© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.

org (ISSN-2349-5162)

ANALYSIS OF HEADWAY DISTRIBUTION

PATTERN IN HETEROGENEOUS TRAFFIC
1
Umang Malvi, 2Vijay J. Chitaria, 3Toral H. Vyas
1
PG Student, 2Associate Professor, 3Assistant Professor
1
Civil Engineering Department,
1
L. D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, India

Abstract: Time headway is a key microscopic traffic flow characteristic that may be used to develop microscopic traffic
simulation models, analyze driver behavior, assess safety, estimate capacity, and assess the level of service on a roadway. Many
studies have concentrated on time headway analysis in lane-disciplined and homogeneous traffic, but only a few studies have
been undertaken in heterogeneous and mixed traffic. In this project, the headway distribution pattern for a selected study area is
going to be determined for different combinations of vehicles. Headway is going to be determined by the video graphic survey.
Analyzing the headway distribution pattern can be done by statistical software which gives the output and finds the distribut ion.
Further, vehicle-specific headway for different vehicular pairs is also determined. Under heterogeneous traffic flow conditions,
three statistical tests are typically used to observe headway distribution patterns. The Chi-Square, Anderson–Darling, and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical tests are recommended (K-S test). For this study, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S test) is
used.

Index Terms - Heterogeneous Traffic, Headway, Distribution, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, EasyFit Software
I. INTRODUCTION
Traffic circumstances in developing countries like India are exceedingly varied, with vehicles of varying physical dimensions,
axle configurations, weight, power-to-weight ratio, and other dynamic characteristics like braking power, acceleration, and so on.
Due to these qualities, the vehicles do not adhere to lane discipline and can be found in any lateral position throughout the whole
width of the road, regardless of lane markings. Ahmedabad is a metropolis with well-developed air and rail transportation
systems. At the same time, the city is concerned about traffic concerns such as congestion, delays, and so on. Traffic congestion is
a problem in the city during rush hour, and one of the reasons is the narrowing of carriageways due to ongoing Metro rail
construction. The city has focused on development rather than overall development in the road networks as a result of rapid
industrialization and irregular land use patterns. Because industrial zones and software businesses are concentrated in one area of
the city, travel time and vehicle running costs are increased. The statistics provide a deeper insight into the aggregate behavior of
vehicles and drivers, hence studies on time headway distributions of road traffic are crucial.

In traffic engineering, understanding speed and time-headway is critical, as the construction of a good transportation system is
entirely based on it. It is significant in a variety of domains, including road geometric design, accident research, traffic regulation
and control, ascertaining travel time, determining capacity, delay and queue analysis, level of service analysis, and so on. In order
to promote safe and efficient movement of drivers, it is required to understand speed and time headway distribution. Time
headway is a fundamental microscopic parameter in traffic flow theories that is quantified by the difference in the time interval
between two succeeding vehicles as they pass a reference point on the roadway using the same common attributes of both
vehicles. However, in mixed traffic, headway is defined as the time gap between two consecutive vehicles passing a reference line
across the entire width of the roadway. Again, because three-wheeler rickshaws and motorcycles have high maneuverability, they
can sneak through gaps between larger vehicles, slowing their unfettered movement. Even if there are proper lane markers, they
do not adhere to lane discipline. Because of all of these factors, the traffic situation is quite complicated.

Statistical software that offers the output and finds the distribution can be used to analyse the headway data for heterogeneous
distribution. For the observation of headway distribution patterns under heterogeneous traffic flow conditions, three statistical
tests are typically used. The Chi-Square, Anderson–Darling, and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests are recommended (K-S test).

II. LITERATURE SURVEY

Multivariate Analysis of Freeways Speed and Time Headway under Mixed Traffic Streams by Sandeep Singh, Akshay
Kumar, Muhamed Niyas, Moses Santhakumar,12th International Conference on Communication Systems & Networks, 2020 [1].

