34 Sundar Subedi 011-1130

Master’s thesis
Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles-

A Case Study of Selected Intersections in Kathmandu City
Sundar Subedi
Nepal Engineering College - Center for Postgraduate Studies

Changunarayan, Bhaktapur, Nepal
Pokhara University
September, 2016
Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles-
A Case Study of Selected Intersections in Kathmandu City
by
Sundar Subedi
(TEAM 1130)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Transportation Engineering and
Management awarded by Pokhara University

Changunarayan, Bhaktapur, Nepal
Pokhara University
September, 2016
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my late father Mr. Om Nath Subedi and late sister Mrs.
Laxmi Devi Subedi.
ii
ABSTRACT
Passenger Car Unit (PCU) or Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) is used in highway
capacity analysis to convert a mixed vehicle flow into an equivalent passenger car
flow. PCU value for a vehicle is not constant but varies with traffic and roadway
conditions around. In this research, it was attempted to find the PCU value of nine
different vehicles in Kathmandu City.
This study was focused in three major intersections namely Balkhu, Maharajgunj
(Narayangopal Chowk) and Baneshwar (New Baneshwor). They are chosen based
upon the significant queuing during peak hour, availability of large number of vehicles,
presence of traffic police to control the traffic flow. Primary data is collected using
digital videography of the intersections from some high buildings or other vantage
points near the intersections. Secondary data is only the PCU value adopted by Nepal
under Nepal Road Standard (NRS) 2070. Data is then processed in media player classic
home cinema (MPC – HC) video player and analyzed using time headway method to
calculate the PCU values. Using appropriate statistical tests, like ANOVA test and
statistical z test, it was found that there is no significant difference in PCU value
among three intersections for all the vehicles. Bar charts are prepared after data
analysis using Microsoft excel.
In this study, Passenger Car Unit values (PCU) for Car, Truck, Mini Truck, Bus, Mini-
Bus, Micro-Bus, Utility Vehicle, Motorbike and Tempo were developed at three
intersections in Kathmandu City, Nepal.
Average PCU value for Car:1, Truck: 2.91, Mini Truck: 1.45, Bus:2.93, Mini-Bus:
2.15, Micro-Bus: 1.32, Utility Vehicle: 1.11, Motorbike: 0.44 and Tempo: 0.88 was
obtained from the study. Hence it is recommended to perform the similar research
across different part of country to generalize the PCU values for saturation flow
estimate and intersection design.
iii
Declaration
I hereby declare that this study entitled Determination of Passenger Car Unit of
Vehicles- A Case Study of Selected Intersections in Kathmandu City is based on
my original research work. Related works on the topic by other researchers have
been duly acknowledged. I owe all the liabilities relating to the accuracy and
authenticity of the data and any other information included hereunder.
…..……..............................
Name of the student: Sundar Subedi
Date: 22nd September 2016
iv
Recommendation
This is to certify that this thesis entitled Determination of Passenger Car Unit
of Vehicles- A Case Study of Selected Intersections in Kathmandu City
prepared and submitted by Sundar Subedi, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Transportation
Engineering and Management awarded by Pokhara University, has been
completed under my supervision. I recommend the same for acceptance by
Pokhara University.
…………………………….......
Name of the supervisor: Dr. Thusitha Chandani Shahi
Organization: Nepal Engineering College
Designation: Associate Professor
Date:
v
Certificate
This thesis entitled Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles- A Case

Study of Selected Intersections in Kathmandu City prepared and submitted by
Sundar Subedi has been examined by us and is accepted for the award of the
degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Transportation Engineering and
Management by Pokhara University.
Er. Subhash Dhungel Signature Date signed

External examiner
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thusitha Chandani Shahi Signature Date signed

Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Khem Raj Sharma Signature Date Signed

Director
vi
Acknowledgements
This is my great pleasure to have the opportunity to submit this Thesis report on the
“Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles- A Case Study of Selected
Intersections in Kathmandu City”. The Report is an outcome of intensive study and
cooperation received from the personnel of various sectors.
I express my thanks to Nepal Engineering College (nec), Pokhara University for

providing the opportunity to prepare this report. I would like to express my deepest
sincere gratitude to my respected supervisor Dr. Thusitha Chandani Shahi (Associate
Professor and program coordinator of TEAM in nec-cps) for her constructive and
precious guidance in the preparation and completion of report.
My gratitude also goes to Prof. Dr. Khem Raj Sharma (Director,nec – cps), Mr. Robert
Dangol (Associate Professor, nec), and Mr. Bishnu Prasad Devkota (Assistant
Professor, TEAM, nec), Mr. Anjay Mishra (Assistant Professor, CM, nec) Dr. Man
Kumar Dhamala (Research co-ordinator) for their suggestion and support in completion
of the study.
My special thanks go to my classmate Punam Baral, Amar Sharma and all other friends
for their valuable supports, suggestion and to my brothers Sushil Subedi for his
immense help in data collection process for this study.
Last but not the least; I take pleasure to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my family
members, friends and all the individuals who has helped and cooperated me directly
and indirectly throughout this study period.
Thank You.
Sundar Subedi
Roll No: TEAM (011-1130)
vii
Table of Contents
Title Page
Abstract .........................................................................................................................iii
Declaration .................................................................................................................... iv
Recommendation ........................................................................................................... v
Certificate ...................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................vii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................viii
List of tables ................................................................................................................... x
List of figures ................................................................................................................ xi
List of appendices ........................................................................................................xii
Abbreviations and Acronyms .....................................................................................xiii
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................ 1
1.3. Research Questions ......................................................................................... 2
1.4. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................... 2
1.5. Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 2
1.6. Scope and Limitations ..................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................ 4
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Road Traffic in Nepal ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) Definition and Importance ................................... 5
2.3 Factors Affecting PCU Value ......................................................................... 7
2.4 Methods of PCU Determination: .................................................................... 7
Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 16
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Research Process ........................................................................................... 16
viii
3.2 Research Approach ....................................................................................... 16
3.3 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Study Population ........................................................................................... 17
3.5 Sample Size ................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Secondary Data Collection ............................................................................ 18
3.6.1 Primary Data Collection ............................................................................ 18
3.6.2 Time Headway Data .................................................................................. 18
3.7 Data analysis ................................................................................................. 20
3.7.1 Time headway data and PCU .................................................................... 20
3.7.2 Statistical Analysis of PCU Value ............................................................. 21
3.7.2.1 Normality of PCU data .......................................................................... 21
3.7.2.2 Comparison Among the Intersection ..................................................... 21
3.7.2.3 Comparison With PCU Value of NRS 2070.......................................... 22
Chapter 4 ...................................................................................................................... 23
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 23
4.1 Time Headway and PCU of Vehicles ........................................................... 23
4.1.1 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Motorbike ................................ 23
4.1.2 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Truck ........................................ 23
4.1.3 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Mini-Truck............................... 24
4.1.4 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Bus ........................................... 25
4.1.5 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Mini Bus .................................. 25
4.1.6 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Micro Bus ................................ 26
4.1.7 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Utility Vehicle ......................... 27
4.1.8 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Tempo ...................................... 27
4.2 PCU Value Among Three Intersection. ........................................................ 28
4.3 Comparison of PCU with NRS 2070 and Statistical Study .......................... 29
Chapter 5 ...................................................................................................................... 31
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................... 31
5.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 31
5.2 Recommendation ........................................................................................... 31
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 32
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 34
ix
List of tables
Title Page
Table 2.1 Vehicle Type and PCU/Equivalency Factor .................................................. 6
Table 2.2 Number of Vehicle Analyzed for PCE Calculation ..................................... 10
Table 2.3 PCE Value Among Three Intersections ....................................................... 10
Table 2.4 PCU Value of Nine Vehicles in Karachi ..................................................... 11
Table 2.5 PCE Value Calculation and Comparison ..................................................... 11
Table 2.6 PCU Study in Two Intersection Using Headway Method ........................... 12
Table 2.7 Average PCU Values Using Chandra and Kumar Method.......................... 14
Table 4.1 ANOVA Test of Motorbike ......................................................................... 23
Table 4.2 Z - Test of Truck .......................................................................................... 24
Table 4.3 Z - Test of Mini - Truck ............................................................................... 24
Table 4.4 ANOVA Test of Bus................................................................................... 25
Table 4.5 ANOVA Test of Mini - Bus ........................................................................ 26
Table 4.6 ANOVA Test of Micro - Bus ...................................................................... 26
Table 4.7 ANOVA Test of Utility Vehicle .................................................................. 27
Table 4.8 ANOVA Test of Tempo .............................................................................. 28
Table 4.10 Comparison of PCU Value With Respect to NRS 2070. ........................... 29
x
List of figures
Title Page
Figure 2.1 Percentage Composition of Registered Vehicle in Nepal ............................ 4
Figure 2.2 Measurement of Time Headway Between Passenger Car ............................ 8
Figure 2.3 Measurement of Time Headway Between Multi-Axle Vehicle ................... 8
Figure 3.1 Research Process (Flow Chart) .................................................................. 16
Figure 3.2 Study Areas Balkhu, Baneshwar & Maharajgunj Intersections ................. 17
Figure 3.3 Videography From Vantage Point in Baneshwar and Maharajgunj .......... 19
Figure 3.4 Videography From Vantage Point in Balkhu Intersection ......................... 19
Figure 4.1 Comparison of PCU Value Among Three Intersections ............................ 28
xi
List of appendices
Title Page
Appendix 1 Sample Size, Chi Table, Z Table ............................................................. 34
Appendix 2 Normality Test of Vehicles ...................................................................... 37
Appendix 3 Time Headway and PCU Comparison ..................................................... 40
Appendix 4 PCU of Motorbike .................................................................................... 41
Appendix 5 PCU of Truck ........................................................................................... 45
Appendix 6 PCU of Mini Truck .................................................................................. 48
Appendix 7 PCU of Bus .............................................................................................. 51
Appendix 8 PCU of Mini Bus ..................................................................................... 55
Appendix 9 PCU of Micro Bus.................................................................................... 59
Appendix 10 PCU of Utility Vehicle ........................................................................... 63
Appendix 11 PCU of Tempo ...................................................................................... 67
Appendix 12 Photographs ........................................................................................... 70
xii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
DoR Department of Roads

