Capacity and Traffic Performance of Unsignalized

Intersections under Mixed Traffic Conditions

Dissertation

zur
Erlangung des Grades eines
Doktor-Ingenieurs
der Fakultt fr Bauingenieurwesen
an der RuhrUniversitt Bochum

von
Joewono Prasetijo, M.Sc.
aus Pontianak, Indonesien

Bochum, August 2007

Diese Arbeit wurde von der

Fakultt fr Bauingenieurwesen
der RuhrUniversitt Bochum als
Dissertation angenommen und genehmigt
Dissertation eingereicht am : 15. Mai 2007
Tag der mndlichen Prfung : 16. Juli 2007

Referent
Koreferent

: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Werner Brilon

: Prof. Dr. Henk van Zuylen, Transport Research Centre Delft (TU Delft)
PD Dr.-Ing. habil. Ning Wu

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. 1792-INO), Deutscher
Akademischer Austausch Dients (DAAD) and Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, Ruhr-Universitt
Bochum.

Bochum, August 2007

Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. Brilon

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

Transport Mode Hierarchy and the Existing Computation Method .......................... 7

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Transport Mode and Mode Characteristics................................................................... 7
2.3 Characteristics of Heterogeneous Traffic Flow ............................................................ 9
2.4 Current Capacity Measurement Based on Empirical Approach ................................. 15
2.4.1 Typical Free-Flow Speed Performance ............................................................ 15
2.4.2 Typical Urban Road Capacity Measurement under Mixed Traffic Flow ......... 17
2.4.3 Typical Conflicts at Unsignalized Intersections ............................................... 18
2.4.4 Typical Geometric Design Standard and Its Adjustment Factor ...................... 20
2.4.5 Adjustment Factor for Traffic Flow Performances........................................... 25
2.4.6 Adjustment Factor for Intersections Environment (Side Friction) .............. 27
2.4.7 Total Capacity of Unsignalized Intersections under Mixed Traffic Flow ........ 28
2.5 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 31

Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method....................................... 32

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Nearside/Offside Priority Intersection ....................................................................... 33
3.3 Capacity of Priority-to-the-Right Intersection ....................................................... 36
3.4 Capacity Measured by Saturation Flow of Streams.................................................... 37
3.5 Capacity of All-Way Stop-Controlled and First-In-First-Out Intersections ............... 40
3.5.1 Departure Mechanism at AWSC/FIFO Intersections ....................................... 41
3.5.2 Capacity of A Stream in Several Departure Sequences.................................... 41
3.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 43

Field Measurement and Data Performance................................................................. 44

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 44
4.2 Location of Field Measurement .................................................................................. 44
4.3 Equipment for Monitoring .......................................................................................... 47
4.4 Vehicle Classifications and Compositions.................................................................. 48
4.5 Passenger Car Units (PCUs) ....................................................................................... 52
4.5.1 Measurement Methods of Passenger Car Units ................................................ 53
4.5.2 Measurement at Passenger Car Units Under Mixed Traffic Flow.................... 54
4.5.3 Passenger Car Units Measured by Projected Rectangular Area of Vehicles.... 60
4.6 Traffic Flow Performance........................................................................................... 72
4.7 Mean Speed Performance ........................................................................................... 77
4.8 Intersection Occupancy (percent of intersection area)................................................ 85
4.9 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 88

New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams ................... 90

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 90
5.2 Conflicting Stream Description and Conflict Group .................................................. 90
5.3 Speed and Flow Performance of Conflict Groups ...................................................... 98
5.4 Speed of Each Stream and the Total Flow of Conflict Group ................................. 100
5.5 Speed and Flow Relationship for Each Type of Vehicle Stream.............................. 102
i

Contents

5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10

Speed and Flow Relationship of Each Stream.......................................................... 105

Speed - Flow and Flow - Intersection Occupancy Relationship............................... 109
Capacity Defined by Speed and Flow of Conflict Streams ...................................... 117
Capacity Analysis for Three-Leg Unsignalized Intersections .................................. 125
Conclusions............................................................................................................... 144

Traffic Quality and Performance ............................................................................... 145

6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 145
6.2 Maximum Flow (Capacity) from the conflict streams method................................. 145
6.3 Capacity Calibrated................................................................................................... 148
6.4 Relationship Between Speed and Flow of Intersection ............................................ 151
6.5 Relationship Between Flow and Intersection Occupancy of Intersection ................ 152
6.6 Delay and Probability of Queue................................................................................ 155
6.6.1 Delay ............................................................................................................... 155
6.6.2 Probability of Queue . ..................................................................................... 163
6.7 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 167

Pedestrians Behaviors................................................................................................. 168

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 171

References ..................................................................................................................... 173

Appendix A :

Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Appendix B : Traffic Flow Composition

Appendix C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Traffic Stream
Appendix D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

ii

1 Introduction

Introduction

1.1

Introduction

Capacity at unsignalized intersections is measured by various approaches which can be

characterized as deterministic and probabilistic. The first method is the gap acceptance
procedure (GAP), which was developed in Germany (GRABE, 1954; HARDERS, 1968) and
which is also used in the United States and in several European Countries. The basic principle
of this method is to calculate the capacity at unsignalized intersections based on socalled
critical gaps and followup times for the vehicles from the minor road. The second method is
the empirical regression technique. Its application is mainly based on research from the
United Kingdom (KIMBER, COOMBE, 1980). The method is based on a large number of
field data in modern British streets by the use of regression functions. This approach of
capacity estimation is also expanded by the consideration of road geometric design, visibility
distances, demand flows, turning proportions and vehicle types.

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).

Up to now the estimation of intersection capacity is standardized in Indonesia by the

INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997). This manual was developed by
the analysis of a large number of traffic data from 147 roads in 16 cities in Indonesia.
Investigations have been made within 6 years (1991 1996) by the Swedish Road and Traffic
Research Institute (SWEROAD). The manual is based on empirical analysis. Traffic behavior
patterns at unsignalized intersections in Indonesia is completely different from that of
developed countries. For example rules of priority are almost completely neglected. Also,
drivers become more aggressive when they approach the intersections and no lane discipline
applies. Therefore, all highway capacity guidelines from developed countries cannot be
applied successfully in Indonesia.

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

unrealistic when the proportion of nonmotorized traffic flow at intersections is increasing,

especially at times when the flow is really mixed.

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.

Preliminary studies (PRASETIJO, 2005) at three intersections in Indonesia (secondary data)

with the basic capacity, e.g. threelegs and fourlegs intersections (2700 pcu/h 3400 pcu/h)
and some adjustment factors (IHCM, 1997) have shown that the average value of occupation
time is about 3 s/pc 2 s/pc where nonmotorized vehicles were assumed to have a PCU =
1.0, which is the same as the lightvehicle (cars). Therefore, based on driver behavior, traffic
composition and roadside activities, the real traffic situation at AWSC and FIFO intersections
in Indonesia could differ from those in developed countries. This study will further investigate
the impact of these aspects in order to get a realistic picture of unsignalized intersection
capacity.

1 Introduction

1.3

The Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of the study are :

1. Investigate the traffic performance at unsignalized intersections under mixed traffic
conditions, e.g. speed, flow and intersection occupancy.
2. Investigate parameters that can be used to describe maximum flow (capacity).
3. Develop new procedures of capacity measurement which take into account mixed
traffic flow at unsignalized intersections based on conflict streams.
4. Look on suitability of the method to measure the capacity compared to other methods
that have been widely used in Indonesia.
5. Measure the traffic performance of unsignalized intersections based on assessment
from the new method and the Indonesian Manual (IHCM, 1997).

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 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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

Transport Mode and Mode Characteristics

In order to give an overview of common Indonesian transport modes, a representative

member of each of the main categories has been selected as follows

Private Transport Modes

7

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Pedestrian
Pedestrian with push cart (gerobak or kakilima)
Bicycle
Motorcycle
Automobile

Public Transport Modes

1. Becak a threewheeled, nonmotorized pedicab specific to Indonesia;
2. Andong a fourwheeled horsedrawn carriage in a number of varieties, such
as the twowheeled dokar;
3. Ojek a motorcycle for hire in the manner of a taxi;
4. Bajaj a motorized tricycle using a 150-cc scooter engine, steered like a
scooter;
5. Bemo a threewheeler with 360-cc engine;
6. Mikrolet I a motorized vehicle using a 1000-cc engine;
7. Mikrolet II a motorized vehicle using a 1500-cc engine;
8. Minibus a small bus using a 3300-cc engine;
9. City bus a Mercedes model using a 5675-cc engine.

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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-1 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
-

Table 2-1.Transport Mode Characteristics (SOEGIJOKO et al., 1991)

2.3

Characteristics of Heterogeneous Traffic Flow

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.

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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

(2-1)

where
NMTVEL
ELNMT

= Average velocity of the NMT

= Effective length/minimum length of the NMT

[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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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.

Pedestrian (walking and crossing)

Bicycles
NonMotorized
Slowmoving vehicles
Roadside vendors
Stops of public transport/ bus
Parking maneuver
Vehicles exits and enter the roadways

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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-1 and Figure 2-2.

Traffic flow

One dimensional
queues

Traffic flow

Two dimensional
queues

Figure 2-1. Homogeneous Traffic with One

Dimensional Queue

Figure 2-2. Heterogeneous Traffic with 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 2-3 and Figure 2-4.

Traffic Flow
Lane discipline

Figure 2-3. Homogeneous Traffic has Lane Discipline

Traffic Flow
Parallel/ staggered

Figure 2-4. Heterogeneous Traffic with Parallel/Staggered Entity Following

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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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

Figure 2-5. Homogeneous Traffic Uses Lane Concept

Traffic Flow

Width acceptance concept

Figure 2-6. Heterogeneous Traffic Uses Width Acceptance/Entity Envelope

Lane discipline is deficient in heterogeneous traffic not because driver behavior is

significantly different, but because heterogeneous traffic consists of entities of various widths
and varying dynamic characteristics (TIWARI, 2001), see also Figure 2-6. With small width
difference in homogenous traffic (Figure 2-5), drivers find it optimal and advantageous to
adopt lane discipline to transverse the roadway space giving the narrowness of the width
range. However, in heterogeneous traffic whose range is approximately 6.0 m to 4.9 m,
drivers and pedestrians find it optimal to advance by accepting lateral gaps (widths) between
preceding entities. Heterogeneous traffic uses road space more efficiently than homogenous
traffic. For this traffic, models based on width acceptance can ultimately produce a good
estimate of roadway capacity and assessments of operations and safety of various facility
designs.
Various road users have different and often conflicting requirements. Motorized vehicles need
clear pavements and shoulders, while bicyclists and pedestrians need shaded trees along the
pavement to protect them from the summer sun. Owners of private transport modes like MTW
and automobiles prefer uninterrupted flow, fewer stops and minimum delays at intersections,
whereas public transport buses require frequent stops for picking and discharging passengers.
Motorized fourwheeled vehicles like cars, buses, etc., perform better if they move in queues
13

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-2 and Table 2-3.

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.

Number of Private Vehicles

Bicycles
Motorcycles
Cars

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 2-2. 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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-3. Trip Purpose and Transport Modes in Three MediumSized Cities
(SOEGIJOKO & HORTHY, 1991)
*)

S = Serang, T = Tasikmalaya, C = Cirebon

2.4

Current Capacity Measurement Based on Empirical Approach

Highway capacity manuals from developed countries cannot be applied successfully in

Indonesia because of large differences in drivers behavior, traffic composition, and level of
roadside activities. Results from interim manuals from 1990 for urban traffic facilities,
interurban roads, and superhighways have shown that the lightvehicle freeflow speed for a
flat twolane twoway road at ideal conditions is considerably lower in Indonesia than in
developed countries, freeflow speed is reduced by roadway width and side friction such as
public transit stops, pedestrians, nonmotorized vehicles, and entries and exits from roadside
properties and minor roads, Indonesian drivers tend to overtake at short sight distances, which
reduces the slope of the speed flow curve, and the capacity for twolane, twoway roads is
slightly higher in Indonesia than in developed countries.

2.4.1 Typical FreeFlow Speed Performance

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

(2-2)

where
VLV
X,Y,Z,......
B,C,D,......

= Average speed of light vehicles

= Selected independent variables
= Regression coefficients.

15

[km/h]
[-]
[-]

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-4. 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

Light Vehicle Large Buses

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 2-4. 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 2-3 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

(2-3)

where
FV
=
FV0 =
FFVW =
FFVSF =
FFVRC =

Freeflow speed for actual conditions

Base freeflow speed for predetermined ideal conditions
Adjustment for effective carriageway width
Adjustment for side friction
Adjustment for road functional class and land use

[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
2-7) and there was no apparent knee in the relationship. Similar linear relationships were
16

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 2-7. 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 2-7.
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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

The capacity of an urban road section (IHCM, 1997) is determined as follows

C = C0 FCW FCKS FCSP FCSF FCCS

(2-4)

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 2-5.
Type of Road
Four lanes one way
Four lanes undivided
Two lanes undivided

Base Capacity, C0 [pcu/h]

Remarks
1650
Per lane
1500
Per lane
2900
Total two way

Table 2-5. Base Capacity, C0 for Urban Roads (IHCM, 1997)

2.4.3 Typical Conflicts at Unsignalized Intersections

Previously, characteristics of vehicles movement at unsignalized intersections under mixed

traffic flow with no existing rule of priority have been explained. All streams would have the
same opportunity to cross the intersection at the same time for motorized and unmotorized
vehicles. Due to a large scale of vehicles movement from the streams (6 streams), vehicles
conflict occurred very often. Based on such vehicles maneuvers at intersection, conflict
behavior could be defined as
Primary conflict: is the conflict that happens between crossing streams.
Secondary conflict: is the conflict between rightturn streams and others streams,
or between leftturn streams with other streams (e.g. pedestrian).
KATAMINE (2000) has classified the conflict at fourleg unsignalized intersections with 11
types and he described them as
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Leftturn, same direction conflicts

Rightturn, same direction conflicts
Slowvehicle, same direction conflicts
Lane change, same direction conflicts
Opposing leftturn conflicts
Rightturn, cross traffic, from right conflicts
Leftturn, cross traffic, from right conflicts
Through, cross traffic, from right conflicts
Rightturn, cross traffic, from left conflicts
18

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

10. Leftturn, cross traffic, from left conflicts

11. Through, cross traffic, from left conflicts
In such a mixed traffic condition with no rule of priority, it is very obvious that more conflicts
(secondary conflicts) were found in this study, instead of primary conflicts. Therefore, this
study was deeply considered the secondary conflicts which happened very often and accidents
have not occurred during the observation with a very small percentage of vehicles stop. Since
streams interactions have a very small impact on vehicles stops, this study was constructed
to define some groups of conflict consisting of several streams which could give impact on
each other, result on speed reduction of stream within its group.

It have been explained briefly in the previous chapter on characteristics of unsignalized

intersections under mixed traffic flow. In this chapter, further improvements on capacity
analysis under mixed traffic were observed. Studies have been done in some countries which
have almost the same traffic flow behavior and vehicles classes, e.g. lack of lane discipline
and presence of unmotorized vehicles. Studies have been done in Indonesia for several years
(IHCM, 1997) and also in India (RAO, RENGARAJU, 1995; 1998) and China (BANG,
HESHEN, 2000).

Investigations of vehiclearrival at urban uncontrolled intersections have been done by RAO

& RENGARAJU (1995) which result in multivariate models for estimation of vehicle arrivals
with various types of vehicles, i.e. motorized and unmotorized vehicles. The authors have
developed a model for a quick estimation of possible conflicts at urban uncontrolled
intersections at low volume. The common features of traffic are lack of lane discipline,
acceleration, deceleration and turning movements. The results show that conflict increases
with increase in flow on crossroads for any percentage of turning flow and high volume at
the main road.

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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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.

2.4.4 Typical Geometric Design Standard and Its Adjustment Factors

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 2-8 performed geometric standards for road sections in
Indonesia (IHCM, 1997).

20

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Figure 2-8. Illustration of the Geometric Design Term (IHCM, 1997)

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 2-6).
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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Cross Section/Type of
Intersections

Estimation for Number of

Accidents

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

Accidents per million

vehicles kilometer

Accidents per million

vehicles entrance

Table 2-6. 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 2-7 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

Table 2-7. Type of Intersections and Number of Lanes (IHCM, 1997)

The adjustment factor for the number of lanes based on the average width approach can be
seen in Table 2-8 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

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Average Widths Approach [m]

< 5.5
WBD
0.5
< 5.5
WAC
5.5

Number of Lanes
2
4
2
4

Table 2-8. 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 2-9 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 2-9. 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 2-9,
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

Table 2-9. Adjustment Factor of Width Approach, FW (IHCM, 1997)

23

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

For a simplification, a following graph (Figure 2-10) was created by the manual (IHCM,
1997) in order to calculate the value of adjustment factor, FW.

Figure 2-10. Entry Width Correction Factor, FW (IHCM, 1997)

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 2-10 as follows

Remarks

Type of Median

Adjustment Factor of
Median, FM

No median at major street

Median at major street,
width < 3 m
Median at major street,
width 3 m

none

1.00

narrow

1.05

wide

1.20

Table 2-10. Adjustment Factor for Median at Major Road, FM (IHCM, 1997)
24

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

2.4.5 Adjustment Factors for Traffic Flow Performances

Traffic flow of each stream is the most important parameter to study the capacity. Instead of
geometric standard design of intersections, turning vehicles (from the major and minor roads)
have contributed disturbance to others while they are making such maneuvers to pass through
the intersections. Therefore, the manual was related to this problem and decided to use a
correction factor while measuring the capacity. Leftturning correction factor, FLT is
estimated from Figure 2-11 below as well as rightturning correction factor, FRT which is
used for 3leg intersections. A suitable relationships between factors and portion of vehicles
is as follows
for leftturning correction factor,
FLT = 0.84 + 0.0161 LT %

and for rightturning correction factor,

FRT = 1.0
(for 4 legs)
3
FRT = 1.09 9.22 10 RT % (for 3 legs)
where
FLT
= Adjustment factor for leftturning vehicles
FRT
= Adjustment factor for rightturning vehicles
LT% = Percentage of vehicles turning left
RT% = Percentage of vehicles turning right

(2-5)

(2-6)
[-]
[-]
[%]
[%]

For a simplification, the following graphs at Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 are presented.

Figure 2-11. LeftTurning Correction Factor, FLT (IHCM, 1997)

25

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Figure 2-12. Rightturning Correction Factor FRT (IHCM, 1997)

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 2-13.