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e363
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
Headway distribution models of two-lane roads under mixed traffic conditions: a case study from India by Rupali Roy & Pritam
Saha, European Transport Research Review, 2018[2]. Time Headway Analysis on Urban Roads of the city of Marrakesh by Saad
Touhbi, Mohamed Ait Babram, Tri Nguyen-Huu, Nicolas Marion, Moulay L. Hbid, Christophe Cambier, and Serge Stinckwich,
Procedia Computer Science, 2018[3]. Time Headway Analysis for Four-Lane and Two-Lane Roads by Sanhita Das,
Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Transp. in Dev. Econ. 2017[4]. Preferred time headway of drivers on two-lane highways with
heterogeneous traffic by Pritam Saha, Rupali Roy, Ashoke Kumar Sarkar & Manish Pal, The International Journal of
Transportation Research, 2017[5]. Study on Speed and Time-headway Distributions on Two-lane Bidirectional Road in
Heterogeneous Traffic Condition by Akhilesh Kumar Mauryaa, Sanhita Das, Shreya Dey, Suresh Namab, ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia2016[6]. Headway Analysis using Automated Sensor Data under Indian Traffic Conditions by
Mohamed Badhrudeena, Ramesh Vb, Lelitha Vanajakshi, Transportation Research Procedia, 2016[7]. Time Headway Analysis to
Determine the Road Capacity by I Wayan Suweda, Journal Spectra, July 2016[8]. Discharge headway model for heterogeneous
traffic conditions by Sanjay Radhakrishnan, Gitakrishnan Ramadurai, Transportation Research Procedia, 2015[9]. Estimation of
Headway Patterns on Urban Roads in Hyderabad City – A Case Study by Nimbagal Abhinav, A. Ramesh, Kumar Molugaram, i-
manager’s Journal on Civil Engineering, August 2014[10].

III. METHODOLOGY AND STUDY AREA

The proposed methodology involves various steps to achieve the aim of the study. For that, the first problem identification is
done. After that, a literature review is conducted to select the aim and objectives of the study. For the selection of study areas, a
total of five locations are considered in Ahmedabad City, Gujarat State, India, namely University Road, near Sahjanand College
(Location 1), C.G. Road (Location 2), Ambawadi Road, near Parimal Garden (Location 3), RTO Road (Location 4), and Kasturba-
Gandhi Road, Delhi Darwaja, near Kalupur Station (Location 5). After that, for the purpose of obtaining data, a videography survey
and a traffic composition survey are carried out at the selected locations. To analyse the obtained data, data extraction is done from
the captured video by playing a video file at a speed of 0.25x and noting the leading and following vehicle entry times in
milliseconds to get the desired accuracy for headway calculation in heterogeneous traffic. After that, with the help of EasyFit 5.6
software (statistical software) to obtain the headway distribution pattern for different combinations of vehicles, a statistical test is
conducted. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is adopted. Once the result is obtained, a comparison will be carried out for the selected
locations and an appropriate conclusion will be given.

Ahmedabad is one of the country's fastest developing cities, and rising urbanization has resulted in more people migrating from
all across the state and country. At the same time, the city is concerned about traffic concerns such as congestion, delays, and so on.
For performing a video graphic survey, five different locations namely University Road, near Sahjanand College (Location 1) (road
width- 9.7 m.), C.G. Road (Location 2) (road width- 7.4 m), Ambawadi Road, near Parimal Garden (Location 3) (road width-9.8
m), RTO Road (Location 4) (road width- 9.7 m) and, Kasturba-Gandhi Road, Delhi Darwaja, near Kalupur Station (Location 5)
(road width- 9.65 m), are considered in the Ahmedabad city, Gujarat, India.

IV. DATA COLLECTION

Data was collected at the selected midblock locations in Ahmedabad city, Gujarat State, India. All of the selected midblock
were free of intersections, traffic lights, and curvature, and the pavement is in good condition. A video graphic technique is used to
collect traffic data. On regular working days with no adverse weather, data is collected throughout the morning hours from 09:00
a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The video camera is mounted on a tripod stand to cover the survey starch and the reference line is marked with
the help of tape on the entire width of the carriageway. To obtain the percentage distribution of vehicular composition, a traffic
volume count survey has been conducted from the captured video at the selected location during the morning peak hour.

V. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

After performing a video graphic survey at the selected locations, a time-headway analysis is going to be carried out. Time
headway analysis was carried out by playing a captured video file on the computer a repeated number of times. To obtain a higher
degree of precision, the video was playing at the slowest speed of 0.25x in the VLC media player. The data extracted from the
video was tabulated in the excel file as type of leading vehicle, type of following vehicle, entry time of the leading vehicle, and
entry time of the following vehicle. For better accuracy, the entry times of the leading and following vehicles were noted in
milliseconds. Time headway at all the locations was determined as the time gap between the front bumper of the leading vehicle
and the front bumper of the following vehicle passing a reference line on the entire width of the roadway. For analysis, vehicles that
are moving one behind the other are chosen.

5.1. Statistical Test for Headway Distribution Pattern

5.1.1. Statistical Test for Headway Distribution Pattern for All Vehicles at Selected Locations
A set of probability density functions (pdf) is evaluated for time headway data. EasyFit 5.6 Software, which fits and ranks
frequency distributions based on K-S test findings, fits and ranks probability density functions to frequency distributions. The null
hypothesis is considered in the K-S test because the data follows a certain distribution. The sample size and K-S value at the
required significant level are used to compute critical K-S values. The K-S values are then determined based on the observed
frequency and expected frequency acquired from a given probability density function. We accept the null hypothesis if the
estimated K-S value is greater than the critical K-S value. At a 5% significance level, parameter estimation and goodness of fit
tests for the models are performed in this work. Despite the fact that the distributions are sorted according to the K-S value, -
values are calculated as well. The null hypothesis must be rejected if the P-value is less than 0.05.

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e364
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table 5.1: Statistical properties of a time headway for selected locations

Location Min Max Mean Median Standard Co-efficient Skewness Kurtosis Sample Size
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) Deviation of variation
(sec)

Location 1 0.254 8.605 1.563 1.38 1.043 0.667 2.874 12.34 397
Location 2 0.325 11.938 1.625 1.288 1.279 0.787 3.674 20.28 424
Location 3 0.302 5.876 1.443 1.24 0.877 0.607 2.217 7.251 405
Location 4 0.4 5.476 1.800 1.554 0.996 0.553 1.231 1.464 436
Location 5 0.289 2.992 1.085 0.99 0.458 0.422 1.270 2.309 565

Table shows some basic statistical results for mixed vehicle-type headway. Table includes the minimum and maximum headway,
mean headway, median value of headway (or 50th percentile value), standard deviation, co-efficient of variation, skewness, kurtosis
and sample size of vehicles.

Table 5.2: Details of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and estimated parameters of the fitted distribution

Location Type of Parameters P- Best Fit K-S Critical Significance Hypothesis

Distribution Value value K-S Level Test
value (α0) (Reject /
Do not
Reject)

Location Dagum (4P) k = 0.53901, α=3.3649 0.8582 Dagum 0.0299 0.0681 5% Do not
1 [1]
β= 1.5134, γ= 0.21225 (4P) Reject
Gen. k=0.18302, σ=0.57438, 0.6019 0.0379 0.0681 5% Do not
Extreme μ=1.1061 Reject
Value [4]
Burr [7] k= 1.1383, α= 3.0478, 0.5769 0.0387 0.0681 5% Do not
β= 1.4193 Reject
Pearson 6 [11] α1=6.833, α2 =6.6889, 0.5213 0.0404 0.0681 5% Do not
β = 1.296 Reject
Pearson 5 [27] α = 3.2504, β = 3.6672 0.0101 0.0811 0.0681 5% Reject

Location Burr [1] k=0.78176, α= 3.2745, 0.6341 Burr 0.0358 0.0659 5% Do not
2 β =1.1691 Reject
Dagum (4P) k = 0.60096, α=2.6506 0.6098 0.0365 0.0659 5% Do not
[2]
β= 1.3472, γ= 0.30945 Reject
Gen. k=0.27897, σ=0.57781, 0.3713 0.0440 0.0659 5% Do not
Extreme μ=1.0748 Reject
Value [8]
Pearson 6 [11] α1=16.545, α2 =3.901, 0.2329 0.0499 0.0659 5% Do not
β = 0.28455 Reject
Pearson 5 [20] α = 3.1833, β = 3.6104 0.0573 0.0643 0.0659 5% Do not
Reject