DoTM Department of Transportation Management
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
Hr. Hour
IRC Indian Road Congress
IoM Institute of Medicine
Km Kilometer
MPC-HC Media Player Classic – Home Cinema
nec Nepal Engineering College
NRS Nepal Road Standard
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PCU Passenger Car Unit
Sec. Second
SRN Strategic Road Network
SSRN Statistics of Strategic Road Network
TEAM Transportation Engineering and Management
TRRL Traffic and Road Research Laboratory
TRB Transportation Research Board
xiii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Different vehicle types occupy different spaces on the road, move at different speeds, and
start at different accelerations. Furthermore, the behavior of drivers of the different types of
vehicles may also vary considerably. This poses a problem for designing roads, intersections
and traffic signals. Hence a uniform measure of vehicles is thus necessary to estimate traffic
volume and capacity of roads under mixed traffic flow. This is rather difficult to achieve
unless the different vehicle types are stated in terms of a common standard vehicle unit. For
this reasons, the concept of Passenger Car Unit (PCU) or Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE)
was developed.
PCU is a metric used in Transportation Engineering to assess traffic-flow rate on a highway

and the impact that a particular mode of transport has on traffic variables such as headway,
speed, density compared to a single car. Further PCU is a method used in transport
modelling to allow for the different vehicle types within a traffic flow group to be assessed
in a consistent manner.
Nepal has around 19,57,849 registered vehicles like Bus, Minibus, Microbus, Motorcycle,
Pickup van, Car, Tempo, Tractor etc. ply over the countries roadway with average of 13.8%
increase per annum in last 25 years (DoTM, 2015). The road traffic in Kathmandu comprises
vehicles of wide ranging physical dimensions, weight and dynamic characteristics. The
motorized and non-motorized vehicles share the same road space without any segregation.
Due to high varying physical dimensions and speeds, it becomes difficult to make the
vehicles to follow traffic lanes. Consequently, they tend to choose any advantageous position
on the road based on space availability. Also, the extent of vehicular interactions varies
widely with variation in traffic mixture.
Since there is poor lane marking or lane restriction, inadequate pedestrian facilities, poor
parking facilities and poor road surface condition in Kathmandu, it is important to reduce
the effects of this increasing number of vehicles and their compositions on the operational
system of the roadway.
As the design of pavement and roadway facilities depends upon the types of vehicle, it is
difficult to deal with each individual vehicle separately. Hence it is necessary to determine
the PCU on the basis of current roadway and traffic conditions of Kathmandu City which
helps to establish a common practice to convert the other vehicle types into passenger car
and is generally expressed as PCU per hour, PCU per lane per hour, or PCU per kilometer
length of lane.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Traffic movement in Nepal is very complex due to the heterogeneous traffic stream sharing
the same carriageway. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) and other works in
developed country for PCU determination assume homogeneous and lane based traffic for
analysis, which only exists in developed countries. In developing country like Nepal, there
1
is notable lateral movement without following lane discipline at intersections and vehicles
tend to use lateral gaps to reach the head of the queue and overtake even during critical
phase. Due to these fundamental differences, the standard western relationships for PCU
values are not appropriate for developing countries like Nepal. Transportation engineers and
professionals in Nepal do not have local standards to use for passenger car unit (PCU)
values. They currently use standards adopted by other countries (especially from India)
without local validation. For correct signal design, capacity estimation, volume prediction
and quantifying into the single unit these parameters should be estimated based on the local
prevailing traffic conditions and hence requires a different approach of analysis. There is no
study for estimating PCU for non-lane based heterogeneous traffic conditions in case of
Nepal.
1.3. Research Questions
Research question for the determination of PCU are as following:
 What are the PCU values of different types of vehicles plying on the selected
intersections of Kathmandu city under mixed traffic condition?
 Is there any significant difference between PCU value calculated in respect with selected
intersections?
 Is there any significant difference between PCU value calculated in respect with NRS
2070?
1.4. Objectives of the Study
General Objectives of the study:

The general objective of the study is to determine the PCU value of vehicle plying in
Kathmandu city.
The main objectives of the study are as following:
 To calculate the PCU value of different vehicles plying on the selected intersection of
Kathmandu city under mixed traffic condition.
 To statistically analyze the difference in PCU values of vehicles among selected
intersections.
 To statistically analyze the difference in average PCU values of vehicles to PCU value
under NRS 2070.
1.5. Significance of the Study
Kathmandu metropolitan city consist of heterogeneous mixture of traffic along the same
carriageway without efficient lane marking and lane discipline. The representation of
different vehicle with the help of common standard gives the clear picture of the traffic
along the roadway or in intersection. Functional classification of road, capacity analysis of
highway, design of signalized intersection, saturation flow estimates on the road,
development of traffic facility and management of traffic are all based on traffic stream's
cumulative PCU value. Presently we're using PCU data from Indian Road Congress (IRC)
data without any local validation. Since PCU of vehicle depend on many factors like road
2
width, traffic composition, traffic stream's speed, terrain condition, traffic flow regulation,
lateral clearance between vehicle, pedestrian volume, number of lanes and lane width
including surrounding and local factors. So the PCU value from one method calculated
somewhere couldn't be easily replicated into another place. Hence this study helps to
estimate and validate PCU of vehicles in the context of Kathmandu city. Which ultimately
helps traffic engineer and consultant for effective traffic management, intersection design,
capacity estimation and functional classification of road after rigorous study of the
individual road and intersection as done in this study.
1.6. Scope and Limitations
The scope of this study focuses on three major intersections inside Kathmandu valley
namely Maharajgunj intersection (Narayangopal Chowk), Baneshwar intersection (New
Baneshwar intersection) and Balkhu intersection. Both Maharajgunj and Baneshwar
intersection are four legged right angled intersections while Balkhu intersection is the
staggered intersection. These intersections are chosen so that there occurs high traffic
volume, good mix of different vehicle types, no parking nearby the intersection hindering
free flow of vehicle on the intersection approach and the presence of a traffic policeman to
regulate traffic flow.
The following constitute scope of work:
 Determination of time headway among through traffic in the three intersections.

 Calculation of PCU of nine different vehicles by headway method and comparing this
with among the intersections and also with present values adopted by Nepal as per NRS
2070.
Major limitations of the study are:
 Only time headway method for PCU calculation was used.

 Truck and mini truck data in Baneshwar and tempo data in Balkhu were not taken due
to non-availability of these vehicle during morning peak hour.
 Headway data of only through (straight going vehicle) had been collected on morning
peak hour for saturated condition only until desired sample was obtained.
 Direction wise study and intersecting leg wise data collection and analysis was not done.
 Hourly and daily variation of the PCU wasn’t considered.
3
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Road Traffic in Nepal
As road traffic was made up of a great variety of different types of vehicles – from large
articulated lorries and buses, to minicars and bicycles, the different vehicle types have
different characteristics – length, or typical speed, or rate of acceleration, and so they also
have a different impact on road capacity.
In case of Nepal, number of registered vehicle was just 76,378 in 1990, while this has
reached to a 19, 57,849 until 2015. The number and percentage of vehicle is shown in figure
2.1.
Chart Title
1.83
0.85 2.87
0.33 Bus 1.83
1.48
5.19 0.19 Mini bus/truck 0.85
8.23 0.45 Crane/Dozer 2.87
Car/Van 8.23
Peakup 1.48
Micro 0.19
Tempo 0.45
Motorcycle 78.58
78.58
Tractor 5.19
Others 0.33
Figure 2.1 Percentage Composition of Registered Vehicle in Nepal

Source: (DoTM 2015)
Motor Vehicle and Tranport Management Rules (2054) defines different vehicle categories
based on seating capacity are as follows.
 Bus: With the seating capacity of 26 to 56 passengers including the driver,

 Minibus: With the seating capacity of 15 to 25 passengers including the driver,
 Jeep, van, pick-up and microbus: With the seating capacity of a maximum of 14
passengers including the driver,
 Car and taxi: With the seating capacity of a maximum of five passengers including
the driver. Maruti Suzuki 800 model car (Length: 3.33 m and Breadth: 1.44 m) which
is readily available in Kathmandu is taken as passenger car for this study.
 Tempo: A meter installed tempo with the seating capacity of a maximum of 4
passengers, and in the case of a tempo other than a meter installed one, with the
seating capacity of a maximum of 13 passengers including the driver,
 Motor cycle, scooter: With the seating capacity of a maximum of two passengers
including the driver.
4
 Truck and tanker: On the front side, three seats including the driver, and on the rear
side, with the load bearing capacity of a maximum of 10.2 tons per axle and a space
accommodating a maximum loader of five persons on a slipper,
 Mini truck: On the front side, three seats including the driver, and on the rear side,
with the load bearing capacity of a maximum of 5.0 tons and a space accommodating
a maximum loader of four persons on a slipper.
Beside them, there is major presence of utility vehicle in Kathmandu city. Which is also
taken into account for PCU determination.
 Utility vehicle: Pickups or four wheeled vehicles with single/twin cabin and load
compartment (open/hooded), light freight vehicle.
Rather than trying to deal with so many vehicle types individually, traffic engineers came
up with the idea of passenger car units (PCUs – sometimes also known as passenger car
equivalents-PCEs)
2.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) Definition and Importance
A Passenger Car Unit (PCU) is a method used in Transport Modelling to allow for the
different vehicle types within a traffic flow group to be assessed in a consistent manner
(LEEDS, 2015).
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) paid special attention to passenger car equivalent factors
(PCE), in its early edition in 1950 it stated that trucks on two-lane highways on level terrain
have the same effect as two passenger cars. The recent edition of Highway Capacity Manual
HCM (2010) defines PCE as “the number of passenger cars that will result in the same
operational conditions as a single heavy vehicle of a particular type under specified
roadway, traffic, and control conditions”. This definition of PCE was for relative
homogeneous traffic conditions (only bus, car and trucks) prevailing in developed countries.
Many methods exist for determining passenger car units like those based on headway, delay,
density, platoon formation, extra vehicle hours, etc.
Passenger Car Unit (PCU) value has been defined by the TRRL as “On any particular section
of road under prevailing traffic conditions, the addition of one vehicle of a particular type
per hour will reduce the average speed of the remaining vehicles by the same amount
as the addition of say, ‘X’ cars of average size per hour. One vehicle of this type is
equivalent to ‘X’ PCU. In the case of a bottleneck, and particular in an intersection, if a
particular type of vehicle under saturated conditions requires ‘X’ times as much time at
the intersection as is required by an average car, then that type is equivalent to ‘X’
PCU”. If the addition of one vehicle of a particular class in the traffic stream produces the
same effect as that produced by the addition of one passenger car, then that vehicle
class is considered equivalent to a passenger car. Hence, this value may be considered
as a measure of relative space requirement of a vehicle class compared to that by
a passenger car under a specified set of roadway, traffic and control conditions.
Under heterogeneous or partially heterogeneous conditions, expressing traffic volume in
terms of vehicles per hour per lane is irrelevant as there is either no or partial lane discipline.
One way to represent the heterogeneous traffic flow is to express each vehicle category in
terms of the interference it causes to the flow in terms of a standard vehicle category such
as car. Such a measure is called the Passenger Car Unit (PCU) as known in Indian sub-
5
continent or Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) worldwide. In general, heterogeneous flows
are expressed as PCU per hour taking the whole width of the carriageway into account.
Nepal Road Standard (2070) has adopted PCU values also called equivalency factor stating
that "different types of vehicles take up differing amounts of road space and have different
speeds (For geometric design) and impose differing loads on the road structure (For
structural design). It is, therefore, necessary to adopt a standard traffic unit to which other
types of vehicles may be related for geometric design of roads this standard is the 'Passenger
Car Unit (PCU)' which is that of a normal car (passenger car) or light van. Other types of
vehicles are taken into account by multiplying by the following equivalency factors.
Table 2.1 Vehicle Type and PCU/Equivalency Factor
PCU/ Equivalency
S.N. Vehicle Type
factor
1. Car, Auto Rickshaw, SUV, Light Van and Pick Up 1
2. Light (Mini) Truck, Tractor, Rickshaw 1.5
3. Truck, Bus, Minibus, Tractor with trailer 3
4. Bicycle, Motorcycle 0.5
5. Non-motorized carts 6
(Source: NRS 2070)
Passenger car unit was developed to make a common practice to convert the other vehicle
type into standard passenger car. Dictionary (2016) has stated following importance of PCU
to traffic engineers and designers.
 Uniformity: it develops common standard for understanding flow of traffic into the
roadway making easy for traffic problem analysis and develop greater insight into
the situations by allowing comparison between different roadways based upon its
capacity to cater passage for different vehicle.
 Capacity of Road: the capacity of road is expressed in term of PCU/day. Traffic
stream's density in PCU/km and traffic stream's flow rate in PCU/hr.
 Investment decision: the functional classification of road is based on its PCU
carriage capacity. Which helps to priorities the road section leads to know the
strategic importance of the road and allow for priority investment decision so as to
optimize the budget allocation.
 Physical or managerial intervention: there is always the optimal capacity of the
roadway. If the present flow of vehicle in terms of PCU exceeds the critical value,
decision maker should go for physical change in infrastructure or use of traffic
management for better accommodation. PCU shows the perception of idea and helps
to take an instant action if necessary.
 Intersection design: In the design of an intersection, it is very important to determine
the saturation flow of that intersection. Saturation flow is the maximum constant
departure rate of queues from the stop line of an approach lane during the green
6
signal period. However, saturation flows in vehicles per hour depend on the type and
proportion of vehicles in the traffic stream. In most developing countries, urban
traffic flow is heterogeneous in nature. As a result, it is necessary to convert
heterogeneous traffic into a stream of homogenous traffic by using appropriate
passenger car unit (PCU) for analyzing mixed traffic. In addition, appropriate PCU
are also used for traffic engineering research.
2.3 Factors Affecting PCU Value
Ananda and Sekhar (1999) has enlisted that PCU values depends on the following factors:
 Vehicle Characteristics: Physical and mechanical, such as length, width, power,

