The Libyan Academy

Tripoli - Libya

School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Improvement of Traffic Efficiency for Intersections

in Azzawiya City

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master in Civil Engineering

By:

Zeyad Omran Elhadi Elkharbash

Student No: 8862

Under the Supervision of:

Dr. Ahmed Ali Ben Saied

Spring, 2022
 ‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬

‫َّللاُ بِ َما تَ ْع َملُ َ‬

‫ون َخبِير‪‬‬ ‫ِين أُوتُوا ا ْل ِع ْل َم د ََر َجا ٍ‬
‫ت َو ه‬ ‫ِين آ َمنُوا ِم ْن ُك ْم َوالهذ َ‬ ‫‪ ‬يَ ْرفَ ِع ه‬
‫َّللاُ الهذ َ‬

‫سورة المجادلة‪ :‬اآلية (‪)11‬‬

‫‪ii‬‬
 Dedication

To my mother and father,

To my wife and daughter.

iii
 Acknowledgments

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Ahmed Ali Ben
Saied, for his valuable support, critical comments, and encouragement throughout the time
spent preparing this thesis.

I express my gratitude to all the personnel of the Traffic and Licensing Department and the
Syndicate of Engineering Professions in the city of Azzawiya, who helped me during
collecting the necessary data for this thesis.

I am very grateful to the staff of Abnna Abdul Mawla Store and Al-Wasit Real Estate
Investment Office, who permitted me to install the cameras on top of their offices.

I would like also to thank my friend Abdel Al-Hamid Kraim, who provided me with a
camera that was used for traffic data collection.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their constant support throughout
my study period.

Zeyad Elkharbash

iv
 List of Contents

Quranic verse…………………………………………………………………………………………..ii
Dedecation……………………………………………………………………………………………..iii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………iv
List of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………...v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………..x
List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...xiii
List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………xiv
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………..xv

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………………... 1
1.2 Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.3 Research Objectives………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1.3.1 General Objective……………………………………………………………………...…….. 2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives………………………………………………………………...……...…. 2
1.4 Study Significance……………………………………………………………………………..…. 3
1.5 Study Limitations…………………………………………………………………………..……... 3
1.6 Thesis Organization…………………………………………………………………………..…... 3

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1 Traffic Intersection………………………………………………………………………………... 5
2.2 General Types of Intersections……………………………………………………......................... 6
2.3 Types of At-Grade Intersections………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.3.1 Simple Intersections……………………...……………………………………….................. 6
2.3.2 Flared Intersections…………...……………………………………………………………... 6
2.3.3 Channelized Intersection (Including Roundabouts)…….. ……………………….................. 6
2.4 Common Types of Intersections Control…………………………………………......................... 7
2.4.1 Basic Rules of The Road (Uncontrolled Intersections)…………………. ……….…………. 8
2.4.2 Sign Control (Give away/Yield, Two-Way Stop, and All-Way Stop)……..………............... 8
2.4.3 Modern Roundabouts……………………………………………………………...………… 9
2.4.4 Traffic Signals Control………………………………………………...…………………….. 9
2.4.5 Alternative Intersections………………………………………...…………………………… 9
2.4.5.1 Median U-Turn Intersection (MUT)…………………………………………………. 9
2.4.5.2 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (RCUT) ………………………….……… 10
2.4.5.3 Displaced Left-Turn Intersection (DLT)..………………… ………………………. 11
2.5 Criteria of Selecting the Appropriate Control Type for Intersections…………………………… 11
2.5.1 Stop Sign Control Warrants………………………………………………………………… 12
2.5.2 Yield/Give away Sign Control Warrants…………………………………………............... 12
2.5.3 All-Way Sign Control Warrants…………………………………………………………… 13
2.5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants…………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.5.4.1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume (Warrant 1)………………………………………... 14
2.5.4.2 Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Warrant 2) …...…………………………………… 14
2.5.4.3 Peak Hour (Warrant 3)…...………………………………………………………… 15
2.5.4.4 Pedestrian Volume (Warrant 4)…………………………………………………….. 17
2.5.4.5 School Crossing (Warrant 5)…………….................................................................. 17
2.5.4.6 Coordinated Signals System (Warrant 6)…………………………………………... 17
2.5.4.7 Crash Experience (Warrant 7)……………………………………………………… 18

v
 2.5.4.8 Roadway Network (Warrant 8)….. ………………………………………………... 18
2.5.4.9 Intersection near a Grade Crossing (Warrant 9)…………………………………… 18
2.6 Intersection Design……………………………………………………………………………… 19
2.6.1 Design Vehicle…………………………………………………………………………….. 19
2.6.2 Design Speed………………………………………………………………………………. 20
2.6.3 Channelization……………………………………………………………………………... 20
2.6.4 Alignment and Profile.………………………………………………………………….….. 23
2.6.5 Intersection Sight Distance…………………………………………………………….…... 23
2.6.6 Auxiliary Lanes…………………………………………………………………….……… 25
2.6.6.1 Auxiliary Lane Length……………………………..………………………............. 25
2.6.6.2 General Criteria for Adding Auxiliary Left-Turn Lanes…………………………… 26
2.6.6.3 General Criteria for Adding Auxiliary Right‐Turn lanes……………………........... 27
2.6.7 Parking Lanes at Intersections………………………………………………………........... 28
2.6.8 Pedestrian Considerations…………………………………………………………………. 29
2.6.9 Bicycle Considerations…………………………………………………………………….. 29
2.6.10 Roundabout Geometric Design…………………………………………………………... 30
2.6.10.1 Number of Entry Lanes………………………………………………………….. 31
2.6.10.2 Design Vehicle…………………………………………………………………... 31
2.6.10.3 Angle between Approach Legs …………………………………………………. 32
2.6.10.4 Horizontal Alignment …………………………………………………………… 32
2.6.10.5 Central Island Size……………………………………………………………….. 33
2.6.10.6 Inscribed Circle Diameter………………………………………………………... 33
2.6.10.7 Entry Width……………………………………………………………………… 34
2.6.10.8 Circulatory Roadway Width……………………………………………………... 34
2.6.10.9 Entry Curve ……………………………………………………………………... 34
2.6.10.10 Exit Curve………………………………………………………………………. 35
2.6.10.11 Splitter Island………………………………………………….………………... 35
2.6.10.12 Parking Consideration………………………………………………………..… 35
2.6.10.13 Pedesrtians Considrations…………………………………………………...….. 35
2.6.10.14 Bicycle Considerations…………………………………………………………. 36
2.7 Traffic Flow Characteristics of Intersections……………………………………………….…… 36
2.7.1 Overview of Traffic Flow Parameters Relevant to Intersections………………………….. 37
2.7.1.1 Volume and Flow Rate…………………………………………………………...... 37
2.7.1.2 Peak-Hour Factor………………………………………………………………...… 38
2.7.1.3 Speed………………………………………………………….…………………… 39
2.7.1.4 Saturation Flow Rate………………………………………………………………. 39
2.7.1.4.1 Base Saturation Flow Rate……………………………………….……… 40
2.7.1.5 Critical Gap and Follow-up Headway …………………...……………………...… 41
2.7.1.5.1 Critical Gap…………………………………..……………………….…. 41
2.7.1.5.2 Follow-up Headway…………………………...………………………… 42
2.7.1.6 Traffic Composition……………………………………………………...………... 42
2.7.1.7 Traffic Signal…………………………………………………...………………..… 43
2.7.1.7.1 Traffic Signal Control Concept………………………….……………… 43
2.7.1.7.2 Traffic Signal Capacity……………………………………..………..….. 43
2.7.1.7.3 Traffic Signal Phasing…………………………………….…………….. 45
2.8 Intersections Performance Measure…………………………………………………………..…. 47
2.8.1 Capacity………………………………………………...……………………………..…... 48
2.8.2 Volume-to-Capacity (V/C ratio)…………………………………………………………... 48
2.8.3 Delay Time………………………………………………………………………………... 49
2.8.4 Queue Length……………………………………………………………………………... 50
2.8.5 Level of Servic (LOS) ………………………………………………………………...….. 52

vi
2.9 Overview of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software………………………………………………..….. 53
2.9.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. 53
2.9.2 Models Available in Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software………………………………….……. 53
2.9.3 Basic Features of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software………………………………………..… 54

Chapter 3 - Previous Studies

3.1 Review of Previous Studies Related to Comparison of Sidra Intersection Software Accuracy
with Different Software Packages……………………………………………………………........... 55
3.2 Review of Previous Studies Related for Estimating Local Traffic Parameters………………….. 57
3.3 Review of Previous Studies Related to Optimization of Intersections Performance……………. 58
3.4 Review of Previous Studies Related to Comparison of Capacity and Safety Level for Different
Types of Intersections…………………………………….…………………………………………. 60
3.5 Conclusion of the Previous Studies………….. ………………………………………………… 62

Chapter 4 - Research Methodology

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 63
4.2 Study Area (Selected Intersections)……………………………………………………….…….. 63
4.3 General Description of the Selected Intersections………………………………………………. 64
4.3.1 General Description of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………………………………….. 64
4.3.2 General Description of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………………… 66
4.3.3 General Description of Shlaby intersection…………………………………………………. 68
4.3.4 General Description of Al-Rihanna Intersection……………………………………………. 70
4.4 Data Collection………………………………………………………………………………....... 72
4.4.1 Equipment and Tools Used for Data Collection…………………………………………….. 72
4.4.2 Traffic Data Collection…………………………………………………………………….... 73
4.4.3 Geometric Data Collection……………………………………………………………….…. 78
4.4.4 Signals Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..…. 78
4.5 Input Data to Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software……………………………………………...……. 78
4.5.1 Intersection Dialogue…………………………………………………………………...…… 79
4.5.2 Movements Definition Dialogue…………………………………………………….……… 80
4.5.3 Lane Geometry Dialogue…………………………………………………………………… 80
4.5.4 Lane Movement Dialogue………………………………………………………………...… 82
4.5.5 Roundabouts Dialouge…………………………………………………………………...…. 83
4.5.6 Pedestrian Dialogue…………………………………………………………………………. 85
4.5.7 Volumes Dialogue………………………………………………………………………..…. 86
4.5.8 Priorities Dialogue……………………………………………………………………..……. 87
4.5.9 Gap Acceptance Dialogue……………………………………………………………..……. 88
4.5.10 Vehicle Movements Data Dialogue………………………………………………….……. 88
4.5.11 Phasing & Timing Dialogue……………………………………………………………….. 90
4.5.12 Demand & Sensitivity Dialogue…………………………………………………..……….. 93
4.5.13 Parameter Settings Dialogue………………………………………………………………. 93
4.6 Calibration of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software……………………………………………...…… 94
4.6.1 Adjustment of the Base Saturation Flow Rate…………………………………….……….. 95
4.6.2 Adjustment of the Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways………………………………… 96
4.6.3 Adjustment of Light Vehicle Length and Queue Space……………………………………. 97
4.7 Output of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software……………………………………………………….. 98
4.8 Traffic Efficiency Optimization Using Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software………………………… 99

Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion

5.1 Analysis of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………………………………………………….. 100

vii
 5.1.1 The Current Condition of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………………………............ 100
5.1.2 Geometric Characteristics of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection……………………………. 101
5.1.3 Traffic Volumes at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection……………………………………….. 101
5.1.4 Signal Phasing & Timing for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………………………….. 102
5.1.5 Performance Measures of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)……….……... 103
5.1.6 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection………...…………… 105
5.1.6.1 Traffic Signal Optimizing (Option 1.1)…………………………..………………. 106
5.1.6.2 Geometric Adjustments (Option 1.2)………………..………………………...…. 107
5.2 Analysis of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………………………………... 110
5.2.1 The Current Condition of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………….. 110
5.2.2 Geometric Characteristics of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………... 112
5.2.3 Traffic Volumes at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………………..…. 112
5.2.4 Existing Signal Phasing and Timing of Al-Gardabiya Intersection…………………….… 113
5.2.5 Performance Measures for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case)………………..... 114
5.2.6 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Al-Gardabiya Intersection…………………………... 116
5.2.6.1 Traffic Signal Optimizing (Option 2.1)………………… ………………….….… 116
5.2.6.2 Geometric Adjustments (Option 2.2)…………………… ….………………..….. 117
5.3 Analysis of Shlaby Intersection……………………………………………………………….... 120
5.3.1 The Current Condition of Shlaby Intersection………………………………………..….. 120
5.3.2 Geometric Characteristics of Shlaby Intersection…………………………………..……. 122
5.3.3 Traffic Volumes at Shlaby Intersection………………………………………………...…. 123
5.3.4 Performance Measures for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)………………………..… 124
5.3.5 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Shlaby intersection………………………………….. 125
5.3.5.1 Installation of Traffic Signal (Option 3.1)………………… ……………………. 126
5.4 Analysis of Al-Rihanna Intersection………………………………………………………..….. 129
5.4.1 The Current Condition of Al-Rihanna Intersection……………………………………….. 129
5.4.2 Geometric Characteristics of Al-Rihanna Intersection………………………………….… 134
5.4.3 Traffic Volumes at Al-Rihanna Intersection………………………………………...……. 134
5.4.4 Performance Measures for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)…………………..… 136
5.4.5 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Al-Rihanna Intersection…………………………..… 137
5.4.5.1 Geometric Adjustments (Option 4.1)………………… ……………………...….. 138

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….... 142
6.2 Recommendaons……………………………………………………………………………….. 145
6.2.1 General Recommendations…………………………………………...………………..… 145
6.2.2 Recommendations Related to the Studied Intersections…………...………………….…. 146
6.2.3 Recommendations for Future Studies……………………………………………....……. 147

References……………………………………………………………………………………….… 148
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 150

viii
 List of Tables
Table 2.1: Warrant 1 - Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume………………………………………......... 16
Table 2.2: Typical Design Vehicles at Intersections………………………………………..…….. 19
Table 2.3: Criteria for Installation of Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalised Intersections……..……... 27
Table 2.4: Relationship between Vehicle Volume and Required Number of Lanes…………..….. 31
Table 2.5: Relationship between Design Vehicle and Inscribed Diameter……………….....……. 31
Table 2.6: Critical limits for interpreting the resulting v/c ratio…………..………………..…….. 49
Table 2.7: LOS for Signalized Intersections…………………………..……………...…..………. 52
Table 2.8: LOS for Un-Signalized Intersections……………..………………………..………….. 52

Table 4.1: Default values of Passenger Car Equivalent (PCU)…………..……………..…..……. 74

Table 4.2: Guide for Specifying Extra Bunching…………………..………………..…..……….. 79
Table 4.3: Key Elements of Calibration for Sidra Intersection Software……..……..……..…….. 94
Table 4.4: Outputs of Sidra Intersection 7.0…………………………………..………..…..…….. 98

Table 5.1: Lane Queue Percentiles for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection………..…..………...….. 109

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Basic Components of At-Grade Intersections…………………………………………. 5

Figure 2.2: Types of At-Grade Intersections………………………………………………………. 7
Figure 2.3: Common Types of Intersections Control…………………………………………...…. 8
Figure 2.4: Median U-Turn Intersection (MUT)………………………………………………… 10
Figure 2.5: Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (RCUT)………………………………..….. 10
Figure 2.6: Displaced Left-Turn Intersection (DLT)……………………………………...…….... 11
Figure 2.7: Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume………………………………..…………. 16
Figure 2.8: Warrant 3 - Peak Hour……………………………………………………………….. 17
Figure 2.9: Raised Median Restricts Wrong Movements………………………………………… 20
Figure 2.10: Various Right-Turn Treatments, Depending on Speed Environment………………. 21
Figure 2.11: Left-Turn Lane Removes Left-Turning Vehicles From Paths of Through Vehicles...22
Figure 2.12: Sight Triangles at Intersections…………………………………………..…………. 24
Figure 2.13: Digram of Auxiliary Lane………………………………………………………...… 25
Figure 2.14: Single-lane left-turn storage length at signalized intersections…………………….. 26
Figure 2.15: Parking Lane at Intersection………………………………………………….…….. 28
Figure 2.16: Basic Geometric Elements of a Roundabout………………………………..……… 30
Figure 2.17: Options for Approach Alignment of Roundabouts………………………….……… 33
Figure 2.18: Concept of Saturation Headway……………………………………………….…… 40
Figure 2.19: Comparison of Base Saturation Flow Rates at Different Cities………………..…… 41
Figure 2.20: Illustration of Critical Gap…………………………………………………….……. 41
Figure 2.21: Illustration of Follow-up Headway…………………………………………………. 42
Figure 2.22: The basic capacity model…………………………………………………………… 44
Figure 2.23: Illustration of volume and capacity of a signalized movement…………………..…. 45
Figure 2.24: Typical Phase Modes……………………………………………………..………… 46
Figure 2.25: Control Delay for a Single Vehicle Through Signalized Intersection……………… 50
Figure 2.26: Cycle-average queue and average back of queue at a signalised intersections…...… 51
Figure 2.27: Sidra Models Options………………………………………………….……………. 53

Figure 4.1: Locations of the Selected Intersection……………………………………………….. 63

Figure 4.2: An Aerial Photograph for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection……………………...…… 64
Figure 4.3: Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection Views………………………………………….……. 65
Figure 4.4: An Aerial Photograph for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………………………. 66
Figure 4.5: Al-Ghardabiya Intersection Views…………………………………………………… 67
Figure 4.6: An Aerial Photograph for Shlaby Intersection……………………………………….. 68
Figure 4.7: Shlaby Intersection Views……………………………………………………………. 69
Figure 4.8: An Aerial Photograph for Al-Rihanna Intersection……………………….…………. 70
Figure 4.9: Al-Rihanna Intersection Views…………………………………………….………… 71
Figure 4.10: Equipment and Tools Used for Data Collection………………………...………….. 72
Figure 4.11: FHWA Vehicle Classes…………………………………………………...………… 74
Figure 4.12a: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………...… 75
Figure 4.12b: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection…………...….75
Figure 4.13a: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection……………..….. 76
Figure 4.13b: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection……………...…. 76

x
Figure 4.14: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Shlaby Intersectio……………………………. 77
Figure 4.15: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Rihanna Intersection………………….….. 77
Figure 4.16: Screen Shot of the Site Tab…………………………………………………….…… 78
Figure 4.17: Intersection and Approaches Dialogue……………………………………...……… 79
Figure 4.18: Screen Shot of Movement Definitions Dialuge…………………………………….. 80
Figure 4.19: Screen Shot of Lane Geometry Dialuge………………………………………..…… 81
Figure 4.20: Free Queue Parameters for a Shared Slip Lane……………………………….……. 82
Figure 4.21: Screen Shot of Lane Movement Data………………………………………………. 83
Figure 4.22: Screen shot of the options Tab…………………………………………………….... 83
Figure 4.23: Screen Shot of Roundabout Data Tab……………………………………...……….. 84
Figure 4.24: Screen Shot of HCM 6 Data Tab……………………………………………...……. 85
Figure 4.25: Screen Shot of Vehicle Volume Tab…………………………………………..……. 86
Figure 4.26: Screen Shot of Volume Factors Tab…………………………………………….….. 87
Figure 4.27: Screen Shot of Priorities Dialouge…………………………………………………. 87
Figure 4.28: Screen Shot of Gap Acceptance Data Dialouge……………………………….……. 88
Figure 4.29: Screen Shot of Path Data Tab…………………………………………………...….. 89
Figure 4.30: Screen Shot of Calibration Tab………………………………………………...…… 90
Figure 4.31: Phasing & Timing Dialog (Sequence Editor Tab)………………………………….. 91
Figure 4.32: Screen Shot of Phase & Sequence Data Tab…………………………………….….. 91
Figure 4.33: Screen Shot of Timing Options Tab………………………………………………… 92
Figure 4.34: Demand & Sensitivity Dialogue………………………………………………….… 93
Figure 4.35: Screen Shot of the Parameter Settings Dialog (Options Tab)………………………. 94
Figure 4.36: Adjustment of the Base Saturation Flow Rate for the Signalized Intersections….… 95
Figure 4.37: Adjustment of the Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways for Shlaby Intersection... 96
Figure 4.38: Adjustment of Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways for Al-Rihanna Intersection.. 97
Figure 4.39: Adjustment of Light Vehicle Length and Queue Space………………………..…… 98
Figure 4.40: Screen Shot of the Site Tab………………………………………………….……… 99

Figure 5.1: Existing Geometric Layout of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection……………………... 101

Figure 5.2: Traffic Volume at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection from 12:45 to 01:45 pm………... 102
Figure 5.3: Signal phasing and Timing of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)……. 103
Figure 5.4: Degree of Saturation for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)……….…. 104
Figure 5.5: Control Delay for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)……………….... 104
Figure 5.6: Level of Service for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Existing Case)………………. 105
Figure 5.7: Signal phasing and Timing of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option1.1)……...… 106
Figure 5.8: Control Delay and LOS for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Option 1.1)………..… 107
Figure 5.9: Geometric Layout of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)……………...…. 108
Figure 5.10: Signal Timing for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)…………………... 109
Figure 5.11: Control Delay and LOS for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Option 1.2)………… 110
Figure 5.12: An Example of Pavement damages at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection……………...…111
Figure 5.13: Existing Geometric Layout of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection………………….……. 112
Figure 5.14: Traffic Volume at Al-Gardabiya Intersection From 12:30 pm to 01:30 pm…….… 113
Figure 5.15: Signal Phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection ( Existing Case)…..… 113
Figure 5.16: Degree of Saturation for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case)………….… 114
Figure 5.17: Control Delay for Al-Ghardabiya intersection (Existing Case)………………….... 115
Figure 5.18: Level of Service for Al-Ghardabiya intersection (Existing Case)……………….... 115

xi
Figure 5.19: Signal Phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1)……….... 116
Figure 5.20: Control Delay and LOS for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1)………...….. 117
Figure 5.21: Geometric Layout of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2)………………….... 118
Figure 5.22: Determining the Length of the New Left -Turn Lane at the East Approach of Al-
Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2) …………………………………………………………... 119
Figure 5.23: Signal phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2)………… 119
Figure 5.24: Control Delay and LOS for Al-Gardabiya intersection (Option 2.2)…………….... 120
Figure 5.25: Removed Speed Bumps at Shlaby Intersection…………………………...…...….. 121
Figure 5.26: An Examples of Pavement Damages at Shlaby Intersection…………………...…. 122
Figure 5.27: Existing Geometric Layout of Shlaby Intersection…………………………….….. 122
Figure 5.28: Traffic Volume at Shlaby Intersection From 11:00 am to 12:00 am……………… 123
Figure 5.29: Control Delay for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)……………………………. 124
Figure 5.30: Level of Service for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)………………………..... 125
Figure 5.31: Geometric Layout for Shlaby Intersection (Option3.1)…………………………… 126
Figure 5.32: Signal Timing and Phasing for Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1)…………….…… 127
Figure 5.33: Control Delay and LOS for Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1)………………….…. 128
Figure 5.34: An Example of Parking Activity at the West Approach………………………...… 130
Figure 5.35: An Example of Parking Activity at the West Leg…………………………………. 130
Figure 5.36: An Example of Parking Activity at the East Leg……………………………….…. 131
Figure 5.37: An Example of Parking Activity at the North Leg………………………..………. 131
Figure 5.38: An Example of Parking Activity at the South Leg………………………….…….. 132
Figure 5.39: An Example of Parking Activity at Al-Rihanna Intersection………………..……. 132
Figure 5.40: Examples of Pavement Damages at Al-Rihanna Intersection…………………..…. 133
Figure 5.41: Existing Geometric Layout of Al-Rihanna Intersection……………………….….. 134
Figure 5.42: Traffic Volume at Al-Rihanna Intersection from 10:30 am to 11:30 am…………. 135
Figure 5.43: Control Delay for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)………………...…….. 136
Figure 5.44: Level of Service for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)……………………. 137
Figure 5.45a: Geometric Layout of the West Leg (Option 4.1)…………………………...……. 138
Figure 5.45b: Geometric Layout of the East Leg (Option 4.1)…………………………...…….. 139
Figure 5.45c: Geometric Layout of the North Leg (Option 4.1)……………………..…………. 139
Figure 5.45d: Geometric Layout of the South Leg (Option 4.1)……………………..…………. 139
Figure 5.46: Control Delay for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1)………………………….. 140
Figure 5.47: LOS for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1)……………………………………. 141

xii
 List of Appendices
Appendix A -Traffic data
Table A1: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection.............150
Table A2: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection…..............151
Table A3: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Shlaby Intersectio…………………….152
Table A4: Fifteen Minute Counts at Al-Rihanna Intersection……………………………….............153

Appendix B - Performance Analysis

Table B1: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)).....154
Table B2: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection ( Existing Case))..……….154
Table B3: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option1.1))….…..155
Table B4: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.1)).…….…...…155
Table B5: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)).…….156
Table B6: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)).…….……...156
Table B7: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case))……..157
Table B8: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case))…….……....157
Table B9: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1))…….…..158
Table B10: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1))…….……….. 158
Table B11: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2))…….…159
Table B12: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2))…….……...…159
Table B13: Intersection Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case))…….…...….160
Table B14: Lane Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case))…….…………..….160
Table B15: Intersection Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1))………………..161
Table B16: Lane Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1))……………………….161
Table B17: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case))………..162
Table B18: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case))……………….162
Table B19: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1))…………...163
Table B20: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1))…………………..163

Appendix C – Technical Specification of the Used Cameras

Figure C1: Technical Specification of Camera 1…...…………………………………………….….164
Figure C2: Technical Specification of Camera 2…...……………………………………………..…165

xiii
 List of Abbreviations

Symbol Description

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

FHWA Federal Highway Administration ( USA)
HCM 6 Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, or HCM 2016
LOS Level of Service

MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NOx Nitric oxide
O-D Origin-Destination
PHF Peak Hour Factor
RTOR Right Turn on Red
Signalised & unsignalised Intersection Design and Research Aid (traffic
SIDRA engineering software)
SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
USA United States of America
V/C Volume-to-Capacity ratio ( Degree of Saturation)

xiv
 Abstract

The increase in traffic congestion and accidents at the intersections are serious problems in
Azzawiya City, resulting in high operating costs, lost time, driver frustration, high fuel
consumption, and high pollution emissions, as well as human and material losses due to
accidents. Therefore, the major goal of this study is to use Sidra Intersections 7.0 software
based on HCM 2016 methodology to improve traffic efficiency at four critical intersections in
Azzawiya city.