Location Pearson 5 [1] α = 3.7522, β = 4.0705 0.3915 Pearson 0.0443 0.0674 5% Do not
3 5 Reject
Pearson 6 [7] α1 = 10.3, α2 =5.9651, 0.2775 0.0489 0.0674 5% Do not
β = 0.69593 Reject
Gen. k=0.17636, σ=0.51558, 0.1924 0.0533 0.0674 5% Do not
Extreme μ=1.0385 Reject
Value [14]
Dagum (4P) k = 0.69259, α=2.9562 0.1280 0.0578 0.0674 5% Do not
[20]
β= 1.2037, γ= 0.23656 Reject
Burr [21] k=0.78176, α= 3.2745, 0.0954 0.0608 0.0674 5% Do not
β = 1.1691 Reject

Location Gen. k=0.10405, σ=0.69184, 0.7812 Gen. 0.0310 0.0650 5% Do not

4 Extreme μ=1.3226 Extreme Reject
Value [1] Value
Burr [3] k=1.2892, α= 2.9526, 0.7614 0.0316 0.0650 5% Do not
JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e365
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
β = 1.7748 Reject
Pearson 6 [6] α1=6.2262, α2=8.7463 0.7214 0.0328 0.0650 5% Do not
β = 2.2444 Reject
Dagum (4P) k = 0.41674, α=3.3439 0.6265 0.0355 0.0650 5% Do not
[9]
β= 1.8535, γ= 0.38974 Reject
Pearson 5 [31] α = 3.557, β = 4.7885 0.0229 0.0711 0.0650 5% Reject

Location Gen. k=0.05527, σ=0.33479, 0.8353 Gen. 0.0258 0.0571 5% Do not

5 Extreme μ=0.87294 Extreme Reject
Value [1] Value
Pearson 6 [4] α1=12.629, α2=12.748 0.7126 0.0291 0.0571 5% Do not
β = 1.0098 Reject
Dagum (4P) k = 0.69108, α=3.8237 0.5128 0.0341 0.0571 5% Do not
[14]
β= 0.90429, γ=0.21607 Reject
Burr [17] k=1.0255, α= 4.2995, 0.4063 0.0371 0.0571 5% Do not
β = 1.0071 Reject
Pearson 5 [22] α = 6.2416, β = 5.7489 0.2928 0.0409 0.0571 5% Do not
Reject

Note: The rank of distributions based on the K–S test is indicated by superscripts.
Shape parameters (α, σ, k) > 0; Scale parameters (β, μ) > 0; Location parameter (γ) > 0

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e366
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Figure 5.1: Probability density curves for headway distribution for selected locations

5.1.2. Statistical Test for Vehicle Specific Headway Distribution for Different Vehicle Pairs
Vehicle-type specific headway analysis gives a better understanding of how different combinations of leader–follower vehicle
pairings interact. Car-following behavior varies depending on vehicle type and static and dynamic features, resulting in various
headway scenarios. A thorough examination of vehicle-type-specific headway can reveal potential implications for enhancing
road capacity, level of service (LOS), and safety, resulting in a more effective traffic management system. Headway distribution
for different vehicle pairs is analyzed in this section. Working with fewer data leads to erroneous results, hence only samples with
headway data higher than 30 are used in this study.

Table 5.3: Statistical properties and best fitted distribution for different vehicle pairs

Location Leading Following Best Fit P- Value Mean Median Standard Sample
Vehicle Vehicle (sec) (sec) Deviation Size
(sec)

Location 1 2W 2W Dagum (4P) 0.98585 1.090 0.968 0.63266 83

2W CAR Burr 0.93241 1.290 1.262 0.61749 41
3W 2W Gumble Max. 0.93839 1.134 1.056 0.51284 33
3W CAR Weibull 0.87888 1.578 1.4675 0.98052 30
CAR 2W Gen. Pareto 0.9804 1.670 1.385 1.0233 38
CAR 3W Weibull 0.9626 2.140 2.019 0.89095 32
CAR CAR Burr 0.96501 1.712 1.531 0.69467 77

Location 2 2W 2W Dagum (4P) 0.57549 1.258 0.865 1.0288 102

2W 3W Lognormal 0.90937 1.558 1.298 1.3728 37
2W CAR Burr 0.5473 1.611 0.969 1.4517 37
3W 2W Dagum 0.95873 1.542 1.363 0.75289 47
3W CAR Weibull 0.91429 1.546 1.269 0.60859 31
CAR 2W Gumble Max. 0.9757 1.255 1.102 0.56918 35
CAR CAR Gen. extreme value 0.96228 1.726 1.52 0.89609 61