accelerations, deceleration and braking characteristics of the vehicles affects the PCU
value. As a rule of thumb, higher the physical dimension, higher is the PCU.
 Traffic Stream Characteristics: Mean stream speed, transverse gap or lateral

clearance distribution of vehicles at different speeds of flow, longitudinal gap
distribution of vehicles at different speeds of flow, speed characteristics of the
stream such as speed distribution, dispersion and speed differences between
different adjoining vehicles in longitudinal and transverse directions, stream
composition, i.e. percentage composition of different classes of vehicles, traffic
volume to capacity ratio, pedestrian volume and traffic flow conditions also affect
the PCU value. Higher the gap, slower the speed enhances PCU value.
 Roadway characteristics: Horizontal alignment of road, location i.e., whether it is

rural, urban, and semi-urban, road stretch i.e. mid-block, signalized intersection, police
controlled intersection, uncontrolled intersections, and rotary, skid resistance of
pavement surface, traffic flow regulations such as one-way, two-way, divided and
undivided roads, number of lanes and pavement width, sight distance, pavement
surface unevenness, type and structural condition of road also affects the PCU value.
One way divided road with higher sight distance has lower PCU value.
 Environmental characteristics: Roadway surroundings and local factors, traffic

obstructions, roadway locations like embankment, cut, underpass, overpass, tunnel,
terrain conditions: plain, rolling, hilly, mountainous has significant effect on PCU
value. Lower the obstruction and grade, lower will be the PCU.
 Climatic conditions: Presence of fog, mist, rain, dryness also affect the PCU value.
Higher the fog, mist and rainfall, higher will be the PCU value.
 Control conditions: posted speed limit, segregation of slow and fast moving
vehicles, control of access to roadway has also some effect on PCU value. Lowering
the speed and giving full access from various point to roadway for all vehicles without
any segregation drastically increases the PCU value.
2.4 Methods of PCU Determination:
Traffic in many parts of the world is heterogeneous, where road space is shared among many
traffic modes with different physical dimensions. Loose lane discipline prevails; car
7
following is not the norm. This complicates computing of PCU. Some of the methods for
determining Passenger car units (PCU) as per researcher Adnan (2013) in developing
countries with heterogeneous traffics are as follows:
 Method Based on Time Headway
Time headway is the measure of the time taken by successive vehicle to cross the
certain point on the roadway.
Figure 2.2 Measurement of Time Headway Between Passenger Car
Figure 2.3 Measurement of Time Headway Between Multi-Axle Vehicle

Time headway methods are based on the notion that larger vehicle following
passenger car/larger vehicle may have higher time headways compared to time
headway between two successive passenger cars at saturated flow conditions. The
ratio of these two quantities may give PCU value of the following vehicle. This
approach has been utilized more commonly in case where PCU factors are
determined for a signalized intersection. Time headway based methods are preferred
over others as it is utilizing such a dynamic characteristic of traffic stream (i.e.
headway) which is able to explain driver behavior, roadway surroundings, traffic
volume and speed characteristics through a single parameter.
Sarraj (2014) conduced a research work to find Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE)
values for heavy trucks, medium trucks and animal-driven carts were developed at
signalized intersections in Gaza City, Palestine. PCE data were collected at three
signalized intersections; AL-Samer, Asqoula and Baghdad Intersections using time
headway method.
Basic Headway Formula
hi
PCUi = Equation 2.1
hc
Eq. 2.1
8
Where, PCUi = Passenger Car Unit of vehicle type i.
hi = average headway (in seconds) maintained by type of vehicle i following vehicle
i.
hc = saturation flow headway (in seconds) of passenger car following passenger car.
Time Headway calculation in case of saturated condition is
ℎ𝑖 = 𝑡2 − 𝑡1 Equation 2.2
Where, hi = time headway for i type vehicle in seconds. Eq. 2.2
t1 = time for the i vehicle’s front/back bumper to cross the fixed point on road.
t2 = time for the i type of successive vehicle’s front/back bumper to cross the fixed
point on road. But in this calculation front bumper was taken for vehicle longer in
length than passenger car and back bumper was taken for vehicle shorter in length
than passenger car. Because it shows longer time for obstruction created by vehicle
to cross the fixed point in the intersection, which in turn give the good passenger car
unit for the respective type of vehicle.
ℎ𝑐 = 𝑡4 − 𝑡3 Equation 2.3
Where, hc = time headway for passenger car in seconds. Eq. 2.3

t3 = time for the passenger car’s front/back bumper to cross the fixed point on road.
t4 = time for the successive passenger car’s front/back bumper to cross the fixed
point on road.
In that study, a video camera was installed on the roof of a building located close to
the intersection. The camera was used to collect the required data in the field. The
data recording was for 90 to 120 minutes during the peak traffic conditions. Data
were collected under dry and sunny weather condition and during morning and
afternoon peak periods. The Recorded data was transferred later to a computer and
then Movie Maker software was used to display the time in parts of a second. For
vehicles in the queue, the entering headway was taken to be the elapsed time, front
bumper to front bumper, as successive vehicles passed an intersection stop line.
The minimum sample size was selected to be 30 samples of each vehicle type at each
intersection. Table 2.2 illustrates the number of the collected samples of each studied
vehicle type at the three selected intersections.
9
Table 2.2 Number of Vehicle Analyzed for PCE Calculation
Items Asquola Baghdad Al-Samer

Intersection Intersection Intersection
Passenger Cars 100 117 140
Heavy Trucks 33 36 30
Medium Trucks 41 46 41
Animal-driven 31 32 35
Carts
The headway ratio method was used to calculate PCE values using Equation 2.1.
Table 2.3 shows the calculated PCE values for the different studied vehicle types for
the three intersections.
Table 2.3 PCE Value Among Three Intersections
Vehicle Type Asqoula Baghdad Al-Samer Average

Intersection Intersection Intersection Value of
PCE
PCE for Heavy Trucks 2.17 2.14 2.39 2.23
PCE for Medium 1.58 1.37 1.36 1.43
Trucks
PCE for Animal-driven 1.65 1.47 1.42 1.51
Carts
This study concludes that in Gaza City, PCE values at traffic signals were found to
be 2.23, 1.43 and 1.51 for heavy and medium trucks, animal-driven carts
respectively.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis that there is no
significant difference between PCE values among the three intersections
considering the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). ANOVA test shows p-
value is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no significant
difference in PCE values for heavy and medium trucks among the three
intersections. Whether in case of the animal-driven cart, p-value is lower than the
level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is found to be significant difference in PCE
values for animal-driven cart among the three intersections.
Sarraj (2014) had used appropriate statistical tests, to examine the significance of
the differences among PCE values in Gaza, UK and India. It was found that there
was no significant difference in PCE value for heavy and medium trucks between
Gaza (2.23, 1.43) and UK (2.3, 1.5). However, it was found that there is a significant
difference in PCE value for animal- driven carts between Gaza (1.51) and India (2.6).
Adnan (2013) conducted an observation in the case of Karachi (A metropolitan city
of Pakistan) traffic environment where degree of heterogeneity is significantly high,
and based on the collected data set from 12 different urban arterials of Karachi;
presents the estimation of PCU factors from different existing methods. Obtained
PCU factors are then compared with each other and with those which are currently
10
used in different traffic studies of Karachi. Significant differences are found among
the values of PCU factors from each method. He has also concluded that the headway
method is best suited for calculation of PCU in low LOS. The PCU calculated from
the study of nine vehicles are shown in table 2.4
Table 2.4 PCU Value of Nine Vehicles in Karachi
SN Vehicle Type PCU

