MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ART AND

TECHNOLOGY (CEDAT)
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

CIV 4100: CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT I

UPGRADING OF A TWO WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION INTO A
RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN INTERSECTION

BY

MUHANGUZI DAVIS 17/U/1851

ATUHAIRE ENOCK 17/U/19667/PS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of a Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

…………………………..… …………………………..
DR. NAMUTEBI MAY DR. MWESIGE GODFREY(RIP)
MAIN SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR
SEPTEMBER 2021
DECLARATION
We, Muhanguzi Davis and Atuhaire Enock declare that this proposal, submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree leading to the following award “Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering” at Makerere University, is our own and has never been submitted
anywhere.

Muhanguzi Davis

17/U/1851

Signature: ………………………… Date: ………………………

Atuhaire Enock

17/U/19667/PS

Signature: ………………………… Date: ………………………

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the almighty God for the strength to undertake this project. We are glad to have been
able to come up with this work despite the various restrictions created by COVID-19 pandemic.
Our supervisors, we are very grateful for the guidance you have given us from the start. This
work would not have been achieved without your input.
Eng. Dickens Kakitahi, we are glad for the technical guidance since the inception of the project.
Your contributions are greatly indispensable.
To our parents, we appreciate the financial and moral support towards the project.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION..............................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF ACRONYMNS...............................................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement............................................................................................................3
1.3 Objectives..........................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 Main Objective..........................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................4
1.4 Justification.......................................................................................................................4
1.5 Scope of study...................................................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................7
2.1 Conventional Intersections................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Types of conventional intersections..........................................................................7
2.1.2 Capacity analysis of Two Way Stop Controlled Intersections..................................8
2.2 Alternative Intersections.................................................................................................10
2.2.1 Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection.................................................................10
2.2.2 Design Elements of an RCUT.................................................................................13
2.3 Summary of literature review.........................................................................................14
3. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................15
3.1 Data Collection...............................................................................................................15
3.1.1 Traffic data Collection.............................................................................................15
3.1.2 Road Geometry Inventory.......................................................................................15
3.2 Geometric design............................................................................................................15
3.3 Intersection Signalization................................................................................................16
3.4 Performance Analysis.....................................................................................................16
References......................................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX 1: PROPOSED BUDGET.........................................................................................20

iii
APPENDIX 2: TENTATIVE TIMETABLE.................................................................................21
APPENDIX 3: DATA COLLECTION SHEET (TRL, 2004).......................................................22

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Minor street movements with most delay at a TWSC......................................................3
Figure 2: Conflict points on a conventional intersection (Hummer et al, 2014).............................4
Figure 3:Conflict points on RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)...........................................5
Figure 4:Location of Mambule Junction (Satellite image)..............................................................6
Figure 5:RCUT movements (Hummer et al, 2014).......................................................................10
Figure 6:A signalized RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)..................................................11
Figure 7: A stop controlled RCUT intersection(Hummer et al, 2014)..........................................12
Figure 8: A merge controlled RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)......................................13
Figure 9:RCUT Signal Phase diagram..........................................................................................16
Figure 10:Tentative Timetable......................................................................................................21
Figure 11:Data collection Form.....................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Critical gaps and Follow up time.......................................................................................9

Table 2: Proposed project budget..................................................................................................20

v
LIST OF ACRONYMNS
GAP Gap Acceptance Procedure
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
MoWT Ministry of Works and Transport
RCUT Restricted Crossing U-Turn
TMC Turning Movement Count
TRB Transportation Research Board
TWSC Two Way Stop Control

vi
ABSTRACT
Traffic delay problems are increasingly manifesting on urban roads in the world’s cities,
becoming a menace to free flow of traffic. These are caused by ineffective use of road space and
growth of number vehicles on the roads. Traffic delays are very significant on road intersections
due to the need to create right of way for all possible movements. TWSC intersections pose a big
delay threat to the less priority minor street traffic.