The evaluation of the selected intersections takes into account a wide range of factors,
including traffic volumes, geometric characteristics, and findings of the related studies. The
analysis results were used to propose measures to improve traffic efficiency in terms of
capacity and safety. In this thesis, geometric adjustments, signal timing optimization, and
change of control type were the primary measures used to achieve the research's objectives.

Several solutions have been proposed to improve the existing condition of intersections. Using
the optimum signal timing combined with implementing some geometric adjustments, the
LOS for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (signalized) improved from F to E, and the control
delay decreased from 105.6 to 78.5 sec/veh. Al-Ghardabiya intersection (signalized) showed a
decrease in delay time from 121 sec/veh to 76.8 sec/veh and LOS improved from F to E by
using the optimum signal timing combined with implementing some geometric adjustments.
To improve safety condition, Shlaby intersection (sign-controlled) was converted to a
signalized intersection, which resulted in a slight increase in control delay from 26.2 sec/veh
to 31.1 sec/veh and improvement of the LOS from D to C. For Al-Rihanna intersection
(roundabout), a proposal has been made to provide short entry and exit lanes for all of its legs
by restricting vehicles from parking near and inside the roundabout, which resulted in an
improvement in LOS from E to C and control delay decreased considerably from 44.4 to 15.7
sec/veh.

Overall, the study findings revealed that the capacity and safety level of the intersections that
located in the city center (Shlaby & Al-Rihanna) can be improved considerably by
implementing some minor geometric and operational changes. However, these simple and
low-cost alternatives are not sufficient for the signalized intersections that are located on the

xv
coastal road (Omar Al-Mukhtar & Al-Ghardabiya). Other solutions that require higher costs
and relatively longer time, such as changing the intersections category from an at-grade
intersection to a grade-separated intersection or constructing a ring road around the city to
relieve pressure on the section of the coastal road passing adjacent to the city center.

Keywords: Capacity; Safety; Traffic Efficiency; SIDRA; HCM; At-Grade Intersections

xvi
 ‫الملخص‬

‫اإلزدحام المروري و إرتفاع معدالت الحوادث في التقاطعات تعتبر من المشكالت الخطيرة في مدينة‬

‫الزاوية و التي ينتج عنها إرتفاع تكاليف التشغيل و خسارة الوقت و اإلزعاج للسائقين و الركاب‪ ،‬هذا‬

‫فضال عن المعدالت العالية الستهالك الوقود و االنبعاثات الملوثة للهواء‪ ،‬أضف إلي ذلك الخسائر البشرية‬

‫و المادية الناتجة عن الحوادث المرورية‪ .‬لذلك فإن الهدف الرئيسي لهذة الدراسة هو تحسين الكفاءة‬

‫المرورية ألربعة تقاطعات مرورية مهمة بمدينة الزاوية بإستخدام برنامج )‪)Sidra Intersection 7.0‬‬

‫وذلك وفقا لمعايير دليل السعة األمريكي للطرق )‪.)HCM 6‬‬

‫عدة عوامل تم أخذها باإلعتبار عند تقييم التقاطعات المختارة في هذه الدراسة‪ ,‬بما في ذلك أحجام المرور و‬

‫الخصائص الهندس ية‪ ,‬هذا باإلضافة إلي نتائج الدراسات السابقة ذات الصلة‪ .‬تم إستخدام المؤشرات‬

‫المستخلصة من نتائج التحليل للتقاطعات إلقتراح مجموعة من التدابير لتحسين الكفاءة المرورية للتقاطعات‬

‫من حيث السعة و السالمة المرورية ‪ .‬إجراء بعض التعديالت الهندسية‪ ،‬وإستخدام التوقيت الزمني األمثل‬

‫لإلشارة الضوئية‪ ،‬وتغيير نوع التحكم بالتقاطع كانت من أهم التدابير المستخدمة لتحقيق أهداف الدراسة‪.‬‬

‫تم إقتراح العديد من الحلول لتحسين الكفاءة المرورية الحالية للتقاطعات‪ .‬في التقاطع األول (تقاطع عمر‬

‫المختار) تم إستخدام التوقيت الزمني األمثل لإلشارة الضوئية مع تنفيذ بعض التعديالت الهندسية ‪ ,‬حيث‬

‫تحسن مستوي الخدمة في التقاطع من (‪ )F‬إلي (‪ )E‬في حين إنخفض زمن التأخير من ( ‪ 105.6‬ثانية‪/‬‬

‫مركبة) إلي (‪ 78.5‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة)‪ .‬في التقاطع الثاني (تقاطع القرضابية) زمن التأخير شهد إنخفاظا من‬

‫(‪121‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة) إلي (‪ 76.8‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة) و مستوي الخدمة تحسن قليال من (‪ )F‬إلي (‪ )E‬وذلك عن‬

‫طريق إستخدام التوقيت الزمني األمثل لإلشارة الضوئية مع تنفيذ بعض التعديالت الهندسية‪ .‬لرفع مستوي‬

‫السالمة المرورية تم تحوير التقاطع الثالث (تقاطع شالبي) من تقاطع محكوم باإلشارات المرورية إلي‬

‫تقاطع محكوم باإلشارات الضوئية‪ ،‬حيث سجل زمن التأخير إرتفاعا طفيفا من (‪ 26.2‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة) إلي‬
‫‪xvii‬‬
‫(‪ 31.1‬ثانية ‪ /‬مركبة) في حين تحسن مستوي الخدمة من (‪ )D‬إلي (‪ .)C‬بالنسبة للتقاطع الرابع (دوار‬

‫الريحانة) ‪ ،‬تم اقتراح توفير ممر إضافي عند مداخل ومخارج الدوار من خالل منع وقوف المركبات‬

‫بالقرب من جزيرة الدوران ‪ ،‬مما أدى إلى تحسن ملحوظ في مستوي الخدمة من (‪ )E‬إلى )‪ (C‬وانخفض‬

‫زمن التأخير من ( ‪ 44.4‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة) إلي (‪ 15.7‬ثانية‪ /‬مركبة)‪.‬‬

‫بشكل عام‪ ,‬أظهرت نتائج الدراسة أنه باإلمكان رفع مستوي السعة والسالمة المرورية بالتقاطعات الواقعة‬

‫بمركز المدينة ( شالبي و دوار الريحانة) عن طريق تنفيذ بعض التعديالت الهندسية و التشغيلية البسيطة‪.‬‬

‫علي النقيض من ذلك‪ ,‬أظهرت النتائج أن هذه التعديالت البسيطة و االقتصادية غير كافية لرفع مستوي‬

‫األداء التشغيلي للتقاطعات المحكومة باإلشارات الضوئية الواقعة علي الطريق الساحلي (عمر المختار و‬

‫القرضابية) إلي مستوي مقبول‪ ,‬حيث أنها تتطلب حلوال أكثر كلفة و أوقات تنفيذ طويلة نسبيا‪ .‬هذه الحلول‬

‫قد تتضمن تغيير الوضع الهندسي الحالي من تقاطعات سطحية إلي تقاطعات متعددة المستويات أو إنشاء‬

‫طريق دائري حول المدينة لتخفيف الضغط علي الطريق الساحلي‪ ،‬خصوصا القطاع المار بمحاذة مركز‬

‫المدينة‪.‬‬

‫الكلمات المفتاحية‪ :‬السعة المرورية‪ ،‬السالمة المرورية ‪ ،‬الكفاءة المرورية‪ ،‬دليل السعة األمريكي‬
‫للطرق‪ ،‬سيدرا‪ ،‬التقاطعات السطحية‪.‬‬

‫‪xviii‬‬
 Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Background

The transportation system is an essential part of modern life whenever vehicles are used to
move people or items from one location to another. The great importance of the transportation
system imposes a responsibility on relevant authorities to reduce transport costs and commute
times through adequate infrastructure and highway management.

The transportation system in Libya suffers from many fundamental problems. One of the most
significant dilemmas is the excessive reliance on private vehicles. In recent decades, there has
been tremendous growth in the demand for automobiles. The total number of motor vehicles
in Libya has grown up at an excessive rate. The increasing number of vehicles is the primary
cause of traffic congestion and the high rate of accidents. Furthermore, the delay in
implementing strategic projects such as the Railway Project and Improvement, Upgrading, and
Equipping Coastal Road contributes significantly to the ongoing deterioration of the roadway
network's level of service. In addition, the lack of maintenance for highways and traffic
control devices puts extra stress on the existing transportation system with congestion,
pollution, and a low safety level.

Improving Libyan roadways' mobility and safety level is possible by building new
transportation facilities and providing alternative tools to private cars. However, these are
long-term and expensive solutions and maybe infeasible soon. Hence, the alternative is the
short-term and low-cost solutions such as improving the traffic management to rationalize the
use of the existing transportation system and accommodate the existing traffic demand through
the application of the scientific methodologies to study the existing traffic conditions and
identifying some critical indicators to determine the optimal operational control systems and
propose some minor geometric adjustments for any facility in the transport network. To
achieve this goal, this research aims to assess the operational performance for some critical
intersections at the city of Azzawiya, as these nodes are critical points in the roadway network
because of the concentration of large numbers of vehicles in a small area and investigate low-
cost alternatives to improve its traffic efficiency.

1
1.2 Problem Statement

Delays, long queues, and accidents in Azzawiya city are observed repeatedly at some
intersections. This deterioration in the traffic efficiency of intersections causes many adverse
effects on commuters. These effects include loss of working hours, drivers and passengers'
frustration, high-energy consumption, pollution, and human and material losses due to
accidents. Several factors contribute to the aggravation of the traffic problems at intersections.
Some of these factors include:

1. The existing transportation system can not accommodate traffic demand,

2. There is a lack of scientific studies on the performance of intersections in the city to handle
the problem of congestion and accidents.

3. The absence of consultation and cooperation between the many agencies that are
responsible for traffic management.

4. The operation of traffic signals is carried out based on experience, and no scientific
methods are used to design signal timing and phasing.

5. The operation of traffic signal is not done properly due to a lack of retiming, maintenance.

6. The poor conditions of the traffic control devices ( i.e., signs, lane lines, traffic arrows, and
pedestrian crossing lines(.

1.3 Study Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The general objective of this research is to improve the capacity and safety condition at four
critical intersections in Azzawiya city by using Sidra Intersection 7.0 software based on HCM
2016 methodology.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To evaluate the operational performance for the selected intersections, including capacity,
delay, level of service, degree of saturation, length of queues, emissions rate, and energy
consumption.

2
2. To assess the effectiveness of the current control type for the studied intersections.

3. To investigate the traffic control devices at the studied intersections and identify their
deficiencies.

4. To improve the level of service and safety level at the studied intersections using simple
and low cost methods such as change of signal timing, minor geometric adjustments, and
changing the control type.

1.4 Study Significance

The findings of this study may help the concerned agencies to make the proper decisions about
addressing some of the traffic problems in the study area.

1.5 Study Limitations

1. Local traffic flow parameters that are required to be inputted in Sidra Intersection 7.0
program are not available. Therefore, to reduce the error margin of the performance
measures, some of the default values were adjusted based on the recommendations of
Sidra Intersection 7.0 User Guide, field observation, and findings of previous studies that
were carried out in developing countries, which are believed to have similar traffic
characteristics and driving behavior.

2. Considerable percentages of drivers do not adhere to traffic rules, especially with regard to
giving the priority at intersections. Thus, the corresponding result is expected to differ
slightly from reality.

1.6 Thesis Organization

This thesis includes sex chapters and related appendixes, listed as follows:

The First Chapter contains research background, problem statement, study objectives, study
significance, study limitations and thesis organization.

The Second Chapter presents a review of the theoretical framework for the research,
including the characteristic of different intersections types, types of control for intersections,
the criteria for selecting the appropriate control type, intersections design, overview of some

3
traffic flow parameters related to intersections, performance measures of intersections and an
overview of the tools used to evaluate the selected intersections.

The Third Chapter shows the most important conclusions and recommendations of the
previous studies related to the content of the thesis.

The Fourth Chapter contains an explination for the methods that are used for data collection,
and discussing of how the data was inputed to Sidra Intersection 7.0 software during the
analysis.

The Fifth Chapter contains the analysis results and its discussion. Using Sidra Intersection
7.0 software, the different values of the performance measures are determined. Also,
alternative proposals are investigated.

The Sixth Chapter contains the conclusions and the recommendations.

Finally, references and appendixes added at the end of the thesis.

4
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.1 Traffic Intersection

Intersection is an area shared by two or more roads. This area is designated for the vehicles to
turn to different directions. Traffic intersections are complex locations on any highway since
many vehicles and pedestrians want to occupy the same space at the same time. Drivers have
to make an instant decision at an intersection by considering his route, intersection geometry,
speed and direction of other vehicles. A slight error in judgment can cause severe accidents.
Intersections also cause a delay in which the overall traffic flow efficiency depends on the
performance of the intersections. Therefore, from the capacity perspective and the safety
perspective, the study of intersections is very important for traffic engineers, especially in
urban areas [1]. Figure 2.1 shows the essential components of a typical intersection.

Figure 2.1: Basic Components of At-Grade Intersections [2]

5
2.2 General Types of Intersections

Intersections classified into three general categories [3]:

1. At-grade separated intersections.

2. Grade-separated without ramps.

3. Grade-separated with ramps (commonly known as interchange).

Grade-separated intersections are beyond the scope of this thesis, and the following sections
present the basic principles of at-grade intersections.

2.3 Types of At-Grade Intersections

At-grade Intersections can be categorized into four major types; simple, flared and
channelized [4]. An examples of these types are shown below in figure 2.2.

2.3.1 Simple Intersections

Simple intersections keep the street’s typical cross-section and number of lanes throughout the
intersection on both the major and minor streets and auxiliary (turning) lanes is not required to
achieve the desired level of service. Generally, simple intersections provide the shortest
crossing distances for pedestrians and are common in low-traffic areas [4].

2.3.2 Flared Intersections

Intersections may be flared to add more through lanes or extra turning lanes, such as speed-
change lanes. Speed-change lanes allow right-turning or left-turning vehicles to reduce
speed when departing the through lane without affecting the speed of other vehicles and
permit through vehicles to pass another vehicle waiting to complete a turn at an intersection
[4].

2.3.3 Channelized Intersection (Including Roundabouts)

Channelized intersections are intersections where the travel paths for different types of
movements are separated and delineated. Raised traffic islands, painted markings, and safety
bars can be used for channelization [4].

6
 
Figure 2.2: Types of At-Grade Intersections [4]

2.4 Types of Intersections Control

The primary function of intersection control is to regulate traffic and ensure safety.
Furthermore, the benefits may be the reduction of delay and increase of intersection's vehicles
and pedestrian capacities. The most common types of intersections control include basic rules
of the roads (uncontrolled intersections), priority-controlled intersections (give-way and stop
control), roundabouts, signalized intersections [5], and alternative intersections. Some
examples of the control types for intersections are shown in figure 2.3.

7
 Figure 2.3: Common Types of Intersections Control [6]

2.4.1 Basic Rules of The Road (Uncontrolled Intersections)

Intersections with no control are justified when volumes are very low, including peak periods,
and there are sufficient sight distances on all approaches for vehicles to stop safely at the
intersection or to clear the intersection safely. Intersections with no traffic control are usually
minor, unpaved roads with low speeds [5]. A basic rule of the road at an intersection where
there are no traffic control devices requires the vehicle on the left to yield to the vehicle on the
right if they arrive at approximately the same time [3].

2.4.2 Sign Control (Give away/Yield, Two-Way Stop, and All-Way Stop)

Yield control requires drivers to slow down speed on minor road and allow vehicles on major
road to pass through the intersections. Two-way stop control requires drivers on the minor
streets to stop until seeing the conflicts are avoided. Finally, an all-way stop control is usually
used when differentiating between major and minor roads is difficult. In such a case, a stop
sign is placed on all the approaches to the intersection and the driver on all the approaches is
required to stop and vehicles at the right side will get priority over the left approach [1]. Sign
control is simple and low-cost, but it is not effective for a high volume of traffic and to
mitigate accidents.
8
2.4.3 Modern Roundabout

The roundabout is an intersection with one-way traffic flow around a central island. All traffic
that enters the roundabout should give way to traffic on the circulating roadway. Although
usually circular, the roundabout's central island can be oval or irregularly shaped [2,7].
Roundabout is Suitable for relatively balanced approach volumes, safer for vehicular travel,
can cause minor delay and emissions, accommodate aesthetic treatments, lower injury and
fatality rates; however, it is less suitable for high volume and multilane approaches and less
intuitive for pedestrians and bicycles than other types of intersections [7].

2.4.4 Traffic Signals Control

Traffic signal control is based on a time-sharing concept. At a given time, specific traffic
movements are banned under specific signals. In contrast, others are permitted to pass through
the intersection. Two or more phases may be provided depending upon the traffic conditions
of the intersection [1,7]. Traffic signals are suitable for high-volume intersections, allow
protected pedestrian movements, and accommodate unbalanced approach volumes. However,
it can have high amounts of s topped time, delay, and a higher potential for rare end collision
accidents [7].

2.4.5 Alternative Intersections

Alternative intersections, sometimes called innovative intersections, operate mainly by

redirecting U and left turns and separating movements [8]. Innovative intersections include but
not limited to the following types:

2.4.5.1 Median U-Turn Intersection (MUT)

The MUT intersection treatment relocates left-turn movements, resulting in lower delays,
higher throughput, and decreased number and severity of collisions. The main intersection is
usually signalized and highly effective, requiring only two signal phases. The MUT design
significantly reduces rear-end, angle, and sideswipe collisions, thus reducing the number of
points of conflict from 32 to 16 compared to the traditional signalized intersection. However,
the intersection design can reduce mobility for bicyclists as they must use pedestrian crossings
to make left turns at intersection [8]. Figure 2.4 shows traffic scheme at MUT intersection.

9
 Figure 2.4: Median U-Turn Intersection (MUT) [9]

2.4.5.2 Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (RCUT)

RCUT intersections have similarities to the MUT as left-turning movements from the minor
street are redirected. However, RCUTs also redirect minor streets through movements. This
type of intersection results in lower delays, improved progression, and a potential decrease in
the total number of crashes. RCUT intersections may or may not be signalized, and traffic
signals require fewer signal phases and shorter cycle lengths than traditional signalized
intersections [8]. Figure 2.5 shows traffic scheme at RCUT intersection.

Figure 2.5: Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (RCUT) [9]

10
2.4.5.3 Displaced Left-Turn Intersection (DLT)

The DLT intersection works mainly by relocating one or more left turn movements across the
opposing traffic via an interconnected signaled crossover. This makes the traffic signal system
more efficient by eliminating the left turn phase at the main intersection, allowing more green
time to be allocated to other movements. The DLT can reduce delays by 40%. However,
because of longer crossing distances and confusing left turn vehicles, the DLT may be more
challenging for pedestrians [8]. Figure 2.6 shows traffic scheme at RCUT intersection.

Figure 2.6: Displaced Left-Turn Intersection (DLT) [9]

2.5 Criteria of Selecting the Appropriate Control Type for Intersections

The main criteria for selection the appropriate intersection traffic control are volume (daily
distribution and peaking), delay, and safety. Heavy volumes and high delay intersections
require traffic signals or interchanges. When signalization is not warranted according to the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or any other standard; then Stop,
Yield, and no traffic control are the remaining options [5].

11
2.5.1 Stop Sign Control Warrants

Suppose engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more
of the following situations. In that case, the placement of stop signs on minor-street
approaches should be considered:

A) The through street or highway has a daily traffic volume of over 6,000 vehicles.

B) There is a restricted view that requires drivers to come to a complete stop in order to
properly observe conflicting traffic on a through street or highway.

C) According to crash records, three or more crashes susceptible to correction by the

placement of a stop sign have been reported over a 12-month period, or five or more such
crashes have been reported within a two-year period. Right-angle collisions involving
road users on the minor-street approach who fail to yield the right-of-way to vehicles on
the through street or highways are examples of such collisions [10].

2.5.2 Yield/Give away Sign Control Warrants

At intersections where full stops are not required at all times, less restrictive policies such as
yield signs should be considered. Yield signs can be used instead of stop signs if either of the
following requirements exists:

A) The divided highway with 30 feet or greater median width at the intersection. A stop sign
may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway, while a yield sign may be installed at
the entrance to the second roadway.

B) For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island,
even if the adjacent lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control
signal or by a stop sign.

C) At an intersection, where a particular problem exists and where engineering judgment

indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the yield sign [10].