26

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Figure 2-13. Split Correction Factor, FSP (IHCM, 1997)

2.4.6 Adjustment Factors for Intersections Environment (Side Friction)

Large differences in behavior and level of development between places and cities in Indonesia
give a great impact on various drivers behaviors and vehicles population, e.g. age, power,
performance and composition of vehicles (IHCM, 1997). Smaller cities show that drivers
have driven nonmodern vehicles (small power) and move slowly which results on lower
speed and capacity at certain level flow rate, compared with other big cities. The manual has
considered that drivers behavior differed from modern cities and nonmodern cities.
Therefore, the factors are described to be higher when the number of people in such an area is
higher. It is assumed that more interactions occur within the traffic because there are more
people living in the surrounding area of intersections.

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 2-11. Adjustment Factor for City Size, FCS (IHCM, 1997)
27

Adjustment Factor, FCS

0.82
0.88
0.94
1.00
1.05

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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

2.4.7 Total Capacity of Unsignalized Intersections under Mixed Traffic Flow

Studies for capacity under mixed traffic situations have been done, especially in developing
countries e.g. India and Indonesia where vehicles are categorized as fastmoving vehicles and
slowmoving vehicles where the static and dynamic characteristics of these vehicles vary
widely. RAMANAYYA (1988) has done a simulation model which was developed and tested
with a number of times for different traffic volumes and a different percentage mix of
vehicles. Traffic stream models (speed flow, speed density and flow density) under
mixed traffic conditions are essential to the formulation.

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.

The fundamental concept to measure the capacity of unsignalized intersections by an

empirical approach (IHCM, 1997) is that the flow and capacity was calculated as the total
flow (entering flow) and the total capacity of the intersection, instead of capacities of each leg
of intersection. A scheme of traffic flow streams is shown in Figure 2-14 and the total flow is
calculated by the following formula in Equation 2-7 to Equation 2-9. This total flow is the
total number of passing vehicles per hour pass through the intersection (streams; QA, QB, QC
and QD).

28

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

Figure 2-14. Scheme of Flow Streams at Unsignalized Intersection (IHCM, 1997)

The total entering flow is calculated as

QEF = A + B + C + D

(2-7)

where
QEF
A or QA
p

p=

= Total entering flow

= QLV + QHV + QMC + QUM
= PCUs factor calculated from pcu values flow composition

[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[-]

(LV% pcuLV + HV% pcuHV + MC% pcuMC + UM% pcuUM )

100

therefore, the total flow, QTOT can be calculated as

QTOT = QEF p

(2-8)

where
QTOT

= Total entering flow

[pcu/h]

LT
RT
MI
ALT, BLT, CLT, DLT
ART, BRT, CRT, DRT
QEF
QLV, QHV, QMC, QUM

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

[-]
[-]
[-]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]

Portion of leftturn flow

Portion of rightturn flow
Portion of flow at minor road
Flow of leftturn from leg A, leg B, leg C and leg D
Flow of rightturn from leg A, leg B,leg C and leg D
Total entering flow
Flow of lightvehicle (LV), heavyvehicle (HV),
Motorcycle (MC) and Unmotorized (UM)
29

[veh/h]

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

As traffic stream in developing countries is heterogeneous, consisting of different types of

vehicles which were defined as different in static and dynamic characteristics, deriving
passenger car units (PCUs) are required, and the typical analysis of the total flow at a road
segment is
QV = QLV + QHV + QMC + QUM

(2-9)

where
QV
QLV
QHV
QMC
QUM

=
=
=
=
=

Total flow at road section

Traffic flow of lightvehicle
Traffic flow of heavyvehicle
Traffic flow of motorcycle
Traffic flow of unmotorizedvehicle

[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 2-12).

Type of Intersections
322
342
324 or 344
422
424 or 444

Base Capacity, C0 [pcu/h]

2700
2900
3200
2900
3400

Table 2-12. Base Capacity of Unsignalized Intersection, C0 (IHCM, 1997)

Capacity at unsignalized intersections 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
C = C0 FW FM FCS FRSU FLT FRT FMI

(2-10)

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]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]

2 Transport Mode and the Existing Computation Method

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 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

3.1

Introduction

Capacity at unsignalized intersections is measured with various approaches known as

deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Gap acceptance procedure (GAP) is mainly used
in the United States and several European countries. This method is based on critical gap
acceptance and followup times of vehicles from the minor road. The second method is the
empirical regression approach, its application is mainly based on research investigation from
British research results (KIMBER, COOMBE, 1980). This method is developed by a large
number of measured field data in British streets. A new approach is called conflict technique
(WU, 1999) which is based on a pragmatically simplified concept where interactions and
impact between flows at intersections is brought through mathematically formulated. The
INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (IHCM, 1997) is an example of using
the empirical approach, however, due to current behavior, e.g. no gap acceptance behavior,
unmotorized attendance with 13 classes of vehicles and large different speed, no exclusive
lanes, no lane discipline and a large number of conflict might be expected. Therefore,
investigation on total basic capacity, C0 and total actual capacity, C of intersection should
necessaries be done. The Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual is the current approach to
measure the capacity and traffic based on a research study of the Swedish Road and Traffic
Research Institute (SWEROAD) which was conducted in Indonesia from December 1990 to
February 1997.

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.

AllWay StopControlled intersections require drivers on all approaches to stop before

proceeding into the conflict area at an intersection. All streams are equal (since there are stop
signs in all approaches, it assumes to be equal) in the hierarchy of the priority of departure,
therefore, the vehicles of different streams should enter the intersection one streams vehicle
after another streams vehicle. AllWay StopControlled (AWSC) intersections are very
popular in the United States and many countries in North America and FirstInFirstOut
32

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

(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

Nearside/Offside Priority Intersection

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 3-1. Three streams (EN, NW and WE) have
33

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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.

Figure 3-1. Hierarchy of the Possible Movements in A ThreeLeg Unsignalized

Intersections (SECO, 1991)

SECO (1991) conducted an observation at some unsignalized intersections under a

near/offside priority rule in Portugal. Three typical situations were selected for analysis
(stream EW, stream NE and stream WN) corresponding to some of the most interesting gap
acceptance problems and each involving decisions by different secondlevel priority
movements. The methodological approach applied on the analysis of these situations using
basic gap acceptance concepts to describe the decision process made by nonpriority drivers
when, in order to enter an intersection, they have to select an acceptable gap (measured in
time intervals) in the priority streams on traffic.

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

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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 3-2). 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 3-3). 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 3-3, 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 3-2. Typical Speed Pattern at priority to the right Intersections (KOCKELKE,
1991)
35

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

Figure 3-3. Typical Speed Profile with Priority to the Right Rule (KOCKELKE,
STEINBRECHER, 1983)

3.3

Capacity of Priority to the Right Intersection

An unsignalized intersection with the rule of prioritytotheright would be clear defined

with low traffic flows at intersections whose traffic streams could pass through the
intersection one after another. However, this type of intersection might have a problem when
the traffic flow is high and all streams are approaching the intersection at the same time,
therefore, the streams would block each other, see Figure 3-4.

q1, C1, x1

q1, C1, x1

q1, C1, x1

q1, C1, x1
Figure 3-4. Scheme of Traffic Flow Blocking at Priority to the Right Intersection
(Wu, 2003)
36

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

WU (2003) has developed a mathematical model for 4streams/4leg intersections in order to

calculate the capacity of each stream which is based on the theory of gap acceptance and
followup time. The capacity of the stream i is calculated as :

Ci = (1 xi +1 ) C0,i

(3-1)

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

Basic capacity of stream i

Followup time of stream i
Gap acceptance of stream i
Minimum time between two consecutive vehicles i
Traffic flow of stream i
qi +1
=
= Degree of saturation of stream i + 1
Ci +1

[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[sec]
[sec]
[sec]
[veh/h]
[-]

In Equation 3-1 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

Capacity Measured by Saturation Flow of Streams

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

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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

(3-2)

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 3-5.

Figure 3-5 .Flows and Notation of Major/Minor Priority Intersection (KIMBER et al., 1980)
38

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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

Cmi = qLV + pqHV = C0 1q AC(LV) 1 q AC(HV) 2 q AB(LV) 2 q AB(HV)

3qC A(LV) 3 qC A(HV) 4 qC B(LV) 4 qC B(HV)

(3-3)

where
=
=
=
=
=
=

Cmi
qLV and qHV
qA-C(LV), qA-C (HV)
1, 2, 1', 2' , ...
p

Minor road stream capacity

Flows of light and heavy vehicles
Major road flows of light and heavy vehicles
Effects of the major road flows on Cmi
(1'/1), (2'/2), (3'/3), (4'/4)
Passenger car units

[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

(3-4)

CB A = C0 ,B A 1 q A C 2 q A B 3 qC A 4 qC B

(3-5)

rightturning capacity,

Corresponding to other streams (minor and major), interactions between the rightturning
major road flow controls qB-A and is controlled by qA-C and qA-B (give away) and follow
the form of

CC B = C0 ,C B 1 q A C 2 q A B

(3-6)

A straightthrough major road stream, CC-A at some of geometric layouts could be blocked
when a queue exists by rightturning vehicles, qC-B. If arrivals and departures are random for

39

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

rightturns vehicles, the probability of a queue can be simply presented by qC-B / CC-B,
therefore, the straightthrough capacity, CC-A is given by

q
CC A = C0 ,C A 1 C B
CC B

(3-7)

where
CB-C
=
CB-A
=
CC-B
=
CC-A
=
C0,B-C
=
C0,B-A
=
C0,C-B
=
C0,C-A
=
1 , 2 , 1 ', 2 ',
1'', 2'',....
=
qA-C
=
qA-B
=
qC-A
=
qC-B
=

3.5

Capacity of leftturning flow from minor road

Capacity of rightturning flow from minor road
Capacity of rightturning flow from major road
Capacity of straightthrough flow
Saturation flow of leftturning flow from minor road
Saturation flow of rightturning flow from minor road
Saturation flow of rightturning flow from major road
Saturation flow straightthrough flow

[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]

Effects of the major road flows

Major road flow of stream A C
Major road flow of stream A B
Major road flow of stream C A
Major road flow of stream C B

[-]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]

Capacity of AllWay StopControlled and FirstInFirstOut

Intersections

A new theoretical approach for the determination of capacities at AllWay StopControlled

(AWSC) and FirstInFirstOut (FIFO) intersections based on the AdditionConflictFlow
method is developed from the graph theory (WU, 1999). The procedure is considered in such
a way that the FirstInFirstOut discipline is applied. FIFO intersections are broadly used in
the developing countries (e.g. China, India and Indonesia). The AWSC intersections are
considered in such a way that the FirstInFirstOut discipline applies, because this type of
intersection does not posses an absolute priority in driving. In the HCM (1994 & 2000), an
empirical approach is applied in order to calculate the capacity by regression of field data,
however the result can only be determined by iteration and the method could not give any
information on interactions between streams. Information and consideration on stream
interactions are very important to look further, especially if the traffic consists of various
types of vehicles with different static/dynamic performances and drivers behavior.

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

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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.

3.5.1 Departure Mechanism at AWSC/FIFO Intersections

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 3-6.

2
2

3
3
Figure 3-6. 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

(3-8)

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.

3.5.2 Capacity of A Stream in Several Departure Sequences.

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

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

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,

C = (Csequence A , Csequence B ,...)MIN

(3-9)

2
B

B
2

A
1

1
3

Figure 3-7. A Stream Involved in Several Departure Sequences (WU, 1999)

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.

The capacity of a stream i in a departure sequence with n streams reads

3600 ( Q .t B ) j
j =1 , j i

C i = max 3600 ( t B ) i
n (t )
B j

j =1
n

(3-10)

where
Ci
tB
i
j

=
=
=
=

Capacity of subject stream i

Average departure headways/occupation time
Subject streams i
Conflict streams j involved
42

[veh/h]
[sec]
[-]
[-]

3 Capacity Computations Based on Rule of Priority Method

3.6

Conclusions

Several methods of capacity analysis at unsignalized intersections have been done in

developed countries. Of course, they have considered the capacity based on a fundamental
pattern, rule of priority that vehicles are allowed to cross the intersection one after another.
Common rules of priority intersection are known as nearside/ offside priority, priorityto
theright or rechtsvorlinks, AllWay StopControlled or FirstInFirstOut. In
general, the methods have considered each stream as the potential parameters to contribute the
capacity of intersections, especially for nonpriority streams which might be saturated at a
certain duration of time.

At prioritytotheright rule, potential capacity might occur at nonpriority streams of

B C, B A and C B which would face delay while they have to wait at the stop line as
the priority streams travel cross the intersection. Therefore, the capacity of the streams were
calculated based on the saturation flow of nonpriority streams (all major road flows are zero)
and the degree of interaction between streams (priority and nonpriority). By using this
method, effects of various types of vehicles and geometric designs were deeply concerned.

Another type of intersection is based on AllWay StopControlled (AWSC) and FirstIn

FirstOut (FIFO) rule. FIFO intersections are broadly used in developing countries which was
more realistic because no traffic streams at intersections possess the absolute priority of
driving and vehicles from different streams enter the intersection alternatively one after
another. The new method to calculate the capacity has already been found (WU, 1999) based
on AdditionConflictFlow (ACF) where the capacity was calculated by considering
interactions between conflict streams and every vehicle of the stream occupies the conflict
area by the exact time which is considered as headways departure of the stream. The
capacities were then measured as a function departure headways of each stream and the total
capacity of the intersection is the least capacity of capacities of several departure sequences.

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 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

Location of Field Measurements

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 4-1. 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 4-19. The location of all intersections is shown in Figure 4-1. In addition to 10
44

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

Investigated and measured

Investigated

Figure 4-1. Location of 14 ThreeLeg Intersections

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 4-19 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-2. 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

Table 4-1. Investigated ThreeLeg Intersections

Intersection
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Effective Width [m]

Approach A
16.4
10.6
9.6
7.4
10.0
11.8
9.2
6.7
7.2
7.3

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

Table 4-2. Details of Geometric Design of Each Intersection

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 2-9. The
data has been presented in Table 4-3. 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 2-7 and Table 4-4. Each of the investigated intersections has been defined
as can be seen in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3.
46

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

Table 4-3. Effective Lane Width of Each Approach of Intersection

Intersection

Type of Intersection

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

324
342
322
322
322
324
322
322
322
322

Number of Lane Number of Lane

at Major Road
at Minor Road
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Table 4-4. Type of Intersection Based on Number of Lanes

4.3

Equipment for Monitoring

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 4-2. Those cameras are placed at the edge of the roads or intersections with a good
view for monitoring the traffic movement (Figure 4-3).

47

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

3.5 m

Figure 4-2. Equipment for Traffic Monitoring

(Camcorder)

4.4

Figure 4-3. Equipment Position at the

Edge of the Road

Vehicle Classifications and Compositions

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 4-6. 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Types of Vehicle

Classes

Passenger cars
Jeeps
Minibuses
Pickups
Microtrucks
Truck two-axle with double wheels on the
rear axle
Buses shorter than 8 m
Truck three-axle
Truck plus trailer
Articulated vehicle
Buses longer than 8 m
Motorcycles
Tricycles
Bicycles

LV (Light Vehicle)

MHV (Medium Heavy Vehicle)

LT (Large Truck)
TC (Truck Combination)
LB (Large Bus)
MC (Motorcycle)
UM (UnMotorized)

Table 4-5. Vehicle Classification Based on the Indonesian Highway Administration

Type of Vehicle

Classes

Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Bus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

LT
MHV
LV
MC
UM

Table 4-6. Main Vehicle Classification

Figure 4-5. Tricycles/Pedicab/Becak

Figure 4-4. Bicycle

49

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Figure 4-6. Tricycles

Figure 4-7. Pushcart

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 4-4 to Figure 4-7. 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 4-7.

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

Table 4-7. Vehicles Categories for Analysis

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 4-19.

50

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-8 to Table 4-11 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 (2-wheels)

Intersection/Traffic Composition [veh/h]

1
20
212
10
819
3482
58
24
N.A
1
4626

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

Table 4-8. Traffic Composition of Intersection1 to Intersection5 [veh/h]

Type of
Vehicle

Intersection/Traffic Composition [veh/h]

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 (2-wheels)

5173

3734

2358

2453

2158

Table 4-9. Traffic Composition of Intersection6 to Intersection10 [veh/h]

51

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles

Intersection/Traffic Composition [%]

1
0.4
4.6
0.2
17.7
75.3
1.3
0.5
N.A
0.0

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 (2-wheels)
Table 4-10. Traffic Composition of Intersection1 to Intersection5 [%]

Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles

Intersection/Traffic Composition [%]

6
0.0
0.8
0.1
15.2
80.9
2.2
0.7
0.0
0.0

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 (2-wheels)
Table 4-11. 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

Passenger Car Units (PCUs)

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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.