Location 3 2W 2W Log-Logistic (3P) 0.46503 0.949 0.887 0.39482 91

2W CAR burr 0.93335 1.223 1.1465 0.50956 36
3W 2W Gen. extreme value 0.47707 1.221 0.952 0.7365 33

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e367
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
3W CAR Weibull 0.87583 1.379 1.3 0.57985 36
CAR 2W Gen. Pareto 0.80658 1.266 1.248 0.50928 47
CAR CAR Weibull 0.86898 1.761 1.65 0.9337 54

Location 4 2W 2W Gen. Gamma 0.56838 1.285 1.303 0.70806 83

2W 3W Log-Logestic (3P) 0.96858 1.531 1.15 0.90567 36
2W CAR Burr 0.54605 1.601 1.427 0.87997 51
3W 2W Dagum 0.90695 1.586 1.653 0.60426 43
CAR 3W Log-Logestic (3P) 0.40751 2.516 2.632 0.84602 32
CAR CAR Weibull 0.90121 1.882 1.8 0.68433 67

Location 5 2W 2W Dagum (4P) 0.84324 0.814 0.816 0.27028 95

2W 3W Lognormal 0.97355 0.886 0.807 0.34819 79
2W CAR Burr 0.57644 0.981 1.005 0.3162 43
3W 2W Gen. Pareto 0.65127 1.075 1.0435 0.32308 70
3W 3W Gen. extreme value 0.45156 1.126 0.929 0.49987 78
3W CAR Burr (4P) 0.89104 1.213 1.075 0.42597 47
CAR 2W Gen. Pareto 0.97012 1.067 1.056 0.30171 39
CAR CAR Gen. extreme value 0.9924 1.121 1.087 0.27062 30

From the above tables, it is concluded that the mean time headway for locations 1 and 4 is higher than at locations 3 and 5 for
the different vehicle pairs. It means that as traffic flow increases, the mean and median values of all vehicle type-specific
headways fall, because headways become relatively stable at high flow levels. For higher traffic flow levels at locations 3 and 5,
the standard deviation of time headway is lower than the moderate traffic flow levels at locations 1 and 4 for different vehicular
pairs. This shows that headways have less variation at high traffic flow levels because vehicles are more confined, limiting each
vehicle's speed choice.

At all locations, for vehicle pair of 2-wheeler-car (the leading vehicle is a 2-wheeler and the following vehicle is a car), the
best fitted frequency distribution is Burr. For locations 1, 2, and 5, Dagum (4P) is the best fitted frequency distribution for the
vehicle pair 2W-2W. But for location 3 and location 4, the best fitted distributions are Log-Logistic (3P) and Generalized
Gamma, respectively. Generalized Pareto is the best fitted distribution for the vehicle pair of car-2w at the locations 1, 3, and 5.
For location 2, Gumbel Max is the best fitted frequency distribution for a vehicle pair of car-2w. at locations 1, 2, and 3, vehicle
pair of 3w-car follows the Weibull distribution and for location 5, vehicle pair of 3w-car follows the Burr(4P) distribution.

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e368
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
5.2. Variation in Mean Time Headway for the Same Leading and Following Vehicle Pairs

Case (1): Variation in mean time headway with respect to different vehicle-pairs when the same category of vehicle is leading.

Variations in mean time headways Variations in mean time headways

for same leading vehicle pairs at for same leading vehicle pairs at
Location 1 Location 2
Mean Time Headway (sec)

Mean Time Headway (sec)

1.99 2.14
2.5 1.57 1.67 1.71 3 1.98 2.05 1.72
1.09 1.14 1.29 1.13 1.61 1.54
2
1.5 2 1.25 1.55 1.55 1.25
1 1
0.5
0 0

Vehicle Pairs Vehicle Pairs

Variations in mean time headways Variations in mean time headways

for same leading vehicle pairs at for same leading vehicle pairs at
Location 3 Location 4
Mean Time Headway (sec)
Mean Time Headway (sec)

2.51
2.19
3 2.09 1.76 2.5 1.69 1.86 1.88
1.48 1.22 1.22 1.71 1.37 1.26 1.28 1.53
1.6 1.58
2 0.94
1.5
1
0 0.5
-0.5