12
2.5.3 All-Way Sign Control Warrants

All-way stop control is used where the traffic volume on the intersection approaches is
roughly equal. The following conditions should be considered for the installation of a multi-
way stop sign:

A) Where traffic control signals are warranted, all-way stop control is considered as a
temporary step that can be easily installed to monitor traffic while at the same time
arrangements are made for the installation of the traffic control signals,

B) As indicated by five or more reported crashes over 12 months, a crash problem is

susceptible to correction by multi-way stop installation. Such collisions include right-and
left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions,

C) Minimum volumes;

1. The average vehicle volume entering the intersection from the main-street approach (total
of the two approaches) is at least 300 vehicles per hour for any of eight hours per day; and

2. For the same 8 hours, the combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least
200 units per hour, with a minor-street vehicular traffic delay of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the peak hour; but

3. If the 85th percentile approach speed of main-street traffic reaches 40 mph, the minimum
warrants for vehicle volume are 70% of the values set out in Items 1 and 2.

D) Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80% of the minimum values, but no one
condition is satisfied [10].

2.5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants

Traffic signal warrants should guide determining when installing a traffic signal is appropriate.
Warrants are not requirements because even though one or more warrants are met, a traffic
signal does not necessarily have to be installed. However, it is further considered as an
appropriate treatment. If a proposed location does not satisfy any of the nine warrants, a traffic
signal is said to be "unwarranted" and it is typically not an acceptable traffic control system
for the location under investigation [11].

13
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2009) [10], identified nine warrants
described below. However, only the conditions that apply to the conditions and the available
data of the studied intersections will be reviewed in detail. Unapplicable conditions to the
study area are presented in detail at MUTCD 2009.

2.5.4.1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume (Warrant 1)

Warrant 1 comprises two conditions. (Condition A) Minimum Vehicular Volume and

(Condition B) Interruption of Continuous Traffic. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is
satisfied, and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not
needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied, and an analysis of the
combination of Conditions A and B is not needed.

A) Minimum Vehicular Volume (Condition A)

The Minimum Vehicle Volume is intended for use where a large volume of intersecting traffic
is the main reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The requirement shall be met
when the highest traffic volume exceeds the traffic volumes shown in Table 2.1 in any of the
eight hours of a typical day.

B) Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Condition B)

The Interruption of Continuous Traffic is intended for use in situations where Condition A is
not met, and a major street's traffic volume is so high that traffic on a minor street experiences
excessive delay or conflict entering or crossing the major street. The requirement shall be met
when the highest traffic volume exceeds the traffic volumes shown in the above exhibited
Table 2.1 in any of the eight hours of a normal day [10].

2.5.4.2 Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Warrant 2)

The Four-Hour Vehicle Volume signal warrant creteria are intended to apply where
intersection traffic volume is the primary reason for considering installing a traffic control
signal. Warrant 2 correspond when at least the minimum volumes indicated in figure 2.7 are
satisfied.

14
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if the engineering analysis finds that
the plotted points reflecting the vehicles per hour on the main street (total of both approaches)
and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one
direction only) are all fall above the relevant curve in Figure 2.7. On the minor lane, for each
of these 4 hours, the higher volume is not necessary to be on the same approach [10].

2.5.4.3 Peak Hour (Warrant 3)

The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where minor street traffic faces
unnecessary delay when entering or crossing the main street for a minimum of 1 hour on a
working day. These locations include office buildings, manufacturing centers, manufacturing
complex, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of
vehicles over a short period of time. The need for a traffic control signal is considered if the
criteria in either of the following two categories are met by an engineering study:

A) If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-
minute periods) of a normal day:

1. Traffic on one minor-street approach (one way only) controlled by a stop sign experiences a
total stopped time delay of at least four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or five
vehicle-hours if the road is two lanes approach.

2. The volume of traffic on the same minor-street approach (in one direction only) is equal to
or greater than 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour
for two moving lanes.

3. For intersections with three approaches, the total entering volume during the hour equals or
exceeds 650 vehicles per hour; for intersections with four or more approaches, the total
entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vehicles per hour.

B) The plotted point representing the number of vehicles per hour on the major street (total
of both approaches), as well as the number of vehicles per hour on the higher-volume
minor-street approach (one direction only), for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute
periods), fall above the relevant curve in figure 2.8 [10].

15
 Table 2.1: Warrant 1 - Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume [10]
Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume
Number of lanes for Moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume
traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach (one direction)
Major Street Minor Street 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d

1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84

2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84

2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112

1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112

Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Number of lanes for Moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume
traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-street approach (one direction)
Major Street Minor Street 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d 100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d

1 1 750 600 625 420 75 60 53 42

2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42

2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56

1 2 or more 750 600 350 420 100 80 70 5

a Basic minimum hourly volume
b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures
c May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000
d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major-street
speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000.

Figure 2.7: Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume [10]

16
 Figure 2.8: Warrant 3 - Peak Hour [10]

2.5.4.4 Pedestrian Volume (Warrant 4)

The volume of pedestrians warrant is justified for installation of a traffic signal where the
amount of traffic on a major street is so high that pedestrians face an excessive delay in
crossing the major street [10].

2.5.4.5 School Crossing (Warrant 5)

The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the
frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and
size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street
shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the
schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period
and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren [10].

2.5.4.6 Coordinated Signal System (Warrant 6)

This requirement allows for a Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system. Drivers
commute at different speeds, the high distance between traffic signals creates dispersion in the
platoon of vehicles. Therefore, the vehicles that left particular traffic signals during the same
green interval will reach the next intersection at a wide time range, resulting in random access

17
during different signal cycles, affecting traffic flow. That is why installing traffic signals
between the two signals shall be considered to reduce the distance between them and provide
progressive movements. However, installing a traffic signal should not be used when the
resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1000 feet [10].

2.5.4.7 Crash Experience (Warrant 7)

The Crash Experience warranty is intended for use when the severity and frequency of crashes
are the principal reasons to consider installing traffic control signal. A traffic control signal is
needed if an engineering study finds that all the following requirements are met:

1. A sufficient trial of alternatives with enough observance and enforcement has failed to
reduce the frequency of crashes; and

2. The intersection has been the site of an average of five or more reported severe crashes
per year where traffic signals could have prevented the crashes. However, signals should
only be installed if simpler devices such as signs will not adequately reduce the accident
rate; and

3. For each of the 8 hours of an average day, the number of vehicles per hour (vph) specified
in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 2.1, or the number of vehicles
per hour (vph) specified in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 2.1,
exists on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches to the
intersection, respectively, or the volume of pedestrians is not less than 80% of the
requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major-street and minor-
street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall
not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours [10].

2.5.4.8 Roadway Network (Warrant 8)

Installation of a traffic control signal at certain intersections may be justified to promote the
concentration and organization of traffic flows over a road network [10].

2.5.4.9 Intersection near a Grade Crossing (Warrant 9)

The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a place where
none of the conditions mentioned in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the

18
primary reason for considering installing a traffic control signal is the proximity to the
intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach operated by a STOP or YIELD
sign [10].

2.6 Intersection Design

Intersection design is a complex process where operational efficiency factors such as capacity,
delay, safety, and geometric constraints are essential considerations. A poorly designed
intersection can lead to congestion, increased vehicular emissions, and road accidents. The
operational efficiency of intersections largely depends on the prevailing road, traffic, and
control conditions [6]. Design criteria should also fulfill the requirements of mobility,
environmental, architectural, artistic, cultural, natural resources, and community [3].

This subsection provides guidance for some physical design elements, including design
vehicle, design speed, channelization, alignment and profile, sight distance, auxiliary lanes,
pedestrians and bicycles considerations, and roundabout geometric design.

2.6.1 Design Vehicle

Design vehicle is the largest type of vehicle that expected to use the intersection. The selected
design vehicle affects intersection design, specially the pavement turning radius. Other
features of intersections affected by design vehicle but less than turning radius such as lane
widths. The design vehicle may also affect the choice of traffic control device and the need for
auxiliary lanes [4]. Table 2.2 provides general guidelines for the selection of design vehicle
suitable for intersections design under normal traffic composition conditions.

Table 2.2: Typical Design Vehicles at Intersections [4]

Functional Class of Major Road Typical Design Vehicle
Major Arterial Tractor-trailer Truck (WB-65)
Minor Arterial Tractor-trailer Truck (WB-50)
Major Collector Single-unit Truck
Minor Collector Passenger Car
Local Roads and Street Passenger Car

19
2.6.2 Design Speed

Design speed is a crucial design factor that controls selecting several parameters used in the
design of a roadway project. The roadway design speed can influence intersection design
elements such as selection of control system, island location and design, taper length, and
sight distance requirements.

Vehicles that turn at intersections designed for minimum-radius turns must operate at speeds
below 16 km/hr. In contrast, design for turning vehicles operating at higher speeds may be
desirable. The use of lower turning speeds at most intersections is often required for safety and
economy. The speeds for which intersection curves should be designed depend on
approaching vehicle speeds, vehicle design, intersection type, control mode, pedestrian
volume, and volumes of through and turn movements [12].

2.6.3 Channelization

The understanding of the intersections function and the functional objectives of intersection
design led to the principles of channelization. The following are the nine principles [13]:

1. Discourage or Prohibit Undesirable Movements; the use of traffic islands, raised

medians, and corner radii can all be used to prevent or restrict undesirable or incorrect
traffic movements. As shown in Figure 2.9, where such movements cannot be blocked
entirely, the channelization should discourage their completion.

Figure 2.9: Raised Median Restricts Wrong Movements [8]

20
2. Define Desirable Paths for Vehicles; the approaches alignment, traffic islands, pavement
markings, and geometry of an intersection should all identify proper or desirable vehicle
paths. Exclusive turning lanes should be delineated to encourage their use by turning
drivers and discourage their use by drivers intending to proceed through the intersection.

3. Encourage Safe Speeds through Design; channelization should, wherever possible,

promote desirable vehicle speeds. In some cases, this means providing open alignment to
facilitate high-speed traffic movements and heavy volume. In other cases, channelization
may be used to limit vehicle speeds to minimize severe high-speed conflicts. These
different cases are shown below in figure 2.10.

Figure 2.10: Various Right-Turn Treatments, Depending on Speed Environment [14]

4. Separate Points of Conflict Where Possible; the driving process is made easier by
separating points of conflict. The installation of turning lanes, the construction of islands,
and controlling access points are all examples of channelization procedures that separate
sources of conflict. As a result, the driver can identify and respond to conflicts in a more
systematic manner. An example of how an exclusive left-turn lane can reduce conflicts
with through vehicles is shown below in figure 2.11.

21
 Figure 2.11: Left-Turn Lane Removes Left-Turning Vehicles From The Paths of
Through Vehicles [14]

5. Control of maneuver angle; crossing, and merging traffic streams should be done to
reduce the possibility of actual conflict or collision and the severity of the conflict.
Channelization and alignment design should produce crossing vehicle streams at
approximately right angles (90°) as is practical. Where vehicle streams merge, the
alignment of the merging roadways should be accomplished at flat angles.

6. Facilitate the Movement of High-Priority Traffic Flows; intersections should have

operating characteristics and appearance that reflect and facilitate the intended high-
priority traffic movements. Relative traffic volumes, functional classification of
intersecting streets can all be used to determine which movements have high priority.

7. Facilitate the Desired Traffic Control Scheme; the channelization used for the
intersection should facilitate and strengthen the traffic control scheme chosen for
intersection operation. Traffic islands and raised median, in addition to serving other
functions are a suitable location for traffic control devices. The location should reflect the
need to place signals and signs within the cone vision of drivers.

8. Decelerating Stopped, or Slow Vehicles Should be Removed From High-Speed,

Through Traffic Streams; the design of the intersection should create a separation
between traffic streams with large speed differentials. Vehicles that have to decelerate,

22
 stop or complete a turn should be separated from through traffic which proceeds at higher
speeds. This practice makes it possible to complete all movements safely by reducing
rear-end conflicts.

9. Provide Safe Refuge for Pedestrians and Other Non-Motor Vehicle Users; traffic
islands can provide refuge and reduce the exposure distance for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and disabled people within an intersection area without obstructing the movement of
vehicles.

2.6.4 Alignment and Profile

The horizontal and vertical geometries are the most critical elements of every roadway design.
While most designers typically design the horizontal and then the vertical alignment, these
should be coordinated to improve vehicle operation, uniform speed, and facilities' appearance
without additional costs. The intersecting roads should be aligned at approximately right
angles to reduce costs and potential for crashes. Acute angle intersections require larger
turning areas, limit visibility, and increase vehicle exposure times. While minor road
intersections with major roads are desired to be as close to 90 degrees as practical, some
deviation is permissible – 60-degree angles provide most of the benefits of right-angle
intersections (reduced right-of-way and construction costs).

Vertical grades which affect vehicle control at intersections should be avoided. Stop and
speed up distances calculated on maximum grades of 3 percent for passenger vehicles differ
little from those calculated on the level. Grades steeper than 3 percent may require
modifications to various design elements to match similar road level operations. Therefore
avoid grades for the intersection of roads exceeding 3 percent within intersection areas unless
prohibitive cost, then a maximum limit of 6 percent may be allowed [3].

2.6.5 Intersection Sight Distance

The potential for different types of vehicular conflicts can be reduced in existence of an
adequate sight distance that provides the drivers with an unobstructed view for the entire
intersection functional area. On signalized intersections, the unobstructed view may be
limited to the area where the signals are located, but for unsignalized intersections, the

23
intersecting roads should be adequately viewed in order to reduce the potential for collisions
with crossing vehicles.

Specified areas along the intersection approach should be clear of obstructions that may block
the view of vehicles that may be in conflict. Those specified areas are known as clear sight
triangles. The dimensions of the legs of the sight triangles depend on the design speeds of the
intersecting roadways and the type of traffic control used at the intersection. The approach
sight triangle allows drivers on major roads as well as on minor roads to see vehicles
approaching in sufficient time to avoid a potential collision by reducing speed. As shown in
figure 2.12, the location where the minor road driver should start the deceleration maneuver to
avoid a potential conflict with an approaching major road vehicle is the decision point on a
minor road of an uncontrolled or yield control intersection and the departure-sight triangle
allows a stopped vehicle driver to enter or cross the main road from either direction of the
main road, without conflicting with an approaching vehicle [15].

Figure 2.12: Sight Triangles at Intersections [15]

24
2.6.6 Auxiliary Turning Lanes

Auxiliary lanes at intersections are used prior to median openings for left-turning movements,
preceding and after right-turning movements, and in some cases, for through movements. At
intersections, the primary purpose of auxiliary lanes is to enable speed changes and
maneuvering of turning traffic. auxiliary lanes may also added to boost capacity at
intersections [12]. Figure 2.13 shows digram of auxiliary lane.

Figure 2.13: Digram of Auxiliary Lane [14]

2.6.6.1 Auxiliary Lane Length

The auxiliary lane should be long enough to accommodate the expected amount of vehicles
during a critical period. The storage length should be sufficient to avoid turning vehicles
stopping in the through lanes or vehicles queued in the through lanes blocking the entrance to
the auxiliary lane.

At signalized intersections, the required storage length depends on the signal cycle length, the
signal phasing arrangement, and the rate of arrivals and departures of turning vehicles. The
storage length is based on 1.5 to 2 times the average number of vehicles stored per cycle as
predicted in the design volume [16]. Figure 2.14 provides a monograph for determining the
storage length of the left-turn lane at signalized intersections.

25
 Figure 2.14: Single-lane left-turn storage length at signalized intersections [16]

At sign-controlled intersections, the storage length of auxiliary lane, excluding taper, may be
determined by the number of turning vehicles expected in two minutes during peak hours. As
a minimum requirement, there should be enough room for at least two passenger cars, and if
there is more than 10% truck traffic, at least space for one passenger car and one truck should
be available [12].

2.6.6.2 General Criteria for Adding Auxiliary Left-Turn Lanes

A) For signalised intersections, The 2016 "Highway Capacity Manual" [17] recommends that
exclusive left-turn lanes should be provided at signalized intersections If the following
conditions are met:

1. Exclusive left-turn lanes should be provided where exclusive left-turn signal phasing is
provided.

2. Exclusive left-turn lanes should be considered where left-turn volumes exceed 100 veh/h.

3. Double left-turn lanes should be considered where left-turn volumes exceed 300 veh/h .

26
B) For sign-controlled intersections, the criteria for considering the installation of left-turn
lanes are shown in table 2.3. The criteria is based on a combination of left‐turning motor
vehicle volumes and the opposing through motor vehicle volumes. For example, if 330
vehicles per hour travel eastbound at 60 km/h and five percent (5%) of traffic volumes are
turning left, an exclusive left‐turn lane is warranted once the westbound volume exceeds
800 vehicles per hour [4].

Table 2.3: Criteria for Installation of Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalised Intersections [3]

2.6.6.3 General Criteria for Adding Auxiliary Right‐Turn lanes

According to the 2016 "Highway Capacity Manual" [17], a separate right-tum lane should be
considered when the right-turn volume exceeds 300 vph, and the adjacent through lanes also
exceed 300 vph per lane. When calculating the volume of adjacent through lanes, assume that
all through lanes have the same volume. However, The requirements for a separate right-turn
lane may be voided if there are three or more through lanes in the direction of travel.

27
2.6.7 Parking Lanes at Intersections

The configuration of the parking lane/intersection relationship should be addressed in urban

areas, central business districts, and commercial areas where essential pedestrian crossings are
likely to occur. Motorists can use the parking lane as an additional lane for right-turn
movements if the parking lane is carried up to the intersection. Motorists can use the parking
lane as an additional lane for right-turn movements. These movements can cause operational
inefficiencies, and turning vehicles can mount the curb and impact items such as traffic
signals, utility poles, or supports for luminaires on the roadside. The end of the parking lane at
least 6.0 m prior to the intersection is one way to fix this issue. Figure 2.15 provides an
example of such a procedure. A second strategy is to prohibit parking for such a distance as to
create a short turn lane [3].

In general, parking lane widths of 2.1 m to 2.75 m are recommended in the urban
environment. Cities are encouraged to mark the parking lane to indicate to drivers how close
they are to parked cars. Wide parking lanes (up to 4.6 m) may be used in certain situations,
particularly when double parking is present, industrial loading zones and temporary spaces for
bicyclists [18].

Figure 2.15: Parking Lane at Intersection [3]

28
2.6.8 Pedestrian Considerations

Pedestrian facilities such as crossings, refuge islands, and pedestrian actuated traffic signals
are integral to intersection design and should be provided where required. Some of the design
considerations for pedestrian crosses include the following [19]:

1. The Pedestrian crossings should be placed at a right angle to the road. This reduces the
crossing distance and green time that should be allotted for pedestrians.

2. The Pedestrian crossings should be placed where drivers have a fine view of it.

3. The pedestrian crossing should be located 1 to 2m back from the top of the central median.

4. The width of pedestrian crossing should be determined for the number of pedestrians and
the length of green time allocated to the pedestrian phase. However, every pedestrian
crossing having various widths is not desirable. The minimum width should be fixed at 4m
and 2m for major and minor roads, respectively.

2.6.9 Bicycle Considerations

Most conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles occur at intersections. Thus, intersection
design should indicate to bicyclists and motorists how they should traverse the intersection
and generally adheres to the following principles [20]:

1. Free-flow turning movements by motor vehicles should be avoided, or a bike lane should
be provided.

2. Bicyclist lane through the intersection should be direct and similar to the track of motor-
vehicle traffic.

3. Actuated signals should be designed to detect the presence of bicyclists.

4. Signal green intervals and clearance intervals should be sufficient to allow bicyclists to
reach the far side of the intersection.

5. Signals timing should not impede bicyclists with excessively long waits.

29
2.6.10 Roundabout Geometric Design [21]

The roundabout design is a process that requires an optimum balance between traffic safety
and capacity, taking into consideration the accommodation of large vehicles. Roundabouts
have the best safety performance when the design encourages traffic movement to enter and
circulate slowly. A narrow Horizontal radius is used to produce this low-speed environment.
On the other hand, these design elements negatively affect the capacity of the roundabout.
Moreover, Maneuvering requirements for large vehicles control many engineering factors. The
critical elements of geometric design for roundabouts are shown in Figure 2.16.

Figure 2.16: Basic Geometric Elements of a Roundabout [3]

30
2.6.10.1 Number of Entry Lanes

A significant aspect of a well-functioning roundabout is the number of lanes required to

handle the expected demand for traffic. The number of lanes directly affects the capacity and
the size of a roundabout. The number of lanes required based on volume is given in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Relationship between Vehicle Volume and Required Number of Lanes [21]

2.6.10.2 Design Vehicle

The choice of a design vehicle varies depending on the classification of approaching roads and
the surrounding land use characteristics. It may be necessary to accommodate large WB-67
trucks or oversized vehicles (super loads) on more extensive facilities, such as freeway ramps.
Smaller design vehicles can often be selected at the intersections of local streets. The size of
the design vehicle often directly affects the required diameter of the inscribed circle, as shown
in table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Relationship between Design Vehicle and Inscribed Diameter [21]

31
2.6.10.3 Angle between Approach Legs

The preferred angle between approach legs is perpendicular or near-perpendicular to maintain

slow and consistent speeds through the roundabout for all movements. Having an angle
between approaching legs greater than 90° will often result in higher speeds for right-turning
movements. On the other hand, when two approaching legs intersect at an angle less than 90°,
it becomes more difficult for large trucks to navigate a turning movement. Increasing the
corner radius to accommodate large trucks can widen a portion of the circulating roadway,
which can in turn increase speeds and decrease roundabout safety. A significantly larger
inscribed circle diameter is required for highly skewed intersection angles to provide speed
control.

The most important contributing factor to the safety of the roundabout is its operating speed.
The entering and circulating speeds affect the severity of the crashes at the intersection. The
recommended entering design speed for Single-lane roundabouts is (32 to 40 km/h). At
multilane roundabouts, maximum entering design speeds of (40 to 48 km/h) are
recommended. Along with managing the operating speed of a roundabout, speed consistency
for all movements through the roundabout can help minimize the crash rate between
conflicting traffic streams. Relative speeds between conflicting traffic streams and consecutive
geometric elements should be minimized. The maximum speed differential between
movements should be no more than approximately 15 to 25 km/h.

2.6.10.4 Horizontal Alignment

The roundabout generally performs well when the centerlines of approach legs pass through
the center of the intersection. This allows the geometry of a single-lane roundabout to be
adequately designed to preserve slow speeds on entry and exit legs and makes the central
island more visible to drivers. As shown in figure 2.17, the centerlines of the approaching leg
can be slightly shifted to the left of the roundabout’s center to increase the deflection at the
entry to improve speed control. Approach alignments that offset to the right should be avoided
because this layout can lead to excessive tangential approaches. Vehicles will usually be able
to enter the roundabout too fast, resulting in more loss-of-control crashes and higher crash
rates between vehicles entering and circulating.

32
 Figure 2.17: Options for Approach Alignment of Roundabouts [21]

2.6.10.5 Central Island Size

The central island size plays a crucial role in determining the deflection imposed through the
vehicle path. However, its diameter depends on the diameter of the inscribed circle and the
required width of the roadway. A traversable apron may be incorporated into the design of the
central island to accommodate the turning movement for large vehicles when right-of-way
limitations restrict the inscribed circle diameter.