4.5.1 Measurement Methods of Passenger Car Units

WERNER & MORRAL (1976) explained the technique which forms the basis of
equivalencies reported in HRB (1965). The number of passing or overtaking that would be
performed per kilometer of highway was considered in order to calculate the PCE of slower
moving vehicles (truck or bus) by the following expression,
PCE HV =

N HV /(1HV )
N pc /(observed passenger cars / h)

(4-1)

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

(4-2)

where
with

qb
qm

= Flow rates of basic vehicle

= Flow rates of mixed traffic

qi =

[cars/h]
[veh/h]

(3.600)

(4-3)

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]

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

this relationship yields

h

PCE = (1 / p ) m 1 + 1
hb

(4-4)

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

(4-5)

S f (c) S f (mix)

(4-6)

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]

Alternatively, PCEi can be simply approximated as :

PCEi =
hs(i)
hs(c)

hs(i)
hs(c)

= saturation headway of vehicle type i

= saturation headway of standard vehicle respectively

(4-7)

[sec]
[sec]

4.5.2 Measurement at Passenger Car Units Under Mixed Traffic Flow

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-8)

and
f =

L (1 + 0.015 s )
vf

E 2 1 + 0.3
v

where
P
W
L
s
v
vf
E
a
b

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

PCUs factor by mode representing traffic flow by link

Width of vehicle
Length of vehicle
Number of stops
Average speed of vehicle
Freeflow speed of traffic on the road
Effective road width (total width for a dual carriageway)
15.8
0.2

[-]
[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 4-12 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Type of Vehicle
(manual count
classification)
Car, taxi
Truck
Small truck
Large bus
Minibuses
Opelet
Three-wheeled
vehicles
Motorcycle
Becak
Bicycle

PCUs Factor Defined by Type of Road and Carriageway *)

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

Table 4-12. Jakarta Vehicle Characteristics (CUTHBERT, 1983)

*) Road type

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

(4-9)

where
VLV
A
Q
K

=
=
=
=

Average speed of light vehicle

Constant representing freeflow speed
Traffic flow for each vehicle type
Speed reduction effect caused by specific vehicle type

[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

(4-10)

where
LVUMHV
KMHV
KLV

= Light vehicle unit of medium heavy vehicle

= Speed reduction effect of medium heavy vehicle
= Speed reduction effect of light vehicle

56

[-]
[-]
[-]

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-11)

where
LVUMHV
HMHV
HLV

= Light vehicle unit of medium heavy vehicle

= Headway between an MHV following an MHV
= Headway between an LV following an LV

[-]
[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 4-7) 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 )

(KUM 3 BA QUM 3 BA ) (KUM 4 CA QUM 4 CA ) (KUM 4 BA QUM 4 BA )

(4-12)

and level of interactions between vehicles as passenger car unit can be written as :
PCU LT CA =
where
VLV-CA
A
KLT-CA
QLT-CA
Ki-j
Qi-j

K LT CA
K LV CA

and

PCU LT BA =

K LT BA
and so on
K LV BA

= Average speed of light vehicle of stream C A (1)

= Constant representing freeflow speed of stream C A (1)
= Coefficient of speed reduction effect of light truck
of stream C A (1)
= Traffic flow of light truck of stream C A (1)
= Coefficient of speed reduction effect of vehicle i of stream j
= Traffic flow of vehicle i of stream j

(4-13)

[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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-14)

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

(4-15)

where
Vi
aij
di
K
nj

=
=
=
=
=

Mean speed of vehicle i

Regression coefficients
Regression coefficient
Total number of vehicle categories in traffic stream
Number of vehicles of j category passing through
the observation point per unit time

[km/h]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[veh]

n
j =1

[-]

58

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 :

QTOTALi = QLVi PCELV + QHVi PCEHV + QMCi PCEMC + QUMi PCEUM

(4-16)

where

QTOTALi
QLVi
QHVi
QMCi
QUMi
PCE
i
N

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Total flow at time slice i

Light vehicle flow at time slice i
Heavy vehicle flow at time slice i
Motorcycle flow at time slice i
Unmotorized flow at time slice i
Passenger car equivalent of every types of vehicle
1,.....N
Number of slice time

[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[pce/h]
[-]
[-]
[-]

If the PCE of light vehicles assumes to be 1.00, the equations would be

QLVi = QTOTALi QHVi PCEHV QMCi PCEMC QUMi PCEUM

(4-17)

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

(4-18)

where

FUV
Vi
Vc

= PCUs factor of vehicle type i

= Speed of vehicle type i
= Speed of car/light vehicle

[-]
[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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-19)

where

FCTi
CTi
CTc

= PCU factors from crossing time

= Crossing time of vehicles i
= Crossing time of cars

[-]
[sec]
[sec]

4.5.3 Passenger Car Units Measured by Projected Rectangular Area of

Vehicles

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 4-8, 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).

Figure 4-8. Flow Impedance Relationship (HUBER, 1982)

60

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-20)

where

PCE
p
qB , qM

= Passenger Car Equivalent

= Proportion of trucks in mixed traffic flow
= Flow rate at common LOS for basic and mixed
traffic streams, respectively

[-]
[-]
[veh/h]

Figure 4-9. Typical Sample Calculation of PCUsValues

Traffic Flow

Light Vehicle
Lm

Wc
W

Light Vehicle
Wm

Lc

Motorcycle

Figure 4-10. Scheme of PCUs Analysis by Projected Rectangular Area of Vehicle

61

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-11. 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

(4-21)

where

qM
qMB
qMi

= Flow rate of mixed vehicles

= Flow rate of basic vehicles within mixed stream
= Flow rate vehicles i within mixed traffic

[veh/h]
[veh/h]
[veh/h]

Figure 4-11. Greenshields Model of Traffic Flow

The proportion p of vehicles i in the mixed traffic stream flow is as follows :

p=

q Mi
qM

(4-22)

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

= Density of mixed vehicles

= Density of basic vehicles within mixed stream
= Density of vehicle i within mixed stream
62

(4-23)

[veh/km]
[veh/km]
[veh/km]

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

The proportion p' of vehicles i in the mixed stream projected rectangular area is as follows :

p =

kMi
kM

(4-24)

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

(4-25)

where
uM
uMB
uMi
p

=
=
=
=

Mean velocity of mixed traffic stream

Mean velocity of basic vehicles within mixed traffic stream
Mean velocity of vehicles i within mixed traffic stream
Proportion of vehicles i in mixed traffic stream flow

[km/h]
[km/h]
[km/h]
[km/h]

If qo is defined as the optimum flow rate, a relationship could be written as qo = ko uo ,

qOMi = pqOM = kOMi uOMi
qOMB = (1 p ) qOM = kOMB uOMB
and
qOMi
pq
= OM
u OMi
u OMi

(4-26)

q OMB (1 p )qOM
=
u OMB
u OMB

(4-27)

k OMi =

k OMB =

Substitute Equation 4-26 and Equation 4-27 into Equation 4-24 yields
p =
=

kOMi
kOMi + kOMB
1
kOMB

1 +
kOMi
1

[(1 p ) qOM uOMi ]

1 +

(
)

pq
u
OM
OMB

1
=
(1-p ) uOMi
1 +

puOMB

63

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Based on the Greenshields model of traffic flow uO = uf /2, the final expression is
p =

(4-28)

(1 p )u fi

1 +
p u fB

The jam density kj for basic vehicles becomes,

L
LB

k jB =

(4-29a)

and for mixed vehicles,

k jM =

L
[ p L i + (1 p ) L B ]

(4-29b)

where
L
Li and LB

= Unit length of roadway

= Effective length of vehicles i and basic vehicles B

[km]
[m]

As density (length of vehicles) would be modified as road occupancy (projected rectangular

area of vehicle) which Li and Wi represent length and width of vehicle type i and see also
Figure 4-10, therefore,
L W
LB WB

(4-29c)

L W
[ p(Li Wi ) + (1 p) (LB WB )]

(4-29d)

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 4-12, uB = uM = u. If we look at the Equation 4-20 and
note that qB = kB u and qM = kM u, it follows that qB/qM = kB/kM. Based on Figure 4-12,

kB =

k jB (u fB u )
u fB
64

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 )

(4-30)

The general case where ufM < ufB ; kjM < kjB, from Equation 4-20 we have
1 u
PCE = fM
p u fB

k jB

k
jM

(u fB u )

1 +1
(u u )
fM

(4-31)

Looking at Figure 4-12 and Equation 4-31 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

Figure 4-12. Determination of PCEvalues

by Equal Travel Time
(HUBER, 1982)

Figure 4-13. Determination of PCEvalues

by Equal Total Travel Time
(HUBER, 1982)

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

as shown in Figure 4-13. From Equation 5-8 and noting that qB = k uB and qM = k uM, it
follows that qB/qM = uB/uM .
As we can see in Figure 4-13 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

(4-32)

In general cases where ufM < ufB ; kjM < kjB, and from Equation 4-20 :
1 u
PCE = fB
p u fM

k jM

k
jB

(k jB k ) (k jM k ) 1 + 1

(4-33)

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 4-14. Speed Density Relationships for Mixed Flow and Two Component Flow
(HUBER, 1982)

66

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

By the Greenshields relationship of speed density from Figure 4-14,

1
u
uMB = fMB 1 + (1 yMB )2

and
u
uMT = fMT
2

1 + (1 yMT )2

where
yMB =

(1 p )qM
(1 p )qOM

qM
= yMT
qOM

Figure 4-15. PCEvalues by Equal Basic Vehicle Travel Time (HUBER,1982)

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 4-15 where ufMB = ufB and uB = uMB
= u. By Equation 4-20,
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

For similar triangles in Figure 4-15,

k MB =

k jMB (u fB u )
u fB

; kB =

67

k jB (u fB u )
u fB

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

(4-34)

From Equation 4-29a and Equation 4-29b,

k jB
k jM

L [ pLT + (1 p)LB ] [ pLT + (1 p)LB ]

=
=
L
LB

LB

Substituting in Equation 4-34 gives

p
(LT + LB )

(1 p)

qB
=
qM

(1 p )

LB

(4-35)

From Equation 4-28 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

] [

substituting in Equation 4-35,

qB p u fB LT
+ (1 p )
=
qM u fT LB

So that by Equation 4-20,

1 q
PCE = B
p qM

u L

1 + 1 = fB T
u L

fT B

When we consider Equation 4-29c and 4-29d as a modification from density to vehicles
occupancy, this follows
k jB
k jM

L W [ p(Li Wi ) + (1 p)(LB WB )] [ p(Li Wi ) + (1 p)(LB WB )]

=
=
L W
LB WB

LB WB

68

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Substituting Equation 4-34,

qB
=
qM

p
[(Li Wi ) + (LB WB )]

(1 p)

(1 p )

LB WB

(4-36)

From Equation 4-28 and substituting in Equation 4-36,

qB pu fB (Li Wi )
=

+ (1 p )
qM u fi (LB WB )

From Equation 4-20,

1 q
PCE = B
p qM

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

(4-37)

where
uOMB
uOMi
LB
WB
Li
Wi

=
=
=
=
=
=

Optimum speed of basic vehicles within mixed traffic stream

Optimum speed of vehicle type i within mixed traffic stream
Effective length of basic vehicles
Effective width of basic vehicles
Effective length of vehicle type i
Effective width of vehicle type i

[km/h]
[km/h]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]

This recent formula for passenger car units (Equation 4-37) 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 4-14) which also considered similar cases of mixed traffic

69

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-13 and Table 4-14.
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
4-9, 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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Interaction

CB
BC
BA
AC

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

Table 4-13. PCUs Based on Method of Vehicle Interaction and IHCM

Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
2.7
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.7
N.A
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
3.1
1.6
N.A
N.A
N.A
2.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
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

Table 4-14. PCUs of Each Type of Vehicle of Each Stream

70

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-15. 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
(2-wheels)
Table 4-15. 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 4-15), 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 4-16 and Table 4-17. 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 (2-wheels)

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

Table 4-16. Traffic Composition of Intersection1 to Intersection5

71

5
N.A
136.4
27.2
876.0
608.4
39.2
11.4
1.5
1.4
1701.5

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 (2-wheels)

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

Table 4-17. Traffic Composition of Intersection6 to Intersection10

4.6

Traffic Flow Performance

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 4-8 and Table 4-9) 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 4-10 and Table 4-11). 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 4-16.

TOTAL FLOW OF EACH OF INTERSECTION

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

Figure 4-16. Total Flow of Each Intersection

72

10

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-17. 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.

Flow (veh/1-minute interval)

120

110

100

90

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute interval

Figure 4-17. Traffic Flow of Intersection a 1minute interval

Observation was also made in a 5minute interval in order to have a different view of the flow
and speed performance. Figure 4-18 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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.

Flow (veh/5-minute interval)

500

450
417

400

404

395

390

387
374

Flow (veh/5-minute)

350

394

386

403

366

355

355

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
1

10

11

12

5-minute interval

Figure 4-18. Traffic Flow of Intersection a 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 4-19).
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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

C-A
C-B

Arm A
(Major)

Arm C
(Major)

A-C
A-B

B-C
B-A

Arm B
(Minor)
Figure 4-19. Typical LayOut of ThreeLeg Intersection

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

800

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

C-B

B-C

54,5

166

0
C-A

57,7

50,0

B-A

A-C

0,0

A-B

C-A

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

A-B

Direction of flow

Figure 4-20. Flow of Each Stream (intersection8)

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

800

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

Di

B-A

ti

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

B-C

B-A

Direction of flow

f fl

Figure 4-21. Flow of Each Stream (intersection10)

75

A-C

A-B

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

A-B

C-A

Direction of flow

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

A-B

Direction of flow

Figure 4-22. Flow of Each Stream (intersection1)

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 4-18. 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 4-23). 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 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

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

Figure 4-23. Typical Flow of Each Type of Vehicle (intersection1)

4.7

Mean Speed Performance

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

(4-38)

and

vi =

li
ti

where
u
vi
n

= Space mean speed

= Time mean speed of vehicle type i
= Number of vehicles passed a road segment i, li

[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

(4-39)

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

where
k
vm
vi
ni

=
=
=
=

Total number of vehicle categories present in stream

Mean stream speed
Speed of vehicle of category i
Number of vehicles of category i

[-]
[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.

Highway capacity, in a broad sense, is a measure of the effectiveness of the highway in

accommodating traffic. The development of macroscopic traffic flow models (speed flow,
speed density and flow density) under mixed traffic conditions is essential to the
formulation of rational and practical values of capacity under such traffic conditions.
RAMANAYYA (1988) has conducted studies in heterogeneous traffic flow in India. The
traffic has been categorized as fastmoving vehicles (e.g. cars, buses, trucks, autorickshaw
and scooter) and slowmoving vehicles which include bicycles, cyclerickshaws and bullock
carts. He developed a model of speed and flow relationship based on computer simulation
with different traffic volumes and a varying percentage mix of the different types of vehicles
which make up the stream. The simulation runs with traffic volumes varying from 100 veh/h
to 1200 veh/h, and varying number of slowmoving vehicles with 10%, 30% and 50%. The
following relationship indicated the relationship between speed, flow, density and percentage
of slowmoving vehicles.

The general relationship was found as :

V = 42.56 7.38 log K 28.49 P

V = 59.8 9.26 log Q 36.95 P
Q = 178.53 + 220.39 elog K 492.9 P
where
V
Q
K
P

=
=
=
=

Average speed of the traffic stream

Average traffic flow
Average traffic density
Percentage of slowmoving 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

VLV = ALV K Q log Q K P P

Vi = Ai K Q log Q K p P

where
V
VLV
Vi
A
ALV
Ai
KD
KQ
KP
P
D

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Average speed of the traffic stream

Average speed of light vehicle
Average speed of vehicle type i
Constant representing freeflow speed
Constant representing freeflow speed of light vehicle
Constant representing freeflow speed of vehicle type i
Speed reduction effect caused by traffic density
Speed reduction effect caused by traffic flow
Speed reduction effect caused by slowmoving vehicles
Percentage of slowmoving vehicles
Average traffic density

[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

(4-40)

where
VLV
A
Q
K

=
=
=
=

Speed of light vehicle

Constant representing freeflow speed of light vehicle
Traffic flow for each vehicle type
Speed reduction effect caused by specific vehicle type

[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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-24.
tCA
tC

tA

kC

kA

A
kB

tB

A, B, C
tC
tCA
kC

Arrival and departure line of vehicle at intersection

Time arrival at line C: Vehicle k arrived at line C
Total travel time at distance C and A
Vehicle k arrived at time tC
Direction of vehicle travel

Figure 4-24. Scheme of Speed and Flow Measurement at Intersection

The measurements were conducted at each intersection and each type of vehicle. The results
can be seen in Table 4-19 (e.g. intersection1) with performance of average speed and
80

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 4-20 and Figure 4-26 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 4-19, Table 4-20 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 (2-wheels)

Maximum Speed
[km/h]
33.70
32.60
29.30
29.68
34.62
31.70
16.70
N.A
5.40

Table 4-19. Average Speed of Vehicles at Intersection

Type of Vehicle

CA

CB

Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

16.6
20.8

Table 4-20. Average Speed of Vehicles at Each Stream

81

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Speed Performance of Each Stream

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Figure 4-25. Typical Mean Speed of Each Stream (intersection1)

Speed Performance of Each Type of Vehicle

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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 4-26. Typical Mean Speed of Each Vehicle at Each Stream (intersection1)

The typical speed performance shown in Figure 4-25 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 4-26.
The speed range collected from all intersections can be resumed in Table 4-21 while details
can be found in Appendix C.

82

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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

Table 4-21. Speed Performance of Each Stream Flow of Intersections

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
4-27 to 4-32 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)

Figure 4-27. Speed Distribution of Stream

C A (1)

Figure 4-28. Speed Distribution of Stream

C B (2)

83

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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)

Figure 4-29. Speed Distribution of Stream

B C (3)

Figure 4-30. Speed Distribution of Stream

B A (4)

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)

Figure 4-31. Speed Distribution of Stream

A C (5)

Figure 4-32. Speed Distribution of Stream

A B (6)

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 4-11) 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 4-33).
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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Speed distribution of flow direction C - A

Type of vehicle
Truck 3 axles
Truck 2 axles
Minibus
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Rickshaw

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 4-33. Typical Cumulative Distribution of Speed of Each Type of Vehicle of Stream
C A (1)

4.8

Intersection Occupancy (percent of intersection area)

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 4-34).

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Stream
C-A

C-B

Reference line
4
6

Area of conflict
5
A-C

A-B

Travel stream

2
B-C
B-A

Figure 4-34. Description of Intersection Occupancy Measurement

For the estimation of the intersection occupancy, the intersections field area has been
reconstructed as shown in Figure 4-34 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 4-22. 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 4-18, vehicles
occupancy in certain areas of intersections can simply be measured (Table 4-23).
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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Intersection

Investigated Intersection Conflict Area

[m2]

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

Table 4-22. Conflict Area of Each Intersection

Vehicles Occupancy
[m2]

Type of Vehicles
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

17.28
17.28
10.26
6.48
1.28
1.05
2.25
1.68
1.68

Table 4-23. Each of Vehicles Occupancy

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 4-35 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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

Intersection occupancy (%)

15,0
14,0
13,0
12,0

Intersection occupancy (%)

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

1-minute interval

Figure 4-35. Typical Intersection Occupancy within 1minute intervals

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

4 Field Measurement and Data Performance

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 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting

Streams

5.1

Introduction

The empirical study of traffic operation at unsignalized intersections as it is described in the

previous paragraphs showed that the traditional methodologies for capacity analysis, as they
have been established for developed countries, are not applicable for countries like Indonesia.
Current behavior such as of very short gaps acceptance (less than 2 seconds), a large number
of nonmotorized vehicles which have many different speeds, no lane discipline where many
conflicts must be expected. Current investigations found that within a flow of 4900 veh/h
7200 veh/h, the number of vehicle stops is only 0.4% 0.5%. Therefore, in such a case of
mixed traffic flow at unsignalized intersections the capacity is difficult to measure, when the
flow is not saturated. Two methods (gap acceptance and empirical approach) of capacity are
used in the saturated traffic. They are difficult to apply in such a mixed traffic.

