315.69
2306.,99
2119.40
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1983.40
1771.34
1599.24
2192.87
2184.12
2003.80
960.24
1026.21
1442.44
21401.12
2418.95
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  13
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1703.85
0.00
1484.39 911.54
1319.57 1347.96
1885.83 13938.33
1876.95 2041.96
1714.80
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
271.89 536.87
0.00 1095.71 3608.32
404.98 1095.77 1601.09 5422.80 10920.56
313.40 1515.51 499.38 2424.41 7420.22
685.85
73.43 4980.04 14834.92 36398.39
361.21
96.04 1074.61 3108.50 8559.27
271.89 508.96
0.00
0.00 2495.66
Capacity of Intersection = 2495.66
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1424.30
0.00
1197.43 796.87
1039.90 1253.47
1578.79 6475.54
1569.77 1664.98
1425.81
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
120.76 448.79
0.00 810.00 2803.84
245.44 1026.55 1499.95 5309.77 10076.01
139.19 1427.73 221.79 2045.56 6127.64
391.86
55.36 3261.44 7193.03 18956.02
192.66
78.31 865.09 2451.19 6822.00
120.76 444.94
0.00
0.00 1991.50
Capacity of Intersection = 1991.50
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1144.75
0.00
910.47 682.19
777.02 1106.87
1271.74
0.00
1262.60 1287.99
1136.82
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 360.70
0.00 524.29 2029.74
85.90 957.33 1398.82 5196.73 9231.45
0.00 1297.20
0.00 1615.34 4796.42
112.73
37.29 1721.67 524.29 3667.73
24.12
60.58 655.57 1793.87 5084.73
0.00 380.91
0.00
0.00 1517.72
Capacity of Intersection = 1517.72
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
865.20
623.51
580.88
964.70
956.00
847.82
0.00
567.52
753.12
0.00
879.89
0.00
QBC
QBA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
272.62
0.00 238.57 1376.39
888.12 1297.68 5083.70 8460.53
996.70
0.00 980.93 3311.63
19.22 1354.85 238.57 2577.35
41.38 446.06 1105.90 3429.23
316.88
0.00
0.00 1164.70
Capacity of Intersection = 1164.70
D  14
Intersection 8
Data V = 6 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1795.28 214.71
1300.00 431.90
1207.06 3491.25
1207.06 735.76
1207.06 905.17
1333.51 445.15
QBC
QBA
441.64 1512.23
368.65 238.92
421.19
0.00
312.07
0.00
284.35
0.00
49.45 325.07
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
184.08
327.05
224.14
437.85
492.16
952.24
483.69
504.66
0.00
128.33
12.79
326.53
4631.62
3171.17
5343.64
2821.08
2901.53
3431.94
2821.08
Capacity of Intersection =
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1910.89 686.76
1800.95 1286.59
1682.49 1692.96
2497.08
0.00
2487.17 4025.83
2162.00
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Maximum
Flow
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1792.86 693.19
1664.78 1221.93
1570.14 1590.11
2343.79
0.00
2333.91 3751.35
2024.08
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1674.83 699.62
1528.60 1157.28
1457.79 1487.26
2190.50
0.00
2180.64 3476.87
1886.15
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  15
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1438.77 712.49
1256.25 1027.96
1233.10 1281.56
1883.93
0.00
1874.11 2927.91
1610.30
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1202.71 725.35
983.90 898.64
1008.40 1075.86
1577.35
0.00
1567.58 2378.94
1334.46
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
966.66 738.22
711.55 769.32
788.69 856.48
1270.78
25.95
1261.04 1829.98
1058.61
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
730.60 751.08
439.20 640.00
588.82 582.76
964.21 203.97
954.99 1246.00
782.76
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  16
Intersection 9
Data V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
3230.00
2128.54
2128.54
2129.38
2302.65
2690.02
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
QCB
QBC
0.00
214.52
32.83
0.00
36.43
0.00
QCB
QBC
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
2209.31
12.76 576.01 849.63
22.32 1679.72 5349.75
1895.06 745.41 689.47 1649.92 1387.30 5259.05 11626.21
2012.92 662.18 691.93 1349.76 1416.80 2319.86 8453.45
2501.32 730.81 850.69 105.96 3326.81 2387.52 9903.12
2428.16 2782.93 680.51 292.28 1279.45 4410.32 11873.66
1026.62 44407.96 5321.77 3861.54 57115.20 45440.71 157173.80
Capacity of Intersection = 5349.75
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
1936.38
0.00 423.02 744.67
0.00 1381.43 4485.51
1616.83 670.49 531.95 1558.46 1310.41 5185.20 10873.34
1704.56 656.72 509.79 1335.05 1043.86 2028.77 7278.76
2194.05 542.19 666.15
88.49 2924.92 1915.87 8331.67
2129.59 2405.55 514.46 252.65 1099.98 3752.62 10154.85
948.30 36797.35 4352.58 3260.99 47273.76 37653.10 130286.08
Capacity of Intersection = 4485.51
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
1663.46