N. 1 Small cars Value
1
2 Large Cars 1.142
3 Three wheelers 1.387
4 Motorcycles 0.595
5 Mini Buses 1.675
6 HCL 1.526
7 Pickups 1.56
8 Heavy vehicles 2.035
9 Non-motorized 2.271
Partha (2009) has discussed the procedure of deriving the PCE for through vehicles
according to the traffic conditions of Dhaka Metropolitan City, Bangladesh. The
PCE for four vehicle types were derived using the headway ratio method. The
estimated PCE for cars, auto-rickshaws, mini-buses and buses were 1.00, 0.86, 1.42,
and 2.16, respectively. The comparison between the calculated PCE value from the
study and the PCE currently used in Bangladesh was compared.
In this study, the passenger cars, micro-buses and pickups were grouped together.
The presence of many mini-buses in Dhaka Metropolitan City has prompted to
classify them differently from ordinary buses because of their difference in size and
operating characteristics. The result found is shown in table 2.5.
Table 2.5 PCE Value Calculation and Comparison
Vehicle Category PCE (from the PCE (Used in
study) Bangladesh – MoC
value)
Passenger Car 1 1
Auto-rickshaw 0.86 0.75
Mini-bus 1.42 3
Bus 2.16 3
From the table 2.5, PCU value of buses was found to be 2.16 which is smaller when
compared to value used in Bangladesh. This may be due to the buses today having
higher power to weight ratio when compared to buses in the 50’s and 60’s, when
the PCE of MoC was prepared.
The PCE of mini-buses was found to be 1.42 which is not close to the value
suggested by MoC. In MoC, buses and mini-buses were grouped together. But in
this study the mini-bus was considered separately from buses as the size of mini-
buses is different compared to mini- buses in the 50’s and 60’s.
11
The PCU of auto-rickshaws was found to be 0.86 which is slightly higher than the
suggested value by MoC. The estimated PCU for auto-rickshaws in Bangladesh
conditions is higher than that being used in practice in Bangladesh, indicating a
greater individual effect on traffic in Bangladesh.
It was also suggested that in order to get values that really represented the traffic
condition of Bangladesh, data from other parts of the country are needed. Since a
large sample size is used in this study, it can be assumed that the values obtained
are representative of the current traffic condition of Bangladesh.
Partha (2009) had found that the PCE value used in Bangladesh considerably differs
from the PCE obtained from his study, which has a significant impact on the
calculation of the saturation flow rate and thus influences the design of signalized
intersections. It is suggested that the values obtained in this study can be used as a
guideline in the design and analysis of signalized intersections in Dhaka
Metropolitan City as well as in Bangladesh.
Sreelatha and Koshy (2014) had also attempted to find the PCU using headway
method. The criteria for site selection have to accommodate significant flows of the
selected vehicles during times of the day when it operated at saturation. Two sites
were selected for the study. One was at Pandalam (Pathanamthitta district) and
second location was at Kottarakkara (Kollam district) of India. Both are fast
growing towns in their respective districts.
Since It is important to ensure that the signalized intersections being studied are
fully saturated or have adequately saturated portions of the green interval during
the time of data collection, the morning peak hour was determined in order to ensure
the condition. Here, by using a video recorder, events in the observed lane such as
beginning of green interval, the passage of the rear axle was used because the first
vehicle in the queue frequently stops over the stop line as well as the vehicle type,
the end of saturation flow and the beginning of amber and red interval was noted.
Average time headway and number of headways for different categories of vehicle
obtained from both intersections. They had found that the time headway gives the
more consistent result in Indian context than other method of PCU determination.
Further researcher had also compared PCU value used in India under IRC to the
PCU value obtained from their own study. The difference in PCU value with
respect to IRC and Intersections are shown in table 2.6.
Table 2.6 PCU Study in Two Intersection Using Headway Method
Vehicle Type PCU Values

IRC SP41 Pandalam Kottarakkara
Car 1 1 1
Motor Cycle 0.5 0.46 0.45
Auto Rickshaw 1 0.83 0.83
Truck 4.5 2.25 2.23
LCV 1.5 1.3 1.28
Bus 3 2.1 2.14
New PCU values obtained from site were quite different from the values given in
code. It was found that PCU values obtained for motor cycle, auto rickshaw, truck,
12
LCV and bus from both intersections were smaller than the values given in IRC
SP 41.
 Methods Based on Traffic Stream Speed
Traffic stream speed based methods are established on the aspect in which it is
quantified the effect of a certain type of vehicle in changing the traffic stream speed
compared to passenger cars.
Chand and Gupta (2016) had conducted research in Fourteen approaches of four
near ideal 4-arm pre- timed signalized intersections for the study having different
approach widths ranging from 6.4m to 14.5m. Intersections selected for this study
were right angle intersections and had level gradient on all approaches and least
interference to entry or exit traffic due to pedestrians, bus stops, parked vehicles,
etc. All the approaches of the intersections had reached saturated stage for whole
or majority of the green interval during almost each phase during peak hour as
traffic flow was very heavy. The traffic had not follow lane discipline and consists
of more than 12 different types of vehicles varying in speed and sizes. Four
selected signalized intersections were:
1- Stadium Chowk (Noida),
2- NTPC Chowk (Noida),
3- DTC Depot Chowk, Dwarka Sector 2 (New Delhi) and
4-Deepali Chowk, Pitampura (New Delhi).
In that study, traffic turning movement data of the subject approaches of the
intersections were recorded by using a portable digital video camera mounted on
the 6m (20 ft) high stand at the opposite island or median or at a vantage point at
the corner of the intersection to cover all, three/two or one of the approaches of the
intersection so that it clearly captures view of approach road from exit line (line
joining ends of Channelizing islands) of both the through (TH) and right (RT).
Continuous pictures of the traffic flow were recorded with the video camera for
peak morning period of 2 to 3 hours between 9:00 am to 12:00 noon on normal
week days. Simultaneously data on signal timing i.e. cycle length, number of
phases and phase length was collected manually.
The recorded films were replayed in the laboratory on a large screen in order to
retrieve the required data information for the study. In the first phase 15-minute
classified traffic turning movement data were retrieved for entire duration of
survey for all the approaches in order to determine peak hour, peak hour traffic
volumes, peak factor, traffic composition, percentage of turning traffic etc. for
each turning movement, approach and intersection.
Data analysis of various traffic characteristics such as traffic volume, traffic
composition, peak hour traffic volume, peak hour factor and traffic composition
etc. was done for each turning movement, each approach and intersection as whole
for each intersection. PCU factors for different classes of vehicles were estimated
for saturated flow condition using equation developed by Chandra and Kumar.
13
PCUi = Passenger Car Unit of vehicle type i
Ai, Ac = Area of ith vehicle, Area of passenger car
Vi = Average clearing speed of vehicle type i in m/s
Vc = Average clearing speed of car in m/s
tc = Average clearing time of car in sec
ti = Average clearing time of vehicle type i in sec
The PCU value of the vehicles in average is found as shown in table 2.7.
Table 2.7 Average PCU Values Using Chandra and Kumar Method
Vehicle Big Small Auto- Motorcycle Bicycle Cycle

Car Car Rickshaw Rickshaw
PCU 1.52 1 0.88 0.19 0.20 0.79
Some result from the Chandra and Kumar method (or also known as Speed and
Area method) has shown high variation among the different intersections. Finding
may be erroneous because the area of vehicle is not simply the existing dimension
of body, which in fact should be the lateral clearance that vehicle has to maintain
with another vehicle in the same or different lane. Lateral clearance is also a
dynamic parameter depending upon speed of vehicle, experience of driver, type of
vehicle on side, number of lanes in road etc. Sarraj (2014) and Adnan (2013) had
suggested to scrutinize the result from this method.
 Method based on Multiple Regression Analysis
Regression analysis method is used in many studies to derive PCU factors. The
explanatory variables are always representing the number of vehicles of a
particular type considered in the study, and these explanatory variables are used to
explain average traffic speed (for deriving PCU at midblock location) or saturation
flow rate / lost time (for deriving PCU at intersection location). A study carried
out by Minh and Sano incorporated following equation for estimation of PCU,
which is given in equation below.
S = FFS + a1. PC + a2. Bus + a3. MC + a4. HV
where: S= Avg. traffic stream speed, FFS= Free flow speed, PC= Number of
Passenger Cars in traffic stream, Bus=Number of Bus in traffic stream, MC=
Number of Motorcycle in the traffic stream, HV= Number of Heavy vehicle in the
traffic stream, a, b, c, d = Marginal effect of respective mode on Avg. traffic stream
speed.
Based on the estimation of the above co-efficient in the equation, PCU factors for
different type of vehicle are derived by taking the ratio of co-efficient obtained for
14
a particular vehicle type with the co-efficient obtained for the reference vehicle
(i.e. passenger car). This is given in equation
PCU= air/a1
The method based on multiple regression analysis is criticized in the literature
based on the argument that speed usually not a linear function of volume.
However, the method can be utilized for a range of speed where it is behaving
linearly with the volume.
15
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Process
The study is carried out for the PCU study of nine different vehicles plying on Kathmandu
city. The purpose of the study is to calculate headway of different categories of vehicle and
ultimately PCU, which later on is compared among the PCU value of different intersections
and with PCU value adopted by Nepal. The flow chart of research design in figure 3.1
reveals research process of the study.
Problem Identification
Literature
Research Objectives
Review
Data Collection
Primary Data Collection Secondary Data Collection
 Headway of Vehicle  Types of Vehicle

 PCU value used in Nepal
Transport THE
Number of Trip in Route

Data Analysis
 PCU calculation and

comparison
Research finding and

recommendation
Figure 3.1 Research Process (Flow Chart)
3.2 Research Approach
This research was based on the determination of headway and thus leads to finding and
analyzing of PCU value of nine different vehicles in Kathmandu city. For the analysis of
PCU value, headway data in three intersections of altogether nine vehicles are measured
using digital videography. The video is later played on Media Player Classic – Home
16
Cinema (MPC – HC) video playing software. For the analysis of variation of headway and
PCU, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, z test is performed using MS excel. Hence it is
a quantitative research approach, is used to quantify and generalize PCU results from a
larger sample population of headways generating numerical data of the time headway
values.
3.3 Study Area
Since study approach is to determine the PCU of vehicle in Kathmandu city, in this study,
it is not possible to cover all the intersections and road sections due to time constrain.
Therefore, three intersections namely Maharajgunj (Narayan Gopal) intersection,
Baneshwar (New Baneshwar) intersection and Balkhu intersection has been selected for the
study. The selection of the intersections was based on the following criteria: High traffic
volumes, significant queuing, no parking allowed at or close to the intersection and good
mix of different vehicle types and presence of traffic police for regulating the flow. These
intersections are as shown in figure 3.2.
Maharajgunj
Intersection
Baneshwar
Intersection
Balkhu
Intersection
(Source: Google Maps)