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

Conflicting Stream Description and Conflict Group

General scheme of vehicle streams at threeleg unsignalized intersections were defined to

construct the conflict streams. Many researchers have taken the scheme for capacity analysis
purposes, e.g. KIMBER & COOMBE (1980) for threeleg intersections, however, they have
not defined the conflicts at any point instead of group streams: leftturning (CB-C, CB-A) right
turning minor road stream (CC-B, CC-A) see Figure 3-5. Effects of geometric design of an
intersection were considered. Flows of different types of vehicles were also considered but
only for light and heavy vehicles (LV and HV). By this approach, one must have a saturated
flow the value the capacity would take if all road flows were zero and rule of priority was
applied. However, under mixed traffic flow, intersections were difficult to be saturated since
traffic keeps moving under all circumstances.

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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
5-1). 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

C-A
C-B

4
6

5
A-C
A-B

2
B-C
B-A

Figure 5-1. Scheme of Conflict of Traffic Streams

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

Table 5-1. Interaction of Traffic Streams of Each Conflict Group

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 5-2 to 5-7 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 (2-wheels)

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

Table 5-2. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupI

Streams
Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

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

Table 5-3. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupII

92

748

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 (2-wheels)

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

Table 5-4. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupIII

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
(2-wheels)

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

Table 5-5. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupIV

93

1300

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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
(2-wheels)

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

Table 5-6. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupV

Streams
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Table 5-7. Vehicles Composition of Conflict GroupVI

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 5-8 and details in Appendix C.
94

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

30.6
14.0
16.6
20.8
24.9
Table 5-8. Typical Mean Speed Performance of Each Stream (intersection1)

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

Group conflict I

26.2

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

Group conflict I
40,0

40

37,5
35,0

35

32,5
30,0

30

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

Figure 5-2. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupI

50

59

57

53

55

51

49

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

1-minute interval

1-minute 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

Figure 5-3. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupI

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

Group conflict II
Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0

45

37,5
35,0

40

32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute interval

1-minute interval

Figure 5-4. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupII

Figure 5-5. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupII
95

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Group conflict III

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

Group conflict III

50

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

40,0
37,5

45
35,0
32,5

40

30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute interval

1-minute interval

Figure 5-6. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupIII

Figure 5-7. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupIII

Group conflict IV

Group conflict IV
50,0

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5
35,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute interval

1-minute interval

Figure 5-8. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupIV

Figure 5-9. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupIV

Group conflict V

37,5
35,0
32,5

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5

30,0

30,0

27,5

27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

Group conflict V
Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

Figure 5-10. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupV

Figure 5-11. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupV

96

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Group conflict VI

Group conflict VI
Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0

25

32,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute interval

1-minute interval

Figure 5-12. Traffic Performance of Conflict

GroupVI

Figure 5-13. Speed Performance of Conflict

GroupVI

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 5-2 to 5-13). 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 5-14 to 5-17 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
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

50,0

1.400

47,5
45,0
42,5

1.238

1.200

40,0
37,5

1.097

35,0

1.000

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

A-B

13

A-C

B-A

11

B-C

C-B

0,0

C-A

1-minute interval

Direction of flow

Figure 5-14. Portion of Each Stream Flow (2)

with Total Number 4928 veh/h

97

Figure 5-15. Mean Speed Characteristics

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Flow of each stream

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

A-B

13

A-C

B-A

11

B-C

C-B

0,0
C-A

1-minute interval

Direction of flow

Figure 5-16. Portion of Each Stream Flow (3)

with Total Number 4902 veh/h

Figure 5-17. Mean Speed Characteristics

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

Speed and Flow Performance of Conflict Groups

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 5-1.

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

(5-1)

where
VLVi
Const.

= Average speed of light vehicle (LV) of stream i

= Constant value representing freespeed of
light vehicle stream i
= Speed reduction effect of vehicle j
(j = LV, HV, MC, UM) at stream i
= Flow of vehicle j at stream i

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 5-18 to 5-23 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
C-A
B-A

40,0

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-18. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupI

Figure 5-19. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupII

99

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Group of conflict IV

Group of conflict III

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

40,0

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Figure 5-20. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupIII

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

Group of conflict VI
Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Figure 5-21. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupIV

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

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-22. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupV

5.4

25,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-23. Speed Performance of Each

Stream at Conflict GroupVI

Speed of Each Stream and the Total Flow of Conflict Group

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 5-24 to
5-29 . 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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)

(5-2)

where
VLVi
Const.

= Average speed of light vehicle (LV) of stream i

= Constant value representing freespeed of light vehicle
stream i
= Speed reduction effect of vehicle j (j = LV, HV, MC, UM)
(j = LV, HV, MC, UM)
= Flow of vehicle j

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

90,0 100,0 110,0 120,0 130,0 140,0 150,0 160,0

Figure 5-24. Speed Performance of Stream

C A (1)

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

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-25. Speed Performance of Stream

C B (2)

101

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-26. Speed Performance of Stream

B C (3)

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

Figure 5-27. Speed Performance of Stream

B A (4)

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

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-28. Speed Performance of Stream

A C (5)

5.5

40,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Figure 5-29. Speed Performance of Stream

A B (6)

Speed and Flow Relationship for Each Type of Vehicle Stream

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 4-7) from
each stream as follows
Conflict group I,
VLV-CA = A K LV-CA QLV-CA K LV BA QLV-BA K MHVi-CA QMHVi-CA
K MHVi BA QMHVi BA .... KUMi-CA QUMi-CA KUMi BA QUMi BA

(5-3)

conflict group II,

VLV-CB = A K LV-CB QLV-CB K LV BA QLV-BA K LV AC QLV-AC K LV AB QLV-AB
K MHVi-CB QMHVi-CB K MHVi BA QMHVi BA K MHVi AC QMHVi AC K MHVi AB QMHVi AB
.... KUMi-CB QUMi-CB KUMi BA QUMi BA KUMi AC QUMi AC KUMi AB QUMi AB
102

(5-4)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

conflict group III,

VLV-BC = A K LV-BC QLV-BC K LV AC QLV-AC K MHVi-BC QMHVi-BC
K MHVi AC QMHVi AC .... KUMi-BC QUMi-BC KUMi AC QUMi AC

(5-5)

conflict group IV,

VLV-BA = A K LV-BA QLV-BA K LV AC QLV-AC K LV CB QLV-CB K LV CA QLV-CA
K MHVi-BA QMHVi-BA K MHVi AC QMHVi AC K MHVi CB QMHVi CB K MHVi CA QMHVi CA
.... KUMi-BA QUMi-BA KUMi AC QUMi AC KUMi CB QUMi CB KUMi CA QUMi CA

(5-6)

conflict group V,
VLV-AC = A K LV-AC QLV-AC K LV CB QLV-CB K LV BA QLV-BA K LV BC QLV-BC
K MHVi-AC QMHVi-AC K MHVi CB QMHVi CB K MHVi BA QMHVi BA K MHVi BC QMHVi BC
.... KUMi-AC QUMi-AC KUMi CB QUMi CB KUMi BA QUMi BA KUMi BC QUMi BC

(5-7)

conflict group VI
VLV-AB = A K LV-AB QLV-AB K LV CB QLV-CB K MHVi-AB QMHVi-AB
K MHVi CB QMHVi CB .... KUMi-AB QUMi-AB KUMi CB QUMi CB

(5-8)

where
VLV-CA
A
KLV-CA
QLV-CA
KMHV-CA
QMHV-CA

= Average speed of light vehicle (LV) stream C A

= Constant representing freeflow speed of light vehicle
= Speed reduction effect caused by light vehicle (LV)
stream C A
= Traffic flow for light vehicle (LV) stream C A
= Speed reduction effect caused by medium heavy
vehicle (MHV) stream C A
= Traffic flow for medium heavy vehicle (MHV) stream C A

[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 5-9 and 5-10 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 5-16. 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, VLV-CA is a function of flow of
every type of vehicle in a conflict group (QMHVi-CA, QMHVi-BA, QLV-CA, QLV-BA, QMC-CA, QMC-BA,
QUMi-CA, QUMi-BA, ....). 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 5-9 and Table 5-10) 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.

Speed Flow Relationship

Group of Conflict
I

Form
VLV CA = 28.917 0.371QMHV 2 CA 0.361QLV CA
VLV CB

0.436 QLV BA + 0.095 QLV AC 0.361QLV AB

II

1.836 QMC CB + 0.496 QMC BA 1.298 QMC AC

VLV BC

VLV BA

0.737 QLV AC + 0.620 QMC CA 5.336 QMC CB +

VLV AC

3.968 QMC BA + 0.416 QMHV 2 AC 0.062 QLV AC

VLV AB

0.445

0.547

5.928 QMC BA + 1.952 QMC AC

= 21.001 + 3.945 QLV CB 6.421QMC CB +
3.216 QLV BC + 1.086 QMC BC + 0.058 QLV BA

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

1.055 QLV BA + 1.227 QMC CA + 0.532 QMC BA

= 15.777 + 0.494 QMHV 2 AC + 0.334 QLV CB +

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 5-9. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each Type of Vehicle in 1minute intervals

104

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Speed Flow Relationship

Group of Conflict
I

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

VLV CB = 79.062 + 0.164 QMHV 2 AC 0.238 QLV CB +

0.298 QLV BA 0.632 QLV AC 0.292 QLV AB

II

+ 1.392 QMC CB 4.021QMC BA 1.250 QMC AC

VLV BC

VLV BA

0.643 QLV AC 0.149 QMC CA 5.551QMC CB +

VLV AC

0.265 QLV AC 0.299 QMC CB + 0.892 QMC BC +

VLV AB

0.995

4.337 QMC BA + 0.406 QMC AC

= 2.338 + 0.009 QMHV 2BC 0.108 QMHV 2 AC +
0.427 QLV CB + 0.11QLV BC + 0.178 QLV BA

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

2.187 QMC BA + 0.443 QMC AC

= 16.173 0.10 QMHV 2 CB + 0.14 QMHV 2 AB

0.729 QLV CB + 0.181QLV AB + 1.857 QMC CB

0.214

0.111QMC AB
Table 5-10. 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

Speed and Flow Relationship of Each Stream

Despite the speed and flow relationship between each type of vehicle from each stream, the
relationship between the flow of each stream (QC-A, QC-B, QB-C, QB-A, QA-C, QA-B) of each
conflict group (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) and the speed of each stream (VC-A, VC-B, VB-C, VB-A, VA-C,
VA-B) 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

relationship between speed and flows of conflict groups was constructed with a function
and scheme which is presented in Table 5-11. 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
C-A

VC A = aC A bC A QC A bB A QB A

B-A

C-B

II

VC B = aC B bC B QC B bB A QB A

A-C

b A B Q A B bA C Q A C

A-B

B-A

III

VB C = aB C bB C QB C bA C QA C

A-C

B-C

106

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

1
C-A
C-B

VB A = aB A bB A QB A bA C QA C
IV

bC A QC A bC B QC B

A-C

B-A

C-B

VA C = a A C bA C QA C bC B QC B
V

bB C QB C bB A QB A

A-C

B-C
B-A

C-B

VI

VA B = a A B bA B QA B bC B QC B
A-B

Table 5-11. General Functions and Scheme of Speed Flow Relationship at Conflict Group

Speed Flow Relationship

Group of
Form
Conflict
VC A = 34.5 0.32 QC A 0.148 QB A
I
VC B = 18.2 0.211QC B 0.268 QB A 0.084 QAC
II
0.229 QA B

R2

SE

0.215

2.2347

0.153

2.1735

VB C = 18.9 0.288 QB C 0.091QA C

0.214

1.6706

0.084

3.3620

0.474

1.9045

0.230

2.5194

III
IV
V
VI

VB A = 23.1 0.194QC A + 0.084QC B + 0.130QB A

0.149Q AC

VA C = 31.6 0.161QC B 0.44 QB C 0.265 QB A

0.311QA C
VA B = 29.4 0.014 QC B 0.506 QA B

Table 5-12. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each of Stream in 1minute intervals
107

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Speed Flow Relationship

Group of
Form
Conflict
VC A = 33.4 0.014 QC A 0.095 QB A
I
VC B = 14.2 0.057 QC B 0.045 QB A + 0.019 Q A C +
II
0.023 QA B
III
IV
V
VI

VB C = 22.0 0.076 QB C 0.074 QA C

VB A = 29.8 0.045 QC A 0.014 QC B 0.157 QB A
0.058 QA C
VA C = 34.0 0.067 QC B 0.053 QB C 0.06 QB A
0.11QA C

VA B = 31.3 + 0.117 QC B 0.229 QA B

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 5-13. Speed Flow Relationship Based on Each of Stream in 5minute intervals

Table 5-12 and Table 5-13 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 5-12 and 5-13 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

VC B = 19.949 0.069 QC B 0.357 QB A 0.234 QA C + 0.113 QA B

R

(5-10)

= 0.175 ; S E = 2.62974

VB C = 13.799 0.397 QB C + 0.033 QA C

2

(5-9)

= 0.343; S E = 0.96911

108

(5-11)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

VB A = 16.064 0.095 QC A + 0.443 QC B 0.179 QB A 0.337 QA C

R

= 0.304 ; S E = 1.68863

VA C = 17.129 0.060 QC B 0.015 QB C 0.205 QB A 0.149 QA C

R

(5-13)

= 0.195 ; S E = 1.36912

VA B = 15.835 + 0.207 QC B 0.210 QA B

2

(5-12)

(5-14)

= 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

VC B = 27.023 0.163 QC B 0.105 QB A 0.011QA C 0.150 QA B

R2

5.7

(5-19)

= 0.395 ; S E = 0.35753

VA B = 16.539 + 0.093 QC B 0.069 QA B

R2

(5-18)

= 0.705 ; S E = 0.62539

VA C = 19.380 + 0.159 QC B + 0.009 QB C 0.092 QB A 0.075 QA C

2

(5-17)

= 0.337 ; S E = 0.29960

VB A = 22.824 0.106 QC A + 0.078 QC B 0.082 QB A 0.100 QA C

2

(5-16)

= 0.374 ; S E = 1.15856

VB C = 13.742 0.054 QB C 0.008 QA C

2

(5-15)

(5-20)

= 0.845 ; S E = 0.69600

Speed Flow and Flow Intersection Occupancy Relationship

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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,

IO = f (QC-A ,QC-B ,QB-C ,QB-A ,QA.-C ,QA-B )

(5-21)

where
IO
QC-A
QC-B
QB-C
QB-A
QA-C
QA-B

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

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 5-30 and Figure 5-31 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 5-18 to 5-23). Observations in 5minute
110

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

intervals can be seen in Figure 5-33 and Figure 5-34. We also found a typical speed and
intersection occupancy relationship in 1minute and 5minute interval time (Figure 5-32 and
Figure 5-35). 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.

Flow and Intersection Occupancy

150

100,0

135

90,0

120

80,0

Flow (pcu/1-minute interval)

Flow (veh/1-minute interval)

Flow and Intersection Occupancy

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

Intersection Occupancy (%)

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

13,0

Figure 5-30. Flow Intersection Occupancy

[veh/1minute]

Direction of Flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Figure 5-31. Flow Intersection Occupancy

[pcu/1minute]

Speed of Each Stream and Intersection Occupancy

0,0

14,0

Intersection Occupancy (%)

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

13,0

14,0

15,0

Intersection Occupancy (%)

Figure 5-32. Speed Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream in 1minute intervals

111

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Flow and Intersection Occupancy

500

300,0

475

275,0

450

250,0

Flow (pcu/5-minute interval)

Flow (veh/5-minute interval)

Flow and Intersection Occupancy

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

Intersection Occupancy (%)

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

11,0

12,0

Intersection Occupancy (%)

Figure 5-33. Flow Intersection Occupancy

[veh/5minute]

Figure 5-34. Flow Intersection Occupancy

[pcu/5minute]

Speed of Each Stream and Intersection Occupancy

Direction of Flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Intersection Occupancy (%)

Figure 5-35. Speed Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream in 5minute intervals

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The following Table 5-14 and Table 5-15 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 5-15 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

0.049 + 0.030 QC A + 0.105 QC B + 0.139 QB C + 0.023 QB A +

0.078 QA C 0.009 QA B
3.357 + 0.121QC A + 0.050 QC B + 0.063 QB C + 0.228 QB A +
0.100 QA C + 0.102 QA B
4.393 0.020 QC A 0.082 QC B + 0.471QB C 0.282 QB A +
0.117 QA C 0.386 QA B
3.289 0.064 QC A + 0.542 QC B + 0.053 QB C 0.054 QB A +
0.128 QA C + 0.0001QA B
0.445 0.074 QC A + 0.209 QC B + 0.034 QB C + 0.461QB A +
0.096 QA C + 0.161QA B
3.152 + 0.152 QC A 0.122 QC B 0.245 QB C + 0.081QB A +
0.052 QA C 0049 QA B
1.972 + 0.041QC A 0.039 QC B + 0.101QB C + 0.007 QB A +
0.038 QA C 0.038 QA B
0.608 + 0.074 QC A 0.216 QC B + 0.148 QB C + 0.374 QB A +
0.149 QA C + 0.147 QA B
1.618 0.068 QC A 0.075 QC B + 0.098 QB C + 0.232 QB A +
0.072 QA C 0.080 QA B
2.447 0.117 QC A 0.057 QC B + 0.065 QB C + 0.047 QB A
0.077 QA C + 0.308 QA B

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 5-14. Flow Intersection Occupancy Relationship from 1minute interval observation

113

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Intersection

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

R2

Form

6.093 0.031QC A + 0.003 QC B + 0.058 QB C + 0.014 QB A +

0.056 QA C + 0.068 QA B
6.095 + 0.046 QC A 0.024 QC B + 0.079 QB C 0.016 QB A +
0.033 QA C + 0.016 QA B
0.045 0.003 QC A 0.012 QC B + 0.069 QB C 0.026 QB A +
0.062 QA C + 0.008 QA B
7.156 0.019 QC A + 0.025 QC B 0.134 QB C + 0.008 QB A
0.019 QA C + 0.049 QA B
6.724 0.014 QC A + 0.018 QC B + 0.008 QB C + 0.053 QB A
0.002 QA C + 0.036 QA B
4.852 + 0.055 QC A + 0.108 QC B + 0.013 QB C 0.006 QB A +
0.014 QA C 0.087 QA B
0.511 0.009 QC A + 0.052 QC B + 0.083 QB C + 0.082 QB A +
0.016 QA C 0.231QA B
1.430 + 0.063 QC A + 0.032 QC B 0.031QB C + 0.112 QB A +
0.039 QA C + 0.029 QA B
2.308 + 0.042 QC A 0.045 QC B 0.031QB C + 0.099 QB A
0.031QA C + 0.076 QA B
0.976 0.061QC A + 0.033 QC B + 0.041QB C + 0.036 QB A
0.006 QA C + 0.016 QA B

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 5-15. 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

(5-22)

R = 0.106 ; S E = 2.12935
2

and for 5minutes interval,

IO = 0.351 + 0.114 QC A + 0.187 QC B + 0.038 QB C + 0.002 QB A 0.039 QA C 0.025 QA B

(5-23)

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The following Table 5-16 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

Table 5-16 . Correlation Between Calculated Parameters; Speed Flow Intersection

Occupancy

5.8

Capacity Defined by Speed and Flow of Conflict Streams

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 5-36. Stream QC influenced by one
conflict stream, QB (I)

QC,VC

Figure 5-37. Stream QC influenced by two

conflict streams, QA (II) and
QB (I)

The typical conflict of two different streams, QB and QC is described in Figure 5-36. The
conflict of QC running through more than one conflict stream, QA and QB is described in
Figure 5-37.
117

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

(5-24)
(5-25)

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]

By using a portion of flow f of each stream i, ( fi) we have

for conflict point I,
VI = aI bI f1 QC cI QC

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 =

(5-26)

aI VI
c
(bI + I )
f1

(5-27)

And for conflict point II we get :

VII = aII bII f 2 QC cII QC

VII = aII bII QA cII

with f 2 =

QA
QC
118

QA
f2

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The flow rates QC and QA are

aII VII
(bII f 2 + cII )
a VII
QA = II
c
(bII + II )
f2

QC =

(5-28)
(5-29)

Speeds at each conflict point (VI' and VII') have to be observed and measured when streams
have reached their maximum flow (QA-MAX, QB-MAX, QC-MAX). If one of the streams i has
reached its maximum flow Qi-MAX, 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 5-24 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
5-11 and Figure 5-37, therefore the following argument can be seen in Figure 5-38.