A number of approaches have been taken to address the challenge of traffic delays. These
approaches include invention of non-conventional intersections. This project seeks to examine
the performance of the Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersection as one of the possible
remedies. The RCUT eliminates the minor road through and right turn movements with the
drivers compelled to turn left and complete the required movement by making U-turn at a one-
way median opening at least 400 feet or after the intersection.

A case study of a two way stop controlled junction will be used. This project intends to assess
the current performance of this junction. The junction will be converted to a hypothetic
signalized four-legged and RCUT intersection. The current performance of the intersection will
be compared to the performance in the hypothetic forms.

This proposal consists of five sub sections. Section one is the introduction giving the project
background and relevant information regarding case study. Literature review, providing the
concepts and overview of intersections, is entailed in section 2. Methodology, the third section,
outlines the procedures used to execute the procedure. The last sections of this proposal show the
budget and tentative timetable.

vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Traffic delay problems are manifesting on urban roads in the world’s cities and are becoming a
menace to traffic free flow. These problems are caused by ineffective use of road space and
growth of number of vehicles on the roads (Tolu, 2013). The urban road network plays an
important role in economic development in the area. The proper functioning of urban areas
therefore depends on efficient transport network, which is a backbone to their very existence.

Road intersections play an important role in the road network. A road intersection can be defined
as a general area where two or more roads join, or cross within which are included carriage
way(s) and road side facilities for traffic movement (Ministry of Works &Transport, 2010). They
are the most complex locations in a traffic system and they have a very considerable influence on
vehicle safety and movement efficiency.

The traffic situation on urban roads is characterized by many small disturbances compared to
highways due to many intersections. Consequently, traffic delay is often a prominent feature of
urban road intersection. Traffic delay can be defined as the time lost due to traffic friction and
traffic devices or more simply as unwanted journey time (HCM, 2000). In other words, traffic
delay is the inability to reach a destination in a satisfactory time due to slow or unpredictable
travel speeds.

In transportation systems, queues are formed whenever the number of arrivals at a given location
exceeds the maximum rate at which vehicles can go through the location. When queuing occurs,
the excess vehicles are stored upstream of the bottleneck and their departure is delayed to a later
time period. The queues formed may be either moving or completely stopped depending on
whether there is complete interruptions of service for a significant amount of time (Tolu, 2013).

Generally, delay at road intersection can be of different types. The most commonly forms of
delay at intersections are defined as follows (McShane & Roess, 1990) ;

i. Stopped time delay: This is the time a vehicle is stopped while waiting to pass through
the intersection. It includes only the time the vehicle is actually stopped waiting at the red
signal. It starts when the vehicles reach a full stop, and ends when the vehicle begins to
accelerate.

viii
 ii. Approach delay: Includes stopped time, but also includes the time lost when a vehicle
decelerates from its ambient speed to a stop, as well as while accelerating from the back
to its ambient speed. It is measured as the time scale differential between the actual paths
extended as if the light had been green on arrival.
iii. Travel time delay: This is defined as the difference between the drivers‟ desired total
time to traverse the intersection and the actual time required to traverse it. It is measured
as the time scale difference between the drivers‟ desired time at any given distance from
the origin, and the actual time. This value varies according to the distance at which it is
measured. For a signalized intersection, it is measured at the stop line, as the vehicle
enters the intersection.
iv. Time in-queue delay: This is the total time from a vehicle joining an intersection queue
to its discharge across the stop-line or the curb-line.

A two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection is one in which vehicles on a major road are not
required to stop, but the minor road is stop-controlled for both approaches (Early et al, 2016) . For
this TWSC scenario, vehicles approach the intersection from the minor road and must wait for a
gap in major road traffic before proceeding. The minor road right turning movements have the
least priority implying they experience the most delay (Chandra, 2009). However, the law of
priority is always violated resulting into crashes.

Signalized intersections on high volume roads often become congested during peak hours. This
significantly decreases the through movement efficiency of the arterial. Most of the congestion in
signalized intersections is caused by right turn vehicles (Hummer & Reid, 2001).
Unconventional intersections tend to reduce the delay by rerouting the right turn movements
away from the main intersection. Popular among these unconventional intersections is the
Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection whose feasibility study is therein focus in this project.

Restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection is the form of intersection that eliminates the
right-turn and through movements from cross street approaches (Hummer et al, 2014). In order
to accommodate the eliminated movements, the drivers turn left onto the main road and then
make a U-turn maneuver at a one-way median opening at least 400 feet after the intersection. At
the main street approaches, the right turns are typically accommodated similar to right turns at
conventional intersections.

ix
1.2 Problem Statement
Two Way Stop Controlled intersections are characterized with much delay to minor stream
traffic. Most of the delay is suffered by the minor road right-turn and through vehicles as they
have the least priority (Figure 1). These delays lead to increased fuel consumption, accidents and
frustrations and fatigue among drivers. Environmentally, delays lead to increased air pollution in
form of vehicular emissions at intersections.

Minor approach

Major approach

Major approach

Minor approach

Figure 1:Minor street movements with most delay at a TWSC

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 Main Objective
To examine the feasibility of a Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection on a two way stop
controlled intersection

x
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
i. To determine the existing capacity and delay at prevailing geometry and traffic
conditions for a two way stop controlled intersection.
ii. To determine an appropriate geometrical design of the Restricted Crossing U-Turn
intersection at a two way stop controlled intersection
iii. To assess the performance of the Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection and
conventional signalized intersection at a two way stop controlled intersection

1.4 Justification
Implementation of a signalized Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection will provide favorable
progression along the corridor. This is because RCUT intersection signals typically require only
two phases, which can minimize the delays at the intersection.

RCUT intersections reduce the number of conflict points from 32 on a conventional four-legged
intersection to 14. This improves safety at the intersection. With increasing traffic levels, it is
evident that the RCUT will addresses the challenges associated with conventional intersections.
This is shown in Figures 2 and 3 below based on left driving movements.

Figure 2: Conflict points on a conventional intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)

xi
 Figure 3:Conflict points on RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)

1.5 Scope of study

The study will be limited to a two way stop controlled intersection. A TWSC intersection will be
considered for the study since the ratio of minor street volume to total volume should not exceed
0.2 for successful operation of RCUT intersections (Bared, 2009).

Case Study

The study will be conducted at Mambule Junction along Gayaza-Kampala Road. This is located
in central Uganda, Kampala City, Kawempe Division at latitude and longitude locations of
0.355176ºN, 32.572775ºE respectively. Gayaza-Kampala road serves as the major street
approaches while Mambule Road and Nyanzi Road act as minor street approaches.

A pilot study was carried out at Mambule Junction to estimate the ratio of minor road volume to
total volume. From a count carried out during a peak hour (6:30pm to 7:30pm) on Friday 14 th
May, 2021, the minor stream volume was 503 pc/hr while the major road volume was 1665
pc/hr. The ratio of minor to total volume was 0.24 which is so close to 0.2 as suggested by Bared
(2009). Figure 3 below shows the location of Mambule Junction on google maps.

xii
 Figure 4:Location of Mambule Junction (Satellite image)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter focuses on concepts and knowledge regarding intersections. It is organized in two
main sub sections. Sub section 1 discusses the various forms of conventional intersections.
Alternative intersections are discussed in sub section 2.A summary of the literature reviewed is
discussed at the end of the chapter.

2.1 Conventional Intersections

A junction is a point where traffic can change between different routes, directions, or sometimes
modes of travel. There are three basic movements involved on the intersection i.e. crossing
(cutting), merging and diverging (Ministry of Works and Transport, 2010).

xiii
2.1.1 Types of conventional intersections
There are basically two types of conventional intersections depending on whether crossing
movements are separated in time or space.

i. Grade- separated junctions

Grade separated intersections separate the crossing movements in space. These allow the traffic
to cross at different vertical levels and are connected by ramps (Ministry of Works and
Transport, 2010). Examples of grade separators are fly overs and inter changes.