Figure 3.2 Study Areas Balkhu, Baneshwar & Maharajgunj Intersections
3.4 Study Population
Study population is the number of through vehicle which crosses the Maharajgunj, New
Baneshwar and Balkhu intersections. As no secondary data pertaining to the study
population is readily available, researcher is taking the total number of vehicle registered in
the Bagmati zone as a study population.
17
3.5 Sample Size
Krejcie and Morgan (1970) has derived small sample techniques, a formula for determining
sample size.
𝑋 2 𝑁𝑃(1 − 𝑃)
𝑆=
𝑑2 (𝑁 − 1) + 𝑋 2 𝑃(1 − 𝑃)
S = sample size.
𝑋 2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level
N = the population size.
P = the population proportion (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum
sample size).
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05).
1.962 ∗ 7,55,546 ∗ .5 ∗ (1 − .5)

𝑆=
. 052 (7,55,546 − 1) + 1.962 ∗ .5 ∗ (1 − .5)
𝑆 = 384 𝑁𝑜𝑠
As sampling method suggest for altogether 384 number of vehicle type as a sample (the
details of sample size determination is shown in Appendix 1. Data of 45 numbers of readily
available nine types of vehicle in each intersection was collected.
3.6 Secondary Data Collection
PCU value used in present context from NRS 2070 is taken into account for comparison
purpose is shown in table 2.1. All other data required for the study is collected directly from
site observation.
3.6.1 Primary Data Collection
Time headway data of nine different vehicles is the primary data of the study. In this line,
hand held Sony Hand Camera (Handycam) of model number DCR- SR65E was used to
collect the video of three intersections under study on different intersecting legs. Data
collection methodology is presented herein detail.
3.6.2 Time Headway Data
Data were collected in study intersection during morning peak hours. Data were collected
during AM peak hours (9:30 AM to 11:00 AM) only on week days for a month from 15th
March 2016 to 14th April 2016 from vantage point (high raised building’s roof) nearby the
intersection. The data is collected once in a single intersection and only until the desired
sample size is obtained. Handycam was utilized for capturing video throughout the peak
hour. As study is focused to measure the time headway of through vehicle crossing the
intersection, four different positions (in case of Baneshwar and Maharajgunj intersection)
and two different position (in case of Balkhu intersection) for capturing the video was
taken. Further the vehicles on the left lane of each leg entering the intersection is taken
18
into consideration. No other data collection is necessary as the video itself give the time
of recording (AM peak hour) with time elapsed by vehicle to cross some fixed point.
Figure 3.3 Videography From Vantage Point in Baneshwar and Maharajgunj
Figure 3.4 Videography From Vantage Point in Balkhu Intersection
The recorded video was later played on video player MPC – HC, because of time accuracy
it has given while playing the video. Further speed of vehicle was slowed down below to
normal speed in media player, as it became easy to measure the time headway with great
accuracy. The headway extraction process is based on drawing a transverse line (line
perpendicular to the direction of traffic) on transparent paper which is superimposed on
monitor screen showing traffic stream or assuming references like zebra crossing, utility
poles as a fixed point on the road. Vehicles rear wheel position is taken as a common
parameter to measure headway as most of the time, front wheel of vehicle crosses the
fixed line (imaginary line on laptop screen perpendicular to traffic flow or zebra crossing).
Time headway of successive vehicle of same type is taken into consideration.
As there is no lane following pattern, especially in case of small dimension vehicle like
motorbike, tempo etc. time headway data (difference in time to cross the certain fixed
19
point on road) of only those vehicles which seems to follow the successive vehicle just
behind it is taken. Types of vehicles, whose time headways were measured is shown in
table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Data Collection of Each Vehicle Types
Vehicle Name of Intersection

SN Type of Vehicle Remarks
symbol Balkhu Baneshwar Maharajgunj
Car/taxi/Passenger c P P P P:
1 car/van present
2 Motorbike m P P P *: Absent
3 Truck t P * P
4 Mini Truck mt P * P
5 Bus b P P P
6 Mini Bus mb P P P
7 Micro Bus mic-b P P P
8 Utility Vehicle uv P P P
9 Tempo tem * P P
As truck and mini truck weren’t permitted to pass through the Baneshwar intersection during
peak hour, their headway data couldn’t be collected. Similarly, there weren’t a route of
tempo from the Balkhu intersection. So its headway data also couldn’t be collected.
As there is different method for PCU calculation, time headway method is used in this study
since literature has suggested that the it suits better in case of mixed traffic condition with
level terrain. The pictures of nine vehicles are shown in Appendix 12.
3.7 Data analysis
The analysis of the collected information from the digital videography about different
vehicles were organized into their representative categories. The collected primary data
(time headway) is then used for PCU calculation using Equation 2.1, which later on
processed in statistical software to find out whether there exists any statistical difference
between the PCU value on each type of vehicle among three intersections. Single factor –
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and z test is performed for statistical analysis.
3.7.1 Time headway data and PCU
In this study, only time headway method is used for calculation of PCU of various vehicle
because researches has suggested that the headway method is most appropriate to calculate
the PCU value in case of heterogeneous mixture of traffic with level terrain. In this study,
the recorded video was played on computer. MPC-HC video player was used as video
player. Based upon the imaginary line drawn on transparent paper which is overlapped on
desktop screen perpendicular to the movement of traffic along the road, time taken by each
type of successive vehicle’s rear wheel to pass the fixed point is noted. The data is then
plotted in spreadsheet and time headway for vehicle in second is calculated with the help of
Equation 2.2 and Equation 2.3. The PCU value of vehicle, the ratio between time headway
of i type vehicle to the time headway of passenger car is calculated as in Equation 2.1. The
details of calculation are shown in Appendix 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11.
20
3.7.2 Statistical Analysis of PCU Value
3.7.2.1 Normality of PCU data

To statistically compare the PCU data in between the intersection using z test, the pre-
requisite is that the PCU data of each vehicle’s in all the intersection should be normally
distributed. One- Sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test was performed to check normality of
PCU data. For the 95% confidence interval, level of significance (α = .05), two basic
hypotheses were defined as under.
Null Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle in each intersection is normally
distributed within 95% confidence level.
An Alternative Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle in each intersection isn’t
normally distributed within 95% confidence level.
From the test if an asymp. significance value is less than 0.05 it is thought that the chance
of the null hypothesis holding true is so unlikely that the null hypothesis is rejected in favour
of the alternative hypothesis. Further if an asymp. significance value is more than 0.05 it is
thought that the chance of the null hypothesis holding true is so likely that it is failed to
reject null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. From the test it is found that the
PCU data is normally distributed. The statistical analysis of test for normality of PCU is
shown in Appendix 2.
3.7.2.2 Comparison Among the Intersection

Based upon the time headway data and PCU of nine vehicles as listed in table 3.1, the
statistical comparison of the PCU of each vehicle type among different intersection was
done. If each category of vehicle is available in sufficient numbers in all three intersections,
then one-way ANOVA test was done. Besides this, if each type of vehicle is available only
in two intersections, then z- test was performed, as the sample size of each vehicle was 45
(which is greater than marginal sample size to t – test = 30).
For testing the validity of PCU value among the intersections, hypothesis testing was done.
For the 95% confidence interval, level of significance (α = .05), two basic hypotheses were
defined as under.
Null Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle in one intersection has similar value
to the PCU value of same vehicle in another intersection within 95% confidence level.
An Alternative Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle in one intersection hasn’t
similar value to the PCU value of same vehicle in another intersection within 95%
confidence level.
H0: µ1 = µ2= µ3 (null hypothesis)
H1:µ1 ≠ µ2 ≠ µ3 (alternative hypothesis)
From the normal distribution of PCU value among the intersections, generally, if a p-value
is less than 0.05 it is thought that the chance of the null hypothesis holding true is so unlikely
that the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Further if a p-value
is more than 0.05 it is thought that the chance of the null hypothesis holding true is so likely
that it is failed to reject null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The statistical
analysis of PCU is shown in Appendix 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 & 11.
21
3.7.2.3 Comparison With PCU Value of NRS 2070
The calculated PCU value of nine vehicles as listed in table 3.1 is compared to the PCU
value of NRS 2070 using z statistics.
𝑥−𝜇
𝑧 = 𝜎
⁄√𝑛
Where
x = Sample Mean used as mean PCU value from present calculation.
𝜇 = Population mean used as PCU value from under NRS 2070.
𝜎 = Standard deviation
n = Sample Size
For testing the validity of PCU value among the intersections, hypothesis testing was done.
For the 95% confidence interval, level of significance (α = .05), two basic hypotheses were
defined as under.
Null Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle from the present calculation has
similar value to the PCU value of same vehicle from NRS 2070 with 95% confidence level.
An Alternative Hypothesis: It states that PCU value of a vehicle from the present calculation
hasn’t similar value to the PCU value of same vehicle from NRS 2070 with 95% confidence
level.
H0: µ PCU calculated = µ PCU under NRS 2070 (null hypothesis)
H1:µ PCU calculated ≠ µ PCU under NRS 2070 (alternative hypothesis)
For statistical analysis, if Zcalculated value exceeds the Z tabulated (1.96 for 95% confidence), it
is thought that the chance of the null hypothesis holding true is so unlikely that the null
hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Further if a Z calculated value is
less than Z tabulated = 1.96, it is thought that the chance of the null hypothesis holding true is
so likely that it is failed to reject null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.
22
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Time Headway and PCU of Vehicles
4.1.1 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Motorbike

The time headway data and PCU comparison is presented in Appendix 4 The average PCU
of Motorbike in three intersections is 0.44. ANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis
that there is no significant difference between PCU values among the three intersections
considering the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). The statistical analysis is shown
in table 4.1.
Table 4.1 ANOVA Test of Motorbike

Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Var.
Balkhu 45 20.94 0.4653 0.0161
Baneshwar 45 19.27 0.4282 0.006
Maharajgunj 45 20.31 0.4513 0.0146
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 0.032 2 0.0158 1.289 0.27898 3.065
Within
Groups 1.618 132 0.0123
Total 1.65 134
Statistical result (Motorbike): ANOVA test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value
of 0.278, that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Which means it is not
possible to reject null hypothesis. Thus there is no significant difference in PCU values for
Motorbike among the intersections. Hence the PCU value of Motorbike in Nepalese context
is found to be 0.44.
4.1.2 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Truck