V [km/h]

VCRITICAL
VCRITICAL = VA` = VC`
V = f (QC)

V = f (QA)

- QA`

QC`

QC

QA

Q [pcu/h]

Figure 5-38. Scheme of Speed Flow Performance of Two Conflict Streams, QA and QC

Figure 5-38 represents the speed flow relationship for two conflict groups with a pre
defined speed VA' = VC'. Considering Figure 5-37 and Equation 5-25 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

For further analysis of the maximum flow of the intersection, the following analogy can be
made :
If flow QA has reached its maximum flow,

QA' = QA-MAX and VII = VII'

(5-30)

then
QB

a V b Q
II
II A MAX
= aI VI cI II

cII

,0

MAX

and

a VII bII QA MAX

QC = II
cII

,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
(5-31)

When flow QB has reached its maximum flow,

(5-32)

QB' = QB-MAX and VI = VI'

then

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
(5-33)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

When flow QC has reached its maximum flow, there are two possibilities of maximum flow
of QC ,
QC-MAX = QC' at VI = VI' (conflict point I) and QC-MAX = QC'' at VII = VII' (II)

(5-34)

therefore,

a VI bI QB
, 0
QC = I

cI

MAX
QC

a V b Q
II
II A
= II
,0

c
II

MAX

then the maximum flow of QC is (QC' , QC'')MAX = QC'''

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
(5-35)
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'
QA-MAX
= Maximum flow of stream B = QB'
QB-MAX
= Maximum flow of stream C = QC'
QC-MAX
= 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]

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

= Speed at conflict point I while a stream reaches its capacity

= Speed at conflict point II while a stream reaches its capacity

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,

C [Qint (1) ,Q int ( 2 ) , Qint ( 3 ) ] MIN

(5-36)

where
C
Qint (1)
Qint (2)
Qint (3)

=
=
=
=

Maximum flow (capacity) of the intersection

Maximum flow of the intersection when QA is maximum, QA-MAX
Maximum flow of the intersection when QB is maximum, QB-MAX
Maximum flow of the intersection when QC is maximum, QC-MAX

[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 5-39
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

Figure 5-39. Stream QC conflicts with two other streams, QA and QB

122

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

At the maximum volume QC = QC-MAX of movement C it is assumed for the corresponding

speed VC' that

VC = aC bC QC MAX bBQB bAQA

VC = aC bC QC MAX (bB f1 QC MAX ) (bA f 2 QC MAX )

VC = aC [bC + (bB f1 ) + (bA f 2 )]QC MAX

(5-37)

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

a VC bC QC MAX (bA f 2 QC MAX )

QB = C
, 0
= {(QC MAX f1 ), 0}MAX

bB

MAX

The maximum flow of the intersection, Qint (1) is

a V b Q

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
(5-38)

At the maximum volume QA = QA-MAX 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

(5-39)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

The maximum flow of the intersection, Qint (2) is

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

(5-40)

At the maximum volume QB = QB-MAX for movement B the speed VB' is :

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

(5-41)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

The maximum flow of the intersection, Qint (3) is

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

(5-42)

From those three alternatives for the maximum flow of movements, the capacity of the
intersection is defined as

C [Qint(1), Qint(2), Qint(3)]MIN

5.9

(5-43)

Capacity Analysis for ThreeLeg Unsignalized Intersections

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 5-1 and Figure 5-40). 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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

I
QC-A
QC-B

IV
VI

Q A-C
Q A-B

III

II
Q B-C
QB-A

Figure 5-40. Scheme of Conflict Points and Streams at ThreeLeg Intersection

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 =

QC-A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
, f 2 = C-B , f 3 = B-C , f 4 = C-B , f 5 = A-C , f 6 = A-C
QB-A
QA-B
QA-C
QB-A
QC-B
QB-A

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

(5-44)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

At the conflict point II,

VII = a II bII QC B c II Q A B

QC B

QA B

( 2)

( 2)

(5-45)

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

At the conflict point III,

VIII = a III bIII QB C c III Q AC

QB C

QA C

( 3)

( 3)

(5-46)

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

At the conflict point IV,

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

(5-47)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

At the conflict point V,

VV = aV bV QC B cV Q AC

QC B

QA C

(5)

(5)

(5-48)

aV VV
=
, 0
(bV + cV f 5 )
MAX

aV VV

, 0
=

bV + c
V
f 5

{(

= QC B

(5)

) }

f 5 , 0 MAX

MAX

At conflict point VI,

VVI = aVI bVI QB A cVI Q AC

QB A

QA C

(6)

( 6)

(5-49)

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 QC-A to reach its maximum flow, QC-A(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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

( 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

aVI (1) VVI (1)

, 0

(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)

aII (1) VII (1)

= (1)
, 0
(1)
bII f 2 + cII MAX

The maximum flow of the intersection whose subject stream QC-A 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)

(5-50)

where
QC-A(1)

= Maximum flow of stream QC-A as an input flow

129

[pcu/h]

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

Vi(1)
(1)

(1)

ai , bi , ci

(1)

= Average speed at conflict point i when QC-A reaches its

maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QC-A reaches its
maximum flow

[pcu/h]
[-]

For the subject stream QC-B to reach its maximum flow, (QC-B(2) , QC-B(4), QC-B(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)

bVI + cVI f 6 MAX

MAX

(
(

( 2)
I
( 2)

, 0
MAX

130

( 2)

VI
( 2)
f1 + cI

)
)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

( 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 QC-B reaches its
maximum flow is
(1)

C2 = QC B , MAX + QC A + QB C

( 3)

+ QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX + QA B

( 2)

(5-51)

where
QC-B,MAX
Vi(2)
ai(2), bi(2), ci(2)

= Maximum flow of stream QC-B as an input flow

= Average speed at conflict point i when QC-B reaches its
maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QC-B reaches its
maximum flow

[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[-]

By using the same procedure, other alternatives (alternative3, alternative4, alternative5,

alternative6) can be concluded as :

The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative3 whose QB-C reaches its maximum
flow with speed of VB-C(3),
C3 = QB C

( 3)

(1)

+ QC A + QC B , MAX + QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX + QA B

( 2)

(5-52)

where
QB-C (3)
Vi(3)
ai(3), bi(3), ci(3)

= Maximum flow of stream QB-C as an input flow

at alternative3
= Average speed at conflict point i when QB-C reaches its
maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QB-C reaches its
maximum flow

131

[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[-]

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The maximum flow of intersection at alternative4 whose subject stream QB-A reaches its
maximum flow with speed VB-A(4) is
(1)

( 3)

C4 = QB A, MAX + QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C

+ QA C , MAX + QA B

( 2)

(5-53)

where
QB-A,MAX
Vi(4)
ai(4), bi(4), ci(4)

= Maximum flow of stream QB-A as an input flow

at alternative4
= Average speed at conflict point i when QB-A reaches its
maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QB-A reaches its
maximum flow

[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[-]

The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative5 whose subject stream QA-C reaches its
maximum flow with speed of VA-C(5) is
(1)

C5 = QA C , MAX + QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C

( 3)

+ QB A, MAX + QA B

( 2)

(5-54)

where
QA-C,MAX
Vi

(5)

(5)

(5)

ai , bi , ci

(5)

= Maximum flow of stream QA-C as an input flow at

alternative5
= Average speed at conflict point i when QA-C reaches its
maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QA-C reaches its
maximum flow

[pcu/h]
[km/h]
[-]

The maximum flow of the intersection at alternative6 whose subject stream QA-B reaches its
maximum flow with the speed of VA-B(6) is
C6 = QA B

( 2)

(1)

+ QC A + QC B , MAX + QB C

( 3)

+ QB A, MAX + QA C , MAX

(5-55)

where
QA-B(2)
Vi(6)
ai(6), bi(6), ci(6)

= Maximum flow of stream QA-B as an input flow

at alternative6
= Average speed at conflict point i when QA-B reaches its
maximum flow
= Constant at conflict point i when QA-B reaches its
maximum flow

[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

(5-56)

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

streams of each group of

equations :

conflict. Thus, we can also take into account the following

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 5-11).

The following flow analysis were described as follows

If streams flow QC-A reaches its maximum flow at

Q (1)
(1)

VC A = aC A bC A QC A bB A C A
f1

(5-57)

the maximum flow of all streams are

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

{(

) }

a VB A bB A QB A(1) bC A QC A(1) bC B QC B (1)

(1)
= f 6 QB A , 0 MAX
= B A
, 0
b

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

) }

) }

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

And the maximum flow of the intersection is

Qint MAXIMUM

(1)

(1)

(1)

= QC A + QC B + QB C

(1)

(1)

+ QB A + QA C

(1)

+ QA B

(1)

(5-58)

If streams flow QC-B reaches its maximum flow at

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

(5-59)

The maximum flows of all streams are

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

{(

) }

And the maximum flow of the intersection is

Qint MAXIMUM

( 2)

= QC A

( 2)

+ QC B

( 2)

+ QB C

134

( 2)

+ QB A

( 2)

+ QA C

( 2)

+ QA B

( 2)

(5-60)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

If streams flow QB-C reaches its maximum flow at

Q ( 4)

( 4)
VB C = aB C bB C QB C bA C B C
f3

(5-61)

The maximum flow of all streams,

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

{(

) }

And the maximum flow of the intersection is

Qint MAXIMUM

( 3)

= QC A

( 3)

+ QC B

( 3)

+ QB C

( 3)

+ QB A

( 3)

+ QA C

( 3)

+ QA B

( 3)

(5-62)

If streams flow QB-A reaches its maximum flow at

( 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

(5-63)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

the maximum flows of all streams are

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

And the maximum flow of the intersection is

Qint MAXIMUM

( 4)

= QC A

( 4)

+ QC B

( 4)

+ Q B C

( 4)

+ QB A

( 4)

+ Q A C

( 4)

+ Q A B

( 4)

(5-64)

If streams flow QA-C reaches its maximum flow at

( 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

the maximum flow of all streams are

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

) }

(5-65)

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

{(

) }

And the maximum flow of the intersection is

Qint MAXIMUM

(5)

= QC A

( 5)

+ QC B

(5)

+ QB C

( 5)

+ QB A

( 5)

+ QA C

( 5)

+ QA B

( 5)

(5-66)

If streams flow QA-B reaches its maximum flow

(6)
(6)
VA B = a A B bA B QA B bC B f 2 QA B

(5-67)

the maximum flows of all streams are

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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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

{(

) }

And the maximum flow of the intersection,

Qint MAXIMUM

(6)

= QC A

(6)

+ QC B

(6)

+ QB C

( 6)

+ QB A

(6)

+ QA C

(6)

+ QA B

( 6)

(5-68)

The total maximum flow of the intersection is the least maximum flow from all possible
maximum flows, Qint-MAXIMUM

(1)

( 2)

( 3)

( 4)

( 5)

Cint . = Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM , Qint MAXIMUM

(6)

MIN

(5-69)

In order to simplify the calculation and performance for data and results, a matrix for capacity
analysis of the total intersection is used (Table 5-17).
Speed at
Maximum
Flows Subject
Stream

VC-A=VC-A'
VC-B=VC-B'
VB-C=VB-C'
VB-A=VB-A'
VA-C=VA-C'
VA-B=VA-B'

Maximum
Flows
Subject
Stream

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

Maximum Flows Stream

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

QC-A(1)
QC-A(2)
QC-A(3)
QC-A(4)
QC-A(5)
QC-A(6)

QC-B(1)
QC-B(2)
QC-B(3)
QC-B(4)
QC-B(5)
QC-B(6)

QB-C(1)
QB-C(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-C(4)
QB-C(5)
QB-C(6)

QB-A(1)
QB-A(2)
QB-A(3)
QB-A(4)
QB-A(5)
QB-A(6)

QA-C(1)
QA-C(2)
QA-C(3)
QA-C(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-C(6)

QA-B(1)
QA-B(2)
QA-B(3)
QA-B(4)
QA-B(5)
QA-B(6)

Maximum Flow of Intersection =

Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection

Qint(1)
Qint(2)
Qint(3)
Qint(4)
Qint(5)
Qint(6)
Qint(i)MIN

Table 5-17 . Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Intersection

Table 5-17 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
5-57 to Equation 5-69. 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
QA-C = 639.2 pcu/h , QA-B = 350.2 pcu/h , QB-A = 272.2 pcu/h , QB-C = 222.3 pcu/h,
QC-A = 570.3 pcu/h , QC-B = 168.2 pcu/h
138

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The portion of flow is

f1 =

QB-A 272.2
=
QC-A 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 QC-A(1) from the calculation (input data), and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows : QB-A(1), QC-B(1), QA-C(1), QA-B(1), QB-C(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 :
VC-B = 18.189 0.211QC-B 0.268 QB-A 0.084 QA-C 0.229 QA-B

The portion of flow is

Q
Q
Q
639.2
168.2
168.2
f 2 = CB =
; f 3 = A C =
; f 4 = C B =
QA B 350.2
QC B 168.2
QB A 272.2
QA B = 2.082 QC B ; QAC = 3.800 QC B ; QB A = 1.618 QC B
Thus,

( 2)

VC B = 18.189 1.44 QC B

QC B

( 2)

18.189 V
CB
, 0
=

1
.
44

MAX

By using QC-B(2) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QA-B(2), QA-C(2), QB-A(2), QB-C(2), QC-A(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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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 QB-C(3) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QA-C(3), QC-B(3), QA-B(3), QB-A(3), QC-A(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 :
VB-A = 29.802 0.045 QC-A 0.014 QC-B 0.157 QB-A 0.058 QA-C

The portion of flow is

Q
272.2
Q
168.2
Q
639.2
f1 = B-A =
; f4 = C B =
; f6 = AC =
QC-A 570.3
QB A 272.2
QB A 272.2
QC A = 2.095 QB A ; QC B = 0.618 QB A ; QA C = 2.348 QB A
Thus,

( 4)

VB A = 29.802 0.395 QB A

QB A

( 4)

29.802 V
B A
,0
=

0.395

MAX

By using QB-A(4) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QC-A(4), QC-B(4), QA-C(4), QB-C(4), QA-B(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

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

At conflict groupV :
VA-C = 31.657 0.161QC-B 0.44 QB-C 0.265 QB-A 0.311QA-C
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 QA-C(5) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QB-C(5), QC-B(5), QB-A(5), QA-B(5), QC-A(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 :
VA-B = 29.387 0.014 QC-B 0.506 QA-B
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 QA-B(6) (input data) from the calculation, and with previous formulas we can easily
find other maximum flows, QC-B(6), QA-C(6), QB-A(6), QC-A(6), QB-C(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), QC-A(1), QC-B(2), QB-C(3), QB-A(4),
QA-C(5), QA-B(6).
141

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

The total maximum flow (capacity) of the intersection is

Cintersection = {C(1), C(2), C(3), C(4), C(5), C(6)}MIN
A calculation pattern {follow the number : [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]} of each stream is presented
in Table 5-18. The results are presented with the following table/matrix at Table 5-19.
Speed at
Maximum
Maximum
Flows
Flows Subject Subject
Stream
Stream

Maximum Flows Stream

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

QA-C(1)

QA-B(1)

Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection

[1]
[2]

VC-A=VC-A'

QC-A

(1)

QC-A

(1)

QC-B

(1)

[3]

QB-C(1)

QB-A(1)
[4]

[5]

[1]

VC-B=VC-B'

QC-B(2)

QC-A(2)

QC-B(2)

Qi(1)

[2]

QB-C(2)

QB-A(2)

QA-B(2)

Qi(2)

QA-B(3)

Qi(3)

[3]

[4]

[5]

QA-C(2)

[1]
[2]

VB-C=VB-C'

QB-C(3)

QC-A

(3)

QC-B

(3)

[3]

QB-C(3)

QB-A

(3)

QA-C(3)

[5]

[4]

[1]
[2]

VB-A=VB-A'

QB-A

(4)

QC-A

(4)

[3]

QC-B

(4)

QB-C(4)

QB-A(4)

QA-C(4)

QA-B(4)

Qi(4)

QA-B(5)

Qi(5)

[4]
[5]
[1]

[2]

VA-C=VA-C'

QA-C(5)

QC-A(5)

QC-B(5)

QB-C(5)

QB-A(5)

[3]

QA-C(5)

[4]
[5]
[1]

[2]

VA-B=VA-B'

QA-B

(6)

QC-A

(6)

QC-B

(6)

QB-C(6)

QB-A(6)
[4]

QA-C(6)
[3]

QA-B(6)

Qi(6)

[5]

Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Intersection = Qi(j)MIN

Table 5-18. Flow Pattern for Matrix of Maximum Flow

142

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

143

5 New Approach of Capacity Calculation Based on Conflicting Streams

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. QC-A(1), VC-A' means that other streams would not meet their
(real) maximum flow (QC-B(2), QB-C(3), QB-A(4), QA-C(5), QA-B(6)) and their (real) speed (VC-B',
VB-C', VB-A', VA-C', VA-B'). By using the value of maximum flow, e.g. QC-A(1) , the speed, VC-A'
and the streams speeds VC-B, VB-C, VB-A, VA-C, VA-B, other streams flow, QC-B(1), QB-C(1),
QB-A(1), QA-C(1), QA-B(1) can easily be calculated from the regression equations.