Grade separated junctions have a higher efficiency, speed and safety compared to grade
intersections. However, the grade separated junctions require more land, time and money to
construct compared to grade junctions (Ministry of Works and Transport, 2010).

ii. At-grade junctions

It is a junction where all roadways join or cross at the same level (Ministry of Works and
Transport, 2010). The crossing movements are controlled in time. The Ministry of Works and
Transport (2010) classifies at grade intersections broadly into two depending on the control used
namely; priority and control intersections.

Priority intersections

These are intersections in which one traffic stream has precedence over the other. The minor
street traffic has to yield to major stream traffic. Traffic from the minor approach may enter the
major road by taking a gap in the major road traffic stream. A driver can reject several gaps but
may only accept one gap hence he must identify the gap in the major approach to secure entry.
(Sahraeia, 2014)

According to MoWT (2010), the priority intersections include: T- intersections which can be
channelized, partly channelized or unchannelized depending on the traffic levels. In order to
minimize crashes, cross roads priority intersections should not be used and the existing cross
road priority intersections should be converted to round about or signalized junctions (Ministry
of Works and Transport, 2010).

Control Intersections

xiv
Control intersections use traffic devices to assign right of way to a given stream. They are used
in urban areas and intersections with high traffic volume. The control intersections include:
roundabouts and signalized intersections ( (Ministry of Works and Transport, 2010)..

Roundabouts are controlled by the rule that all entry traffic must give way to circulating traffic.
Signalized intersections have conflicts separated by traffic signals with no conflicts are allowed
between straight through traffic movements (Ministry of Works and Transport, 2010).

2.1.2 Capacity analysis of Two Way Stop Controlled Intersections

Capacity at TWSC intersections is measured by either gap acceptance or empirical regression
approaches.

i. Gap Acceptance Theory

The Gap Acceptance Procedure (GAP) was developed in Germany but it has been widely used in
the United States and in several European countries. The basic principle of this method is based
on critical gaps and follow–up times for the vehicles from the minor road. The gap acceptance
procedure utilizes the ability of minor stream drivers to use the available gaps in the major
stream traffic to determine the capacity of a low priority stream. Thus, for a given distribution of
headways among high priority stream, crossing or merging drivers can accept or reject it
depending on some certain criteria. Some initial research on utilizing gap acceptance concepts to
determine capacity at intersection was carried out by Hardes (1998).

Critical gap

The critical gap is the minimum gap required by the driver on the minor route to cross or merge
into the queue on the major road. Highway capacity manual (HCM) (1984, 1994, 2000)
described it as the time, in seconds, from the front bumper of the second of two successive
vehicles to reach the starting point of the front bumper of the first (Amin and Maurya, 2015).

Critical gap depends on a number of factors which include; the driver’s Perception Reaction
Time, the time of the day, the vehicle types (size and lengths), the speed of the major route
vehicles, the driver’s age and driver’s gender (HCM) (1984, 1994, 2000).

The follow up headway

xv
Follow up headway refers to the time gap between successive vehicles using the same gap with
reference to the stop line of the minor road. It can also be defined as the time interval between
successive vehicles as they pass a point along the lane. It is measured between common
reference points of the vehicle such as front axis or front bumper (Brackstone , 2009).

The higher the follow up headway, the lower the capacity of the junction while the lower the
follow up headway, the higher the capacity of the junction. Typical values of critical gap and
base follow up time shown in Table 1 below are modified to apply to the Right hand driving
system.

Table 1: Critical gaps and Follow up time

Vehicle Movement Base Critical Gap, base (s) Base Follow-up Time
Two-lane Four-lane (s)
Major Street Major Street
Right turn from major 4.1 4.1 2.2
Left turn from minor 6.2 6.9 3.3
Through traffic on minor 6.5 6.5 4.0
Right turn from minor 7.1 7.5 3.5
Source (Krishna, 2014)

ii. The empirical regression method

The empirical regression technique which was developed in the United Kingdom (Kimber, 1980)
is based on regression analysis on field data collected from modern British street. This approach
of capacity estimation is also expanded by the consideration of road geometric design, visibility
distances, demand flows, turning proportions and vehicle types ( Prasetijo, 2011).