Vehicle Pairs Vehicle Pairs

Variations in mean time headways for same

leading vehicle pairs at Location 5
Mean Time Headway (sec)

2.5
2
1.07 1.13 1.21 1.06 1.22 1.12
1.5 0.81 0.88 0.98
1
0.5
0

Vehicle Pairs

Figure 5.2 Variations in mean time headway for same leading vehicle pairs at selected locations

For different locations, a graphical representation of mean time headway in seconds versus different vehicle pairs when the
same category of vehicle is leading is shown. At all the locations (except location 3), when the leading vehicle is a 2-wheeler,
there is an increment in mean time headway when the following vehicle’s size is increased. The 3-wheeler maintains higher
headway while following the 3-wheeler (except location 5) and car at every location. This means that vehicles with inferior
dynamic characteristics maintain greater headway with the leading vehicle. When the leading vehicle is a 2-wheeler, 3-wheeler,
or car, the 2-wheeler (following vehicle) maintains the smallest headway among the three.

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e369
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Case (2): Variation in mean time headway with respect to different vehicle-pairs when the same category of vehicle is
following.

Variations in mean time headways Variations in mean time headways

for same following vehicle pairs at for same following vehicle pairs at
Location 1 Location 2
Mean Time Headway (sec)

Mean Time Headway (sec)

2.5 1.99 2.14 2.5 1.98 2.05
2 1.67 1.57 1.71 2 1.54 1.55 1.61 1.55 1.72
1.14 1.29 1.25 1.25
1.5 1.09 1.13 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0

Vehicle Pairs
Vehicle Pairs

Variations in mean time headways Variations in mean time headways

for same following vehicle pairs at for same following vehicle pairs at
Location 3 Location 4
Mean Time Headway (sec)
Mean Time Headway (sec)

2.09 2.51
2.5 2.19
1.76 1.88
1.48 1.71 2.5 1.58
1.86
1.53 1.6 1.69
2 1.22 1.26 1.22 1.37 2 1.28
1.5 0.94 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0

Vehicle Pairs Vehicle Pairs

Variations in mean time headways for same

following vehicle pairs at Location 5
Mean Time Headway (sec)

2.5

1.07 1.06 1.13 1.22 1.21 1.12

1.5 0.81 0.88 0.98

0.5

-0.5

Vehicle Pairs
Figure 5.3: Variations in mean time headway for same following vehicle pairs at selected locations

For different locations, a graphical representation of mean time headway in seconds versus different vehicle pairs when the
same category of vehicle is following is shown. It has been discovered that a vehicle's headway-maintaining behavior is
influenced by the static qualities of the leading vehicle. Vehicles tend to adhere to the 2-wheelers more tightly while maintaining
a greater spacing from 3-wheelers and cars. When a car follows another vehicle, mean headways increase. It supports the theory
that, following vehicles maintain a larger separation from the lead vehicle as the lead vehicle's dimensions increase, owing to the
fact that larger dimensions of leading vehicles obstruct following drivers' ability to look beyond the leading vehicles, causing
them to maintain a larger separation.

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e370
© 2022 JETIR May 2022, Volume 9, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
VI. CONCLUSION

In this study, a video graphic survey was conducted to obtain the time headway data, and a statistical test was conducted in
EasyFit 5.6 software to analyse the headway distribution pattern. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S test) is adopted at the 5%
significance level (α0). At University Road, near Sahjanand College (location 1) and RTO Road (location 4), the best fitted
frequency distribution is Dagum (4P) and Generalized Extreme Value, respectively. For Pearson 5 distribution, the null
hypothesis test is rejected as the P-value falls below the significance level (α0) at both the locations [the P-value for Pearson 5
distribution at location 1 is 0.01013 and for location 4 is 0.02295]. At the C.G. Road (location 2) and Ambawadi Road, near
Parimal Garden (location 3), Burr and Pearson 5 are the best fitted distributions, respectively. And at the Delhi-Darwaja,
Kasturba-Gandhi Road, near Kalupur Station (location 5), Generalized Extreme Value is the best fitted frequency distribution.