2.6.10.6 Inscribed Circle Diameter

The diameter of the inscribed circle is determined by several design objectives, including
vehicle accommodation and speed control, and it could take iterative experimentation. At
single-lane roundabouts, the size of the inscribed circle is dependent mainly upon the turning
requirements of the design vehicle. The size of the roundabout is usually determined at
multilane roundabouts by balancing the need to achieve deflection with providing adequate
alignment of the natural vehicle paths. Achieving these critical design objectives typically
requires a slightly larger diameter than that used in single-lane roundabouts. Mini-roundabouts
serve as a special subset of roundabouts and are defined by the small diameter of their
inscribed circles. The small diameter is made possible by using a fully traversable central
island to accommodate large vehicles instead of the typical single-lane roundabout, where the
diameter must be large enough to accommodate a heavy vehicle within the circulatory
roadway. Table 2.5 provides the typical ranges of inscribed circle diameters for various site
locations.

33
2.6.10.7 Entry Width

Entry Widths are based mainly on the design vehicle and the number of lanes. However, the
needs of vehicles must be balanced against the necessary speed management and the need for
pedestrian crossing. In general, single-lane roundabouts employ widths between 4.2 and 5.5
m, widths for a two-lane roundabout range from 7.3 to 9.1m and from 11.0 to 13.7 m for a
three-lane entry. Typical widths for individual lanes at entry range from 3.7 to 4.6 m.
However, these widths may be increased when necessary for specific vehicle
accommodation. Entry widths exceeding the width of the circulating roadway should be
avoided since, for example, drivers may mistakenly interpret the wide entry as two lanes when
there is only one circulating lane.

2.6.10.8 Circulatory Roadway Width

Circulatory roadway width for single lane roundabout is based on the number of entering lanes
and turning requirements of the design vehicle. The circulating width should be equal to the
maximum entry width and it may be appropriate, in some cases, to increase the width to 120
percent of the entry width, the suggested circulatory roadway width vary from 4.87 to 6.1 m
and Circulating road width generally remains constant across the roundabout. For multi-lane
roundabouts, Circulating road widths are usually governed by design criteria for the types of
vehicles that may need to be accommodated adjacent to each other on the multilane
roundabout, constant width is not required throughout the entire circulatory roadway and the
suggested lane widths typically range from 4.3 to 4.9 m.

2.6.10.9 Entry Curve

Entry curves on a roundabout approach leg are essential because they affect both capacity and
safety, the entry width, the circulatory roadway width, and the central island geometry. The
entry radius governs the vehicle's deflection when entering the roundabout. Excessively large
entry curb radii may lead to increased crashes because they can produce faster entry speeds
than desired. For single-lane roundabout, UK researches indicate that small entry curb radii,
below 15 m, can reduce entry capacity; however, entry curb radii of 20 m or greater have little
impact on roundabout capacity. At multilane roundabouts entry, curb radii should typically
exceed 20 m to encourage adequate natural paths and avoid sideswipe crashes on entry.

34
2.6.9.10 Exit Curve

Exit radii of all roundabout types are generally larger than entrance radii to allow for
consistent or slightly increased flow and decrease the potential for crashes at the exits. The
design of exit radii is also influenced by the need to maintain slow speeds through the
pedestrian crossing at the exit. Generally, a single-lane roundabout exit curb radii should be no
less than 15 m, with values of 30 to 60 m being more common. However, At multilane
roundabouts, the design of the exit curvature is more complex than at single-lane roundabouts
because Conflicts can occur between exiting and circulating vehicles in the absence of
appropriate lane assignments.

2.6.10.11 Splitter Island

Splitter islands, also known as separator islands or median islands, act as a refuge for
pedestrians, assist in controlling vehicle speeds, guide vehicles into the roundabout, physically
separate entering and exiting vehicles, and deter wrong-way movements. Additionally, splitter
islands can provide an area for sign placement. Although a length of 30 m is desirable, the
minimum length of the island in an urban location should generally be 15 m long to provide
sufficient protection for pedestrians. Splitter island lengths should be 45 m or greater for
roadways with higher speeds. The width of the splitter island should be at least 1.8 m at the
crosswalk to provide adequate refuge to pedestrians.

2.6.10.12 Parking Consideration

Parking in the circulatory roadway is inefficient and unsafe for roundabout operations and
should be avoided whenever possible. Parking on roundabout entries and exits should also be
set back far enough in order not to impede roundabout operations or impair pedestrian
visibility. According to AASHTO, Parking should end at least 6.1 meters from the crosswalk
of the intersections.

2.6.10.13 Pedesrtians Considrations

Pedestrian crosswalk placement at roundabouts requires balance between pedestrian

convenience, safety, and roundabout operations. Pedestrian crosswalks should be designed as
follows:

35
1. The raised splitter island width should be a minimum of 1.8 m at the crosswalk to
adequately provide shelter for persons pushing a stroller or walking a bicycle.

2. The crosswalk should be set back at least 6 m from the circulatory roadway so that exiting
traffic waiting for pedestrians to cross will not queue into the circulatory roadway.

3. The spiltter island level through walkway should be at street level instead of ramped. This
is less chalanging for weelchair users.

2.6.10.14 Bicycle Considerations

Safety and usability of roundabouts for bicycle riders depends on the roundabout design
details and special provisions for bicyclists. Some cyclists may choose to travel at roundabouts
like other vehicles, while others may choose to travel like pedestrians. Roundabouts for
cyclists can be designed to simplify that choice.

1. When bicyclists choose to travers roundabout like vehicels, Bicycle lanes approaching the
roundabout should end 30 m before the yield line. Terminating the bike lane helps remind
cyclists that they need to merge.

2. Because some cyclists may not feel comfortable traversing some roundabouts in the same
manner as other vehicles. Ramps can be provided to the sidewalk, particularly where there
are higher vehicular speeds and volumes. the sidewalk around the circular roadway should
be designed as a shared use path with a recommended width of 3m.

2.7 Traffic Flow Characteristics of Intersections

In Transportation Engineering, traffic flow is the study of interactions between travelers

(including pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and their vehicles) and infrastructure (including
highways, signs, and traffic control devices), with the aim of understanding and developing an
optimal transport network with efficient movement traffic and minimal traffic congestion
problems [22].

Traffic flow can be divided into two categories; uninterrupted and interrupted traffic flow.The
uninterrupted flow represents a traffic stream that operates free from the influence of traffic
control devices such as light signals and signs. This type of traffic flow is influenced mainly
by the geometric characteristics of roads and vehicle interactions in the traffic stream. In other
36
words, the road users in uninterrupted‐flow conditions have no fixed causes of delay or
interruption external to the traffic stream. Freeways, multilane highways, and two-lane
highways often operate under uninterrupted flow conditions.

It should be emphasized that uninterrupted-flow describes the type of transportation facility,

not the quality of the traffic flow at any given time.For instance, A freeway experiencing
extreme congestion is still an uninterrupted-flow facility because the causes of congestion are
internal.

The interrupted flow represents a Traffic streams that operate under the influence of traffic
control devices. Therefore, The analysis of interrupted-flow facilities such as intersections
should account for the impact of fixed interruptions signals and signs. A traffic signal, for
example, limits the time available to various movements in an intersection. Thus, Capacity is
limited not only by the geometric characteristics of the intersection but by the time available
for movements.

Interrupted flow can be more complicated to analyze than uninterrupted flow because of the
time dimension involved in assigning space to conflict traffic movements. On an interrupted-
flow facility such as intersections, flow usually is controlled by points of fixed operation, such
as traffic signals and stop signs. These control devices have different impacts on the overall
flow [23].

2.7.1 Overview of Traffic Flow Parameters Relevant to Intersections

Volume, flow rate, speed, and peak hour factor are traffic parameters that determine the traffic
flow behavior at intersections. These parameters are common in analysis of interrupted flow
facilities. Furthermore , when analyzing the traffic flow at intersections, traffic composition,
signal timing, saturation flow rate and gaps should also be considred.

2.7.1.1 Volume and Flow Rate

Volume is simply the total number of vehicles that pass over a given point or section of a lane
or roadway during a specific duration of time. Volume is typically expressed in annual, daily,
hourly, or sub-hourly periods. Volume (v) is commonly converted directly to flow (q), which
is a more useful parameter in traffic studies. Flow is the rate at which vehicles pass a given
point on the roadway, and is typically given regarding vehicles per hour. The 15-minute
37
volume can be converted to a flow by multiplying the volume by four.For example, If our 15-
minute volume were 100 cars, we would report the flow as 400 veh/h. For that 15-minute
interval of time, the vehicles were crossing our designated point at a rate of 400 veh/h [23].

Considering the definitions illustrated above, Then if N cars cross a certain point of the road
in a time T, the flow (q) is computed from equation 3.1 as follows:

𝑁
𝑞= ⋯ ⋯ (3.1)
𝑇
Where:
𝑞 = Traffic Flow (veh/h), N= Number of Vehicle, T= Time (sec).

2.7.1.2 Peak-Hour Factor

The peak-hour factor (PHF) is the ratio of the hourly volume to the maximum 15-min flow
rate expanded to an hourly volume, as follows [23]:

Hourly Volu𝑚𝑒
PHF = ⋯ ⋯ (3.2)
4∗V15 min
Where:
PHF = Peak-hour factor, and V15 = Volume during the peak 15 min of the peak hour.

The Peak-hour factor is useful for practical traffic analysis purposes because vehicle arrivals
during the period of analysis (typically the highest hourly volume within a 24-h period) will
likely be fluctuating. Therefore, the peak 15-min vehicle arrival rate within the analysis hour is
usually used to account for this varying arrival rate.

Single peak-hour factor for the whole intersection is generally preferred because it reduces the
likelihood of creating conflicting volume demand scenarios disproportionate to actual volumes
over the 15-minute analysis period. If peak hour factors are used for each individual approach
or movement, they are likely to generate demand volumes from a 15-minute period in
apparent conflict with demand volumes from another 15-minute period, but in reality these
peak volumes do not occur simultaneously [17].

38
2.7.1.3 Speed

Speed is the rate of motion expressed as distance per unit of time, generally as kilometers per
hour (km/h). speed or travel time rate is an essential measure of the quality of the traffic
service provided to the driver.

For determining the speed of a traffic stream, a representative value must be used , because a
wide-ranging distribution of individual vehicles speeds is observable in the traffic stream.

The average travel speed is commonley used as the speed measure because it is easily
computed from observation of individual vehicles within the traffic stream and is the most
statistically relevant measure in relationships with other variables. Average travel speed is
computed by dividing the length of the highway, street section, or segment by the average
travel time of the vehicles traversing it. If travel times t1, t2, t3,..., tn (in hours) are measured
for n vehicles traversing a segment of length L, the average travel speed is computed using
Equation 3.3 [24].

𝑛𝐿
𝑆 = ∑𝑛 ⋯ ⋯ (3.3)
𝑖=1 𝑡𝑖

Where:
S = average travel speed (km/h), L = length of the highway segment (km), ti = travel time of
the ith vehicle to traverse the section (h), and n = number of travel times observed.

In traffic studies related to intersections analysis, delay is the primary indicator of operational
performance for intersections .However, Speed measures for uninterrupted flow are useful in
determining the additional travel time caused by slowing, movement in queues and
acceleration of vehicles passing through an intersection [24]. In addition, measurement of
speed could help in determining some geometric design and signal timing parameters.

2.7.1.4 Saturation Flow Rate

Saturation flow rate is a very important traffic flow parameter used to measure the capacity of
signalized intersections. The highway capacity manual ( HCM 2016) defines saturation flow
rate as the equivalent hourly rate (veh/h/ln) at which previously queued vehicles can cross an
intersection approach under prevailing conditions, assuming that a green signal is available at

39
all times and no lost time is experienced. Saturation flow rate can be estimated by first
measuring average saturation headway in the field, then computed using equation 3.4.

3600
𝑆= … … (3.4)
ℎ
where:

s = Saturation flow rate (veh/ln/h), h = Saturation headway (sec).

The saturation headway is the average time gap (seconds) between vehicles occurring in the
queue after the fourth or fifth vehicle and continuing until the last vehicle in the initial queue
clears the intersection [25]. Figure 2.18 illustrates the definition of saturation headway.

Figure 2.18: Concept of Saturation Headway [26]

2.7.1.4.1 Base Saturation Flow Rate

According to the highway capacity manual (HCM 2016), The base saturation flow rate
represents the saturation flow rate for a traffic lane that is 3.6 m wide and has no heavy
vehicles, a flat grade, no parking, no buses that stop at the intersection, even lane utilization,
and no turning vehicles.

At urban areas, a base saturation flow rate of 1.900 passenger cars per hour per lane (pc/h/ln)
is suggested by the HCM 6. However, under various local conditions around the world, this
default value is not always true. This is because of the different in drivers' behaviour,
operational conditions of traffic and road characteristics between the various locations. Figure
2.19 shows different values of the base saturation flow rates obtained from various studies
conducted at many cities around the world [25].

40
 Figure 2.19 : Comparison of Base Saturation Flow Rates at Different Cities [25]

2.7.1.5 Critical Gap and Follow-up Headway

The critical gap (critical headway) and follow-up headway applied whenever the interaction of
two traffic streams is not fully controlled through grade separation or signalization.
Common examples of where these traffic flow parameters are applied are in evaluating
the capacity and the operational performance of a modern roundabout, sign-
controlled intersection, and permissive right or left-turning movement at a signalized
intersections [11]. Many factors affect the value of these parameters, such as vehicle type,
intersection geometry, and especially driver behavior.

2.7.1.5.1 Critical Gap

The critical gap is the amount of time it takes for a vehicle to enter the intersection. If the gaps
are less than the critical gap, no vehicles will be able to enter [27]. The definition of a gap is
shown in Figure 2.20.

Figure 2.20: Illustration of Critical Gap [27]

41
2.7.1.5.2 Follow-up headway

If the gaps are longer than the critical gap more vehicles can enter the intersection. The time
between two successive vehicles entering in the same gaps is called follow-up time. The
follow up time can also be described as the average headway between vehicles that pass the
intersection during longer gaps. The follow-up time is always shorter than the critical gap.
Figure 2.21 illustrates the definition of follow-up time [27].

Figure 2.21: Illustration of Follow-up Headway [27]

2.7.1.6 Traffic Composition

The traffic stream typically consists of light vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy vehicles, such as
single-unit trucks, buses, recreational cars, and tractor-trailer trucks. For the following reasons,
when conducting an operational analysis of a transportation system's components, the
percentage of heavy vehicles is a critical factor to consider [11]:

1. Heavy vehicles are larger than light vehicles and occupy a larger amount of physical space
in a queue.

2. Heavy vehicles accelerate more slowly, and thus take more time to accelerate from a stop at
a signal or require larger gaps when entering a roundabout.

3. Heavy vehicles have larger turn radius, causing them to conduct turning maneuvers more
slowly and carefully.

4. Heavy vehicles may have physical constraint on long and/or steep grades, causing them to
slow down relative to light vehicles, even at low traffic volumes.

42
2.7.1.7 Traffic Signal

2.7.1.7.1 Traffic Signal Control Concept

A traffic light regulates traffic by allocating right-of-way to a single or many non-conflicting

traffic movements. The right-of-way is assigned by operating a green signal for a specified
duration or intervals. The right-of-way is ended by a yellow change interval indicated by
displaying a yellow signal followed by the display of a red signal. The device that times these
intervals and switches the signal lamps is the controller unit. Traffic control concepts for
isolated intersections fall into two basic categories, pre-timed and traffic-actuated.

Under Pre-timed signal control, the signal assigns right-of-way according to a predetermined
plan. The right-of-way (phase) sequence and the duration of the time interval between each
signal indication in the cycle are fixed. No consideration is given to the current traffic demand
on intersection approaches.

Actuated signal control attempts to adjust green time and, in some cases, the phasing sequence
in real-time. These adjustments are made in response to real-time traffic demand data collected
from vehicle detectors installed on one or more of the approaches to the intersection [28].

2.7.1.7.2 Traffic Signal Capacity

The general concept of traffic signal capacity, illustrated in Figure 2.22. On the horizontal axis
is the signal display (red, green and yellow), and on the vertical axis is the actual vehicle flow.
During the time while the movement is receiving a red indication, vehicles arrive to the
intersection and creat a queue, and there is no flow.When the green lamp displayed, It takes a
few seconds for the driver of the first car to understand that the signal has changed green and
to begin moving the vehicle . The next several vehicles take a while to accelerate as well. This
wasted time known as the start-up loss time and typically estimated to be around 2 seconds.
After approximately the fourth vehicle in the queue, the flow rate tends to stabilize at which
known as the saturation flow rate. This is usually maintained until the last car in the queue
leaves the intersection. After the green indication is turned off, some vehicles continue to pass
through the intersection during the yellow change interval; this is called yellow extension. The
time interval between the end of the start-up loss time and the yellow extension's end is the

43
effective green time for the movement. The period between the yellow change interval and the
red clearance interval that is not used is referred to as clearance lost time [29].

Figure 2.22: The basic capacity model of traffic signal [29]

The maximum rate at which vehicles can pass through a given point in an hour under
prevailing conditions (known as saturation flow rate) and the ratio of time during which
vehicles may enter the intersection are the two elements that define capacity for a particular
movement at signals [29]. Relation between these varibals shown in equation 3.5.

𝑔
𝑐 = 𝑠 [ ] … … . (3.5)
𝐶

Where:

c = the capacity, s = the saturation flow rate of the lane group in vehicles per hour, g = the
effective green time for the movement in seconds, and C = the cycle length in seconds.

Capacity is shown graphically in Figures 2.23 as the area bounded by saturation flow rate and
effective green time, and volume is shown under the flow rate curve.

44
 Figure 2.23: Illustration of volume and capacity of a signalized movement [29]

2.7.1.7.3 Traffic Signal Phasing

The signal phase includes the right-of-way ( green time ), yellow change, and red clearance
intervals in a cycle assigned to an independent traffic movement or a combination of traffic
movements [10]. Signal phasing is the sequence of individual signal phases or combinations of
signal phases within a cycle that defines the order in which various pedestrian and vehicular
movements are assigned the right of way [14].

Signal phasing at the studied intersections and most signalized intersections in libya use split
phasing. One phase serves all movement on one approach, and the opposite approach is served
by a second phase, and left and through traffic share a single protected phase.

With split phasing, the through and left-turn movements on the subject approach are served in
a protected mode during a common phase. This combination is generally the least efficient
phasing type of operation and is often used if geometric properties of the intersection prevent
movement on opposing approaches from proceeding at the same time or when traffic volumes
on opposite approaches are unbalanced [30].

45
Other types of phasing rather than split phasing mode are normally achieved by providing one
phase for through movements and another exclusive phase for left or right turning movement
that does not have enough gap to filter through opposing movements. However, this case
usually applies to the left-turn movement because it encounters more conflicts than the right-
turn movement.

At an intersection, there are three operational modes for turn movements. The names given to
these modes refer to the way the controller handles the turn movement. Figure 2..24 iullstrates
these different modes. The following are the three modes [17]:

 Permitted Mode; turning drivers must yield to conflicting traffic and pedestrians before
completing the turn,
 Protected Mode; turning drivers have the right-of-way , but all conflicting movements
must come to a complete stop during the turn phase, and
 Protected-Permitted Mode; represents a combination of the permitted and protected
modes. Turning drivers have the right-of-way during the associated turn phase. Turning
drives can also complete the turn “permissively” when the adjacent through movement
receives its circular green.

Figure 2.24: Typical Phase Modes [31]

46
The HCM provided guidelines suggests that protected mode for left turns should be
considered when the left turn volume exceeds 240 veh/h and the cross product of the left-turn
volume and the opposing through volume exceeds 50,000, 90,000 and 110,000 for one, two
and three or more throught opposing traffic lanes or there is more than one left-turn lane on
the approach [17].

At intersections with a high pedestrian volume and significant pedestrian-vehicle conflict, an

exclusive pedestrian phase is used if one or more of the following requirements are met [32]:

1. The intersection experiences a high volume of pedestrians (3000 per hour for an 8-h
period).

2. There is a combination of moderate volume of pedestrians (2000 per hour for 8 h) with
high turning-vehicle volumes (30 percent of the total).

3. There is moderate pedestrian volume with high pedestrian–vehicle collisions (three

collisions over the past 3 years).

4. There is moderate pedestrian volume with 25 percent of pedestrians who desire to cross
diagonally.

5. The intersection geometry is unusual (e.g., highly skewed, five or six legs).

2.8 Intersections Performance Measure

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), describes the efficiency of an intersection by varios
quantitative indicators that define some aspect of the service offered to a particular category of
road users. performance measures from the perspective of motorists include automobile
volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c ratio), automobile delay, and queue storage ratio (maximum
queue back as a proportion of the storage available on the subject lane or link). Level of
service (LOS) is also seen as a measure of performance, It is useful for describing the
performance of intersections to policy makers, administrators and the public. LOS is based on
one or more performance measures, such as the volume-to-capacity ratio, automobile delay.
These measures serve as indicators for identifying the source of the problems and provide
insight into developing effective strategies for improvement. HCM is encouraging the analyst
to consider the full range of these indicators [11].

47
2.8.1 Capacity

Intersection capacity is the maximum hourly rate (veh/h) that vehicles can reasonably cross
the intersection under prevailing traffic, road, and signalization conditions. Volumes on each
approach; distribution of vehicles by movement (left, though, and right); the vehicle type
distribution within each movement; the location and use of bus stops; pedestrian crossing
flows; and parking movements on approaches to the intersection are examples of traffic
conditions. Geometrical features such as the number and width of lanes, grades, and lane use
allocations are included in roadway conditions (including parking lanes).

The capacity of a roadway is determined primarily by constraints present at intersections. For

example, These constraints include vehicles turning to and from the main street at sign-
controlled intersections cause vehicles to stop or slow, interrupting traffic flow, and reducing
the level of service and the available green time at signalized intersections substantially less
than the total time available for free flow. For these reasons, capacity analysis is one of the
most critical considerations in the design of the intersection [3].

2.8.2 Volume-to-Capacity (V/C ratio)

The volume-to-capacity (v/c ratio) also known as the degree of saturation for intersection
approach may be defined as the ratio of the arrival flow (demand) to the capacity of the
approach during the same period. The degree of saturation of an intersection approach ranges
from close to zero for very low traffic flows up to 1 for saturated flow. A degree of saturation
greater than 1.0 indicates over-saturated conditions in which long queues of vehicles build up
on the critical approaches. In general, lower degree of saturation indicates better quality of
traffic service. However, the degree of saturation, delay and queue length parameters should
always be used together to assess intersection performance [30].

At signalized intersection, it is possible for the delay to be unacceptable at LOS F although the
(v/c) ratio is less than 1.0 and even as low as 0.75. When long delays occur at such (v/c) ratios,
it may be due to a combination of two or more of the following conditions [15]:

1. Long cycle lengths.

2. Green time is not properly distributed, resulting in a longer red time for one or more lane
groups.

48
3. A poor signal progression, which results in a large percentage of the vehicles on the
approach arriving during the red phase.