2.2 Alternative Intersections

Alternative intersections and interchanges can be defined as intersections which provide
unconventional movements by restricting movements, redirecting movements, combining non
conflicting movements and similar other modification. These intersections include: the quadrant
roadway intersection, median U-turn, Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection, bowtie, jug
handle, split intersection, and continuous flow intersection designs (Hummer & Reid, 2001).

xvi
However, this study and thus the work herein, will be focused on the Restricted Crossing U-Turn
intersection. This is because the RCUT provides a better signal progression compared to other
alternative intersections given the minor road through demand is not high (Hummer et al, 2014).

2.2.1 Restricted Crossing U-Turn intersection

Restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection is the form of intersection that eliminates the
right-turn and through movements from minor street approaches (Hummer et al, 2014). The
RCUT is also known as the J-Turn, Superstreet or synchronized street intersection. The typical
movements at RCUT intersection are shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5:RCUT movements (Hummer et al, 2014)

In order to accommodate the eliminated movements, the drivers turn left onto the main road and
then make a U-turn maneuver at a one-way median opening at least 400 feet after the
intersection. At the main street approaches, the right turns are typically accommodated similar to
right turns at conventional intersections. However, for rural unsignalized RCUT intersection
designs, right turn movements from the main street can also be removed.

Types of RCUT intersections

xvii
There are 3 main types of RCUT intersections depending on the traffic control used ( Hummer et
al, 2014). These include:

i. Signalized RCUT Intersection

Signalized RCUT intersection can be used to provide favourable progression along the urban or
peri-urban corridor. RCUT intersection signals require only two phases, which can minimize the
delay at the intersection. Efficient progression can be provided in both directions with any speed
or signal spacing. The arterials act as a pair of one way streets. Figure 6 illustrates the basic
signalized RCUT intersection.

Figure 6:A signalized RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)

ii. Stop controlled RCUT intersection

Stop controlled RCUT is sometimes used as a safety treatment at an isolated intersection on a

four-lane divided arterial in a rural area. In some cases, a stop controlled RCUT intersection is
later converted to a signalized RCUT intersection as traffic volumes increase. This is shown in
Figure 7.

xviii
 Figure 7: A stop controlled RCUT intersection(Hummer et al, 2014)

iii. Merge or Yield controlled intersection

A merge-controlled RCUT intersection can allow a rural high-speed divided four-lane corridor to
function similar to a freeway corridor in cases where funding for interchanges and overpasses
may not be readily available. This type of RCUT intersection relies on long distances to U-turn
crossovers to allow for the weaving movement. Figure 8 shows a typical merge controlled
intersection.

xix
 Fig
ure 8: A merge controlled RCUT intersection (Hummer et al, 2014)

2.2.2 Design Elements of an RCUT

There are various minor and major factors to be considered when RCUT intersection is to be
designed. Hummer et al (2014) classify these design elements into three broad categories as
described below.

a) Main Intersection Design

Design of main intersection includes: design of right turn crossovers, minor street left turn design
and relevant lane assignment, acceleration lanes on minor street if required. Other minor factors
such as curb design, gutter design are considered as well.

b) U-Turn Crossover Design

It is one of the most critical elements of RCUT design. It includes design of crossover spacing,
crossover design, U-turn lane design, design of storage bays and acceleration lanes.

c) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

It includes design of footpaths and bicycle lanes if required. RCUT is typically implemented in
sub-urban to rural setting with low to no pedestrian and bicycle traffic and hence it is not a major

xx
concern most of the times. If these facilities are required, a conventional Z-crossing is provided
with minor changes if required.

2.3 Summary of literature review

Literature reviewed in this chapter shows that RCUT intersection enjoys a number of benefits
over the conventional intersections. However, few studies have been carried out to quantitatively
compare the performance of the RCUT and conventional intersections. This is because the
RCUT is not yet well known to many engineers and researchers. This study will aim at
comparing the performance of the three forms of intersections.