The time headway data and PCU comparison is presented in Appendix 5. The average PCU
of Truck in two intersections (Balkhu and Maharajgunj only, as truck weren’t allowed to
ply over the Baneshwar intersection during peak hour) is 2.91. Statistical z test was used to
test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between PCU values among the
two intersections considering the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). The statistical
analysis is shown in table 4.2.
23
Table 4.2 Z - Test of Truck
z-Test: Two
Sample for
Means
Balkhu Maharajgunj
Mean 2.8766667 2.951333333
Known Variance 0.625 0.643
Observations 45 45
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
z -0.444809
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.328229
z Critical one-tail 1.6448536
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.6564579
z Critical two-tail 1.959964
Statistical result (Truck): z test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value of 0.656 for
two tailed test that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no
significant difference in PCU values for Truck among the intersections. Hence the PCU
value of Truck in Nepalese context is found to be 2.91.
4.1.3 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Mini-Truck

The time headway data and PCU comparison is presented in Appendix 6. The average
PCU of Mini Truck in two intersections (Balkhu and Maharajgunj only, as Mini Truck
weren’t allowed to ply over the Baneshwar intersection during peak hour) is 1.45. Statistical
z test was used to test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between PCU
values among the two intersections considering the studied vehicle types (as a null
hypothesis). The statistical analysis is shown in table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Z - Test of Mini - Truck

z-Test: Two
Sample for Means
Balkhu Maharajgunj
Mean 1.43089 1.477555556
Observations 45 45
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
z -0.5854
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.27915
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.5583
24
Statistical result (Mini Truck): z test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value of
0.558 for two tailed test that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is
no significant difference in PCU values for Mini Truck among the intersections. Hence the
PCU value of Mini Truck in Nepalese context is found to be 1.45.
4.1.4 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Bus

of Bus in three intersections is 2.93. ANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis that there
is no significant difference between PCU values among the three intersections considering
the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). The statistical analysis is shown in table
4.4.
Table 4.4 ANOVA Test of Bus
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Avg. Var.
Balkhu 45 134.3 2.984 0.26
Baneshwar 45 130.4 2.898 0.21
Maharajgunj 45 132.4 2.942 0.26
ANOVA
Source of P- F
Variation SS df MS F value crit
Between
Groups 0.166 2 0.083 0.34 0.711 3.06
Within
Groups 32 132 0.242
Total 32.17 134
Statistical result (Bus): ANOVA test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value of
0.711, that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no significant
difference in PCU values for Bus among the intersections. Hence the PCU value of Bus in
Nepalese context is found to be 2.93.
4.1.5 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Mini Bus

PCU of Mini Bus in three intersections is 2.15. ANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis
considering the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis)
Statistical result (Mini Bus): ANOVA test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value
of 0.43, that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no significant
difference in PCU values for Mini Bus among the intersections. Hence the PCU value of
Bus in Nepalese context is found to be 2.15. The statistical analysis is shown in table 4.5.
25
Table 4.5 ANOVA Test of Mini - Bus
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY

Balkhu 45 98.28 2.184 0.281
Baneshwar 45 94.07 2.09 0.207
Maharajgunj 45 99.39 2.209 0.139
ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between
Groups 0.35 2 0.175 0.837 0.435 3.065
Within
Groups 27.61 132 0.209
Total 27.96 134
4.1.6 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Micro Bus

of Micro Bus in three intersections is 1.32. ANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis
that there is no significant difference between PCU values.
Table 4.6 ANOVA Test of Micro - Bus
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Var.
Balkhu 45 61.3 1.361778 0.13
Baneshwar 45 56.5 1.256444 0.04
Maharajgunj 45 62.1 1.379111 0.09
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between
Groups 0.397 2 0.19832 2.33 0.101 3.065
Within
Groups 11.23 132 0.085097
Total 11.63 134
26
Statistical result (Micro Bus): ANOVA test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value
of 0.101, that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no significant
difference in PCU values for Micro Bus among the intersections. Hence the PCU value of
Bus in Nepalese context is found to be 1.32. The statistical analysis is shown in table 4.6.
4.1.7 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Utility Vehicle

of Utility Vehicle in three intersections is 1.11. ANOVA test was used to test the hypothesis
considering the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). The statistical analysis is shown
in table 4.7.
Table 4.7 ANOVA Test of Utility Vehicle
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Balkhu 45 51.95 1.154 0.046
Baneshwar 45 47.88 1.064 0.048
Maharajgunj 45 50.51 1.122 0.057
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between
Groups 0.1893 2 0.095 1.88 0.1566 3.065
Within
Groups 6.6448 132 0.05
Total 6.8341 134
Statistical result (Utility Vehicle): ANOVA test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-
value of 0.156, that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no
significant difference in PCU values for Utility Vehicle among the intersections. Hence the
PCU value of Utility Vehicle in Nepalese context is found to be 1.11.
4.1.8 Time Headway and PCU Comparison of Tempo

PCU of Tempo in two intersections (Baneshwar and Maharajgunj only, as sufficient number
of Tempo weren’t found in Balkhu intersection, as there was no route for tempo to serve the
public and passengers) is 0.88. Statistical z test was used to test the hypothesis that there
is no significant difference between PCU values among the two intersections considering
the studied vehicle types (as a null hypothesis). The statistical analysis is shown in table
4.8.
27
Table 4.8 ANOVA Test of Tempo
z-Test: Two Sample for
Means
Baneshwar Maharajgunj
Mean 0.865777778 0.916
Observations 45 45
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
z -1.364071907
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.086272468
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.172544935
Statistical result (Tempo): z test calculation from MS excel 2010 shows p-value of 0.172
for two tailed test that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. Thus there is no
significant difference in PCU values for Tempo among the intersections. Hence the PCU
value of Tempo in Nepalese context is found to be 0.88.
4.2 PCU Value Among Three Intersection.

Since the number of sample size of each vehicle is greater than 30, in case of Truck, Mini Truck
and Tempo (which are present only among two intersections), for a normally distributed
population of vehicle (found after performing One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, as
shown in Appendix 2. The calculated PCU value of nine different vehicles in three
intersections is shown in figure 4.1.
3.5
2.5
2
PCU
1.5
0.5
0
Car/Ta Motorb Mini- Mini- Micro- Utility
Truck Bus Tempo
xi ike Truck Bus Bus veh.
Balkhu 1 0.46 2.87 1.43 2.98 2.18 1.36 1.15
Baneshwar 1 0.42 2.89 2.09 1.25 1.06 0.86
Maharajgunj 1 0.45 2.95 1.47 2.94 2.2 1.37 1.12 0.91
Types of Vehicle
Balkhu Baneshwar Maharajgunj
Figure 4.1 Comparison of PCU Value Among Three Intersections
28
z test – two sample for mean is performed. From the statistical analysis, it is found that p value
is found to be more than level of significance (∞ = .05), which shows that the null hypothesis
is true, i.e. there is no significant difference of mean PCU value of each vehicle type among the
three intersections.
Similarly, in case of Motorbike, Bus, Mini-Bus, Micro-Bus and Utility Vehicle, single factor
one-way ANOVA is done. From this test also, p value is found to be more than level of
significance (∞ = .05), which shows that the null hypothesis is true, i.e. there is no significant
difference of mean PCU value of each vehicle type among the three intersections. Hence from
the both test, it is found that the PCU value thus obtained is statistically good. Further the
variance of the PCU value of each vehicle within the same intersection is also very minimum.
Hence the PCU calculated from the time headway ratio method has given consistent and reliable
results in case of heterogeneous traffic data of Kathmandu city.
4.3 Comparison of PCU with NRS 2070 and Statistical Study