It is also possible to have short delays at an approach when the (v/c) ratio equals 1.00, which
can occur if the following conditions exist [15]:

1. Short cycle length.

2. Favorable signal progression, resulting in a high percentage of vehicles arriving during the
green phase.

The target degrees of saturation of 0.90 for signals, 0.85 for roundabouts and 0.80 for sign-
controlled intersections are generally set as the minmum target. These are usually called
practical degrees of saturation [17]. Thresholds for interpreting the resulting v/c ratio are given
in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Critical limits for interpreting the resulting v/c ratio
v/c Ratio Assessment Implication
<0.85 Under capacity Expect low-to-medium delays and minimal queuing
0.85– 0.95 Near capacity May expect high delays, but no excessive queuing
0.95–1.0 At capacity High delays expected and some queues won’t clear
>1.0 Over capacity Very high delays and excessive queueing expected

2.8.3 Delay Time

Delay is a critical performance measure on interrupted-flow facilities such as intersections.

There are several types of delay. However, control delay is the main service measure for
evaluating LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Control delay includes delay
associated with vehicles slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an
intersection approach, the time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed
for vehicles to accelerate to their desired speed.

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) uses the delay experienced by a motor vehicle moving
through an intersection during the busiest (15-minute peak) period of the day to establish the
Motor Vehicle level of service (LOS) for that intersection. Delay is usually calculated as the
the average sum of all approaches. In addition, it's possible to compute it independently for

49
every approach or lane group (adjacent lanes with at least one movement in common) [23].
Figure 2.25 illustrated of control delay for a single vehicle traveling through a signalized
intersection.

Figure 2.25: Control Delay for a Single Vehicle Through Signalized Intersection[26]

2.8.4 Queue Length

Queue lengths are important parameters in traffic engineering for judging the traffic quality at
the intersections. When traffic demand exceeds the capacity at an approach to the signalized
intersection, a waiting queue is formed during the effective green time. Therefore, large
quantities of vehicles arrive at the intersection during the red phase and do not leave the
intersection during the green phase. For unsignalized intersections and roundabout, the waiting
queue occurs because the drivers fail to find an acceptable gap for engaging in traffic stream.

As a performance indicator, queue lengths are critical since they reflect drivers perceptions of
the system and can help guide design decisions. Such information is critical when designing
length of intersection lanes. Similarly, The queue lengths at two closely spaced intersections

50
are crucial for estimating the queue spillback into the upstream signal, which could have a
substantial impact on its functioning [11].

The back of the queue and the cycle-average queue are two types of queue length that are
mentioned in various guides and software packages. The average number of vehicles in the
queue during each cycle is known as the cycle-average queue. The maximum length of the
queue that occurs once every cycle, usually during green time or unblock time, is known as the
back of the queue. The back of queue is a more useful performance measure since it is relevant
to the design of appropriate queuing space. The queue lengths of the 70th, 85th, 90th, 98th,
and 98th percentiles are useful when designing queue spaces (turn bays and parking bans).
The user should determine which percentile queue to use based on local design practices.For
design purposes, the 95th percentile value of the back of queue is generally considered to be a
good choice [33]. At a signalized intersection, Figure 2.26 represents the back of the queue and
the cycle-average queue.

Figure 2.26: Cycle-average queue and average back of queue at a signalised

intersection[33]
51
2.8.5 Level of Servic (LOS)

Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure for ranking operating conditions, based on
factors such as speed, travel time, delay, density, freedom to maneuver, interruptions, comfort
and convenience. The highway capacity manual defines six levels of service, from A to F.
with a level of service A representing the best operating condition (free flow) and level of
service F the worst (forced or breakdown flow) [30].

According to the highway capacity manual 2016, the level of service is directly related to
control delay and degree of saturation (v/c) values. The table 2.7 shows the criteria for
assessing the LOS.

Table 2.7: LOS for Signalized Intersections [17]

The LOS criteria for roundabout and sign-controlled intersections differ a little from the
criteria used for signalized intersections, primarily because user perceptions vary among types
of transport facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection will carry higher
volumes of traffic, and will have a greater delay than an un-signalized intersection. The LOS
can be categorized for un-signalized intersections by delay and degree of saturation as shown
in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8: LOS for Un-Signalized Intersections [17]

52
2.9 Overview of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

2.9.1 Introduction

The Sidra Intersection software is for use as an aid for design and evaluation of individual
intersections and networks of intersections. It can be used to analyze signalized intersections
(fixed-time / pre-timed and actuated), signalized and un-signalized pedestrian crossings, un-
signalized roundabouts, roundabouts with metering signals, fully-signalized roundabouts, two-
way stop sign and give-way / yield sign control, all-way stop sign control, single point
interchanges (signalized), freeway diamond interchanges (signalized, roundabout, sign
control), diverging diamond interchanges and other alternative intersections and interchanges.
It can also be used for uninterrupted traffic flow conditions and merge analysis. Sidra
Intersection 7.0 software implements the procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual,
Edition 6 (HCM 2016) for analyzing capacity and determining level of service (LOS) for
roundabouts, signalized and sign-controlled intersections [33].

2.9.2 Models Available in Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

The operational analysis of the selected intersections in this thesis will be based on the US
HCM Setups based on the HCM 2016 model. However, the program offers many other models
as shown in figure 2.27:

Figure 2.27: Sidra Models Options [33]

53
2.9.3 Basic Features of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

The most important features of Sidra Intersection 7.0 include:

1. analyze a large number of intersection types, including signalized intersections (fixed-

time / pre-timed and actuated), signalized and un-signalized pedestrian crossings, single
point interchanges (signalized), roundabouts (un-signalized), roundabouts with metering
signals, two-way stop sign and give-way / yield sign control, all-way stop sign control,
merge.

2. Analyze any network with up to 20 Sites, including roundabout corridors, a mixture of

signalized intersections, roundabouts and sign control.

3. Obtain estimates of capacity and performance characteristics such as delay, queue length,
stop rate as well as operating cost, fuel consumption and pollutant emissions for all
intersection types.

4. Analyze many design alternatives to optimize the geometry of intersection, signal phasing
and timings specifying different strategies for optimization.

5. Determine signal timings (fixed-time / pre-timed and actuated) for any intersection
geometry allowing for simple as well as complex phasing arrangements.

6. Carry out a design life analysis to assess the impact of traffic growth.

7. Carry out a parameter sensitivity analysis for calibration, evaluation and geometric design
purposes.

8. Determine short lane lengths (turn bays, lanes with parking upstream, and loss of a lane at
the exit side).

9. Obtain output including capacity, timing and performance results reported for individual
lanes, individual movements (or lane groups), movement groupings (such as vehicles and
pedestrians), and for the intersection as a whole,

10. Analyze complicated cases of shared lanes and opposed turns (e.g. permissive and
protected phases, slip lanes, turns on red), and

11. Analyze oversaturated conditions making use of the time-dependent delay, queue length
and stop rate models used in Sidra Intersection [33].

54
 Chapter 3
Previous Studies

3.1 Review of Previous Studies Related to Comparison of Sidra Intersection Software

Accuracy with Different Software Packages

1. Validating HCS and SIDRA Software for Estimating Delay at Signalized Intersection
in Jordan.

Bashar H. Al-Omari et al., 2007, Irbid, Jordan, carried out a study to validate the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS) and the Signalized and un-signalized Intersection Design and
Research Aid Software (SIDRA) by comparing both software results regarding the extent to
which the results of the delay time are in agreement with the results obtained from field
measurements. Fifty-four hours of data from eighteen legs at five signalized intersections were
collected from Irbid, the second-largest city in Jordan. To address the relatively significant
difference in the results of control delay obtained in the field with those produced from both
programs, some of the traffic flow parameters were adjusted to the Jordanian conditions as
follows:

 The basic saturation flow rate was measured using the through movement on the
intersection approaches, according to the HCM standard procedure. Therefore, the basic
saturation flow rate was averaged at 2200 pcu/h/ln. Applying value higher than the default
value for both programs (1900 pcu/h/ln for HCS and 1950 pcu/h/ln for SIDRA), explained
by the researcher due to aggressive driver behavior in Jordan, which resulted in reducing
vehicle headways, resulting in a higher saturation flow rate, and

 Both programs treat buses as heavy vehicles with no distinction between small and large
buses. In Jordan and especially in Irbid city, busses constitute a large proportion of the
traffic fleet. The majority of buses are small (around 20 passengers). As a result, the
researchers suggested using a PCE value of 1.5 instead of 2 for small buses. This PCE
value was used to adjust the volumes of small buses to see how this calibration affected
the accuracy of software control delay estimation.

After software calibration, the most important conclusions from this study were as follows:

55
 At low delay ranges, HCS slightly overestimates control delay. At the same time, SIDRA
has a predicted control delay that is in good agreement with the field data,

 At higher delay levels, HCS has noticeable scattered predictions as compared to field data
with more tendencies to over-estimation, while SIDRA provides less scattering than
HCS,

 Calibrating the bus PCE factor and the basic saturation flow rate can improve the two
software significantly, and

 SIDRA showed a better performance than HCS.

2. Evaluation of Common Traffic Operation Software on the Basis of Relevancy to

Roads Intersections.

In 2016, Ahmed Mohamady, et al. (Egypt) compared lots of traffic software that use the HCM
methodology as a base in their analysis. These programs are SYNCHRO 7.0, Highway
Capacity Software (HCS2000), and Sidra Intersection 5.1. The primary aim of this study was
to examine the major causes of differences between their results and identify one of these
traffic programs that is the most representative of traffic movement of the intersections at the
study area. The analysis of results showed that delay times determined by using different
software packages were usually greater than the corresponding actual delay times measured
from the field. Therefore, as a trial to decrease the difference between programs output delay
times and the corresponding delay times measured from field, the researchers suggested
different values for the base saturation flow rate (2000, 2100, and 2200 pcu/h/ln). The most
important conclusions were as follows:

 There were insignificant differences between the delay times calculated using the
SYNCHRO 7.0 and HCS2000 software and those calculated using the HCM methodology
(Manual Analysis). Sidra Intersection 5.1, in its calculated delay times, has substantial
differences,

 Significant differences were found between the delay times measured in the field and the
corresponding delay times calculated using SYNCHRO 7.0, HCS2000, and Sidra
Intersection 5.1 software. However, the calculated delay times using different software

56
 became equal with field measured delay times after calibration, but the differences were
still significant,

 SYNCHRO 7.0, HCS2000, and Sidra Intersection 5.1 software give the most matching
delay times with field-measured delay times at 2200 (pc/h/ln) as a base saturation flow,
and

 Sidra Intersection 5.1 Software is considered the best software for predicting the field
delay times at signalized intersections after the calibration process.

3.2 Review of Previous Studies Related for Estimating Local Traffic Parameters

1. Estimating Base Saturation Flow Rate for Selected Signalized Intersections in Doha,
Qatar.

In 2013, Khaled Hamad et al. conducted this study to estimate the base saturation flow rate
under prevailing local conditions in Qatar. The headways of 1,431 through-moving vehicles
from 86 queues at three signalized intersections were investigated. These intersections were
chosen according to a set of criteria to satisfy the study requirements, which included lane
width of 12 feet, no parking adjacent to a travel lane within 250 feet of the stop line, no
disturbance from heavy vehicles, no disturbance from the right or left-turning vehicles on the
other approaching lane, no disturbance from pedestrians and approach’s grade is level.

The resulting base saturation flow rate was 2,323 pc/h/ln, which is significantly higher (almost
22 percent) than the HCM's proposed value of 1,900 pc/h/ln, which will result in
underestimating of signal's capacity in Doha. The researcher suggested the reason for the
higher value of the base saturation flow rate in the study area due to the aggressive driving
behavior in Doha, Qatar compared to the USA and other parts of the world.

2. Critical Gap Comparison between One, Two, and Three-Lane Roundabouts in

Qatar.

In 2020, Khaled Shaaban et al. conducted this study to measure and compare the critical gap
values for different types of roundabouts in Qatar. In this research, data collection was carried
out at four roundabouts with adequate traffic volumes to ensure a large sample size that can
result in accurate values in the analysis stage. Gap acceptance data of more than 10,000
interactions were collected at intersections using a video recording technique. The analysis

57
was conducted using the Raffs method. Results showed that the critical gap values for the one,
two, and three-lane roundabouts were 2.24s, 2.55s, and 2.40s, respectively. These values were
very low relative to values measured in other countries. In the researcher's opinion, this may
reflect driver aggressiveness and risky behavior.

3. Driver Behavior at Roundabouts : Case Study in Baniwalid City.

In 2018, Nasser A. Altwir, Libya, Baniwalid, conducted a study about the behavior of drivers
at roundabouts, especially the behavior of giving the right of way for vehicles inside the
roundabout. To fulfill the objectives of the study, two main roundabouts in Baniwalid city
were selected for the study, and questionnaire was designed to investigate drivers after
crossing the roundabout. At the same time, a camera installed in suitable location near the
roundabout to monitor the real driver behavior. Several driver characteristics (such as age,
gender, and level of education, years of experience …etc.) were linked to the knowledge of the
driver about traffic laws at roundabouts. Second questionnaires were also designed for the
staff of the traffic police and driving schools to check their support and acceptance of the
roundabouts' advantages. After analyzing the collected data, the most important conclusions of
the study were as follows:

 Results showed that 70% of the study sample knows the priority rules at roundabout,
while the practical results obtained from the recorded video indicated that only about 14%
of the sample gave priority to vehicles inside the roundabout,

 About 89% of the personnel of the traffic police officers and driving schools supported
the advantages of the roundabouts when compared to other types of intersections, and

 Approximately 90% of the study participants are under the age of 45, with a significant
percentage of young people under the age of 30, which according to the researcher's
opinion explains the high percentage of aggressive behavior and traffic rules violations at
roundabouts.

3.3 Review of Previous Studies Related to Optimization of Intersections Performance

1. Study of Traffic Signals and its Development Methods in Tripoli City

58
In 2009, Mona Eid (Libya) conducted a study to optimize the operational performance of two
signalized intersections, namely Sulaiman Al Baroni and Aljumhuria intersection, using the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) and Webster method. The most important
conclusions revealed from the results of the analysis were:

 The results of the operational analysis of the two intersections indicated that the
operational performance of both intersections is generally acceptable, as the level of
service ranged between B and C,

 High delay time at the right turn lanes at peak hour due to vehicles parking on the right
side of the intersections,

 The value of the degree of saturation (V/C) showed high fluctuation, indicating that the
green period is not appropriately distributed over the intersections approaches, and

 By using the optimum signal timing, the level of service at the two intersections improved
as the delay time for Sulaiman Al Baroni and Aljumhuria intersection decreased by
approximately 30% and 24% percent, respectively.

2. Evaluation of Some Serious Intersections in Baniwalid by Computer Applications

In 2018, Abd Al-Razzaq Imhemed evaluated the traffic efficiency and pavement condition for
four intersections in Baniwalid city. The studied intersection represents different types of
intersections. The researcher used SYNCHRO 8 software to assess the level of service and
capacity and Paver 5.2 software to estimate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the
examined intersection.

Several solutions have been proposed to improve the existing condition of intersections. The
level of service for Abu Sidra Intersection (three-legged intersection controlled by right of
way) has been improved from E to C by preventing left turn at the intersection. The level of
service for Civil Defense Intersection (four-legged intersection controlled by traffic signal)
improved from F to C by adjusting the signal timing. The third studied intersection, which is
the Airport Road Intersection (three-legged intersection controlled by right of way), showed
an excellent traffic efficiency. However, due to the high number of dangerous accidents, the
researcher suggests converting the intersection to a roundabout where the same level of
service (A) is maintained. Finally, the level of service for Al-Daran Intersection (three-legged

59
intersection which controlled by right of way) has been improved from D to C by introducing
traffic signals at the intersection. As for the pavement surface condition, the results showed
different results ranging from excellent to not acceptable.

3.4 Review of Previous Studies Related to Comparison of Capacity and Safety Level
for Different Types of Intersections

1. Evaluating Operational Performance of Intersections Using SIDRA.

In 2014, Prakash Ranjitkaret et al, Auckland, New Zealand, carried out a study on the
operating efficiency of three different intersections type, namely priority controlled
intersection (give-way and stop), roundabout and signalized intersection using Sidra
Intersection software . Several traffic conditions are modeled in SIDRA to test their affects,
which include the total demand volumes (Low, Moderate and high) and varying volume ratios
on the major street to the minor street (1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2). The findings of the study revealed
that each of the three intersection types that investigated in this study has advantages over
others. Most important conclusions from this study were as follows:

 Sign controlled intersections perform best at low traffic volumes (up to 600 veh/h),
 Roundabouts perform best at moderate traffic volumes (range of 600 to 2000 veh/h),
 Signalized intersections perform best at high traffic volumes (over 2000 veh/h),
 Give-way control and signalized intersections perform best at the most unbalanced volume
ratio of 1:2, and

 A balanced volume ratio of 1:1 outperformed the other two-volume ratios for the
roundabout to give a relatively lower delay.

2. An Operational Performance and Safety Comparison of Roundabouts and

Traditional Intersections

In 2014, Vincent Spahr (USA, Ohio) assessed four roundabouts' safety and operational
performance compared to the performance of different types of traditional stop-controlled and
signalized intersections. The methods used to analyze road safety utilized historical
information regarding the daily vehicular volume. The researchers used the GIS Crash
Analysis Tool (GCAT) of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). This software
allows the user to specify any location on the map of Ohio and a time frame and get all

60
relevant crash report numbers. The most important details for this study were the crash's
location, the crash's date, the severity of the crash, the type of collision, and the weather
conditions at the time of the crash. To analyze the operational performance of each
intersection, the counts of turning movements and the geometric aspects of each intersection
are entered in Sidra Intersection 6.0 software.

The study showed that roundabouts do not significantly decrease the number of accidents at
the intersection. However, 20% of the crashes at the studied roundabouts resulted in injuries.
In comparsion, stop-controlled and signalized intersections record 28% of crashes resulting in
injuries. For operational efficiency comparison, roundabouts reported better performance than
stop-controlled and signalized intersections at volumes below 3,000 entering vehicles per
hour. At volumes of over 3,000 vehicles per hour, a 2-lane roundabout proved inadequate
operational performance. Signalized intersections received better LOS than roundabouts with
similar volumes as it distributes delays more equally to each approach.

3. Crash History after Installation of Traffic Signals (Warranted Vs. Unwarranted).

In 2008, Kenneth R. Agent et al. carried out this research report in Kentucky, United States, to
determine the change in crash history at intersections after installing a traffic signal. The
change in crash history was also analyzed relative to whether the signal was warranted based
on MUTCD guidelines. The Collision Report database was searched to obtain crash data
before and after the signal installation or removal, the analysis for 89 intersections resulted in
the following conclusions:

 The number of total crashes per year reduced slightly (10.9 percent) after the installation of
a signal. However, the number of injury or death crashes per year decreased significantly
(42.0 percent),

 In locations where the signal was installed based on crash experience warrant, the total
number of crashes decreases considerably (42.9 percent). In comparison, at locations where
the signal was installed based on a different type of warrant, total crashes increased slightly
(11.5 percent),

 Angle crashes per year decreased by 63.0 percent, while the less severe rear-end crashes
increased by 74.3 percent after installing a traffic signal,

61
 After installing an unwarranted traffic signal, the annual number of crashes increases (28.3
percent). This resulted from the significant increase in rear-end crashes (222 percent).
However, Angle crashes per year decreased by 40.2 percent at unwarranted signal
locations,

 Angle crashes per year at intersections that satisfied the crash warrant before the signal
installation were reduced by 74.5 percent, and

 Traffic signals installed based on an engineering study resulted in a decrease in angle

crashes with an increase in the less severe rear-end collisions. At intersections where the
signal warrants were not met, there was a smaller decrease in angle collisions and a larger
increase in rear end collisions.

3.5 Conclusion of the Previous Studies

This chapter reviews some of the relevant studies that were carried out to examine the
accuracy of Sidra intersections software, compare different types of intersections in terms of
capacity and safety, and determining local traffic flow parameters. Also, some of the presented
studies used the methodology of the highway capacity manual (HCM) to improve the
operational conditions for intersections. The most important conclusions derived from the
above-mentioned studied are listed below:

1. Sidra Intersection program is considered one of the best programs that are available in the
market to evaluate and improve the operational performance of intersections.

2. Traffic software, which are designed based on traffic flow characteristics of the developed
countries such as the USA and Australia, should not be used in Libya or some of the other
developing countries before calibrating their parameters. Especially the ones related to
drivers' behavior.

3. Previous studied in countries with similar traffic characteristics of Libyan condition showed
that the actual value of the base saturation flow rate is higher than the default value
suggested by HCM, while the value of the critical gap is lower than the HCM value.

4. Roundabouts have been proven to be the safest type of intersection, followed by signalized
intersections, especially when both types compared to sign-controlled intersections in terms
of the severity of the accidents.
62
 Chapter 4
Research Methodology

4.1 Introduction

The approach followed to achieve the research objectives began with an extensive review of
the literature relevant to the research subject. Then, field observations are made to create a
clear idea of the condition of the most critical intersections in the city. Thus, the most
intersections that need traffic efficiency improvement can be identified. The next step was to
collect data about traffic volumes and the geometric characteristics of the studied
intersections. Lastly, Sidra Intersection 7.0 software was used to evaluate and optimize the
performance of the selected intersections.

4.2 Selected Intersections (Study Area)

Four critical intersections in Azzawiya city were selected for the analysis; Omar Al-Mukhtar
Intersection (Signal Control), Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Signal Control), Shlaby Intersection
(Sign Control), and Al-Rihanna Intersection (Roundabout). The locations of the selected
intersections in the urban plan of the city are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Locations of the Selected Intersection

63
4.3 General Description of the Selected Intersections

4.3.1 General Description of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection is a four-leg signalized intersection located approximately at

the Cartesian coordinates of (288730.97 E, 3626258.08 N). As shown in figure 4.2 and figure
4.3, the coastal road comprises the east and west legs of the intersection. The north leg is
Omar Al-Mukhtar Street, and the south leg is Al-Zahra Road. The four legs of the intersection
lead to the following destinations:

1. North Leg – Road to the City Center.

2. South Leg – Road to Al-Zahraa City.

3. East Leg – Road to Tripoli City.

4. West Leg – Road to Ras Ejdir Town (Libyan-Tunisian Border).

Figure 4.2: An Aerial Photograph for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

64
North Leg South Leg

East Leg West Leg

Figure 4.3: Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection Views

65
4.3.2 General Description of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

Al-Ghardabiya Intersection is a four-leg signalized intersection, located approximately at the

Cartesian Coordinates of (288016.71 E, 3625774.50 N). As shown in figure 4.4, and figure
4.5, the Coastal Road comprises the east and west legs of the intersection. The leg on the
northern and southern side is the Al-Gardabiya Street. The four legs consist the intersection
leads to the following destinations:

1. North Leg – Road to the City Center.

2. South Leg – Road to Azzawiya University.

3. East Leg – Road to Tripoli City.

4. West Leg – Road to Ras Ejdir Town (Libyan-Tunisian Border).

Figure 4.4: An Aerial Photograph for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

66
North Leg South Leg

East Leg West Leg

Figure 4.5: Al-Ghardabiya Intersection Views

67
4.3.3 General Description of Shlaby intersection

Shlaby intersection is a four-legged sign-controlled intersection located in a vital commercial

area, just about 400 meters to the north of the city's main square (Al-Shuhada Square).
Geographically, the intersection is located at the Cartesian Coordinates of (286963.85 E,
3626508.86 N). As shown in figures 4.6 and 4.7, the major street is Al-Jumherya Street,
stretching in the east-west direction. The minor street is Al-Hara Street, which stretches in the
North-South direction. The four legs comprise the intersection leading to the following
destinations:

1. North Leg – Road to the Al-Hara district.

2. South Leg – Road to Al-Shuhada Square.

3. East Leg – Road to the Azzawiya Park.

4. West Leg – Road to the Wholesale Market.

Figure 4.6: An Aerial Photograph for Shlaby Intersection

68
North Leg South Leg

East Leg West Leg

Figure 4.7: Shlaby Intersection Views

69
4.3.4 General Description of Al-Rihanna Intersection

Al-Rihanna intersection is a four-legged roundabout, located approximately at the Cartesian

Coordinates of (288335.46 E, 3626688.03 N). As shown in figures 4.8 and 4.9, the roundabout
is situated on the crossing of the two most important streets in the city, namely Gamal Abdel
Nasser Street, stretching in the east-west direction and Omar Al-Mukhtar Street which
stretches in the north-south direction. The four legs comprise the intersection leads to the
following destinations:

1. North Leg – Road to Azzawiya Park.

2. South Leg – Road to the Coastal Road.

3. East Leg – Road to Azzawiya Teaching Hospital.

4. West Leg – Road to Al-Shuhada Square.

Figure 4.8: An Aerial Photograph for Al-Rihanna Intersection

70
North Leg South Leg

East Leg West Leg

Figure 4.9: Al-Rihanna Intersection Views

71
4.4 Data Collection

Three categories of data are collected for the analysis: (1) traffic data (2) geometric data and
(3) signal data.