144

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

Traffic Quality and Performance

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

Maximum Flow (Capacity) from the conflict streams method

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

(6-1)

j =1

where
Ctotal
Ci j
i

= Total maximum stream volumes at the intersection

= Maximum flow of stream i when subject stream j reaches
its maximum flow
= 1 for movement C A
= 2 for movement C B
= 3 for movement B C
= 4 for movement B A
= 5 for movement A C
= 6 for movement A B

145

[pcu/h]
[pcu/h]

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-1.
Subject
Stream

Maximum Flows of Subject Stream

QC-A(1) = CC-A

18.095 0.075 Q V
B-A
C-A
, 0

0.191

MAX

Ctotal = Ci

CC-B

19.949 0.357 Q 0.234 Q + 0.113 Q V

B A
AC
A B
CB
, 0

0
069
.

MAX

Ctotal = Ci

CB-C

13.799 + 0.033 Q V
AC
B C
, 0

0
397
.

MAX

Ctotal = Ci

QC-B(2) =

QB-C(3) =

Total Maximum
Flows Stream
6

i =1
6

( 3)

i =1

QB-A(4) = CB-A

Ctotal = Ci

QA-C(5) =

17.129 0.06 Q 0.015 Q 0.205 Q V

CB
B C
B A
AC
, 0

.
0
149

MAX

Ctotal = Ci

15.835 + 0.207 Q V
CB
A B
, 0

0
210
.

MAX

Ctotal = Ci

QA-B(6) = CA-B

( 2)

i =1

16.064 0.095 Q + 0.443 Q 0.337 Q V

CA
CB
AC
B A
, 0

.
0
179

MAX

CA-C

(1)

( 4)

i =1
6

(5)

i =1
6

(6)

i =1

Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Intersection =

6 j
Cint . = Ci
j =1 MIN

Table 6-1. 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 5-57 to Equation 5-69.
Speed at
Maximum
Flows Subject
Stream

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

Maximum
Flows
Subject
Stream

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

Maximum Flows Stream

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

CC-A

QC-B(1)

QB-C(1)
QB-C(2)

QB-A(1)
QB-A(2)
QB-A(3)

QA-C(1)
QA-C(2)
QA-C(3)
QA-C(4)

QA-B(1)
QA-B(2)
QA-B(3)
QA-B(4)
QA-B(5)

QC-A(2)
QC-A(3)
QC-A(4)
QC-A(5)
QC-A(6)

CC-B

QC-B(3)
QC-B(4)
QC-B(5)
QC-B(6)

CB-C

QB-C(4)
QB-C(5)
QB-C(6)

CB-A

QB-A(5)
QB-A(6)

CA-C

QA-C(6)

CA-B

Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Intersection =

Table 6-2. Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity) of Intersection

146

Total
Maximum
Flow at
Intersection

Qi(1)
Qi(2)
Qi(3)
Qi(4)
Qi(5)
Qi(6)
Qi(j)MIN

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-3 and for speed values of
11 km/h and 12 km/h Table 6-4 and 6-5 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 6-4 and Table 6-5 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

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

Speed at
Maximum
Flow

Maximum
Flow

QC-A

QB-C

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

Speed at
Maximum
Flow

Maximum
Flow

QC-A

0.00
0.00
982.31
0.00
412.16
415.19

QC-B

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

0.00 875.93 3716.99

0.00 3484.62 5832.31
0.00 848.75 4178.75
0.00 875.93 3229.04
935.70 864.53 5010.48
0.00 864.44 3627.32
Capacity of Intersection = 3229.04
Table 6-3. Capacity Intersection (Data) from Intersection1

11
11
11
11
11
11

1923.16
2347.69
2347.69
2343.02
1960.13
2347.69

QC-B

QB-C

917.91
0.00
0.00
10.08
837.96
0.00

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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 6-4. Capacity Intersection (Model with speed, v = 11 km/h) from Intersection1

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(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

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

1612.46
0.00
1479.87 366.67
1500.53 381.13
1889.67
63.19
1859.01 1581.83
1636.08 999.44

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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 6-5. Capacity Intersection (Model with speed, v = 12 km/h) from Intersection1

147

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 :

C = C0 FW FM FCS FRSU FLT FRT FMI

(6-2)

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 6-6 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 6-7.
148

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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

Table 6-6. Adjustment Factors for Capacity Based on Empirical Approach

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 6-7. Total Capacity Intersection Calculated by the IHCM (1997) Method

Based on the capacity calculation, both methods are compared in the following graph in
Figure 6-1. 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

Intersection/Approximate Speed to the Maximum Flow [km/h]

1
22

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 6-8. Approximate Speed to the Maximum Flow (results close to the manual)
149

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

CAPACITY CALIBRATION
7000

DATA

6500
6000

AVERAGE DATA
IHCM-1997

5500

MODEL v=10 km/h

Capacity [pcu/h]

5000

MODEL v=11 km/h

4500
4000

MODEL v=12 km/h

MODEL v=13 km/h

3500

MODEL v=14 km/h

3000
2500

MODEL v=15 km/h

2000
1500
1000
500
0
1

10

Intersection

Figure 6-1. Capacity Calibrated Data IHCM Model

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

Figure 6-2. Capacity Calibrated Data IHCM Model (v = 10 km/h 13 km/h)

150

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-1. 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 6-2) 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 6-8).
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

Table 6-9. Standard Deviation of Capacity for different speeds, V

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 6-2). A standard deviation of the resulting capacities for each speed is
presented in Table 6-9.

6.4

Relationship Between Speed and Flow of Intersection

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

V = 16.863 0.0015 Qtotal

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Flow [pcu/h]

Figure 6-3. Relationship Between Speed and Total Flow of Intersection

151

4500

5000

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-9, Figure 6-3 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

Relationship Between Flow and Intersection Occupancy of Intersection

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 6-3 and Equation 6-4 show the relationships for 1minute
and 5minute intervals which are considered to be suitable for all intersections,

For a 1minute interval we find

Intersection Occupancy = 3.298 + 0.136QC A + 0.073QC B + 0.085QB C + 0.156QB A + 0.042Q AC
+ 0.154Q A B

(6-3)

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]

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

And for a 5minute interval we find

Intersection Occupancy = 0.351 + 0.114QC A + 0.187QC B + 0.038QB C + 0.002QB A + 0.039Q AC
0.025Q A B

(6-4)

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 6-3, the flow measurement (each stream) and the predicted maximum flow
(capacity) at the speed of 12.0 km/h, are given in Figure 6-4 and Table 6-10. 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)

Intersection Occupancy (%)

18

Maximum flow (capacity)

16
14
12

11,02

10
8 7,51

10,44 10,14 10,06

9,77

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 6-4. Intersection occupancy with data measurement and maximum flow (capacity)
153

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

Intersection Occupancy [%]

Form

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

3.298 + 0.136 Q C-A + 0.073 Q C-B

+ 0.085 Q B-C +
0.156 Q B-A +
0.042 Q A-C + 0.154 Q A-B

Table 6-10. 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 6-5 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.

Intersection Occupancy [%]

FLOW AND INTERSECTION OCCUPANCY

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Maximum flow (model)

Flow (measurement)
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Flow [pcu/1-minute interval]

Figure 6-5. Intersection Occupancy and Total of Traffic Flow

154

90

100

110

120

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

6.6

Delay and Probability of Queue

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

Control Delay [sec/veh]

A
B
C
D
E
F

0 10
> 10 15
> 15 25
> 25 35
> 35 50
> 50

Table 6-11. 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 6-6.

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

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-6. 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 )

(6-5)

(6-6)

where
DS
D

= Degree of Saturation
= Delay

[-]
[sec/pcu]

(see also Figure 6-6).

156

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

This formula was presented in the INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

(No. 09/T/BNKT/1993), which is known as the preliminary research report from the Ministry
of Public Works after two years observation at 275 locations in 16 cities in Indonesia.
However, this only considers the delay as a total average of vehicles delay at intersection
without analyzing any impact on each traffic stream or traffic flow from major and minor
roads. Further improvements on delay measurement have been presented in the final report
which is the INDONESIAN HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (1997) where delay was
found to be smaller (1 DS)2 than in the previous approach, see Figure 6-7, Equations 6-7
and Equation 6-8.

Tundaan Total Lalulintas DT1 (det/smp)

30
DT = 2 + 8,2078*DS - (1-DS)*2 untuk DS 0,6
25

DT = 1,0504 / (0,2742 - 0,2042*DS) - (1 - DS)*2 untuk DS > 0,6

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

Derajat Kejenuhan (DS)

Figure 6-7. 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]

(6-7)

if DS > 0.6,
D=

1.0504
[( 1 DS) 2]
[0.2742 ( 0.2042 DS)]

(6-8)

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

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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.

Tundaan Utama Lalulintas DT MA (det/smp)

25
DT = 1,8 + 5,8234*DS - (1 - DS)*1,8 untuk DS 0,6
20

DT = 1,05034 / (0,346 - 0,246*DS) - (1 - DS)*1,8 untuk DS > 0,6

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 6-8. Delay at Major Road (DTMA) and Degree of Saturation (DS) (IHCM, 1997)
158

1,2

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-8)
if DS 0.6 :
DMA = 1.8 + ( 5.8234 DS) [( 1 DS) 1.8]

(6-9)

if DS > 0.6:
DMA =

1.05034
[( 1 DS) 1.8]
[0.346 ( 0.246 DS)]

(6-10)

and delay at minor road, DMI is measured as

DMI =

[(QTOTAL DT1 ) (QMA DMA )]

QMI

(6-11)

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

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 )

(6-12)

if DS 1 :
DG = 4

(6-13)

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

(6-14)

where
D
DT1
DG

= Total delay of the intersection

[sec/pcu]
= Average delay of the intersection according to eq. 6-7 and 6-8 [sec/pcu]
= Geometric delay
[sec/pcu]

From the measured flow data and the calculated maximum flow of intersections, the
following graph (Figure 6-9) is plotted based on Equation 6-14. 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 6-1). 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

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-9. 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 6-13.

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 6-11 for DS < 0.60, Figure 6-12 and Figure 6-13 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 6-14 and from that,
we can see the delay comparisons retaining differences at a corridor of about 2 seconds lower
and higher.

161

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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

Figure 6-10. Linear Regression, DS < 0.60

0,4

0,5

0,6

Figure 6-11. Exponential Delay, DS < 0.60

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

Figure 6-12. Linear Regression, DS < 0.90

Figure 6-13. Exponential Delay, DS < 0.90

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DELAY

18
IHCM

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

Delay (data) [second/pcu]

Figure 6-14. Comparison Calculated Delay IHCM Model (v = 11 km/h and v = 12 km/h)

162

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

6.6.2 Probability of Queue

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.

The theoretical behavior of queues at major/minor priority intersections under conditions of

statistical equilibrium has been well documented. Although techniques have also been
developed to describe the behavior of queuing systems under condition of variable demand
and capacity, they are not used in practice for intersection under mixed traffic where rule of
priority no longer exist. The simplest technique is to assume that queues grow at a rate
determined only by the excess of demand over capacity, and decay when demand has fallen
below capacity, at a rate given by the difference. However, the effects of random fluctuations
in traffic arrivals and departures at the intersections are then ignored, although, in fact, they
are extremely important. For example, in cases where the peak demand does not quite reach
capacity the predicted delays are zero, whereas in reality they are known to be considerable.

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

queue probability at upper range,

QP% = 47.71 DS 24.68 DS 2 + 10.49 DS 3

(6-15)

and queue probability at lower range is

QP% = 9.02 DS + 20.66 DS 2 + 10.49 DS 3

(6-16)

where
QP% = Queue Probability
DS
= Degree of Saturation

[%]
[-]

(see also Figure 6-15).

163

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

Figure 6-15. Range of Queue Probability QP% (%) versus Degree of Saturation, DS (IHCM)

QUEUE PROBABILITY QP%

(Lower Range)
25,0

DATA

22,5

IHCM
MODEL V=11 km/h

Queue Probability (%)

20,0

MODEL V=12 km/h

17,5
15,0
12,5
10,0
7,5
5,0
2,5
0,0
1

10

Intersection

Figure 6-16. Queue Probability QP% at Lower Range (Data IHCM Model)

164

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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 6-16
for lower range queue probability, Figure 6-17 for higher range queue probability and
Table 6-12).

QUEUE PROBABILITY QP%

(Upper Range)
50,0

DATA
IHCM
MODEL V=11 km/h
MODEL V=12 km/h

45,0

Queue Probability (%)

40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
1

10

Intersection

Figure 6-17. 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

39.56 29.97 12.70 10.80 25.54 19.22 15.86

38.68 28.04 13.65 11.34 27.26 19.66 16.75

7.03
5.87

7.25
7.79

13.20
13.05

23.81 15.77 15.74

6.07

29.86 13.32 18.27

6.25

4.76

12.50

31.36 19.79 20.07

7.34

41.41 16.53 23.19

7.45

5.78

15.10

Table 6-12. Range of Queue Probability QP% [%] Calculation with Degree of Saturation, DS
165

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

QUEUE PROBABILITY
45

Lower range QP%

Upper range QP%

40
Queue Probability, QP%

QP% = 52.096 DS 3 19.867 DS 2 + 45.974 DS + 0.2307

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 6-18. 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%,
(6-17)

QP% = 52.096 DS 3 19.867 DS 2 + 45.974 DS + 0.2307

R 2 = 0.999

and for lower range QP%,

QP% = 8.3395 DS 3 + 22.872 DS 2 + 8.3029 DS + 0.0863

(6-18)

R = 0.999
2

where
QP% = Queue probability
DS
= Degree of Saturation

[%]
[-]

The regression lines are similar to the formula from the manual (Figure 6-15) as can be seen
in Figure 6-18. There is an additional constant of 0.2307 for a upper range QP% and 0.0863
for a lower QP%.
166

6 Traffic Quality and Performance

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

Table 6-13. Traffic Quality of Intersections

Referring to the final report of KALIMANTAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(1998), the quality/level of service at unsignalized intersections is measured based on the
probability of queues and delays of each stream and the level of service is classified as six (6)
levels; A, B, C, D, E and F (HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, 1994). When we adopt the
level performance criteria from HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (2000) which
correspond to the delay, the intersections would remain at level A and only intersection1
and intersection5 remain at level B (see also Table 6-11). The following Table 6-13
performed details on traffic flow quality at the speed v=12 km/h.

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 :

cities, pedestrian problems essentially break down into the following

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 7-1 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

Average Speed [km/h]

3.69
4.46
3.17
2.43
4.10
5.10
3.88
2.60
3.68
2.88

42
361
334
81
15
68
218
85
52
19

Table 7-1. 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.

Pedestrians phase [4]

Pedestrians phase [2]

Crossing path

[3]

[2]

Vehicles stream

Crossing path

Vehicles stream

[1]

[1]
Pedestrians crossing

Pedestrians crossing

Figure 7-1. Pedestrian Crossing with 2 (two)

Phases

Figure 7-1. Pedestrian Crossing with 4 (four)

Phases
169

7 Pedestrians Behavior

In this case, they required to have more time in order to cross the road. This phenomenon is
described in Figure 7-1 (pedestrian crossing with 2 phases/direct crossing) and Figure 7-2
(pedestrian crossing with 4 phases). It was assumed that vehicle streams have the same speed
in both directions in both cases. From Figure 7-1 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 7-2 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

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions and Recommendations

Studies have been performed on capacity calculation at unsignalized intersections by several

ways and based on several rules, e.g. priority, gap acceptance, and empirical approach.
Models from developed countries mainly use the gap acceptance method while the United
Kingdom created its model by empirical regression based on a large number of field data in
modern British streets. Recent advance in capacity analysis at unsignalized intersections was
developed by the conflict technique. The method considered the interactions between streams
in a way that each stream would have equal hierarchy in departure and arrival at the
intersections. Therefore, the procedure is applied in such a way that the FirstInFirstOut
(FIFO) discipline is applied and intersections with this discipline are common in developing
countries.

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

8 Conclusions and Recommendations

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

ARASAN THAMIZH, V.; KOSHY, R. Z. (2003) :

Headway Distribution of Heterogeneous Traffic on Urban Arterial, Journal of Institution of
Engineers (India), vol. 84, November 2003, pp. 210-215.
ARASAN THAMIZH, V. ; JAGADEESH, K. (1995) :
Effect of Heterogeneity of Traffic on Delay at Signalized Intersections, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 121(5), pp. 397-404.
BRILON, W (Editor). (1988) :
Intersections Without Traffic Signals, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bochum,
West Germany.
BRILON, W (Editor). (1991) :
Intersections Without Traffic Signals II, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bochum,
West Germany.
BRILON, W.; R. KNIG.; R. TROUTBECK. (1997) :
Useful Estimation Procedures for Critical Gaps, Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals, Portland, Oregon USA, pp. 71-87.
BRILON, W.; R. TROUTBECK.; M.TRACZ. (1997) :
Review of International Practices Used To Evaluate Unsignalized Intersections,
Transportation Research Circular, No. 468, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
BRILON, W.; N. WU. (2001) :
Capacity at TWSC Derived by Conflict Technique, Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, Ruhr
Universitt Bochum, bisher unverffentlicht.
BNG, K.-L.; A. CARLSSON.; PALGUNADI. (1995) :
Development of Speed Flow Relationships for Indonesian Rural Roads Using Empirical
Data and Simulation, Transportation Research Record 1484, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., pp. 24-32.
BNG, KL.; HESHEN AI. (2000) :
Development of Capacity Guidelines for Road Links and Intersections for Henan and Hebei
Provinces, PRC, Transportation Research Circular EC018 : 4th International Symposium on
Highway Capacity, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
BUDHY TJAHJATI S. SOEGIJOKO.; SHARIF I. HORTHY. (1991) :
Role of Nonmotorized Transport Modes in Indonesia Cities, Transportation Research Record
1294, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp. 16-25.
COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND QUALITY OF SERVICE. (1997) :
Review of International Practices Used To Evaluate Unsignalized Intersections,
Transportation Research Circular, Number 468, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.