RCUT intersection can be merge controlled, stop controlled or signal controlled. A signalized
RCUT will be considered in the study due to ability to control increasing traffic levels in urban
environments. The signals can be pre timed or actuated. However, pre timed signal planning will
be considered for the study to ensure regularity along the corridor.

The capacity of TWSC junctions is based on the gap acceptance and empirical models on
interaction of drivers from a minor road to a major one. This project will focus on the gap
acceptance model to estimate capacity at the two junctions due to its simplicity of measurement.

xxi
3. METHODOLOGY
This section deals with the various methods, tools and equipment that will be used to achieve the
specific objectives. It consists of four major sub sections. Sub section 1 deals with field data
required and its collection methods. The criteria to geometric design is discussed in sub section
2. Intersection signalization and performance analysis are discussed in sub sections 3 and 4
respectively.

3.1 Data Collection

The field data to be collected will include traffic data and existing geometrical data. The data
collection methods are discussed below.
3.1.1 Traffic data Collection
The most important form of traffic data needed for the design of the intersection is the Turning
Movement Counts (TMCs). The TMCs will be obtained from the field through manual classified
counts. These will be conducted using the count form recommended by TRL (2004) by tallying
moving vehicles against their vehicle type using 5 tally bars. For every direction, an individual
will be assigned to count the number of cars leaving the junction into that particular direction.

The counts will be done for 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day according to TRL (2004). The
counts will be carried out during the peak hours and recorded every 15 minutes for the required
duration. Prior to the traffic counts, a pilot survey will be carried out to establish peak hours and
establish the most strategic positions for the counts. Permission will be sought from Kawempe
Division Police Station and KCCA to grant access to the study site.

3.1.2 Road Geometry Inventory

The road geometry inventory will involve determining the current conditions of the road. The
data to be collected will include number of lanes on each approach and the width of the lanes.
The width of the lanes will be measured using measuring tape. This data will be used in
assessing of the performance of the existing TWSC intersection.

3.2 Geometric design

The geometric design of the RCUT will include selection of the number of lanes, design speed,
U-turn cross over spacing, length of storage bays and pedestrian facilities. The four-legged
intersection geometric design will involve provision of the necessary lanes. The design will be
accomplished according to guidelines by AASHTO (2001).

xxii
3.3 Intersection Signalization
Signal timing plans will be developed manually based on HCM methodology (HCM, 2010).

A signal timing plan for both the conventional four- legged intersection and RCUT intersection
will be developed. A typical four-phase signal will be developed for the four-legged intersection
while 2-phase signals for the RCUT intersection will be used. The signals will be located at main
intersection and U-Turn crossovers. These will be coordinated so as to minimize delay and carry
out smooth operations.

Pre-timed control signals will be used in the study to ensure regularity, network organization,
predictability and reduction of unnecessary delay.

. Figure 9 below shows the typical RCUT phase diagram.

Figure 9:RCUT Signal Phase diagram

3.4 Performance Analysis

The performance analysis will be carried out for each the three forms of intersections namely the
current TWSC intersection, the signalized four-legged intersection and the signalized RCUT
intersection. The performance of intersections will be based on the parameters as described
below.

xxiii
 i. TWSC intersection analysis

The analysis of a TWSC intersection will be carried out using the gap acceptance procedure
described in Chapter 2. The GAP will involve computation of follow up headway, conflicting
volumes, potential capacity, shared lane capacity and control delay.

ii. Signalized Four-Legged Intersection analysis

The analysis of the signalized four-legged intersection will involve computation of delay,
capacity and queue according to HCM (2010).

iii. Signalized RCUT intersection analysis

The analysis of coordinated signalized RCUT will involve computation of delay, capacity and
queue according to HCM (2010).