4.4.1 Equipment and Tools Used for Data Collection

As shown in figure 4.10, field data were collected using equipment and tools such as; video
cameras, laser meter, stop watch, level instrument, Google Earth App and Bandicut (video
cutting/joining software).

Figure 4.10: Equipment and Tools Used for Data Collection

72
4.4.2 Traffic Data Collection

Traffic data includes the directional traffic volumes of vehicles at the stop lines of the
intersections. Traffic volumes data were collected using a video camera at all studied
intersections. Then, the recorded videos were extracted from the memory card of the camera.
The extracted videos were then divided over 15-minute intervals using "Bandicut software".
Finally, the directional traffic volume of vehicles was counted by monitoring the recorded
videos on computer. The hour with higher volume (peak hour) in terms of pcu/h was selected
for the analysis of the operational performance of the intersections. To determine the total
volume in passenger car equivalent (pcu), each vehicle class volume was multiplied by their
respective pcu factor.

The highway capacity manual (HCM) defines the heavy vehicle as "a vehicle with more than
four wheels touching the pavement during normal operation". However, applying this procure
to Libyan conditions may be inappropriate because traffic composition on Libyan roads
contains a considerable percentage of the light rigid trucks (locally known as porters) which
have sex wheels but similar characteristics to the other light vehicles. Therefore, different
procedures depend on other characteristics rather than the number of wheels such as loaded
mass, power to weight ratio, and the number of axels is adapted to classify vehicles on Libyan
roadways.

According to the Analysis Procedure Manual of Oregon Department of Transportation [34],

SIDRA vehicle classes align with the FHWA vehicle classes ( see figure 4.11) as :

 Light Vehicles = Motorcycles, cars, SUV’s, light trucks ; Classes 1,2,3 and 5

 Buses= Buses; Class 4

 Heavy Vehicles = Single unit trucks; Classes 6,7 and 8

 Large Trucks = Combination tractor/trailers; Classes 9,10,11,12 and 13

73
 Figures 4.11: FHWA Vehicle Classes [34]

The default passenger car equivalent values that used in this research are given in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Default values of Passenger Car Equivalent (PCU) [33]

Movement Class SIDRA HCM Model
Light Vehicles (LV) 1.00
Heavy Vehicles (HV) 2.00
Buses (B) 2.00
Bicycles (C) 0.30
Large Trucks (TR) 3.00
Light Rail / Trams (LR) 2.50

74
Figures 4.12 (a), 4.12 (b), 4.13 (a), 4.13 (b), 4.14 and 4.15 show screenshots for the captured
videos at the studied intersections.

Figure 4.12 a: Screenshot of the captured video at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

Figure 4.12 b: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

75
Figure 4.13 a : Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

Figure 4.13 b: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

76
 Figure 4.14: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Shlaby Intersection

Figure 4.15: Screenshot of the Captured Video at Al-Rihanna Intersection

77
4.4.3 Geometric Data Collection

For performance evaluation of intersections, besides the traffic data mentioned above,
geometric data are also necessary and these data are collected based on field measurements.
These measurements then inputted to Sidra Intersection 7.0 software.

4.4.4 Signals Data Collection

To analyze the two signalized intersections that included in the study, a stopwatch used to
determine green times, yellow times, and red times for each phase. At the time traffic movements
were recorded, traffic signals control at both intersections was pre-timed and time distribution was
constant for all the period of survey regardless of changes in traffic volumes.

4.5 Input Data to Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

The description of the use of the software and how the data was entered to evaluate the
selected intersections is illustrated in the following sections.

As shown on Figure 4.16, after opening Sidra Intersection software, the main screen will
default to the site tab and the user should choose the intersection control type from one of the
site icons in the toolbar; signals, roundabout, or sign control.

Figure 4.16: Screen Shot of the Site Tab.

78
4.5.1 Intersection Dialogue

This window of the program comprises the Intersection and Properties tabs. It allows the user
to determine the approaches to the intersection with a maximum of eight legs, as shown in
figure 4.17. The highlighted approach with the red color means that it is active. Then the user
should apply the required data for the active approach, which includes but is not limited to;
Approach name, leg geometry (one/two-ways), the approach distance measured to the next
upstream intersection to aid in queue length reporting, extra bunching value ( see table 4.2)
which accounts for platoon effects from nearby signals. The area type factor for signals (0.9
for the central business district otherwise leave as default (1.0)) and the control type for the
approach.

Figure 4.17: Intersection and Approaches Dialogue [33]

Table 4.2: Guide for Specifying Extra Bunching [33]

Distance to upstream < 100 100-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 > 800
signals (m)
Extra bunching (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0

79
4.5.2 Movements Definition Dialogue

As shown in figure 4.18, the movement definitions dialogue is for specifying; (a) movement
classes tab (light vehicles, heavy vehicles ) and adding any other mode of movements if
applicable and (b) origin-destination movements tab (through, right, left, and U-turn(.

Figure 4.18: Screen Shot of Movement Definitions Dialuge

4.5.3 Lane Geometry Dialogue

The following data is required as a minimum in the lanes geometry dialogue tabs as shown in
figure 4.19.

1) Lane Configuration Tab

The required data for lane configuration dialouge include; lane width, lane length, grade, lane
configuration (full-length lane , short lane , short lane with Parking or Two-Segment Lane),
lane type (normal or slip/bypass), and lane control (signal , sign or continuous). Lane
configuration should be specified, with consideration given to:

80
 For roundabout, when the approach flared to the extent that allows for an additional queue
to form, the effect of flaring is modelled through adding short lane for the approach,

 Short lanes should be specified for any lanes that are short in comparison to other lanes on
the approach or departure. Giving a lane a shorter length in relative to other lanes is
not enough for the program to recognise it as a short lane.

Figure 4.19: Screen Shot of Lane Geometry Dialuge

2) Lane Disciplines Tab

Lane disciplines (orientation-destination movements on the lane) should be specified, with

consideration given to:

 For signalised intersections, If the slip/bypass lane ( most likely a channalised or flared
right turn lane ) queuing space is less than about 30 m (i.e. entry to the slip/bypass lane is
very close to the signal stop line), it is better to specify a shared slip/bypass lane with a
free queue parameter. As shown in Figure 4.20, the free queue parameters must be
specified for both movements in the shared lane, and

81
 If larger queuing space (> 30 m) is available, this slip/bypass lane should be specified as
short lane (i.e. an additional lane of limited length).

Figure 4.20 : Free Queue Parameters for a Shared Slip Lane [33]

3) Lane Data Tabe

Lane data should be specified, with consideration given to:

 Lane utilisation Ratio, Saturation Speed , Capacity Adjustment, bus stopping (signalized
only), Parking manoeuvers (signalized only) and dominant lane (roundabout only) data
should only be manually overwritten if the appropriate intersection data has been
collected. Otherwise, the program will use default value, and

 For urbanized signal sites, the HCM value of (1900 pcu/h) for the basic saturation flow
parameter will automatically be used or the user can use an alternative value reflecting
more closely the local environment.

4.5.4 Lane Movement Dialogue

Each lane movement data is entered in two dialogue boxes as shown in figure 4.21:

1) Flow Proportions Tab; which allows for determining the percentage of vehicles that
depart to certain exit lane, and

2) Blockage Calibration Tab; which requires entering Lane Blockage Calibration Factor to
account for the effect of downstream lane blockage on the upstream lane capacity.

82
The Flow Proportions and Blockage calibration parameters are used for specifying parameters
required for purpose of network analysis. Therefore, the program defaults can be accepted for
isolated intersections analysis.

Figure 4.21: Screen Shot of Lane Movement Data

4.5.5 Roundabouts Dialouge (only visible if roundabout site selected)

The dialog consists of three tabs; Options, Roundabout Data and HCM 6 Data:

1) Options Tab

As shown in figure 4.22 The default settings of US HCM 6 are not required to be changed
unless the model settings need to be modified.

Figure 4.22: Screen shot of the options Tab

83
2) Roundabout Data Tab

As shown in figure 4.23, geometry data of the roundabout are applied in the Roundabout Data
Tap. These gemetric charactristics include; number of circulating lanes, circulating width,
island Diameter, inscribed diameter, entry radiues and entery angel. However, except for
number of entry and circulating lanes, other geometric parameters are used for informational
purposes only, and their values have no effect on the HCM 6 roundabout capacity model
output. In addition, the checkboxes of the circulating transition line and the number of
downstream circle lane are used by grogram to show an appropriate layout picture for the
studied roundabout without any effect on capacity.

Figure 4.23: Screen Shot of Roundabout Data Tab

3) HCM 6 Data Tab

Model Calibration Factor and Entry/Circulating Flow Adjustment parameters for the HCM 6
roundabout capacity model, given under the HCM 6 Data tab. These default parameters can be
adjusted to reflect local road and driver characteristics. These parameter values affect the
critical gap, the follow-up headway, and, therefore, capacity.

84
Model Calibration Factor allows for consideration of different driver behavior (driver
aggressiveness and alertness affecting driver response times). Default values of these
parameters are 1.0. A value smaller than 1.0 decreases the follow-up headway and critical gap
parameters (increase the capacity). Figure 4.24 shows the HCM 6 tab.

Figure 4.24: Screen Shot of HCM 6 Data Tab

4.5.6 Pedestrian Dialogue

The Pedestrians dialog has three tabs: (a) Pedestrian Movements, (b) Pedestrian Movement
Data, and (c) Pedestrian Timing Data.

For signals, pedestrian movement data are used for estimating the effect of pedestrians on
vehicle movement capacities and signal timings as well as estimating pedestrian performance.

For roundabouts and two-way sign control, pedestrian movement data are used for estimating
the effect of pedestrians on vehicle movement capacities only.

85
4.5.7 Volumes Dialogue

Volumes dialogue window has two tabs: (a) Vehicle Volumes, (b) Volume Factors:

1) Vehicle Volumes Tab.

Vehicle demand volumes are specified in the movement volumes table as shown in Figure
4.25 . The volume counts for each movement will be converted automatically by the software
to hourly flow rates according to the unit time (60 minutes) and the peak flow period (15
minutes).

Figure 4.25: Screen Shot of Vehicle Volume Tab

2) Volume Factors Tab.

As shown in figure 4.26, the values of the following parameters need to be identified for each
movement; Peak Flow Factor (PFF); It is equal to the PHF with 60 minute analysis period. As
per the highway capacity manual recommendation, one PHF value is used for the whole
intersection. Flow scale and growth rate are used for sensitivity testing when design life or
flow scale analysis is used through the demand & sensitivity dialog. Otherwise, it should
remain at the default value of 100% and 2%, respectively.

86
 Figure 4.26: Screen Shot of Volume Factors Tab

4.5.8 Priorities Dialogue

The Priorities dialogue is used to specify how drivers behave when they have to give way to
other road users (vehicles & pedestrians). As shown in figure 4.27, Priorities are determined
by choosing the opposed movements (red arrow) using the radio buttons and then selecting the
opposing movements (green arrow) by clicking the arrows. Default opposing movements
suggested by software should be used unless evidence can be provided to show the actual
opposing movements are different.

Figure 4.27: Screen Shot of Priorities Dialouge

87
4.5.9 Gap Acceptance Dialogue

As shown in figure 4.28, the gap acceptance dialog includes gap acceptance data, Settings and
two-way sign control tabs. The latter tab appears for sign control intersections only.

The gap Acceptance dialog used for specifying gap acceptance data relevant to opposed
movements at intersections. A default value under gap acceptance dialog is acceptable unless
the user needs to adjust some parameters such as critical gap and follow- up headways to local
condition.

Figure 4.28: Screen Shot of Gap Acceptance Data Dialouge

4.5.10 Vehicle Movements Data Dialogue

The vehicle movement data dialog includes Path Data, Calibration, and Signal tabs. The last
tab is included only in the signal site. Data are listed in table format for all tabs under this
dialog, with columns showing O-D movements for the selected approach and movement class.

1) Path Data Tab

Path data tab includes parameters such as approach cruise speed and exit cruise specified by
Movement Class. All of the required parameters are shown in Figure 4.29.

The approach cruise speed is the vehicle's average continuous travel speed, excluding the
influence of intersection delays. When considering the destination of an O-D movement, the
88
exit speed is the downstream speed in the movement path. The speed limit (posted speed) may
be an adequate value to apply in the absence of field-collected data. On the other hand, the
Cruise Speed parameter has little effect on capacity. However, it substantially impacts
geometric delay, costs, fuel consumption, and emissions.

The program calculates the intersection negotiation data (Negotiation Speed, Negotiation
Distance, and Negotiation Radius) based on geometric input data.

Figure 4.29: Screen Shot of Path Data Tab.

2) Calibration Tab

As shown in figure 4.30, the calibration tab provides a set of parameters (i.e., Queue Space
and vehicle length, Turning vehicle factor, Gap acceptance factor, and opposing vehicle
factor). The O-D movement for specific movement classes (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, and
large trucks) can only define these parameters since the values differ between different
vehicles categories.

The gap acceptance factor is used to adjust the entry stream's critical gap and follow-up
headway parameters. The opposing vehicle factor parameter represents the passenger car
equivalent (pcu) of a movement class in the opposing stream. The default values of the gap
acceptance factor and opposing vehicle factor parameters are used except if the local
parameters are available.

89
Practical Degree of Saturation is an important parameter used as a target (maximum
acceptable) degree of saturation for signal timing (fixed-time signals). The program uses a
default value according to the intersection and movement type; 0.90 for signalized
intersections, 0.85 for roundabouts, 0.80 for sign-controlled intersections, and 0.98 for
continuous movements.

Figure 4.30: Screen Shot of Calibration Tab

3) Signal Tab

It includes parameters related to calculation of signal timing such as maximum and minimum
green and to indicate if right-turn-on red (RTOR) is present on specific approach.

4.5.11 Phasing & Timing Dialogue (Available for Signalized Sites Only)

The phasing & timing dialog includes the sequences, sequence editor, phase & sequence data,
timing options, and advanced tabs. As shown in figure 4.31, the dialog opens with the
sequence editor tab in view. When modeling an existing intersection (operational analysis), the
entry data should be identical to the signal's existing case. The required information is
regarding the phase diagram, cycle length, green times, and clearance intervals for each of the
pre-timed movements.
90
 Figure 4.31: Phasing & Timing Dialog (Sequence Editor Tab) [33]

As shown in figure 4.32, for pre-fixed time signals the input data regarding signal timing for
the operational analysis (existing case) include; phase time ( green plus yellow and all-red
times), yellow time, all-red time.

Figure 4.32: Screen Shot of Phase & Sequence Data Tab

91
The timing options tab, as shown in figure 4.33, includes following options:

 Practical Cycle Time; when this option is selected the program will calculate a cycle
time and green times that satisfy the practical (target) degree of saturation for critical
movements.

 Optimum Cycle Time; when this option is selected the program will calculate a cycle
time that optimizes a selected performance measure (minimum delay by default). The
Performance Measure used for determining the optimum cycle time is specified in the
Parameter Settings dialog, Options tab. The optimum cycle time option is used in this
research to optimize signals.

 User-Given Cycle Time; this option is used when inputting a certain cycle length is
required.

 User-Given Cycle Time; This option is used for the operational performance for existing
cases, where phase times are known. This option is used to analyze the existing case for
the studied intersections.

Figure 4.33: Screen Shot of Timing Options Tab

92
4.5.12 Demand & Sensitivity Dialogue

The Demand & Sensitivity input dialog used to carry out a Design Life or Flow Scale analysis.
Demand Analysis facilities to determine the maximum flow levels that the intersection can
handle (Design Life and Flow Scale options). Sensitivity Analysis facility to investigate the
sensitivity of results to various parameters representing intersection geometry and driver
behavior (useful as a calibration facility). However, in case of the absence of relevant data or
the expected future performance is not needed, the "None" radio button is checked, as shown
in figure 4.34.

Figure 4.34: Demand & Sensitivity Dialogue [33]

4.5.13 Parameter Settings Dialogue

The Parameter Settings dialog includes the options, model parameters, cost and fuel &
emissions tabs.

The parameters in the options tab apply to the intersection as a whole and all of the HCM 2016
equations. These essential parameters affect the results significantly. They should be as shown
in Figure 4.35. The HCM 2016 default values such as passenger car unit (pcu) for heavy
vehicles in the model parameters tab and others under the cost and fuel & emissions tab can be
used. However, these parameters may be adjusted if relevant data is available.

93
 Figure 4.35: Screen Shot of the Parameter Settings Dialog (Options Tab)

4.6 Calibration of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

Sidra Intersection 7.0 provides facilities to calibrate its traffic models for local conditions. The
intersection geometry and driver behavior determine a traffic facility's capacity and
performance characteristics (delay, queue length, stops, and so on).

Key model parameters that determine capacity for different intersection types in Sidra
Intersection are shown in table 4.3. It is recommended to calibrate the key model parameters
(second column in the table) by modifying the recommended key calibration parameters (third
column in the table) [33].

Table 4.3: Key Elements of Calibration for Sidra Intersection Software

94
For the studied intersections in this research, the adjustment of some traffic flow parameters is
required to account for the unique features of traffic condition and driver behavior in the study
area that is believed to vary from that determined by the highway capacity manual and Sidra
Intersection software. The calibration process is to be compatible with the findings of previous
studies mentioned in chapter 3, the recommendation of Sidra Intersection User Guide and field
observation. The adjusted traffic flow parameters are as follows:

4.6.1 Adjustment of the Base Saturation Flow Rate

The base saturation flow rate value is greatly affected by driver behaviors and road
conditions. Through reviewing some of the previous studies conducted in countries that are
believed to be similar to a large extent in these characteristics, a consensus was found that the
actual value of the base saturation flow is higher than the value suggested by the highway
capacity manual (1900 pcu/h/ln). Furthermore, Sidra Intersection 7.0 User Guide indicates that
higher value of the saturation flow rate can be achieved at urban environment suggestion a
value of 2100 pcu/h/ln. Therefore, as shown in figure 4.36, the value of the base saturation
flow rate adjusted to 2100 pcu/h/ln, instead of the default value of 1900 pcu/h/ln for the
studied signalized intersections.

Figure 4.36: Adjustment of the Base Saturation Flow Rate for the Signalized
Intersections

95
4.6.2 Adjustment of the Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways

The value of critical gap and follow up headway greatly influence the capacity of sign-
controlled intersections and roundabout. The decrease in the value will increase the capacity of
the intersection. Based on field observations it was clear that when using the default values of
these traffic flow parameters the program underestimate capacity and therefore over-estimate
delay. In addition, the findings of the related studies that were conducted in countries that are
believed to be similar to a large extent with local conditions, indicates less values for critical
gap than that suggested by the highway capacity manual. Therefore, these parameters were
adjusted for Shlaby intersection (sign-controlled) and Al-Rihanna intersection (roundabout).

For sign-controlled intersections as shown in figure 4.37, Sidra Intersection 7.0 has facility in
the two-way sign control tab that is used to decrease the critical gap and follow-up headway of
the opposed movements with increasing opposing flow rates. The options representing the
level of reduction are None, Low, Medium and High. The default setting of "None" means that
the critical gap and follow-up headway will remain as the default values of the HCM2016. The
option of "high" was used in this study as it was found to result in estimated delay that is in
good agreement with the observed delay in the field.

Figure 4.37: Adjustment of the Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways for
Shlaby Intersection
96
As for roundabouts, Sidra Intersection 7.0 User Guide stated that Model Calibration Factor
(HCM 6) of 0.90 could be used for the US HCM 6 roundabout capacity model to estimate
increased capacities under traffic conditions assuming aggressive driver behavior and driver
familiarity with roundabouts. Therefore, as shown in figure 4.38, the default value of 1.00 for
the Model Calibration Factor (HCM 6) adjusted to 0.90.

Figure 4.38: Calibration of the Critical Gap and Follow-up Headways for Al-Rihanna
Intersection

4.6.3 Adjustment of Light Vehicle Length and Queue Space

Light vehicle length and queue space (jam spacing) are vital capacity and performance
parameters for all intersection types and networks. It is used in estimating queue distance,
short lane capacity, upstream lane blockage probability. The difference between queue space
and vehicle length is the gap between vehicles in the queue.

The length of light vehicles crossing the Shlaby intersection was investigated from 11 am to
11.15 am. The average length of vehicles was found to be 4.51 m; this value is almost
identical to the default value of the SIDRA Model (4.5 m). As for queue space, the Arial
photographs and field observation show fluctuating; therefore, the default value of the SIDRA
model (7m) is accepted. The observation for the other intersections was not possible due to the
low quality of the video, which make it difficult to recognize the vehicle model. Thus, for all
of the studied intersections, The HCM default value of light vehicle length (5.1m) and queue
97
space (7.6 m) were reduced to 4.5m and 7m, respectively. These parameters differ from that in
Libya or Australia because pickup vehicles are widespread in the United States.

Figure 4.39: Adjustment of Light Vehicle Length and Queue Space

4.7 Output of Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

After all required data is inputted, the program will process the input data by performing the
required calculations to produce intersection analysis results and reports. Table 4.4 outlines the
most valuable outputs offered by the program for isolated intersections.

Table 4.4: Outputs of Sidra Intersection 7.0

Output Reports Performance Indicators

 Degree of Saturation v/c.
 Control Delay.
 Intersection Level of Service (LOS).
Intersection Summary  Back of Queue (worst lane).
 Fuel Consumption
 Emissions (Carbon Dioxide, Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide,
NOx ).
 Degree of Saturation v/c.
 Average Delay.
Movement Summary
 Level of Service (LOS).
 Back of Queue ( vehicles & distance).
 Capacity.
 Degree of Saturation v/c.
Lane Summary  Average Delay.
 Level of Service (LOS).
 Back of Queue % (vehicles and distance ).

98
4.8 Traffic Efficiency Optimization Using Sidra Intersection 7.0 Software

Sidra Intersection 7.0 software, besides evaluating the operational performance of the
intersections in their current condition, can evaluate alternatives to the existing situation.
There are many possible improvements to optimize traffic efficiency. These improvements
may include; adjustment of signal phasing and timing, alteration of the physical geometric
characteristics, and introducing different control systems.