173

9 References

CUTHBERT, RICHARD. (1983) :

The Jakarta Traffic Management Study (Assessment of PCUs values), Traffic Engineering
and Control, pp. 366-371.
CHANDRA, S.; SIKDAR, P. K. (2000) :
Factors Affecting PCU in Mixed Traffic Situations in Urban Roads, Road and Transport
Research, 9(3), pp. 40-50.
CHANDRA, S.; SINHA, S. (2001) :
Effect of Directional Split and SlowMoving Vehicles on Two Lane Capacity, Road and
Transport Research, 10(4), pp. 33-41.
CHANDRA, S.; KUMAR, R. (1999) :
Headway Modeling Under Mixed Traffic on Urban Roads, Road and Transport Research,
10(1), pp. 61-71.
CHANDRA, S.; P.K.SIKDAR.; V. KUMAR. (1994) :
Rightturn Saturation Flow at Signalized Intersections, Road and Transport Research, 3(1),
pp. 60-73.
COWAN, R. J. (1975) :
Useful Headway Models, Transportation Research, 9.
CHIN, HOONGCHOR; SERTONG QUEK. (1997) :
Measurement of Traffic Conflict, Safety Science, 26(3), pp.169-184.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS. (1998) :
Kalimantan Urban Development Project, The Traffic Management Implementation Program
in Banjarmasin, Pontianak and Balikpapan, Final Report.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHWAYS, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS. (1997) :
Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual, Jakarta.
GACA, S.; J. CHODUR. (1998) :
Research on Capacity and Traffic Conditions at Unsignalized Urban Intersections, Third
International Symposium on Highway Capacity, Vol. 1, Road Directorate, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
GLEUE, A. W. (1972) :
Vereinfachtes verfahren zur Berechnung signalgeregelter Knotenpunkte, Forschung
Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, No. 136, Bonn.
GRIFFITH, J. D. (1981) :
A Mathematical Model of a Nonsignalized Pedestrian Crossing, Transportation Science, 15
(3), 222-232.
GRIFFITH, J. D.; J. G. HUNT. (1991) :
Vehicles Headways in Urban Areas, Traffic Engineering and Control, October 1991, pp. 458462.

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. 60-70.
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) 3-46.
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. 129-133.
KATAMIE, N. M. (2000) :
Various Volume Definitions With Conflicts at Unsignalized Intersections, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 126(1), pp. 27-34.

175

9 References

MARLOW, M.; G. MAYCOCK. (1982) :

The Effect of Zebra Crossings on Junction Entry Capacities, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory (TRRL), Supplementary Report 724, Crowthorne.
PRASETIJO, J. (2005) :
Capacity at Unsignalized Intersections Under Mixed Traffic Flow Analyzed by Empirical and
Conflict Technique (Preliminary Design for Indonesia), International Conference on Toward
Indonesia 2020 (ICTI2020), Verband Indonesischer Fachkraefle und Akademiker in
Deutschland e.V., Hamburg.
REPLOGLE, M. (1991) :
NonMotorized Vehicles in Asia : Lessons for Sustainable Transport Planning and Policy,
World Bank Technical Report 162, Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Ave.
NW, Washington D.C 20009.
RAMANAYYA, T.V. (1988) :
Highway Capacity Under Mixed Traffic Conditions, Traffic Engineering and Control, May
1988, pp. 284-287.
RICHARDSON, A. J. (1987) :
A Delay Model for Multiway StopSign Intersections, Transportation Research Record 1112,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
RENGARAJU, V. R.; RAO TRINADHA, V. (1998) :
Modeling Conflicts of Heterogeneous Traffic at Urban Uncontrolled Intersections, Journal of
Transportation Engineers, ASCE, 124(1), pp. 23-34.
RENGARAJU, V. R.; RAO TRINADHA, V. (1997) :
Probabilistic Model For Conflicts at Urban Uncontrolled Intersection, Journal of
Transportation Engineers, ASCE, 123(1), pp. 81-84.
RENGARAJU, V. R.; RAO TRINADHA, V. (1995) :
VehicleArrival Characteristics at Urban Uncontrolled
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 121(4), pp. 317-323.

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. 347-351.
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. 13-18.

176

9 References

TIWARI, G.; D. MOHAN; J. FAZIO. (1998) :

Conflict Analysis For Prediction Of Fatal Crash Locations In Mixed Traffic Streams,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(2), pp. 207-215.
TANABORIBON, Y.; T. AGUSTIN; Y. MING FUNG. (1995) :
Experiences in Developing Countries with Impact of Exclusive Lanes for Nonmotorized
Transportation : Case Studies of China and Indonesia, Transportation Research Record 1487,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp. 84-89.
WU, NING. (1999) :
Capacity at AllWay StopControlled (AWSC) and FirstInFirst Out (FIFO) Intersections,
Arbeitsbltter, Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen, RuhrUniversitt Bochum.

177

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Appendix A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. Intersection :
Kasih

Komodor Yos Sudarso Hasanuddin Pak

A 1. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A-1

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. 2 Traffic Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

1206
480

Three-legs/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

A-2

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
120

110

100

90

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

A-3

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

0,0

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

100,0%

90,0%

70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

Speed (km/h)

A-4

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

1.600

Flow of each stream

1.400

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]
Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow
26,5%

54,2%

19,3%

A-5

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

4.000

Flow of each type of vehicle

3.500
3.483

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

A-6

Bicycle

Rickshaw

Pushcart 2
wheels

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 1. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

A-7

Bicycle

Rickshaw

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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-8

Bicycle

Rickshaw

Pushcart 2
wheels

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

A-9

Bicycle

Rickshaw

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 2. Intersection : K.H. Wahid Hasyim Hasanuddin

A 2. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A - 13

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 2. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

1097
681

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 2. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
120

110

100

90

Flow (veh/1-minute)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1-minute 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-minute 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

Intersection occupancy (%)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5
40,0
37,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [%]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 2. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

1.400

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [%]

Direction fo flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

27,7%

47,4%

25,0%

A - 17

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 2. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

6.000

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 2. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

1.200

1.100

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

1.200

1.100

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

1.200

1.100

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

1.200

1.100

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

800

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. Intersection : Komodor Yos Sudarso Tebu

A 3. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A - 25

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

2381
701

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
140

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

1-minute 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

1-minute 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

Intersection occupancy (%)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

100

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

60,0
57,5
55,0
52,5
50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

2.600

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

Direction of flow

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [%]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

11,5%

16,6%

71,8%

A - 29

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

5.000

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 3. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

2.200

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

2.100
2.000

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

1.200

1.100

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

1.100

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

25,0

22,5

20,0

17,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

2.200

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

2.100
2.000
1.900

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

1.100

1.000

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

800

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [Km/h]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. Intersection : Tanjung Raya Panglima Aim

A 4. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A - 37

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

712
210

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
120

110

100

90

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

A - 39

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

0,0
1

Intersection occupancy (%)

15,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

1.200

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

30,5%

45,6%

23,9%

A - 41

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

4.000

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 4. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

800

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow (veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 5. Intersection : Sultan Abdurrahman Putri Candramidi

A 5. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A - 49

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 5. 2

Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 5. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
170
160
150
140
130

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

1-minute 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

1-minute 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

Intersection occupancy (%)

Flow (veh/1-minute)

120

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 5. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

3.000

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

16,9%

17,3%

65,8%

A - 53

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 5. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

8.000
7.500

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 5. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

2.200

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

2.100
2.000

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

2.000

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

1.900
1.800
1.700

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

2.000

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

1.900
1.800

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

2.200

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

2.100
2.000
1.900

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

2.000

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

1.900
1.800
1.700

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 6. Intersection : Alianyang K. H. Wahid Hasyim K.H. Ahmad

Dahlan
A 6. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

A - 61

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 6. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

1429
151

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 6. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
140

130

120

110

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

A - 63

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

0,0

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 6. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

1.800

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

21,9%

58,1%

20,0%

A - 65

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 6. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

5.000

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 6. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

1.200

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

1.400

1.300

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

1.400

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

1.400

1.300

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

1.400

1.300

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

800

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 7. Intersection : Hasanuddin Merdeka

A 7. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 7. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

841
828

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 7. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
110

100

90

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute 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

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,00

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 7. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

1.000

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

26,9%

44,0%

29,2%

A - 77

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 7. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

3.500

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 7. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

800

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

Flow 8veh/h)

900

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

800

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

800

700

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

800

700

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

800

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 8. Intersection : R.E. Martadinata Tabrani Ahmad

A 8. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

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.

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 8. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

455
443

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 8. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
70

60

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

A - 87

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

0,0

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

60,0

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

57,5
55,0
52,5
50,0
47,5
45,0
42,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

1-minute interval

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 8. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

800

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

36,5%

37,2%

26,4%

A - 89

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 8. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

3.000

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 8. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

600

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

500

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

800

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

600

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

800

700

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

600

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 9. Intersection : Dr. Wahidin Husein Hamzah

A 9. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 9. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

792
339

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 9. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
80

70

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute interval

A - 99

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

0,0

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

100,0

90,0

80,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

1-minute interval

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 9. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

1.000

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

C-B

Direction of flow

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

23,8%

50,1%

26,1%

A - 101

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 9. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

2.500

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 9. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

800

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

500

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

500

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

800

700

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

500

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

500

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 10. Intersection : W.R. Supratman R. Suprapto

A 10. 1 Geometric Design of Intersection

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.

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 10. 2 Flow and Environment of Intersection

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

159
530

Three-legs/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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A - 10. 3 Flow, Speed and Intersection Occupancy of Each Stream

Flow [Veh/1-min]
60

50

Flow (veh/1-minute)

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

1-minute 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

1-minute 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

Intersection occupancy (%)

11,0

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Speed of Each Stream [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

Cumulative Speed [ % ]
Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

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%

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 10. 4 Traffic Flow of Each Stream

Flow of each stream

Flow of each stream

800

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
C-A

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

C-A

A-B

Direction of flow

C-B

B-C

B-A

A-C

Direction of flow

Direction of Flow [ % ]

Direction of flow
straight flow
right-turn flow
left-turn flow
20,3%

34,8%

44,9%

A - 113

A-B

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 10. 5 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

Flow of each type of vehicle

1.800

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C
A-B

40,0
37,5
35,0
32,5
30,0
27,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

A 10. 6 Traffic Flow and Speed of Each Vehicle

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupI

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

500

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
B-A

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupII

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

500

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-A
A-C
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIII

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

600

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
B-C
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupIV

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

500

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-A
C-B
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupV

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

600

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
B-C
B-A
A-C

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX A : Geometric Design and Traffic Flow Performance

Traffic Performance of Conflict GroupVI

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

500

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

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

Speed Performance [ Km/h ]

Direction of flow
C-B
A-B

30,0
27,5
25,0
22,5

Mean Speed (km/h)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

Appendix B : Traffic Flow Composition

B. Traffic Flow Composition

B. 1 Traffic Composition of Each Stream :
Intersection 1 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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

B-1

11.1

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

Intersection 3 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
B-2

3.0

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

Intersection 6 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
B-3

7.6

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

Intersection 9 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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

B-4

20.3

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

B. 2 Traffic Composition of Each Group of Conflict :

Intersection 1 :
Group of conflict 1 :
Streams

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 (2-wheels)

%
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
(2-wheels)

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

B-5

748

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
B-6

1300

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
B-7

569

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
B-8

1238

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
B-9

118

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

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 (2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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
(2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX B : Traffic Flow Composition

Group of conflict 6 :
Streams
Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Appendix C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

C. Mean Speed And Passenger Car Units of Each Traffic Stream :

C. 1 Mean Speed of Each Traffic Stream
Intersection 1 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

20.8

Intersection 2 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

6.8
12.7
N.A
13.5
19.1
13.5
6.5
N.A
N.A

Mean Speed [km/h]

13.0

C-1

17.5

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 3 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

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 (2-wheels)

N.A
8.1
7.7
9.2
13.2
7.1
N.A
N.A
6.6

Mean Speed [km/h]

12.7

Intersection 5 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

N.A
N.A
N.A
6.7
20.4
23.4
N.A
9.3
N.A

Mean Speed [km/h]

11.7
C-2

19.5

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 6 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

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 (2-wheels)

N.A
11.7
N.A
11.9
15.0
11.1
N.A
N.A
N.A

Mean Speed [km/h]

9.9

14.2

Intersection 8 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

9.3
C-3

22.6

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 9 :

Type of Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak (Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart (2-wheels)

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

Mean Speed [km/h]

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 (2-wheels)

N.A
19.6
N.A
13.1
15.5
12.7
N.A
5.5
N.A

Mean Speed [km/h]

15.0

C-4

14.8

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

C. 2 Passenger Car Units of Each Traffic Stream

Intersection 1 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
2.7
2.8
1.6
1.0
0.2
0.3

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.6
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.5
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.2

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

C-5

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 4 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.9
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.2

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.7
1.3
1.0
0.2
0.3

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.4
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3

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

C-6

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 7 :
Type of
Vehicle
Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.6
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.3

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
N.A
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3

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
(2-wheels)

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB
N.A
2.7
N.A
1.0
0.2
0.3

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

C-7

APPENDIX C : Mean Speed and Passenger Car Units of Each Stream

Intersection 10 :
Type of
Vehicle

PCUs Based on Vehicle Speed and Projected Rectangular

CA
CB
BC
BA
AC
AB

Truck 3 axle
Truck 2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

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

Average PCUs of Each Type Vehicle from Each Intersection :

Type of
Vehicle
Truck
3 axle
Truck
2 axle
Minibuses
Car
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Becak
(Rickshaw)
Tricycles
Pushcart
(2-wheels)

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

C-8

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Appendix D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

D. Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)
Intersection 1
Data V = 22 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
1923.16
2347.69
2347.69
2343.02
1960.13
2347.69

QC-B
0.00
0.00
982.31
0.00
412.16
415.19

QB-C

QB-A

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

917.91
0.00
0.00
10.08
837.96
0.00

0.00 875.93 3716.99

0.00 3484.62 5832.31
0.00 848.75 4178.75
0.00 875.93 3229.04
935.70 864.53 5010.48
0.00 864.44 3627.32
Capacity of Intersection = 3229.04

Model V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

10
10
10
10
10
10

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

2141.56
0.00
2054.47 458.93
2226.42 237.84
2505.65 129.89
2466.90 2161.09
2174.83 1520.66

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1877.01
0.00
1767.17 412.80
1863.47 309.48
2197.66
96.54
2162.96 1871.46
1905.45 1260.05

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1612.46
0.00
1479.87 366.67
1500.53 381.13
1889.67
63.19
1859.01 1581.83
1636.08 999.44

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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
D-1

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12.6 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1453.72
0.00
1307.49 339.00
1282.76 424.11
1704.88
43.18
1676.64 1408.05
1474.45 843.07

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1347.90
0.00
1192.57 320.55
1137.58 452.77
1581.68
29.83
1555.06 1292.20
1366.70 738.83

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1083.35
0.00
905.27 274.42
806.28 479.23
1273.70
0.00
1251.12 1002.57
1097.33 478.22

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

818.79
617.98
600.79
965.71
948.11
827.95

0.00
228.29
326.07
0.00
686.10
217.61

QB-C

QB-A

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

QA-C

QA-B

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

D-2

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 2
Data V = 26 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

307.91 2196.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
640.15 2127.60
640.15
0.00
640.15 1405.76

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

0.00 207.65 4186.61

0.00 3367.55 3785.87
0.00 1775.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 7285.35

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

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

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1513.79
0.00
1367.95 587.12
1384.40 681.24
1887.14 260.99
1843.55 2016.13
1454.72 5934.16

QB-C
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

D-3

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1265.42
0.00
1087.88 513.26
1082.34 664.70
1579.78 121.94
1542.62 1641.82
1225.78 4386.79

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

Model V = 13.1 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1240.59
0.00
1059.87 505.87
1052.13 663.04
1549.04 108.04
1512.52 1604.38
1202.89 4232.06

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1017.06
0.00
807.81 439.40
800.08 612.16
1272.41
0.00
1241.68 1267.50
996.84 2839.42

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

768.69
0.00
527.75 365.54
596.08 416.52
965.05
0.00
941.75 864.86
767.90 1292.05

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

D-4

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 3
Data V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
2975.72
2839.88
3420.47
3328.83
2853.78
2819.13

QC-B
0.00
263.23
346.26
0.00
245.51
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

0.00
0.00
20.48
27.54
0.00
0.00

QA-C

129.40 1946.40
72.47 469.00
315.81
88.64
277.40
0.00
78.29 663.77
63.77 1422.85

QA-B
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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

2500.24 165.70
2393.57 659.78
2542.93
0.00
2517.23 175.21
2529.54 1210.45
2464.45
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

618.62
783.61
896.79
847.46
761.99
597.33

108.73
380.38
0.00
65.45
34.11
199.86

QB-C

QB-A

569.75
734.80
825.97
792.50
708.74
549.97

104.70
374.07
0.00
62.21
32.81
193.83

QB-C

QB-A

455.73
620.90
660.73
664.25
584.51
439.46

95.29
359.35
0.00
54.66
29.78
179.77

QA-C

QA-B

534.90
2519.78
3881.34
3287.98
2259.67
278.76

1830.47
5174.64
1667.14
1839.85
2860.30
0.00

QA-C

QA-B

492.47
2477.99
3574.83
3172.20
2164.58
254.45

1731.80
5155.03
1581.43
1741.01
2729.13
0.00

QA-C

QA-B

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

Model V = 10.3 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

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

D-5

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
1882.51
1781.81
1716.15
1897.44
1904.67
1851.96

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

78.07
527.15
231.40
86.42
903.06
0.00

292.84
458.18
424.67
481.03
407.03
281.59

QC-B

QB-C

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

81.86 252.03 1172.67 3759.99

338.33 2241.17 5043.90 10390.54
505.53 183799 1323.81 6039.55
43.86 2516.07 1180.90 6205.72
25.45 1625.73 1985.87 6851.81
159.68 116.68
0.00 2409.91
Capacity of Intersection = 2409.91

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

1573.65
34.26
1475.93 460.83
1203.01 1036.98
1587.54
42.03
1592.23 749.37
1545.71
0.00