xxiv
References
AASHTO (2001)
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). (2001). Wahington,
DC: AASHTO.
Amin and Maurya, A. (2015). a Review of Critical Gap Estimation Approaches at Uncontrolled
Intersectons in case of Heterogenous Traffic Conditions. Journal of Transport Literature,
9. 5-9.
Bared, J. (2009). "Tech Brief- Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection. FHWA.
Brackstone, B. W. (2009). Determinants of following headway in congested traffic.
transportation research part F - 12(2), 131-142.
Chen-Fu. (2018). Investigating Inductive Loop Signature Technoloy for Statewide Vwhicle
Classification Counts. University of Minnesota.
Dhaka Urban Transport Network Development Study. (n.d.). Traffic Survey and Analysis.
HCM. (2000). Highway Cpacity Manual. Washington DC: Transportation ResearchBoard.
HCM. (2010). Highway Capacity Manual (Vol. 4). Washington DC, USA: Transportation
Research Board.
Hummer, J. E., & Reid, J. D. (2001). Travel Time Comparisons Between Seven Uncoventional
Arterial Intersection Designs. Transportation Research Record 1751, 11.
Joe Hummer, W. S., & Brian Ray, A. D. (2014). Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational
Guide.
Joewono Prasetijo, M. H. (2011). Capacity of Unsignalized Intersections under Mixed Traffic.
6th International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service, 10.
Jovanis, A. B. (n.d.). Analysis of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity. Transportation Researchh
Record, 21-31.
Kimber, R. C. (1980). Capacity of major/minor priority junctions. Transport Laboratory,
Supplementary report 582.
Krishna. (2014). Uncontrolled Intersections. In Transportation Systems Engineering (pp. 30.1 -
30.16).
Lee A. Rodegerdts, B. N. (2004). Signalized Intersections Information Guide. Washington DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
Marci Early, K. D. (2016). Operational Performance at Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections .
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 8.
McShane, W. R., & Roess, R. P. (1990). Traffic Engineering. PrenticeHall.

xxv
Ministry of Works and Transport. (2010). Geometric Design Manual, Volume 1.
Mohammad Ali Sahraeia, O. C.–M.–z. (2014). Minor Road Traffic Delays at Priority Junctions
on Low Speed Roads in Suburban Areas. Jurnal Teknologi , 6.
Peter Koonce, L. R. (2008). Signal Timing Manual. Wahington DC: Kittelson & Associates,
Inc. .
Randall, G. (n.d.). Collection of Vehicle Activity Data by Video Detection for use in Transport
Planning. georgia, Florida.
Satish Chandra, A. A. (2009). Microscopic Analysis of Service Delay at Uncontrolled
Intersections in Mixed Traffic Conditions. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, 7.
Sproule. (n.d.). Traffic Counting. Michigan Tech University.
Tolu, I. A. (2013). Assessment of Traffic Delay Problems and Characteristics at Urban Road
Intersections: A Case Study of Ilorin,Nigeria. 12.
TRL. (2004). A guide to axle load surveys and traffic counts for determining traffic loading on
pavements-Overseas Road Note 40. Berkshire: TRL.
Wu., W. B. (2002). Capacity at Unsignaized Intersections Derived by Conflict Technique.
unsignalized Intersections-A Third method for Analysis.

xxvi
APPENDIX 1: PROPOSED BUDGET
The following are the expected expenses during the entire project process. Table 3 below shows
the budget

Table 2: Proposed project budget

S/N ITEM AMOUNT (USHS)

1 Transport 120,000
2 Communication and co-ordination 100,000
3 Labor (Supplement for Traffic counts- Turning 720,000
Movement Counts)
4 Stationary (Printing reports, journal articles ) 100,000
5 Reflector Jackets 80,000
6 Miscellaneous 100,000
TOTAL 1,120,000

xxvii
APPENDIX 2: TENTATIVE TIMETABLE
The project will be executed in two phases namely the proposal and project execution. The
project is expected to run through the academic year 2020/21. The tentative time table is shown
in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10:Tentative Timetable

xxviii
APPENDIX 3: DATA COLLECTION SHEET (TRL, 2004)

Figure 11:Data collection Form

xxix