Comparison of average PCU value of nine vehicles with the PCU value as per Nepal Road
Standard (NRS 2070) is shown in table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Comparison of PCU Value With Respect to NRS 2070.
PCU
PCU as
No of per
Vehicle per this Standard z- z-
S.N. Vehicle NRS
Type Study deviation calculated tabulated
(n) 2070
(µ)
(x)
Car, SUV,
1 45 1 1 1.96
Light Van
2 Motorcycle 45 0.5 0.44 0.1095 3.675 1.96
3 Truck 45 3 2.91 0.7962 0.758 1.96
4 Mini Truck 45 1.5 1.45 0.3781 0.887 1.96
5 Bus 45 3 2.93 0.4919 0.954 1.96
6 Mini Bus 45 3 2.15 0.4568 12.482 1.96
7 Micro Bus 45 1.32 0.2909 -30.439 1.96
Utility
8 Vehicle 45 1 1.11 0.2236 -3.3 1.96
(Pick-up)
9 Tempo 45 0.88 0.1746 -33.809 1.96
PCU value from the present calculation is also compared to the PCU value as per NRS
2070. In present study, Mini truck, Micro bus and Tempo has been separately studied.
The presence of many Utility Vehicles and Mini-buses in Kathmandu has prompted to
classify them differently from ordinary buses because of their difference in size and
operating characteristics.
Statistical analysis has shown that there is significant difference of PCU value for
Motorcycle, Mini bus and Utility vehicle among the present calculation and from NRS
2070. But it is found that, there isn’t significant difference in PCU value of Truck, Mini-
truck and Bus among the present calculation and from NRS 2070.
29
The PCU value of Motorcycle, Mini bus, Truck, Mini-truck and Bus is lower than PCU
under NRS. This may be due to the vehicles today having higher power to weight ratio
when compared to vehicles in 1990s.
Similarly, the PCU value of Utility Vehicle is found to be greater than as proposed by NRS
2070, this may be due to less maneuverability of utility vehicle in comparison to the
passenger car. Further due to load on the trailer of utility vehicle, the speed characteristics
of these vehicle is not same as that of passenger car.
30
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
From the present study, it is found that there is very small variance of PCU value of
individual vehicle within the same intersection but are within the 95% confidence
interval. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test and z test result has shown that there is
no significant difference in PCU of nine vehicles among the three intersection.
Statistical comparison of present calculation with NRS 2070 has also shown that there
is significant difference in PCU value among Motor cycle, Mini Bus, Micro Bus, Utility
Vehicle and Tempo while there isn’t significant difference in PCU value among Truck,
Mini Truck and Bus.
The PCU value obtained from present calculation are Car:1, Truck: 2.91, Mini Truck:
1.45, Bus:2.93, Mini-Bus: 2.15, Micro-Bus: 1.32, Utility Vehicle: 1.11, Motorbike:
0.44 and Tempo: 0.88.
5.2 Recommendation
 The PCU presently used in Nepal considerably differs from the PCU obtained from
this study, which has a significant impact on the calculation of the saturation flow
rate and thus influences the design of intersections, roadway classification and
design purposes. It is suggested that the PCU values obtained in this study can be
used as a theoretical guideline to calculate the PCU and for practically use these
values, more rigorous study and generalization based on multiple cases is necessary.
 It is recommended for conducting PCU studies for other modes of transport like
Bicycle, Rickshaw, Power tiller, Bullock Cart, Hand Cart, Tanker, Multi axle truck
etc. for further researches to investigate PCU values under different traffic
conditions. PCU results will be finer if it is also investigated on other intersections
and major cities and countryside around the Nepal.
 Consistency and variation in PCU value using time headway method can be checked
with other method such as area velocity method, regression method, speed delay
method to find the best PCU value and best method to calculate PCU in Nepalese
context.
31
REFERENCES
Adams, C. A. & Boahen, R. O., 2014. Passenger Car Unit Values for Urban Mixed Traffic
Flow at Signalised Intersection on Two Lane Dual Carriageways in the Tamale Metropolis,
Ghana. International Reference Journal of Engineering and Science (IRJES), pp. 41-49.
Adnan, M., 2013. Passenger Car Equivalent Factors in Heterogenous Traffic Environment-
Are We Using the Right Numbers?. Science Direct, pp. 106-113.
Ananda , S. & Sekhar, S., 1999. Development of Passenger Car Unit (PCU) Values for
Malaysia. Journal of the Easterrn Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Volume 3, pp.
73-80.
Chand, S. & Gupta, N. J., 2016. Analysis of Saturation Flow at Signalized Intersection in
Urban Area. [Online].
Cuddon, A. & Ogden, K., 1992. The effect of heavy vehicles on saturation flows at
signalized intersections. Proceeding of 16th ARRB Conference, Perth, Australia, pp. 1-18.
Dictionary, C., 2016. Passenger Car Unit. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aboutcivil.org/passenger-car-unit-definition-examples.html
[Accessed May 2016].
DoR, 2013-2014. Statistics of Strategic Road Network, Kathmandu: Department of Roads.
DoTM, 2071/72. Traffic Registration in Nepal, Kathmandu: Department of Transport
Management.
Krammes, R. & Crowley, K., 1986. Passenger Car Equivalents for Trucks on Level Freeway
Segments. Transportation Research Record, Volume 1091, pp. 10-17.
Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W., 1970. Educational & Psychological Measurement. s.l.:The
NEA Research.
LEEDS,2015.SCP.[Online] Available at: http://scptransport.co.uk/faqs/passenger-car-unit-
pcu/
Motor Vehicle and Tranport Management Rules, 2054. DoTM, Kathmandu: Nepal Law
Commission.
Nepal Road Standard, 2070. Department of Road, Kathmandu: DoR.
Partha, S., 2009. Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) of Through Vehicles at Signalised
Intersections in Dhaka Metropolitan City, Bangladesh. IATSS RESEARCH, pp. 99-104.
Sarraj, Y. R., 2014. PCE at Signalized intersection for Heavy and Medium Trucks and
Animal Driven Carts in Gaza, Palestine. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering, pp. 80-87.
Sreelatha, P. R. & Koshy, R. Z., 2014. Development of New PCU Values and Effects of
Length of Passenger Cars on PCU. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 2(1), pp. 344-351.
32
Transportation Research Board, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual, New York: National
Research Council.
Wikipedia, 2015.[Online] Available at: http://scptransport.co.uk/faqs/passenger-car-unit-
pcu/
33
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Sample Size, Chi Table, Z Table
Table 1
Table for Determining Sample Size from a Given Population
N S N S N S
10 1 22 14 1200 291
15 10 0
23 0
14 1300 297
20 41 0
24 4
14 1400 302
25 92 0
25 8
15 1500 306
30 42 0
26 2
15 1600 310
35 38 0
27 5
15 1700 313
40 23 0
28 9
16 1800 317
45 64 0
29 2
16 1900 320
50 04 0
30 5
16 2000 322
55 44 0
32 9
17 2200 327
60 58 0
34 5
18 2400 331
65 25 0
36 1
18 2600 335
70 65 0
38 6
19 2800 338
75 96 0
40 1
19 3000 341
80 36 0
42 6
20 3500 346
85 76 0
44 1
20 4000 351
90 07 0
46 5
21 4500 354
95 37 0
48 0
21 5000 357
100 68 0
50 4
21 6000 361
110 80 0
55 7
22 7000 364
120 96 0
60 6
23 8000 367
130 29 0
65 4
24 9000 368
140 107 0
70 2
24 10000 370
150 3
10 0
75 8
25 15000 375
160 8
11 0
80 4
26 20000 377
170 3
11 0
85 0
26 30000 379
180 8
12 0
90 5
26 40000 380
190 3
12 0
95 9
27 50000 381
200 7
13 0
100 4
27 75000 382
210 2
13 0
110 8
28 1000000 384
6 0 5
Note.—N is population size, S is sample size.
34
Table 2: Chi – Square table
35
Table 3: Z Distribution Table
36
Appendix 2 Normality Test of Vehicles
Table 1 Normality Test of Motorbike, Truck and Mini Truck
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

PCU PCU PCU PCU PCU PCU PCU
Bike BAL Bike BAN Bike Truck Truck Mini truck Mini truck
MAH BAL MAH BAL MAH
N 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Normal Parametersa,b Mean .4653 .4282 .4513 2.8767 2.9513 1.4309 1.4776
Std. .12697 .07759 .12101 .79096 .80220 .37277 .38546
Deviation
Most Extreme Absolute .124 .116 .149 .151 .070 .215 .143
Differences Positive .124 .080 .149 .151 .070 .215 .143
Negative -.088 -.116 -.112 -.089 -.067 -.124 -.113
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .829 .777 1.001 1.013 .469 1.441 .962
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .498 .581 .269 .257 .980 .192 .313
a. Test distribution is Normal.
37
Table 2 Normality Test of Bus and Mini Bus

PCU PCU PCU PCU Mini PCU Mini PCU Mini
Bus BAL Bus BAN Bus MAH bus BAL bus BAN bus MAH
N 45 45 45 45 45 45
Normal Parametersa,b Mean 2.9838 2.8980 2.9420 2.1840 2.0904 2.2087
Std. .51421 .45447 .50630 .53041 .45464 .37346
Deviation
Most Extreme Absolute .077 .061 .074 .090 .121 .086
Differences Positive .067 .061 .068 .087 .121 .052
Negative -.077 -.049 -.074 -.090 -.057 -.086
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .515 .408 .499 .606 .813 .580
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .954 .996 .964 .856 .523 .890
38
Table 3 Normality Test of Micro – Bus, Utility Vehicle and Tempo