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1264.79
0.00
1170.05 394.52
755.00 1579.20
1277.64
0.00
1279.80 595.67
1239.46
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

955.93
0.00
864.17 328.20
565.90 1074.50
967.74
0.00
967.68 413.38
933.21
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

D-6

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 4
Data V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
912.21
2227.27
2227.27
2206.65
1268.74
2050.80

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

QC-B

QB-C

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

QC-B

QB-C

Model V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

10
10
10
10
10
10

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QB-A

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

QA-C

QA-B

0.00
1296.31
5550.64
3218.40
1331.77
403.20

1667.14
4793.00
1667.14
1747.16
3437.37
2080.73

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1546.74
0.00
1599.59 245.20
2228.80
0.00
2196.04
60.29
2044.51 1552.65
1808.10 347.67

QB-C

QB-A

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1328.74
0.00
1321.81 217.80
1914.66
0.00
1888.37
39.39
1759.24 1309.42
1550.63 275.77

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

D-7

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1110.73
0.00
1044.02 190.40
1338.03
79.07
1580.70
18.50
1473.98 1066.19
1293.16 203.86

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

Model V = 13.6 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QB-C

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

QC-B

QB-C

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

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

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

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

QC-B

Model V = 14 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

14
14
14
14
14
14

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
892.73
766.24
818.81
1273.04
1188.71
1035.69

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

Model V = 15 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

15
15
15
15
15
15

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

D-8

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 5
Data V = 16 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
2398.96
2123.99
2916.43
2916.43
2321.01
2916.43

QC-B
153.69
146.99
0.00
0.00
544.78
456.98

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

146.78 398.93 224.86 3323.20

224.77 817.29 1789.15 5102.19
0.00 5011.43 301.07 8228.93
0.00 1759.89 301.07 4977.39
168.89 884.36
30.90 3949.93
0.00
0.00
74.44 3447.85
Capacity of Intersection = 3323.20

Model V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

10
10
10
10
10
10

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

2483.27 233.30
2425.99 828.77
2053.22 1632.51
2518.25 262.54
2536.58 1353.28
2481.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

624.50 151.94 605.59 1897.11 5995.71

791.28 297.80 2612.08 5341.22 12297.15
719.55 1247.14 1749.12 3276.33 10677.87
849.11
62.85 3307.77 1925.93 8926.45
759.28
16.18 2227.10 3001.09 9893.51
598.88 155.49 297.42
0.00 3533.66
Capacity of Intersection = 3533.66

Model V = 10.6 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

2299.21 195.09
2241.41 778.79
1851.20 1704.21
2332.21 222.67
2348.59 1249.56
2297.08
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

525.57 140.68 506.41 1688.02 5354.97

693.36 287.88 2524.99 5291.95 11818.38
605.91 1281.62 1472.87 3175.58 10091.38
738.95
56.63 3073.41 1715.21 8139.08
653.02
14.94 2039.66 2727.42 9033.18
504.06 146.11 247.67
0.00 3194.92
Capacity of Intersection = 3194.92

Model V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

11
11
11
11
11
11

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

2176.50 169.62
2118.36 745.47
1716.52 1752.01
2208.19 196.09
2223.26 1180.41
2173.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

459.62 133.17 440.28 1548.62 4927.81

628.08 281.26 2466.93 5259.10 11499.20
530.14 1304.61 1288.70 3108.41 9700.39
665.51
52.48 2917.16 1574.72 7614.16
582.18
14.11 1914.70 2544.97 8459.63
440.85 139.86 214.50
0.00 2969.09
Capacity of Intersection = 2969.09

D-9

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1869.74 105.93
1810.72 662.17
1379.81 1871.51
1898.12 129.65
1909.93 1007.54
1865.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

294.75 114.40 274.97 1200.13 3859.91

464.88 264.71 2321.79 5176.99 10701.26
340.74 1362.08 828.29 2940.49 8722.91
481.91
42.12 2526.56 1223.51 6301.87
405.08
12.04 1602.30 2088.86 7025.75
282.83 124.23 131.59
0.00 2404.52
Capacity of Intersection = 2404.52

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1562.97
42.24
1503.08 578.86
1043.11 1991.01
1588.05
63.21
1596.61 834.67
1557.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1256.21
0.00
1195.44 495.56
737.22 1960.54
1277.99
0.00
1283.28 661.80
1249.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

949.44
0.00
887.80 412.26
553.80 1333.97
967.92
0.00
970.10 458.61
941.88
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 6
Data V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
926.69
1504.31
1504.31
1445.53
1024.70
1163.42

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

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

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

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

QA-C

QA-B

0.00
1431.08
36872.20
3216.90
1488.65
274.17

1667.14
4712.96
1667.14
1712.46
2901.30
1946.47

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
1553.07
1377.43
1914.66
1889.21
1746.32
1585.92

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

0.00 271.89 920.84

0.00 1095.71 3841.52
152.93 377.88 1368.15 1275.15 4675.03 9226.58
0.00 1723.28
0.00 17460.67 1095.71 22194.33
22.35 477.41
64.80 2472.51 1117.74 6044.03
914.35 360.92 428.70 1071.02 1997.01 6518.31
186.25 278.26 837.19
76.64 1279.30 4243.57
Capacity of Intersection = 3841.52

D - 11

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12.8 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QB-C

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

QC-B

QB-C

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

QC-B

QB-C

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

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

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

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

QC-B

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
1298.26
1096.14
1600.52
1581.34
1463.27
1322.74

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

Model V = 14 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

14
14
14
14
14
14

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
1043.45
814.85
820.93
1273.46
1180.22
1059.56

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

Model V = 15 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

15
15
15
15
15
15

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 7
Data V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
2395.42
2851.93
3468.52
3386.13
2639.41
3098.55

QC-B
0.00
525.97
0.00
0.00
579.28
661.93

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
2262.94
2058.30
1878.90
2499.91
2491.30
2292.79

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

5740.18 1206.62 713.04 7608.69 7325.32 24856.79

1140.89 724.06 1234.20 1803.36 5648.88 12609.68
1536.93 661.81 1691.06 1054.55 3182.12 10005.38
28863.90 1273.83 109.56 8417.23 30118.71 71283.14
2795.93 698.31 131.50 1493.64 4423.13 12033.81
0.00 582.05 637.02
94.95
0.00 3606.81
Capacity of Intersection = 3606.81

Model V = 10.6 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

QC-A

10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

2095.21
1886.13
1711.10
2315.69
2306.,99
2119.40

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

2872.22 799.94 660.19 3807.16 4326.90 14561.62

1072.08 628.33 1192.67 1742.68 5581.05 12102.94
1480.24 557.29 1638.39 888.00 2954.81 9229.83
24386.23 1097.43
98.72 7386.07 25533.57 60817.71
2569.74 597.18 120.86 1367.93 4028.75 10991.45
0.00 488.25 598.60
57.41
0.00 3263.66
Capacity of Intersection = 3263.66

Model V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

11
11
11
11
11
11

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1983.40
1771.34
1599.24
2192.87
2184.12
2003.80

960.24
1026.21
1442.44
21401.12
2418.95
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

528.82 624.95 1272.82 2327.95 7698.18

564.52 1164.98 1702.22 5535.84 11765.12
487.61 1603.28 776.96 2803.27 8712.80
979.84
91.49 6698.63 22476.81 53840.76
529.76 113.77 1284.12 3765.82 10296.54
425.71 572.99
32.38
0.00 3034.89
Capacity of Intersection = 3034.89

D - 13

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1703.85
0.00
1484.39 911.54
1319.57 1347.96
1885.83 13938.33
1876.95 2041.96
1714.80
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1424.30
0.00
1197.43 796.87
1039.90 1253.47
1578.79 6475.54
1569.77 1664.98
1425.81
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1144.75
0.00
910.47 682.19
777.02 1106.87
1271.74
0.00
1262.60 1287.99
1136.82
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

865.20
623.51
580.88
964.70
956.00
847.82

0.00
567.52
753.12
0.00
879.89
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

QA-C

QA-B

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

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 8
Data V = 6 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1795.28 214.71
1300.00 431.90
1207.06 3491.25
1207.06 735.76
1207.06 905.17
1333.51 445.15

QB-C

QB-A

441.64 1512.23
368.65 238.92
421.19
0.00
312.07
0.00
284.35
0.00
49.45 325.07

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1910.89 686.76
1800.95 1286.59
1682.49 1692.96
2497.08
0.00
2487.17 4025.83
2162.00
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

623.10 1609.61 588.78 2344.09 7763.22

676.36 1889.58 1229.57 5792.50 12675.55
600.73 2191.25 319.69 3335.92 9823.04
838.32 116.78 3177.93 1667.14 8297.25
656.30 142.00 988.17 5635.46 13934.92
574.16 970.11
0.00
0.00 3706.26
Capacity of Intersection = 3706.26

Model V = 10.5 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1792.86 693.19
1664.78 1221.93
1570.14 1590.11
2343.79
0.00
2333.91 3751.35
2024.08
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

547.99 1510.19 594.30 2207.57 7346.09

597.92 1836.37 1194.95 5728.76 12244.71
521.67 2077.37 277.61 3091.68 9128.58
747.58 107.15 2995.43 1524.29 7718.24
574.97 132.31 918.86 5222.04 12933.44
498.59 921.36
0.00
0.00 3444.02
Capacity of Intersection = 3444.02

Model V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

11
11
11
11
11
11

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1674.83 699.62
1528.60 1157.28
1457.79 1487.26
2190.50
0.00
2180.64 3476.87
1886.15
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

472.88 1410.77 599.81 2071.06 6928.97

519.47 1783.16 1160.32 5665.03 11813.86
442.60 1963.49 235.54 2847.44 8434.12
656.84
97.52 2812.93 1381.43 7139.23
493.64 122.63 849.56 4808.62 11931.96
423.02 872.60
0.00
0.00 3181.78
Capacity of Intersection = 3181.78

D - 15

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1438.77 712.49
1256.25 1027.96
1233.10 1281.56
1883.93
0.00
1874.11 2927.91
1610.30
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

322.66 1211.93 610.84 1798.02 6094.71

362.58 1676.74 1091.08 5537.56 10952.17
284.47 1735.72 151.39 2358.96 7045.19
475.37
78.26 2447.93 1095.71 5981.20
330.99 103.27 710.94 3981.79 9929.00
271.89 775.09
0.00
0.00 2657.29
Capacity of Intersection = 2657.29

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1202.71 725.35
983.90 898.64
1008.40 1075.86
1577.35
0.00
1567.58 2378.94
1334.46
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

172.45 1013.09 621.87 1524.99 5260.46

205.69 1570.33 1021.83 5410.09 10090.48
126.34 1507.95
67.24 1870.49 5656.27
293.90
59.01 2082.93 810.00 4823.18
168.33
83.91 572.33 3154.96 7926.05
120.76 677.58
0.00
0.00 2132.80
Capacity of Intersection = 2132.80

Model V = 14 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

14
14
14
14
14
14

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

966.66 738.22
711.55 769.32
788.69 856.48
1270.78
25.95
1261.04 1829.98
1058.61
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

22.23 814.25 632.90 1251.96 4426.21

48.80 1463.91 952.58 5282.61 9228.79
0.00 1267.47
0.00 1368.53 4281.17
112.81
39.75 1722.62 549.87 3721.79
5.67
64.55 433.72 2328.13 5923.09
0.00 580.08
0.00
0.00 1638.69
Capacity of Intersection = 1638.69

Model V = 15 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

15
15
15
15
15
15

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

730.60 751.08
439.20 640.00
588.82 582.76
964.21 203.97
954.99 1246.00
782.76
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

0.00 615.41 643.93 978.92 3719.94

0.00 1357.49 883.34 5155.14 8475.18
0.00 976.47
0.00 813.00 2961.05
0.00
20.49 1389.87 439.63 3018.16
0.00
43.95 295.11 1466.77 4006.82
0.00 482.57
0.00
0.00 1265.33
Capacity of Intersection = 1265.33

D - 16

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 9
Data V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A
3230.00
2128.54
2128.54
2129.38
2302.65
2690.02

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

QC-B

QB-C

0.00
214.52
32.83
0.00
36.43
0.00

217.85 1242.16 849.88

0.00 5539.89
285.73
0.00
0.00 1108.67 3737.46
245.57
0.00 502.83
0.00 2909.77
233.06
0.94 659.39
0.00 3022.77
260.21 196.34 319.50
0.00 3115.13
153.55 633.20 1654.92
0.00 5131.70
Capacity of Intersection = 2909.77

QC-B

QB-C

Model V = 10 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

10
10
10
10
10
10

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

Model V = 13.2 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

844.70
0.00
503.93 370.80
596.87 410.10
964.95
0.00
936.43 868.48
635.03 6354.87

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

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

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Intersection 10
Data V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

VC-A'
VC-B'
VB-C'
VB-A'
VA-C'
VA-B'

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1092.97
0.00
880.11 559.45
880.11 677.00
881.53
0.00
880.11 1451.30
880.11 1871.79

QB-C

QB-A

753.22 3531.57
753.22
0.00
833.47
0.00
753.22
23.59
819.38
0.00
753.22
0.00

QA-C
0.00
0.00
421.56
0.00
347.52
0.00

QA-B

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

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

1120.84
1632.10
1678.18
2494.65
2440.72
2077.12

1405.45
1392.81
1694.15
0.00
4394.35
0.00

QC-A

QC-B

982.38
1369.42
1454.68
2188.47
2140.58
1809.80

1285.96
1252.82
1486.70
0.00
3792.63
0.00

QC-A

QC-B

940.84
1290.61
1387.63
2096.62
2050.54
1729.60

1250.11
1210.82
1424.47
0.00
3612.11
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

631.31
645.16
599.35
837.53
630.65
574.16

3621.60 687.56 3052.52 10519.28

2319.58 854.23 5897.20 12741.09
2202.24 303.15 3337.09 9814.15
122.97 3168.49 1667.14 8290.78
260.29 679.59 5998.72 14404.32
1186.28
0.00
0.00 3837.55
Capacity of Intersection = 3837.55

Model V = 11 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

11
11
11
11
11
11

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

475.32
490.02
441.59
656.19
471.59
423.02

3174.22 629.11 2649.01 9195.99

2188.55 805.98 5759.20 11865.99
1971.41 223.35 2846.89 8424.63
102.69 2805.05 1381.43 7133.83
224.65 584.26 5119.87 12333.58
1067.04
0.00
0.00 3299.87
Capacity of Intersection = 3299.87

Model V = 11.3 km/h

Speed

Maximum
Flow

11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QB-C

QB-A

428.52
443.48
394.26
601.78
423.87
377.68

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

3040.00 611.57 2527.96 8799.00

2149.24 791.50 5717.81 11603.46
1902.16 199.41 2699.84 8007.77
96.61 2696.01 1295.71 6786.74
213.96 555.67 4856.22 11712.36
1031.27
0.00
0.00 3138.56
Capacity of Intersection = 3138.56

D - 19

APPENDIX D : Matrix of Maximum Flow (Capacity)

Model V = 12 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

12
12
12
12
12
12

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

843.92
1106.73
1231.19
1882.30
1840.44
1542.48

1166.46
1112.82
1279.26
0.00
3190.90
0.00

QC-A

QC-B

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

319.32 2726.83 570.65 2245.51 7872.69

334.87 2057.52 757.73 5621.21 10990.88
283.82 1740.58 143.55 2356.70 7035.10
474.84
82.41 2441.60 1095.71 5976.87
312.53 189.01 488.94 4241.03 10262.84
271.89 947.81
0.00
0.00 2762.18
Capacity of Intersection = 2762.18

Model V = 13 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

13
13
13
13
13
13

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(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

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

163.33 2279.44 512.19 1842.01 6549.39

179.73 1926.49 709.47 5483.21 10115.78
126.06 1509.75
63.76 1866.51 5645.58
293.50
62.13 2078.15 810.00 4819.91
153.47 153.37 393.61 3362.18 8192.10
120.76 828.57
0.00
0.00 2224.50
Capacity of Intersection = 2224.50

Model V = 14 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

14
14
14
14
14
14

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

566.99 927.47
581.36 832.83
788.93 851.38
1269.95
15.45
1240.19 1986.28
1007.85
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

7.34 1832.05 453.73 1438.50 5226.09

24.58 1795.47 661.22 5345.22 9240.68
0.00 1266.86
0.00 1363.50 4270.68
112.39
41.86 1717.51 539.52 3696.67
0.00 117.65 298.28 2482.19 6124.60
0.00 709.34
0.00
0.00 1717.19
Capacity of Intersection = 1717.19

Model V = 15 km/h
Speed

Maximum
Flow

15
15
15
15
15
15

QC-A(1)
QC-B(2)
QB-C(3)
QB-A(4)
QA-C(5)
QA-B(6)

QC-A

QC-B

428.53 807.97
318.68 692.84
588.98 579.29
963.78 113.55
940.82 1351.49
740.54
0.00

QB-C

QB-A

QA-C

QA-B

Qi(j)

0.00 1384.67 395.27 1035.00 4051.44

0.00 1664.44 612.96 5207.22 8496.14
0.00 976.06
0.00 809.58 2953.91
0.00
21.58 1371.83 350.50 2821.23
0.00
80.05 202.95 1570.75 4146.06
0.00 590.10
0.00
0.00 1330.64
Capacity of Intersection = 1330.64

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 co-advisor, 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 co-referee 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 Wiebusch-Wothge 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 trouble-shoot 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 mother-in-law
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.

Bochum, August 2007

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

Basic School SD Bruder Nusa Indah, Pontianak

1981 1982

Basic School SD Kayu Putih 12 Pagi, Jakarta

1982 1985

Elementary School SMP St. Fransiskus II, Jakarta

1985 1988

Senior High School SMA Negeri 31, Jakarta

08/1988 01/1993

Bachelor of Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Tanjungpura University, Pontianak

10/1994 09/1995

Diploma Post Graduate in Transportation and Road

Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering,
IHE Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

10/1995 09/1996

Master of Science in Road Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering,
IHE Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

03/1998 09/1998

Individual Training Course in Research Study in Civil

Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering,
Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan

since 02/2004

Doctoral student at Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrswesen,

Fakultt fr Bauingenieurwesen,
RuhrUniversitt Bochum, Germany

Occupation : 02/1993 07/1993 Road Engineer

PT Indah Kusuma Jaya Engineering Consultant,
Pontianak
08/1993 09/1997 Teaching Staff
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Panca Bhakti University, Pontianak
03/1998 now

Bochum, August 2007

Teaching Staff
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Tanjungpura University, Pontianak