As shown in Figure 4. 40, Sidra Intersection 7.0 software allows the user to clone or convert
the current intersection. The cloning tab used to make a variation to the existing intersection,
such as signal settings and geometric characteristics, while converting tab used to change the
existing control type for the studied intersection and make a variation as applicable.

Figure 4.40: Traffic Efficiency Facilities in SIDRA

99
 Chapter 5
Results and Discussion

5.1 Analysis of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

5.1.1 The Current Condition of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

 Traffic Characteristics; unlike other signalized intersections on the coastal road in

Azzawiya city, the Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection is experiencing high traffic volumes and
excessive delay on all of its approaches during peak periods. The service road next to the
East approach lanes shifted at about 55 meters from the center of the intersection, while the
service road adjacent to the West exit lanes was physically separated from the negotiation
area of the intersection. Therefore, service road does not consider in the analysis,

 Parking Activity; as shown in figure 5.1, there are parking lane adjacent to the West
departure lanes and on both sides of the North leg. A second camera is used to monitor
parking activity on the North leg. Thus, suitable modeling for the number and lengths of the
north leg lanes can be achieved,

 Traffic Safety; there is no statics about the number and type of accidents at the
intersection. However, field observation revealed that accidents accrues frequently at the
intersection,

 Traffic Control; except for right-turn movements, all other movements on all approaches
of the intersection are controlled by a traffic signal,

 Signal Controller; fixed signal phasing and timing used throughout the period of traffic
data collection regardless of the change in the directional traffic volume,

 Control Devices; except for the signals on the middle median of the coastal road (installed
recently), traffic signals exist on all intersection approaches. Lane lines are not clear and
need repair on the coastal road while its absent on South and North leg (painted recently).
As for lane discipline arrows and pedestrians crossing, these are absent on legs of the
intersection,

100
 Pavement Condition; except for the North leg, which is recently re-paved, there is some
structural damage in the intersection area, which is represented in some holes, cracks,
depression and drifts.

5.1.2 Geometric Characteristics of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

Based on the field measurement, the existing geometric layout for the Omar Al-Mukhtar
intersection and its approaches is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Existing Geometric Layout of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

5.1.3 Traffic Volumes at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

The surveying period started from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm. At the intersection, 14 vehicle
movement directions with three vehicle categories were observed, namely light vehicles (LV),
heavy vehicles including buses (HV), and large trucks (TR). The 60 minutes with the highest
101
traffic volume (peak hour) in pcu/h was found to be from 12:45 pm to 01:45 pm with traffic
volumes of 6,035 pcu/h. The peak hour factor was found to be 0.97. A minimal number of 32
pedestrians was observed during peak hour for the whole intersection.

Figure 5.2 shows the peak hour directional vehicular flows at the intersection for each origin-
destination movement (O-D Movement).

Figure 5.2: Traffic Volume at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection from 12:45 to 01:45 pm

5.1.4 Signal Phasing and Timing of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

The existing intersection has a four-phase signal plane (split phasing) with cycle time of 158
sec. The signal phasing and timing for the intersection at the time of traffic data collection are
shown in Figure 5.3.

102
 Figure 5.3: Signal phasing and Timing of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

5.1.5 Performance Measures of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)

The analysis results for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection using Sidra Intersections 7.0 based on
HCM 2016 were as follows:

 Degree of Saturation; The West approach has the lowest degree of saturation of 0.90,
and the South approach has the highest degree of saturation of 1.45. The intersection
degree of saturation is 1.45, which shows that intersection volume demand exceeds the
available capacity. Furthermore, there are noticeable differences in v/c value between
different approaches, indicating inadequate green time distribution. The degree of
saturation (v/c) is shown in Figure 5.4.

103
 Figure 5.4: Degree of Saturation for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)

 Control Delay; South approach has the highest delay of 206.6 sec/veh, West approach has
the lowest delay of 53.8 sec/veh. The average delay for the intersection is 105.6 sec/veh,
which indicates an unacceptable delay for most drivers. Delay is shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5: Control Delay for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case)
104
 Level of Service (LOS); Except for the West approach, which has an acceptable LOS of D,
all of the other approaches, has LOS of F. LOS for entire intersection is F, which states its
traffic flow is experiencing excessive delay and long queues. LOS is shown in Figure 5.6.

The slip by bass lane (6 m)

is capable of serving one
car due to drifts. Therefore,
modeled as one lane with
width of 3.6 meters.

Figure 5.6: Level of Service for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Existing Case)

5.1.6 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

The performance analysis results for the intersection showed unacceptable delay and poor
level of service. Therefore, in addition to the improvement of the existing poor condition of
the traffic control devices and pavement layers, the following improvement options will be
investigated to improve the operational performance of the intersection.

105
5.1.6.1 Traffic Signal Optimizing (Option 1.1)

The significant difference in performance indicators, particularly the degree of saturation (v/c)
between the west and the remaining approaches of the intersection, indicates that a new signal
timing that is more responsive to traffic volumes at different intersection approaches is
required. Therefore, the optimum signal timing of Sidra Intersections applied with the upper
limit of 180 sec, the program design the new optimum cycle time of 120 sec and green splits
for each phase as shown in figure 5.7. The analysis results for Option 1.1 were as follows:

Figure 5.7: Signal phasing and Timing of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option1.1)

The control delay for the whole intersection decreased slightly from 105.6 sec/veh to 101.5
sec/veh and level of service for the whole intersection remained F. However, the delay
becomes more balanced between the different intersection approaches due to the allocation of
green splits that are more sensitive to traffic volume. Therefore, option 1.1 is insufficient for
the intersection, and other solutions should be investigated. Figure 5.8 shows the control delay
and LOS for option 1.1.
106
 Figure 5.8: Control Delay and LOS for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Option 1.1)

5.1.6.2 Geometric Adjustments (Option 1.2)

The operational performance for the existing case of the South approach showed a huge delay
compared to other approaches. This poor condition is mainly due to inappropriate geometric
characteristics when compared to traffic volume, as the South approach (Al-Zahra Road) is
one of the most used roads to access the city center from the rural areas of the city. Therefore,
the existing two-lane road will convert to four-lane divided road. In Addition, According to
the recommendations of the HCM 2016, the left-turn traffic volume for all approaches exceeds
100 veh/hr, which requires at least one exclusive left-turn lane. As for The West and East
approaches of the intersection the left-turn volumes exceeds 300 veh/h, which requires two
auxiliary left-turn lanes. However, this is not possible under the current geometric layout of
the intersection and the possible option is to increase the length of the existing exclusive left-
turn lanes for both approaches. As for the North and South approaches, exclusive short left-
turn lane will be added at the extended width before the stopping line. Figure 5.9 shows the
new geometric layout of the intersection.

107
 Figure 5.9: Geometric Layout of Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)

As shown in table 5.1, the new proposed length for the exclusive left-turn lanes will be
determined based on the lane queue percentiles determined by the program in the detailed
output report. Sidra Intersection User Guide generally recommends using the value of 95%
back of the queue for designing the length of lanes. However, in this case, the traffic demand
exceeds the capacity of both lanes. Thus, using a reasonably long lane will be impractical,
since the most extended phase times will not be enough to discharge all queued vehicles on
both lanes. Therefore, a Comparison between results obtained from both the 95% and 50%
back of queue distance revealed that their impact on improving the intersection capacity is
almost the same. Therefore, to decrease cost and improve capacity a new length of 171 meters
for the West exclusive left-turn lane and 153 meters for the East exclusive left-turn lane will
be investigated.

108
 Table 5.1: Lane Queue Percentiles for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection

Figure 5.10 shows the new signal timing for the option 1.2.

Figure 5.10: Signal Timing for Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2)
109
As shown in figure 5.11, the control delay for the whole intersection decreased by
approximately 26%, from 105.6 sec/veh to 78.5 sec/veh. The (LOS) for the intersection
improved slightly From F to E. Therefore, in spite of the noticeable improvement, all of the
proposed options are insufficient for the intersection and other solutions should be
implemented, such as the Separation of the movements by changing the intersection's design
from an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated intersection.

Figure 5.11: Control Delay and LOS for Omar Al-Mukhtar intersection (Option 1.2)

5.2 Analysis of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

5.2.1 The Current Condition of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

 Traffic Characteristics; except for South approach, Al-Ghardabiya intersection is

experiencing high traffic volumes and excessive delay on all of its approaches during
peak periods. Traffic on the service road interference with the traffic crossing area of the
intersection, therefore service road included in the intersection analysis,

110
 Parking Activity; as shown in figure 5.13, there are parking lane on the service road and
on both sides of the north leg. Therefore, A second camera is used to monitor parking
activity on the north leg,

 Traffic Safety; there is no statics about the number and type of accidents at the
intersection. However, field observation revealed that accidents accrued frequently at the
intersection,

 Traffic Control; except for right-turn movements, all other movements on all approaches
of the intersection are controlled by a traffic signal,

 Signal Controller; fixed signal phasing and timing used throughout the period of traffic
data collection regardless of the change in the directional traffic volume,

 Control Devices; for all of the intersection approaches, traffic signals are exist. road
markings are not clear and need maintenance. As for lane discipline arrows and pedestrians
crossing, these are absent on all legs of the intersection,

 Pavement condition; there is some structural damage in the intersection area, which is
represented in holes, cracks and drifts, especially on the outer edge of the West approach,
as shown in figure 5.12.

Figure 5.12: An Example of Pavement damages at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection.

111
5.2.2 Geometric Characteristics of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

Based on the field measurement, the existing geometric layout for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection
and its approaches are shown in Figure 5.13.

Figure 5.13: Existing Geometric Layout of Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

5.2.3 Traffic Volumes at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

The surveying period started from 8:15 am to 3:00 pm. At the intersection, 14 vehicle
movement directions with three vehicle categories were observed, namely light vehicles (LV),
heavy vehicles including buses (HV), and large trucks (TR). The 60 minutes with the highest
traffic volume (peak hour) in pcu/h was found out to be from 12:30 pm to 01:30 pm with
traffic volumes of 6,198 pcu/h. The peak hour factor was found to be 0.96. A very small
number of 58 pedestrians observed during peak hour for the whole intersection.

Figure 5.14 shows the peak hour directional vehicular flows at the intersection for each origin-
destination movements (O-D Movement).

112
 Figure 5.14: Traffic Volume at Al-Gardabiya Intersection From 12:30 pm to 01:30 pm

5.2.4 Existing Signal Phasing and Timing of Al-Gardabiya Intersection

As shown in figure 5.15, the intersection has four phases with a cycle time of 130 sec.

Figure 5.15: Signal Phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection

113
5.2.5 Performance Measures for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case)

The analysis results for Al-Ghardabiya intersection using Sidra Intersections 7.0 based on
HCM 2016 were as follows:

 Degree of Saturation; the South approach has the lowest degree of saturation of 0.49, and
the West approach has the highest degree of saturation of 1.24. The intersection degree of
saturation is 1.24, which shows intersection demand exceeds the available capacity with
excessive delays and queuing. Furthermore, there is a noticeable difference in v/c value
between different approaches, indicating inadequate green time distribution. The degree of
saturation (v/c) is shown in Figure 5.16.

Figure 5.16: Degree of Saturation for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case)

 Control Delay; the West approach has the highest delay of 150.3 sec/veh, and the South
approach has the lowest delay of 38.2 sec/veh. The delay for the intersection is 121 sec/veh,
which indicates an unacceptable delay for most drivers. Delay is shown in Figure 5.17.

114
 Figure 5.17: Control Delay for Al-Ghardabiya intersection (Existing Case)

 Level of Service (LOS); except the south approach, which has an acceptable LOS of D, all
of the other approaches, has LOS of F. LOS for the entire intersection is F, which states its
traffic flow is experiencing excessive delay and long queues. LOS is shown in Figure 5.18.

Figure 5.18: Level of Service for Al-Ghardabiya intersection (Existing Case)

115
5.2.6 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Al-Gardabiya Intersection

The performance analysis results for the intersection showed unacceptable delay and poor
level of service. Therefore, in addition to improvement of the existing poor condition of the
traffic control devices and pavement layers and constructing directional islands at the South
and North approaches to discourage vehicles from entering intersection from the opposite
directions, the following improvement options will be investigated to improve the operational
performance of the intersection.

5.2.6.1 Traffic Signal Optimizing (Option 2.1)

The significant difference in performance indicators, particularly the degree of saturation (v/c)
between the different approaches of the intersection, indicates the need for new signal timing
that is more responsive to traffic volumes. Therefore, the optimum signal timing of Sidra
Intersections applied with the upper limit of 180 sec, the program determines the new
optimum cycle time of 120 sec and green splits for each phase as shown in figure 5.19.

Figure 5.19: Signal Phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1)
116
From the result, the control delay for the whole intersection decreased considerably from 121
sec/veh to 92.3 sec/veh and delay becomes more balanced between the different intersection
approaches due to the allocation of green splits that are more sensitive to traffic volume.
However, the LOS for the intersection remained F. Therefore, the proposal is insufficient for
the intersection and other solutions should be investigated. Figure 5.20 shows the results of
control delay and LOS for option 2.1.

Figure 5.20: Control Delay and LOS for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1)

5.2.6.2 Geometric Adjustments (Option 2.2)

The process of the geometric adjustment for the intersection comprises the following actions:
1) Adding of new exclusive left-turn lane on the East approach.

2) Repairing the existing right lane on the West approach.

The left-turn traffic volume on the east approach exceeds 100 veh/h, which requires an
exclusive left-turn lane. Adding an exclusive left-turn lane on the East approach is possible
because the width of the central island is 4 meters, which provides the needed space to add a
new lane with a width of 3 meters. In addition, except for the last 30 meters before the

117
stopping line, the outer lane of the West approach is out of service due to rainwater drifts.
Therefore, it will be proposed to repair this lane. To add to the intersection, a lane of about 70
meters long. However, The extension of the existing West exclusive left-turn lane is not
recommended because the additional length will fall on a dangerous horizontal curve where
trucks frequently overturn due to overload. Figure 5.21 shows the geometric layout for option
2.2.

Figure 5.21: Geometric Layout for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2)

As illustrated below, using the monograph in Figure 5.22 for the new exclusive left-turn lane
on the East approach, with a left-turn volume of 254 veh/h, a 120 sec cycle time and 1.2
percent of heavy vehicles, a storage length of about 320 ft (97m) is determined for the new
exclusive lane.

118
Figure 5.22: Determining the Length of the New Left-Turn Lane on the East Approach
of Al- Ghardabiya Intersection

Figure 5.23 shows the new signal timing for the option 2.2.

Figure 5.23: Signal phasing and Timing for Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2)

The control delay for the whole intersection decreased significantly from 121 sec/veh to 76.8
sec/veh. The East approach has the highest delay of 79.8 sec/veh, and the South approach has

119
the lowest delay of 53.8 sec/veh. The LOS for the whole intersection improved slightly from F
to E. Therefore, all of the proposed options are insufficient for the intersection. Other solutions
should be implemented, such as the separation of the movements by changing the
intersection's design from an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated intersection. Delay and
LOS for option 2.2 is shown in figure 5.24.

Figure 5.24: Control Delay and LOS for Al-Gardabiya intersection (Option 2.2)

5.3 Analysis of Shlaby Intersection

5.3.1 The Current Condition of Shlaby Intersection

 Traffic Characteristics; generally, traffic is relatively smooth at the intersection.

However, the intersection gets a bit crowded during peak periods,

 Parking Activity; because of the commercial environment around the intersection,

vehicles park on all sides of the approaches and exists of the intersection, except for a
small distance before the stop line, as exhibited in Figure 5.27,
120
 Traffic Safety; there is no statistics about the number and type of accidents at the
intersection. However, Because of the restricted sight distance and high speeds, severe
accidents were observed at the intersection. To mitigate safety problems, local authorities
installed speed bumps on both approaches of the main road. As shown in figure 5.25, speed
reducers were removed shortly afterward under the effect of traffic and did not reinstalled.
This solution may be inappropriate as it may increase rear-end accidents,

East Approach West Approach

Figure 5.25: Removed Speed Bumps at Shlaby Intersection

 Traffic Control; traffic movement is regulated by stop signs on the minor street (Al-Hara
Street). The priority is given to traffic movements on the major street (Al-Shuhada Street).
However, the actual condition shows that the vast majority of drivers on minor street yield
and do not come to a complete stop when proceeding through the crossing area. Therefore,
during modeling the intersection in Sidra Intersection 7, the Approaches Control parameter
changed to reflect the actual condition at the intersection. For this purpose, Give way/Yield
is selected for all approaches,

 Control Devices; road markings, including lane lines, stop lines, and pedestrian crossing
lines, are absent in the intersection. As for traffic signs, warning signs exist on the major
road. stop sign on the south approach is absent and need maintenance on the north
approach,

121
 Pavement Condition; there is some structural damage in the intersection area, which is
represented in holes, cracks and depressions. Figure 5.26 shows some of these damages.

Figure 5.26: An Examples of Pavement Damages at Shlaby Intersection

5.3.2 Existing Geometric Characteristics of Shlaby Intersection

The existing geometric layout for Shlaby Intersection is shown in figure 5.27.

Figure 5.27: Existing Geometric Layout for Shlaby Intersection

122
5.3.3 Traffic Volumes at Shlaby Intersection

The surveying period started from 9:15 am to 5:15 pm. At the intersection, 14 vehicle
movement directions with two vehicle categories were observed, namely light vehicles (LV),
heavy vehicles including buses (HV), and large trucks (TR). The 60 minutes with the highest
traffic volume (peak hour) in pcu/h was found out to be from 11:00 am to 12:00 am with
traffic volumes of 2,442 pcu/h. The peak hour factor was found to be 0.99. The purpose of the
survey for eight hours was to find out the peak hour and assess the warrants for installing a
traffic signal at the intersection according to MUTCD criteria. As for pedestrians' movements,
the camera's angle at the intersection could not capture the whole pedestrian crossing area.
However, field observation revealed that the number of pedestrians is limited. Therefore, since
the intersection is located in a residential and commercial area, the default minimum number
of pedestrians for each leg (50 ped/h) is inputted in Sidra Intersection software.

The peak hour volumes of the directional vehicular flows of each origin–destination
movements (O-D Movement) at the intersection are shown in Figure 5.28.

Figure 5.28: Traffic Volume at Shlaby Intersection From 11:00 am to 12:00 am

123
5.3.4 Performance Measures for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)

The analysis results for Shlaby intersection using Sidra Intersections 7.0 based on HCM 2016
were as follows:

 Control Delay; East approach has the highest delay of 36 sec/veh, and the West approach
has the lowest delay of 19.2 sec/veh. The delay for the intersection is 26.2 s/veh, which
indicates an acceptable delay for the majority of drivers. Delay is shown in Figure 5.29.

Figure 5.29: Control Delay for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)

 Level of Service (LOS); except the East approach, which has LOS of E, all of the other
approaches, has LOS of C. The Highway Capacity Manual does not define LOS for the
entire sign-controlled intersections. However, according to the SIDRA method, the LOS for
Shlaby intersection is D. LOS is shown in Figure 5.30.

124
 Figure 5.30: Level of Service for Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case)

5.3.5 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Shlaby intersection

The performance analysis results for the intersection showed an acceptable delay for most
drivers. However, the intersection experiences sever accidents. Therefore, other control types
for the intersection will be investigated to improve the safety level at the intersection and
mitigate accidents as well as maintaining the existing level of service.

The option of constructing a roundabout was excluded for two reasons: The first reason is the
ratio of traffic volume between the two intersecting streets (1:2), which makes the roundabout
not the most appropriate option. In addition, the available space is not enough to create a
roundabout, which usually needs larger areas than other types of intersections. Therefore, the

125
remaining option in addition to improvement of pavement layers is to investigate converting
the existing intersection from sign-controlled to signalized intersection.

5.3.5.1 Installation of Traffic Signal (Option 3.1)

According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2009), warrants (1, 2,
and 3) related to traffic volumes are satisfied with installing a traffic signal. In addition, All
conditions of warrant 7 (crash experience) are satisfied except the data regarding the number
of crashes (five or more severe reported crashes per year) that is not available. However, even
if these warrants are satisfied, further investigations are needed to determine if installing
traffic signals is appropriate. In addition, a minor geometric adjustment will be implemented
by increasing the width of the minor street (Al-Hara Street) by 0.7 m on both sides to obtain
short lanes of 2.7 m wide. The new width of the footbath will be 2.3 m. Figure 5.31 shows the
proposed new geometric layout.

Figure 5.31: Geometric Layout for Shlaby Intersection (Option3.1)

126
Three-phase signal is designed for the intersection. All of the West movements occur in Phase
A, all of the East movements occur in Phase B and all of North-South movements occur in a
common phase that is the phase C.

As per the recommendations of the HCM 2016, the cross product of the left-turn volume and
the opposing through volume (two lanes) for both the north and south approaches equals
42,560 and 18,696, respectively. These numbers are less than 90,000, requiring left turn
movements in a protected phase. Therefore, a sharing phase is applied for movements on both
approaches. Figure 5.32 shows the phasing diagram and signal timing for option 3.1.

Figure 5.32: Signal Timing and Phasing for Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1)

127
As shown in figure 5.33, the control delay for the whole intersection increased slightly from
26.2 sec/veh to 31.1 sec/veh. The North approach has the highest delay of 34.5 sec/veh, and
the East approach has the lowest delay of 28.1 sec/veh. However, due to the different creteria
for identifying LOS for sign-controlled and signalized intersections, level of service for the
whole intersection improved from D to C. Therefore, option 3.1 is sufficient for the
intersection, since it provides an acceptable level of service and safety condition is more likely
to improve as a signalized intersections proved to be safer than sign-controlled intersections.

Figure 5.33: Control Delay and LOS for Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1)

128
 5.4 Analysis of Al-Rihanna Intersection

5.4.1 The Current Condition of Al-Rihanna Intersection

 Traffic Characteristics; the intersection witnesses congestion and long queues, especially
in the peak period. Based on related studies to roundabout performance analysis, the
number of circulating roadways, the size of the roundabout, and the widths of its
approaches can handle the traffic volumes during peak hours with an acceptable level of
service. However, in particular, due to the parking around and near the roundabout,
receiving a good level of service was not possible. Through monitoring the captured video
at the peak hour, it was clear that except for the north leg where there is adequate space for
another route for entering and departing vehicles, on all of the other legs, there is only
space for one route on the approaches and exit lanes. Therefore, this case was modeled in
Sidra Intersection software,

 Parking Activity; because of the commercial environment for the area and the lack of
parking lots, vehicles park on both sides of the intersection's legs and inside the circulating
roadways. Field observation revealed that parking is often made at an angle to the axis of
the road or sometimes as a second row, therefore, leaving only adequate space for one lane.
In addition, parking on the right side of the roundabout's circular path is allowed, which is
prohibited worldwide by law for traffic safety and capacity reasons and consequently
cannot be modeled in Sidra Intersections software. Thus, its impact is neglected since,
despite safety requirements, the parked vehicles have a minor influence on capacity
because of the low frequency of parking, and more importantly, the availability of adequate
space for two lanes inside the circulating roadways of the roundabout. Based on analysis of
many aerial photos and conducting many field observations during peak hours, the
observed parking activity on both sides of the road and the occupied width of the road are
almost identical during peak periods. As shown in figure 5.34, 5.35, 5.36, 5.37, 5.38, and
5.39, Parked vehicles occupy of about 4.5 meters on both sides of the road for each of the
South, East, and West legs. In comparison, due to the different types of commercial
activities, the occupied width of the road used for parking on the North leg of the
intersection found to be of about 2.5 meters,

129
Figure 5.34: An Example of Parking Activity at the West Approach

Figure 5.35: An Example of Parking Activity at the West Leg

130
 Figure 5.36: An Example of Parking Activity at the East Leg

Figure 5.37: An Example of Parking Activity at the North Leg.