0.00 271.89 639.72
0.00 1095.71 3670.78
1338.61 595.56 374.42 1467.01 1233.51 5111.34 10120.46
1396.20 651.27 327.66 1320.35 670.92 1737.68 6104.07
1886.77 353.56 481.61
71.02 2523.03 1444.22 6760.21
1831.02 2028.17 348.40 213.01 920.51 3094.92 8436.03
869.99 29186.73 3383.39 2660.43 37432.32 29865.49 103398.35
Capacity of Intersection = 3670.78
D  17
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
1390.54
0.00 120.76 534.76
0.00 810.00 2856.05
1060.38 520.64 216.90 1375.56 1156.62 5037.49 9367.59
1087.83 645.81 145.52 1305.65 297.98 1446.58 4929.38
1579.50 164.93 297.07
53.54 2121.14 972.58 5188.76
1532.44 1650.79 182.35 173.38 741.04 2437.21 6717.22
791.67 21576.11 2414.20 2059.88 27590.88 22077.88 76510.62
Capacity of Intersection = 2856.05
Maximum
Flow
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
1335.96
0.00
90.53 513.77
0.00 752.86 2693.11
1004.74 505.66 185.39 1357.27 1141.24 5022.72 9217.01
1026.16 644.72 109.10 1302.71 223.39 1388.36 4694.44
1518.04 127.21 260.16
50.05 2040.76 878.25 4874.47
1472.73 1575.32 149.14 165.45 705.14 2305.67 6373.45
776.01 20053.98 2220.37 1939.77 25622.59 20520.35 71133.08
Capacity of Intersection = 2693.11
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
1117.62
0.00
0.00 429.80
0.00 524.29 2071.70
782.16 445.72
59.37 1284.11 1079.72 4963.64 8614.71
800.52 602.73
0.00 1237.34
0.00 1118.41 3759.00
1272.23
0.00 112.89
36.07 1723.54 524.29 3669.01
1233.87 1273.41
16.30 133.74 561.57 1779.51 4998.40
713.35 13965.49 1445.02 1459.33 17749.44 14290.27 49622.89
Capacity of Intersection = 2071.70
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
844.70
0.00
503.93 370.80
596.87 410.10
964.95
0.00
936.43 868.48
635.03 6354.87
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
0.00 324.84
0.00 238.57 1408.11
0.00 1192.66 1002.83 4889.78 7959.99
0.00 955.97
0.00 642.82 2605.76
0.00
18.59 1355.82 238.57 2577.93
0.00
91.21 382.09 1094.65 3372.87
475.83 858.78 7908.00 6502.65 22735.17
Capacity of Intersection = 1408.11
D  18
Intersection 10
Data V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
VCA'
VCB'
VBC'
VBA'
VAC'
VAB'
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1092.97
0.00
880.11 559.45
880.11 677.00
881.53
0.00
880.11 1451.30
880.11 1871.79
QBC
QBA
753.22 3531.57
753.22
0.00
833.47
0.00
753.22
23.59
819.38
0.00
753.22
0.00
QAC
0.00
0.00
421.56
0.00
347.52
0.00
QAB
Qi(j)
1472.94
3791.32
1146.39
1472.94
772.90
570.08
6850.70
5984.10
3958.53
3131.28
4271.21
4075.19
3131.28
Capacity of Intersection =
Model V = 10 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
10
10
10
10
10
10
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
1120.84
1632.10
1678.18
2494.65
2440.72
2077.12
1405.45
1392.81
1694.15
0.00
4394.35
0.00
QCA
QCB
982.38
1369.42
1454.68
2188.47
2140.58
1809.80
1285.96
1252.82
1486.70
0.00
3792.63
0.00
QCA
QCB
940.84
1290.61
1387.63
2096.62
2050.54
1729.60
1250.11
1210.82
1424.47
0.00
3612.11
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
631.31
645.16
599.35
837.53
630.65
574.16
Model V = 11 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
11
11
11
11
11
11
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
475.32
490.02
441.59
656.19
471.59
423.02
Maximum
Flow
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QBC
QBA
428.52
443.48
394.26
601.78
423.87
377.68
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  19
Model V = 12 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
12
12
12
12
12
12
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
843.92
1106.73
1231.19
1882.30
1840.44
1542.48
1166.46
1112.82
1279.26
0.00
3190.90
0.00
QCA
QCB
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 13 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
13
13
13
13
13
13
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
705.46 1046.96
844.05 972.83
1007.69 1071.82
1576.13
0.00
1540.30 2589.17
1275.17
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 14 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
14
14
14
14
14
14
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
566.99 927.47
581.36 832.83
788.93 851.38
1269.95
15.45
1240.19 1986.28
1007.85
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
Model V = 15 km/h
Speed
Maximum
Flow
15
15
15
15
15
15
QCA(1)
QCB(2)
QBC(3)
QBA(4)
QAC(5)
QAB(6)
QCA
QCB
428.53 807.97
318.68 692.84
588.98 579.29
963.78 113.55
940.82 1351.49
740.54
0.00
QBC
QBA
QAC
QAB
Qi(j)
D  20
Acknowledgement
While writing dissertation on Traffic Engineering, there are many individuals who assisted
and encouraged directly or indirectly. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge their
assistance and encouragement here.