The mean time headway for moderate traffic flow is higher than heavy traffic flow for the different vehicle pairs. It means that
as traffic flow increases, the mean and median values of all vehicle type-specific headways fall, because headways become
relatively stable at high flow levels. For higher traffic flow levels, the standard deviation of time headway is lower than the
moderate traffic flow levels for different vehicular pairs. This shows that headways have less variation at high traffic flow levels
because vehicles are more confined, limiting each vehicle's speed choice.

At all locations, for vehicle pairs of 2-wheeler-car (the leading vehicle is a 2-wheeler and the following vehicle is a car), the
best fitted frequency distribution is Burr. For locations 1, 2, and 5, Dagum (4P) is the best fitted frequency distribution for the
vehicle pair 2-wheeler-2-wheeler. Generalized Pareto is the best fitted distribution for the vehicle pair of car-2-wheeler at the
locations 1, 3, and 5. At locations 1, 2, and 3, vehicle pairs of 3-wheeler-car follow the Weibull distribution.

The 3-wheeler maintains higher headway while following the 3-wheeler and car. This means that vehicles with inferior
dynamic characteristics maintain greater headway with the leading vehicle. When the leading vehicle is a 2-wheeler, 3-wheeler,
or car, the 2-wheeler (following vehicle) maintains the smallest headway among the three. Following vehicles maintain a larger
separation from the lead vehicle as the lead vehicle's dimensions increase, owing to the fact that larger dimensions of leading
vehicles obstruct following drivers' ability to look beyond the leading vehicles, causing them to maintain a larger separation.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am very much grateful to my guide Prof. Vijay J. Chitaria, Associate professor, Civil Engineering Department, L.D.
College of Engineering, Ahmedabad and my co-guide Prof. Toral H. Vyas, Assistance Professor, Civil Engineering
Department, L.D. College of Engineering, for their valuable guidance, cooperation and untiring encouragement of all levels
of the work, whose guidance and support helped me to complete this research successfully, without their guidance my work
would not be completed.

REFERENCES

[1] Sandeep Singh, Akshay Kumar, Muhamed Niyas, Moses Santhakumar. 2020. Multivariate Analysis of Freeways Speed
and Time Headway under Mixed Traffic Streams. IEEE, 12th International Conference on Communication Systems &
Networks.
[2] Rupali Roy & Pritam Saha. 2018. Headway distribution models of two-lane roads under mixed traffic conditions: a case
study from India. European Transport Research Review 10:3.
[3] Saad Touhbi, Mohamed Ait Babram, Tri Nguyen-Huu, Nicolas Marion, Moulay L. Hbid, Christophe Cambier, and Serge
Stinckwich. 2018 Time Headway Analysis on Urban Roads of the city of Marrakesh. Procedia Computer Science 130
111–118.
[4] Sanhita Das, Akhilesh Kumar Maurya. 2017. Time Headway Analysis for Four-Lane and Two-Lane Roads. Transp. in
Dev. Econ. 3:9.
[5] Pritam Saha, Rupali Roy, Ashoke Kumar Sarkar & Manish Pal. 2017. Preferred time headway of drivers on two-lane
highways with heterogeneous traffic. The International Journal of Transportation Research.
[6] Akhilesh Kumar Maurya, Sanhita Das, Shreya Dey, Suresh Nama. 2016. Study on Speed and Time-headway
Distributions on Two-lane Bidirectional Road in Heterogeneous Traffic Condition. ScienceDirect Transportation
Research Procedia 17 428 – 437.
[7] Mohamed Badruddin, Ramesh V., Lelitha Vanajakshi. 2016. Headway Analysis using Automated Sensor Data under
Indian Traffic Conditions. Transportation Research Procedia 17 331 – 339.
[8] I Wayan Suweda. 2016. Time Headway Analysis to Determine the Road Capacity. Journal Spectra, Vol.4 No.2.
[9] Sanjay Radhakrishnan, Gitakrishnan Ramadurai. 2015. Discharge headway model for heterogeneous traffic conditions.
Transportation Research Procedia 10 145 – 154.
[10] Nimbagal Abhinav, A. Ramesh, Kumar Molugaram. 2014. Estimation of Headway Patterns on Urban Roads in
Hyderabad City – A Case Study. i-manager’s Journal on Civil Engineering vol. 4, No.3.

JETIR2205547 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org e371