131
 Figure 5.38: An Example of Parking Activity at the South Leg

Figure 5.39: An Example of Parking Activity at Al-Rihanna Intersection

132
 Traffic Safety; there is no statics about the number and type of accidents at the
intersection. However, field observation revealed that accidents accrued frequently at the
intersection,

 Control Devices; Field observation revealed that for the roundabout (circulating area)
except for pedestrians' crossings, road markings including paint-striped splitter islands,
yielding lines and lane lines are exist. As for the roundabout's approaches, lane lines
completely wiped out on Gamal Abdel Nasser Street and hardly seen on Omar Al-Mukhtar
Street. The current lanes layout divides the North leg into one entry lane and one exit lane
with width of 4.8 meters besides parking lane on both sides of the road with width of 2
meters. The South leg evenly divided to two entry lanes and two exist lanes with a width of
3 and 2.5 meters. However, the latter lanes next to the parking lanes on both sides of the
South leg are fully occupied with parked vehicles. Regarding traffic signs, there are no
signs in the intersection area.

 Pavement Condition; The pavement quality on Omar Al-Mukhtar Street is good, however
there are considerable structural damages on Jamal Abdel Nasser Street and the circulating
portion of the intersection, which are represented by holes, cracks, depressions. Figure 5.40
shows some of these damages.

Figure 5.40: Examples of Pavement Damages at Al-Rihanna Intersection

133
5.4.2 Geometric Characteristics of Al-Rihanna Intersection

Based on the field measurements and Arial photos, the existing geometry layout for Al-
Rihanna Intersection and its approaches are shown in Figure 5.41. It should be mentioned that
the circulating width, central island diameter, inscribed diameter, entry radius, and entry angle
parameters are not used for roundabout capacity estimation by Sidra Intersection 7 Software
under HCM 6 Capacity model and shown here for information only. According to the
Highway Capacity Manual, The geometric features that affect roundabout's capacity include
the number of upstream and downstream lanes and circulating lanes.

Figure 5.41: Existing Geometric Layout of Al-Rihanna Intersection

5.4.3 Traffic Volumes at Al-Rihanna Intersection

Traffic volumes data were conducted using a video camera in Al-Rihanna intersection from
8:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. Then, Traffic volumes were counted manually on computer for each
approach and divided over 15-minute intervals. The purpose of the survey is to find out the
peak hour and to assess the requirements of the MUTCD for the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection. As for pedestrian's movements, in addition to the absence of pedestrian's
134
crossings, the angle of the camera at the intersection could not capture the whole pedestrian
crossing area. However, field observation revealed that the number of pedestrians is limited.
Therefore, since the intersection located in commercial and residential area, the default
minimum number of pedestrians (50 ped/hr) is used in Sidra intersections software. At the
intersection, 16 vehicle movement directions with three vehicle categories were observed. To
find out the total volume in PCU, each vehicle type volume was multiplied with their
respective PCU factors.

The hour with higher volume in pcu/h was selected for the analysis of the operational
performance of the intersection. The peak hours were found out to be from 10:30 am to 11:30
am. The peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection were (3,214 pcu/h). The peak hour factor
was found to be 0.97 based on traffic volume in pcu.

The directional vehicular volumes identified only for the peak hour, since unlike other types of
intersections, counting directional volumes for roundabout is challenging and time-consuming.
The peak hour Directional Vehicular Flows of each origin–destination (O-D Movement) at the
intersection is shown in Figure 5.42.

Figure 5.42: Traffic Volume at Al-Rihanna Intersection from 10:30 am to 11:30 am

135
5.4.4 Performance Measures for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)

The analysis results for Al-Rihanna intersection using Sidra Intersections 7.0 based on HCM
2016 were as follows:

 Control Delay; South approach has the highest delay of 64.0 sec/veh, and the North
approach has the lowest delay of 17.4 sec/veh. The delay for the intersection is 44.4
sec/veh, which indicates unacceptable delay for a considerable percentage of drivers. Delay
is shown in Figure 5.43.

Figure 5.43: Control Delay for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)

 Level of Service (LOS); the North approach has the best LOS of C. The West approach
has LOS of D. The East and South approaches have poor LOS of F. The LOS for Al-
Rihanna intersection is E. LOS is shown in Figure 5.44.
136
 Figure 5.44: Level of Service for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case)

5.4.5 Traffic Efficiency Optimization for Al-Rihanna Intersection

The performance analysis results for the intersection showed unacceptable delay and level of
service for the East and South approaches. Field observation revealed that the leading cause of
congestion at the roundabout's entrances is the random parking of vehicles on both sides of the
roadways. Except for the North approach where the absence of commercial activity on side of
the entry curve as well as the approach flaring and the entry lane width which provides an
extra space for an additional queue to form. All other approaches provide only space for one
vehicle to merge in the circulating traffic.

According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2009) [9], warrants (1,
2, and 3) related to traffic volumes are satisfied with installing a traffic signal. However, due
to relatively high percentage of turning movements (27.5% for right-turn and 24.5% for left-
turn) which will require exclusive turning lanes as well as the balanced traffic volumes on the
137
crossing streets makes the roundabout the preferred option. In order to increase traffic capacity
and safety, the following actions will be proposed:

5.4.5.1 Geometric Adjustments (Option 4.1)

1) Providing additional entry and exit lane for all of the roundabout's legs:

Adding short traffic lanes in each direction by terminating the parking lane prior to the
circulating roadways is one of the most cost-effective ways to increase capacity and provide a
safe crossing environment for pedestrians. Furthermore, there is a parking lot on the side of
the west approach that is about 115 meters long. As a result, parking on the west approach will
completely eliminated.

2) Construction of raised Splitter Islands:

[21]
According to NCHRP Report 672 requirements, except for few justifications at mini
roundabouts, flush (painted) splitter islands are generally discouraged. These requirements do
not apply to Al-Rihanna roundabout. Thus, to more effectively assist in controlling speeds,
guide traffic into the roundabout, physically separate entering and exiting traffic streams, deter
wrong movements, provide pedestrian's refuge and protected place to install traffic signs, a
new raised splitter islands will be proposed at all of legs.

Figures 5.45(a), 5.45(b), 5.45(c) and 5.45(d) show the new layout of Al-Rihanna intersection.

Figure 5.45 (a): Geometric Layout of the West Leg

138
 Figure 5.45 (b): Geometric Layout of the East Leg

Figure 5.45 (c): Geo. Layout of the North Leg Figure 5.45 (d): Geo. Layout of the South Leg

139
As shown in figure 5.46, the control delay for the whole intersection decreased considerably
from 44.4 sec/veh to 15.7 sec/veh. Therefore, the proposal is sufficient for the intersection and
no other solutions need to be investigated such as installation of traffic signal.

Figure 5.46: Control Delay for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1)

 Level of Service (LOS); except for LOS of the North approach, which remained at LOS of
C,. LOS for the South and East approaches improved from F to C. While the LOS of the
West approach improved from D to B. The LOS for the entire intersection improved from
E to C. Figure 5.47 Exhibit the level of service for each lane of the roundabout.

140
Figure 5.47: LOS for Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1)

141
 Chapter 6
Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion

This research was carried out to improve the operational performance of four At-grade
intersections in Azzawiya city using Sidra Intersection 7.0 software based on the Highway
Capacity Manual 2016.

The analysis of these different types of intersection considers a wide variety of conditions that
allow understanding the characteristics of the vehicular flow, among them, the traffic volumes,
the geometric characteristics, and drivers behavior, as well as the control devices that regulate
traffic, these are essential requirements for evaluation and improvement of intersections within
the urban plan of the city.

The analysis of the results, field observation, and findings of the related studies were the basis
for proposing measures to improve traffic efficiency in terms of capacity and safety. In this
study, minor geometric adjustments, optimization of the signal's timing, and changing of the
control type were the primary actions used to fulfill the research's objectives.

Through field survey, observation, data collection, and analysis of the selected intersections,
the following conclusions were obtained:

1. The traffic survey results showed that the peak hour varies between the coastal road and the
city center. The rush hour was recorded in the city center before midday, while it was on
the coastal road after midday. Besides, Peak times have no direct relationship with the
official working hours.

2. The traffic control devices such as road markings and signs are very few and inadequate at
almost all intersections within the Azzawiya city. Other traffic control devices, as stop
lines, lane discipline arrows, and pedestrian crossings are absent almost at all intersections.

3. Field observation and traffic police reports revealed that many intersections within the city
have traffic problems related to safety, which is evident in the number of accidents' deaths.
For example, the number of deaths reached 89 for the year 2019. However, these statistics
are general and not specific to intersections, but knowing that a large percentage of
accidents occur at intersections indicates the deterioration of its traffic safety.

142
4. The accidents statistics prepared by the Traffic and Licensing Department in the city of
Azzawiya are insufficient, as it only mentions the number of accidents combined with
estimates of human and material losses linked to the classification of the road (coastal road,
major road, sub-road and agricultural road) with no information on the locations and types
of the accidents.

5. The study and field observation findings revealed that traffic demand exceeds capacity at
the intersections on the coastal road, particularly those adjacent to the city center. Simple
and low-cost solutions such as minor engineering adjustment and optimizing traffic signals
are insufficient to achieve an acceptable level of service.

6. the use of fixed time for all periods of the day, determining signal timing based experience,
and traffic signals stop working when there is a power outage are all examples of the
observed operational deficiencies of the signalized intersections.

7. In addition to the lack of parking spaces, the lack of any traffic procedures or control
devices on most roads that prevent parking near or within the maneuvering area of
intersections contributes to the deterioration of its capacity.

8. Field observation revealed that all studied intersections have different structural damages.
The main reasons for these failures are the lack of periodic maintenance and failure to
follow the technical specifications, especially in maintaining the infrastructure facilities.

9. Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection is one of the most critical intersections in Azzawiya city in
terms of capacity. It serves about 6,035 passenger cars at peak hour. Operational analysis of
the existing conditions of this intersection by Sidra Intersection 7.0 software shows that the
LOS is equal to (F), with an average control delay value of 105.6 sec/veh. Two proposals
for improvement have been investigated. The study showed that using the optimum signal
timing combined with implementing some geometric adjustments, is the best solution to
improve the performance of the intersection, where the LOS of the intersection improved
slightly to (E) and average control delay decreased to 78.5 sec/veh. Therefore, all of the
proposed options are insufficient for the intersection. Other solutions that are not covered in
this study should be implemented, such as the separation of the movements by changing the
intersection’s design from an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated intersection or

143
 constructing a ring road around the city to relieve pressure on the coastal road section
passing adjacent to the city center.

10. Al-Ghardabiya Intersection is one of the most critical intersections in Azzawiya city in
terms of capacity. It serves about 6,198 passenger cars at peak hour. Operational analysis of
the existing condition of this intersection by Sidra Intersection 7.0 software shows that the
LOS is equal to (F) with an average control delay value of 121.0 sec/veh. Two proposals
for improvement have been investigated. The study showed that using the optimum signal
timing combined with implementing some geometric adjustments, is the best solution to
improve the performance of the intersection , where the LOS of the intersection improved
slightly to (E) and average control delay decreased to 76.8 sec/veh. Therefore, all of the
proposed options are insufficient for the intersection. Other solutions that are not covered in
this study should be implemented, such as the separation of the movements by changing the
intersection's design from an at-grade intersection to a grade-separated intersection or
constructing a ring road around the city to relieve pressure on the coastal road section
passing adjacent to the city center.

11. Shlaby Intersection is one of the most critical intersections at the city Centre in terms of
safety. It serves about 2,442 passenger cars at peak hour. The operational analysis of the
existing conditions of this intersection by Sidra Intersections 7.0 software indicates an
acceptable delay and level of service. The LOS according to SIDRA model is equal to (D)
with an average control delay value of 26.2 sec/veh. However, to improve traffic safety and
mitigate accidents, a proposal has been made to install traffic signal. The improvement
proposal showed that the level of service improved from D to C with slight increase in
control delay to 31.1 sec/veh. Therefore, regardless of the slight increase in the delay time,
the expected improvement in the quality of traffic safety makes the installation of a traffic
light the best alternative.

12. Al-Rihanna Intersection is one of the most critical intersections in the city centre in terms
of capacity. It serves about 3,214 passenger cars at the peak hour. The operational analysis
of the existing conditions of this intersection by Sidra Intersection 7.0 software shows that
the LOS is equal to (E) with an average control delay value of 44.4 sec/veh. A proposal has
been made to restrict vehicles from parking near the roundabout's entrances and exits. The
144
 improvement proposal showed that providing an extra entry lane is the best solution to
improve the performance of the intersection. The level of service for the intersection
improved from E to C, and the control delay decreased considerably to 15.7 sec/veh.
Therefore, the proposal is sufficient for the intersection and there is no need to investigate
other proposals that require extra costs, such as the huge engineering adjustment to install
of traffic signals.

13. In terms of fuel consumption and Carbon dioxide emission (CO2). Fuel consumption fell
from 1406.4 L/h to 1337.1 L/h at the Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection, and CO2 emissions
fell from 3325.8 kg/h to 3162.7 kg/h. Fuel consumption fell from 1347.2 L/h to 1229.3 L/h
at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection, while CO2 emissions fell from 3183.7 kg/h to 2906 kg/h.
Fuel consumption increased slightly from 153.0 L/h to 153.9 L/h at Shlaby Intersection,
while CO2 emissions increased slightly from 359.9 kg/h to 362.0 kg/h. Finally, at the Al-
Rihanna Intersection, fuel consumption fell from 288.0 L/h to 241.8 L/h, while CO2
emissions fell from 677.6 kg/h to 569.0 kg/h.

6.2 Recommendations

6.2.1 General Recommendations

1. Increasing public awareness of traffic laws and promoting a traffic culture in society
through educational institutions and the media.

2. Establishing a department specializing in traffic studies to determine the urgent and

practical solutions for congestion and deterioration of roadway safety.

3. Establishing a government department specializing in road maintenance, particularly the

urgent and minor maintenance tasks such as repaving potholes and painting the pavement
surface.

4. The city of Azzawiya's Traffic and Licensing Department should provide effective periodic
accident reports that contain the required data for traffic engineers and researchers to study
and therefore mitigate safety problems. The precise location of the accidents, the type of
accidents, and the possible cause of the accidents should all be included in these reports.

145
5. Reducing the impact of the parked vehicles on the capacity of intersections by providing
more parking lots and the necessary control devices to prevent vehicles from parking near
and inside the negotiation area of the intersections.

6. Considering should be given to traffic control devices, such as traffic signals, signs, and
pavement markings, and applying the standards that determine its location and dimension.

7. Considering should be given to safety design guidelines when repairing or modifying some
elements of the city's road network, where implementing some projects in the past resulted
in severe accidents and substantial human and material losses. For instance, adding new
pavement layers at particular sections of the coastal road without increasing the high of the
raised median resulted in many accidents involving vehicle delinquency to the opposite
direction of the traffic.

8. Consideration should be given to provide an adequate sight distance at intersections. One

of the most noticeable wrong behavior in the city, which limit the triangle of vision at
intersections is the violation of the right of way by random construction.

9. Replacement of the existing operating system for traffic signals, where signals work with
fixed times throughout the day, with a traffic signal system that is more capable of
accommodating the fluctuating of traffic volumes throughout the different periods of the
day.

10. The use of traffic software or manuals that designed primarily for different traffic flow
characteristics, requires the calibration of these tools to give accurate results of the local
condition.

6.2.2 Recommendations Related to the Studied Intersections

1. In the absence of statistics on traffic volumes during different periods of the day and due to
the similarity of traffic patterns all across of the coastal road section in the city, the results
of the traffic survey can assist in timing of all traffic signals on the coastal road.

2. The study recommends equipping the area of the intersections with the necessary control
devices to increase capacity and safety level for all of the studied intersections.

146
3. Applying the study findings to the studied intersections to increase the traffic capacity and
level of safety.

4. After studying all of the alternative proposals, the study results showed that the traffic
demand exceeds the available capacity of Omar Al-Mukhtar and Al-Ghardabiya
intersection, which are located on the coastal road. Therefore, the study recommends
changing the intersection's design from an at-grade intersections to a grade-separated
intersections or constructing a ring road around the city to relieve pressure on the coastal
road section passing adjacent to the city center.

6.2.3 Recommendations for Future Studies

1. The study suggests conducting field studies to investigate the physical deficiencies of the
traffic control devices for the intersections and other facilities of the transportation system,
which will help to provide the necessary data to address these deficiencies.

2. To get highly reliable results from the analysis of intersections, future studies are required
to reflect the characteristics of local traffic and driver's behaviors. The essential traffic flow
parameters that need adjustment to Libyan conditions are the base saturation flow rate for
signalized intersections and critical gap and follow-up headway for sign-controlled
intersections.

147
 REFERENCES

1. Mathew, T., 2009. Traffic intersections. [online] Civil.iitb.ac.in. Available at:

<https://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tvm/1100_LnTse/523_lnTse/plain/plain.html>.
2. Massachusetts Highway Department (2006). Project Development & Design Guide (2006th).
https://www.mass.gov/lists/design-guides-and-manuals#design-guides-and-manuals-.
3. American Association of State Highway Officials. (2011). A policy on geometric design of
highways and streets (6th Ed.). American Association of State Highway Officials.
4. Norwalk Public Works Department. Intersection Design. In Norwalk Transportation Management
Plan State Project DOT01020336PE.
5. Awadallah, F. (2009). Intersection sight distance analysis and guidelines. Transport Policy, 16(4),
143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.04.001.
6. Ranjitkar, P., Shahin, A., & Shirwali, F. (2014). Evaluating Operational Performance of
Intersections Using SIDRA. The Open Transportation Journal, 8(1), 50–61.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447801408010050
7. Belay, N. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Selected Intersections in Bahir Dar City [Master
Thesis]. https://www.coursehero.com/file/53371497/Nurhussien-Hassenpdf/
8. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (2019). Design Manual.
www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals
9. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Innovative Intersections and Interchanges.
https://www.virginiadot.org/innovativeintersections/
10. Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Manual on uniform traffic control devices: for streets
and highways. (2009th ed.). U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
11. Findley, D. J., Cunningham, C. M., Brown, T. H., Cahill, L. M., Yan, G., & Huntsinger, L. F.
(2015). Highway engineering: planning, design, and operations. Elsevier.
https://www.scribd.com/book/282663568/Highway-Engineering-Planning-Design-and-Operations
12. Florida Department of Transportation. (2015). Florida intersection design guide: for new
construction and major reconstruction of at-grade intersections on the state highway system.
Springfield, Va.
13. TIMOTHY R. NEUMAN Jack E. Leisch & Associates Evanston, Illinois. (1985). Intersection
channelization: design guide (NCHRP Report 279). Transportation Research Board.
14. Rodegerdts, L., Nevers, B., Robinson, B., Ringert, J., Koonce, P., Bansen, J., Nguyen, T., Mcgill,
J., Stewart, D., Suggett, J., Neuman, T., Antonucci, N., Hardy, K., & Courage, K. (2004).
Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Mclean, Virginia United States. Dept. of
Transportation. Federal Highways Administration. Turner-Fairbanks Highway Research Center.
15. Nj Garber, & La Hoel. (2009). Traffic and Highway Engineering, 4th ed. Cengage Learning.
16. Koepke, F. J., Levinson, H. S., & National Cooperative Highway Research Program (Etats-Unis.
(1992). Access management guidelines for activity centers. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program.
17. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, USA. (2016). Highway Capacity
Manual: a guide for multimodal mobility analysis (HCM 2016).

148
18. National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Lane Width.
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/lane-width/
19. Jabatan Kerja Raya. (1987). A guide to the design of at-grade intersections. Ibu Pejabat J.K.R.
20. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2012). Guide for the
development of bicycle facilities, 2012. (4th Ed.). American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
21. Rodegerdts, L. A., Robinson, B. W., National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research
Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, & United States. Federal Highway
Administration. (2010). Roundabouts: an informational guide (NCHRP Report 672) . (2nd ed.).
Transportation Research Board.
22. Wikipedia Contributors. (2019, October 22). Traffic flow. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow
23. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, USA. (2010). Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 2010). Transportation Research Board.
24. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, USA. (2000). Highway Capacity
Manual: Metric Units (HCM 2000). Transportation Research Board.
25. Hamad, K., & Abuhamda, H. (2015). Estimating Base Saturation Flow Rate for Selected
Signalized Intersections in Doha, Qatar. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.12720/jtle.3.2.168-171
26. Mannering, F. L., & Washburn, S. S. (2013). Principles of highway engineering and traffic
analysis. (5th Ed.). Wiley.
27. Ekman, A. (2013). Calibration of traffic models in SIDRA [Master Thesis]. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:633004/FULLTEXT01.pdf
28. Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2013). MnDOT Traffic Signal Timing and
Coordination Manual.
29. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States, & Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2009).
Traffic signal timing manual.
30. Erceg, J., Brown, S., Bennett, D., Troutbeck, R., Croft, P., Mctiernan, D., Sha, A., & Austroads.
(2013). Guide to traffic management. Part 3, Traffic studies and analysis. Austroads.
31. Teply, S., Gough, J. W. (2007). Canadian capacity guide for signalized intersections. Institute of
Transportation Engineers.
32. Bissessar, R., Tonder, C.(2008). Pedestrian Scramble Crossings – A Tale of Two Cities. City of
Toronto’s Traffic Management Centre & City of Calgary’s Transportation Planning Department.
33. Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd. (2017). SIDRA Intersection 7 User Guide. Greythorn, Australia.

34. Oregon Department of Transportation (2020). Analysis Procedure Manual, Version2.

149
 APPENDICES

Appendix A-Traffic data

Table A1: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Survey Date: 19/03/2019)

150
Table A2: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Survey Date: 06/11/2018)

151
Table A3: Fifteen Minute Counts of Turning movements at Shlaby Intersection (Survey Date: 28/10/2018)

152
Table A4: Fifteen Minute Counts at Al-Rihanna Intersection (Survey Date: 24/11/2019)

153
Appendix B – Performance Analysis

Table B1: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case))

Table B2: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Existing Case))

154
Table B3: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.1))

Table B4: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.1))

155
Table B5: Intersection Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2))

Table B6: Lane Performance Summary (Omar Al-Mukhtar Intersection (Option 1.2))

156
Table B7: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case))

Table B8: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Existing Case))

157
Table B9: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1))

Table B10: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.1))

158
Table B11: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2))

Table B12: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Ghardabiya Intersection (Option 2.2))

159
Table B13: Intersection Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case))

Table B14: Lane Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Existing Case))

160
Table B15: Intersection Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1))

Table B16: Lane Performance Summary (Shlaby Intersection (Option 3.1))

161
Table B17: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case))

Table B18: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Existing Case))

162
Table B19: Intersection Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1))

Table B20: Lane Performance Summary (Al-Rihanna Intersection (Option 4.1))

163
APPENDIX C – Technical Specification of the Used Cameras.

Figure C1 – Technical Specification of Camera 1

164
Figure C2 – Technical Specification of Camera 2

165