First and foremost I want to thank Prof. Dr.Ing. Werner Brilon, my doctoral advisor, who
allowed me to study and to do research at Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, RuhrUniversitt
Bochum, who agreed to walk with me as I struggled to create something new. I shall never
forget his willingness to guide me through my work. His words of encouragement, quiet
urgings and careful reading of all of my writings will never be forgotten. He is one of the rare
advisors that students can ever find.
Secondly, I would like to thank my coadvisor, Dr.Ing. habil. Ning Wu for sparing his
valuable time, technical support and pieces of precious advice through out the study. His
motivating words, fruitful discussions and deliberated kindness with various mathematical
approaches considerably contributed to the success of this work and I am glad he was there.
Thirdly my words of thanks go to Prof. Dr. Henk van Zuylan from Transport Research Center
Delft (TU Delft) and Prof. Dr.Ing. Hermann Orth who kindly agreed to be coreferee and
external examiner. Their critics and useful suggestions were highly acknowledged.
Also, I pay thanks to the Technological and Professional Skills Development Sector Project
(TPSDP Project) Batch II University of Tanjungpura, Pontianak, Deutscher Akademischer
Austausch Dienst (DAAD) and Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, RuhrUniversitt Bochum for
financial support. Without their support, I could not have done what I was able to do.
Further, my humble thanks go to all technicians; Marco Hehn, Jrgen Banken and Dirk
Kriebel for many helps and technical discussions in connection with the preparation of field
investigations, measurement and computer. Also I thank secretary, Mrs. Heike RohdeDurhack, Mrs. Karin Kockel at the library of the Institute and Deputy Head of the Institute,
Dr.Ing. Reiner WiebuschWothge who provided a good and encouraging environment in the
Institute, very pleasant atmosphere, support in the administrative matters and providing
references/books during the whole study.
Special thanks for other members of the Institute; Dr.Ing. Thorsten Miltner who helped me
from the very moment and guided me during the period of the research preparation, Dr.Ing.
Justin Geistefeldt, Dr.Ing. Jochen Harding, Dipl.Ing. Christina Betz, Dipl.Ing. Anja Estel,
Gui Fang Yang M.Sc., Dipl.Ing Ralph Knig, Dipl.Ing. Axel Geppert, Dipl.Ing. Thomas
Wietholt, Mrs. Petra Martin, and Mrs. Bianca Schacht for sharing knowledge and experience,
a very pleasant and sympathetic working atmosphere since my first day in Germany.
The acknowledgement would remain incomplete without a heart felt thanks to my dear friends
and colleagues who supported me throughout all of the technological and academic
challenges. They helped me find resources at campus, offered help to troubleshoot my
language in dissertation, and stood with me at my defenses to make sure that the piece of
research study worked practically. I am really unable to find due words to say thanks to them,
however, I will not be able to forget their kindness ever.
I would also appreciated all the time the friendship of Noreddine Belguesmia M.Sc., a friend
from Mostaganem, Aljazair.
I also thanks to my friends in Indonesia, who supported and helped me during the field
investigation in Pontianak, WestKalimantan.
Finally, I want to express my thankful feelings for my family; my wife Erna Setia Putri
showed unwavering faith in me all the time, She supported me down to the loving tears which
she shed at my defense. Our daughter Aroe Ajoeni Sulistyorieni and our son Bimo Kuncoro
Yakti Prasetijo are also there to be thanked for their innocent support and encouragement
along the way teasing me as I struggled with the technology as well as the ideas.
My mother RA. Lilik Astuty, my father Sedijono Kusumohamidjojo SH., my motherinlaw
Hjh. Zaleha and all of my brothers and sisters bore witness and affirmed as a representative of
my family the completion of a long and thought provoking journey. Their prayers helped me
to make the transition from where I came to where I am. They believed that I could do
anything even when I could not find very strong reason to believe in myself.
I dedicate this dissertation to them. They gave me the courage to take risk of being my
creative self wherever that may lead me.
Curriculum Vitae
Name
:
First Name :
Date of Birth :
Place of Birth:
Address
:
Education
Prasetijo
Joewono
18. October 1969
Pontianak, Indonesia
Laerheidestrae 10, App. 6 E03
44799 Bochum
: 1976 1981
1981 1982
1982 1985
1985 1988
08/1988 01/1993
Bachelor of Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Tanjungpura University, Pontianak
10/1994 09/1995
10/1995 09/1996
03/1998 09/1998
since 02/2004
Teaching Staff
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Tanjungpura University, Pontianak