PCU PCU PCU PCU PCU PCU UV PCU PCU
Micro Mirco bus Mirco bus UV UV MAH tempo tempo
bus BAL BAN MAH BAL BAN BAN MAH
N 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Normal Mean 1.3618 1.2564 1.3791 1.1544 1.0640 1.1224 .8658 .9160
Parametersa,b Std. .35852 .19249 .29951 .21370 .21980 .23883 .16845 .18261
Deviation
Most Extreme Absolute .135 .118 .213 .205 .081 .077 .115 .110
Differences Positive .135 .118 .213 .205 .081 .077 .115 .110
Negative -.097 -.056 -.109 -.125 -.062 -.073 -.081 -.080
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .905 .788 1.426 1.372 .545 .516 .773 .741
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .386 .563 .234 .146 .928 .953 .589 .642
39
Appendix 3 Time Headway and PCU Comparison
Time: 9: 30 AM to 11:00 AM (Morning peak hour)
Date: 15th March 2016 - 14th April 2016 (only on week days)
H i-x : Time headway between i vehicle followed by x vehicle (in second)
a,b : Difference between time headway To and From for vehicle as shown in appendix 3 to 10.
40
Appendix 4 PCU of Motorbike
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car and Motrobike ( c & m ) 23 34.059 36.015 1.956 35.478 36.261 0.783 0.40
SN H c-c (a) H m-m (b) PCU 24 39.721 41.623 1.902 36.261 37.298 1.037 0.54
m 25 5.614 7.414 1.800 37.298 38.014 0.716 0.39
(b/a) 26 23.579 26.265 2.686 31.838 32.544 0.706 0.26
From To From To 27 20.394 22.239 1.845 28.878 29.61 0.732 0.39
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 50.543 51.348 0.805 0.46 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 30.282 31.292 1.01 0.38
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 3.064 4.089 1.025 0.57 29 9.474 10.475 1.001 29.535 30.306 0.771 0.77
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 16.765 17.403 0.638 0.44 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 30.306 30.878 0.572 0.35
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 18.51 19.517 1.007 0.56 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 37.305 39.011 1.706 0.49
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 14.872 15.823 0.951 0.60 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 31.871 32.913 1.042 0.32
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 26.832 27.542 0.71 0.49 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 44.106 44.781 0.675 0.55
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 41.125 41.826 0.701 0.57 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 16.513 17.893 1.38 0.34
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 48.082 48.969 0.887 0.50 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 46.193 46.805 0.612 0.38
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 2.231 3.276 1.045 0.32 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 49.41 50.386 0.976 0.30
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 14.173 15.113 0.94 0.41 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 50.386 51.58 1.194 0.56
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 29.454 30.273 0.819 0.36 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 51.58 52.954 1.374 0.79
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 46.906 48.087 1.181 0.49 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 46.187 46.954 0.767 0.35
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 48.087 49.359 1.272 0.51 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 55.197 57.267 2.07 0.52
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 49.359 50.711 1.352 0.50 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 56.467 57.317 0.85 0.65
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 10.685 11.876 1.191 0.58 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 1.307 2.42 1.113 0.68
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 17.181 18.17 0.989 0.39 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 19.72 20.84 1.12 0.49
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 47.529 48.11 0.581 0.31 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 22.155 23.559 1.404 0.55
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 12.96 14.163 1.203 0.26 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 0.472 1.714 1.242 0.37
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 23.111 24.46 1.349 0.59
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 31.06 32.129 1.069 0.52 PCU calculation for Motorbike 0.46
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 32.129 33.339 1.21 0.31 (m) =
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 34.671 35.778 1.107 0.38
41
Name of Intersection: Baneshwar Car and Motrobike ( c & 28 30.069 31.357 1.288 5.193 5.632 0.439 0.34
m) 29 55.587 56.867 1.28 9.805 10.296 0.491 0.38
SN H c-c (a) H m-m (b) PCU 30 6.289 7.682 1.393 46.903 47.803 0.9 0.64
m 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 15.893 16.442 0.549 0.36
(b/a)
32 34.614 35.945 1.331 5.813 6.406 0.593 0.44
From To From To
33 3.72 4.92 1.2 22.068 22.62 0.552 0.46
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 45.363 46.235 0.872 0.37
34 50.167 51.590 1.423 6.002 6.812 0.81 0.56
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 53.122 54.132 1.01 0.44
35 55.515 56.959 1.444 41.852 42.431 0.579 0.4
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 37.374 38.115 0.741 0.45
36 48.465 49.476 1.011 22.928 23.359 0.431 0.42
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 41.241 42.186 0.945 0.41
37 11.132 12.394 1.262 54.661 55.348 0.687 0.54
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 47.604 48.417 0.813 0.37
38 29.695 31.819 2.124 27.81 28.766 0.956 0.45
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 38.909 39.679 0.77 0.37
39 28.910 30.723 1.813 42.063 42.861 0.798 0.44
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 17.436 18.462 1.026 0.43
40 31.975 34.621 2.646 47.398 48.708 1.31 0.49
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 36.135 36.573 0.438 0.33
41 55.666 57.795 2.129 14.054 15.086 1.032 0.48
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 36.773 37.613 0.84 0.39
42 14.975 16.721 1.746 23.683 24.457 0.774 0.44
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 27.763 28.593 0.83 0.46
43 30.925 32.413 1.488 51.164 51.926 0.762 0.51
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 43.649 44.767 1.118 0.45
44 10.009 12.989 2.98 12.745 13.849 1.104 0.37
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 44.585 45.304 0.719 0.45
45 10.783 12.083 1.3 21.194 21.79 0.596 0.45
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 44.767 45.742 0.975 0.38
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 45.742 46.493 0.751 0.45
PCU calculation for Motorbike (m) = 0.42
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 27.433 28.335 0.902 0.49
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 45.582 46.302 0.72 0.35
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 46.302 46.92 0.618 0.25
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 37.356 38.042 0.686 0.37
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 10.374 11.062 0.688 0.52
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 11.262 12.044 0.782 0.49
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 60.531 61.031 0.5 0.22
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 1.615 2.212 0.597 0.42
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 7.659 8.261 0.602 0.46
24 3.058 4.316 1.258 29.551 30.206 0.655 0.52
25 8.379 10.298 1.919 31.108 31.722 0.614 0.31
26 21.27 23.649 2.379 25.898 27.021 1.123 0.47
27 27.035 30.069 3.034 23.426 24.897 1.471 0.48
42
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car and Motrobike ( c 28 30.548 33.034 2.486 12.359 13.263 0.904 0.36
&m) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 13.263 14.332 1.069 0.46
SN H c-c (a) H m-m (b) PCU 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 58.266 59.495 1.229 0.77
m 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 18.473 19.208 0.735 0.43
(b/a)
32 0.167 2.275 2.108 19.746 20.379 0.633 0.3
From To From To
33 11.042 13.027 1.985 54.579 55.065 0.486 0.24
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 7.115 8.701 1.586 0.47
34 25.865 27.808 1.943 14.65 15.637 0.987 0.5
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 0.034 0.899 0.865 0.35
35 32.084 33.692 1.608 32.41 32.977 0.567 0.35
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 7.163 7.997 0.834 0.37
36 4.123 6.988 2.865 3.745 4.819 1.074 0.37
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 8.249 8.989 0.74 0.5
37 21.153 22.647 1.494 11.939 12.772 0.833 0.55
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 59.04 59.934 0.894 0.55
38 25.166 26.902 1.736 37.988 38.871 0.883 0.5
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 13.791 14.974 1.183 0.63
39 46.12 47.879 1.759 28.75 29.342 0.592 0.33
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 14.974 15.819 0.845 0.37
40 12.826 13.947 1.121 18.933 19.618 0.685 0.61
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 15.819 16.992 1.173 0.51
41 15.66 17.74 2.08 5.681 6.464 0.783 0.37
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 16.992 18.437 1.445 0.47
42 26.277 27.748 1.471 15.114 15.75 0.636 0.43
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 1.867 3.164 1.297 0.36
43 27.153 30.031 2.878 33.786 34.822 1.036 0.35
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 11.591 12.935 1.344 0.78
44 27.814 29.354 1.54 6.725 7.342 0.617 0.4
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 22.725 23.878 1.153 0.37
45 13.384 14.563 1.179 11.524 12.121 0.597 0.5
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 37.245 38.816 1.571 0.56
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 41.601 42.926 1.325 0.52
PCU calculation for Motorbike 0.45
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 46.375 47.146 0.771 0.37
(m)=
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 18.053 18.939 0.886 0.41
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 46.634 47.319 0.685 0.35
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 49.687 50.954 1.267 0.46
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 18.742 19.989 1.247 0.55
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 7.115 8.069 0.954 0.6
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 29.034 29.781 0.747 0.47
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 17.752 18.548 0.796 0.39
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 18.165 18.923 0.758 0.35
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 37.633 38.366 0.733 0.37
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 14.378 15.161 0.783 0.39
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 15.161 15.648 0.487 0.28
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 11.267 12.359 1.092 0.69
43
Comparison of PCU Values of Motorbike in Three Intersection
SN PCU Values of Motor Bike (m) 26 0.26 0.47 0.28
Balkhu Baneshwar Maharajgunj 27 0.39 0.48 0.69
1 0.46 0.37 0.47 28 0.38 0.34 0.36
2 0.57 0.44 0.35 29 0.77 0.38 0.46
3 0.44 0.45 0.37 30 0.35 0.64 0.77
4 0.56 0.41 0.5 31 0.49 0.36 0.43
5 0.6 0.37 0.55 32 0.32 0.44 0.3
6 0.49 0.37 0.63 33 0.55 0.46 0.24
7 0.57 0.43 0.37 34 0.34 0.56 0.5
8 0.5 0.33 0.51 35 0.38 0.4 0.35
9 0.32 0.39 0.47 36 0.3 0.42 0.37
10 0.41 0.46 0.36 37 0.56 0.54 0.55
11 0.36 0.45 0.78 38 0.79 0.45 0.5
12 0.49 0.45 0.37 39 0.35 0.44 0.33
13 0.51 0.38 0.56 40 0.52 0.49 0.61
14 0.5 0.45 0.52 41 0.65 0.48 0.37
15 0.58 0.49 0.37 42 0.68 0.44 0.43
16 0.39 0.35 0.41 43 0.49 0.51 0.35
17 0.31 0.25 0.35 44 0.55 0.37 0.4
18 0.26 0.37 0.46 45 0.37 0.45 0.5
19 0.59 0.52 0.55 Average: 0.46 0.42 0.45
20 0.52 0.49 0.6 Variance: 0.016 0.006 0.014
21 0.31 0.22 0.47 Avg. PCU 0.44
22 0.38 0.42 0.39
23 0.4 0.46 0.35
24 0.54 0.52 0.37
25 0.39 0.31 0.39
44
Appendix 5 PCU of Truck
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car and Truck (c & t) 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 31.051 36.661 5.61 2.13
SN H c-c (a) H truck-truck (b) PCU 29 9.474 10.475 1.001 13.183 16.139 2.956 2.95
t (b/a) 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 51.117 57.106 5.989 3.67
From To From To 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 14.246 21.992 7.746 2.24
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 14.282 19.418 5.136 2.95 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 19.915 26.37 6.455 2.04
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 53.23 57.982 4.752 2.64 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 55.22 61.063 5.843 4.77
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 56.26 60.021 3.761 2.63 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 6.394 13.626 7.232 1.81
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 49.286 54.638 5.352 3 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 18.992 26.766 7.774 4.93
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 43.708 48.109 4.401 2.79 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 20.654 28.31 7.656 2.42
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 30.498 35.114 4.616 3.19 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 17.326 22.082 4.756 2.23
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 14.182 18.282 4.1 3.37 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 21.794 28.273 6.479 3.75
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 38.929 43.146 4.217 2.41 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 42.045 47.278 5.233 2.44
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 52.667 59.861 7.194 2.25 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 12.858 22.304 9.446 2.38
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 22.74 31.519 8.779 3.85 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 26.784 31.216 4.432 3.4
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 42.127 48.069 5.942 2.61 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 7.417 12.373 4.956 3.02
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 32.595 38.061 5.466 2.28 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 33.257 38.065 4.808 2.14
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 26.889 32.218 5.329 2.15 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 14.683 23.173 8.49 3.33
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 35.49 46.107 10.617 3.97 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 9.352 18.686 9.334 2.83
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 31.372 37.944 6.572 3.21
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 20.938 26.06 5.122 2.04 PCU calculation for Truck 2.87
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 26.787 34.004 7.217 3.93 (t)=
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 49.99 58.644 8.654 1.87
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 16.445 21.835 5.39 2.38
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 33.024 38.249 5.225 2.56
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 11.952 18.922 6.97 1.81
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 37.649 44.855 7.206 2.48
23 34.059 36.015 1.956 20.602 28.398 7.796 3.98
24 39.721 41.623 1.902 5.913 10.89 4.977 2.61
25 5.614 7.414 1.8 44.236 51.544 7.308 4.06
26 23.579 26.265 2.686 44.688 50.049 5.361 1.99
27 20.394 22.239 1.845 42.948 50.265 7.317 3.96
45
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car and Truck (c & t) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 34.72 43.251 8.531 3.68
SN H c-c (a) H truck-truck (b) PCU 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 13.057 18.292 5.235 3.31
truck 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 55.094 60.56 5.466 3.24
(b/a) 32 0.167 2.275 2.108 23.686 29.359 5.673 2.69
From To From To 33 11.042 13.027 1.985 45.619 50.314 4.695 2.36
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 34.722 41.182 6.46 1.93 34 25.865 27.808 1.943 44.492 50.857 6.365 3.27
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 49.743 57.178 7.435 3.04 35 32.084 33.692 1.608 11.74 16.102 4.362 2.71
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 25.497 32.878 7.381 3.30 36 4.123 6.988 2.865 20.536 26.605 6.069 2.11
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 16.21 21.944 5.734 3.93 37 21.153 22.647 1.494 2.137 5.322 3.185 2.13
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 41.816 46.515 4.699 2.93 38 25.166 26.902 1.736 47.04 52.176 5.136 2.95
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 9.396 15.769 6.373 3.44 39 46.12 47.879 1.759 47.691 50.964 3.273 1.86
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 28.471 36.061 7.59 3.34 40 12.826 13.947 1.121 14.558 20.031 5.473 4.88
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 51.979 58.914 6.935 3.07 41 15.66 17.74 2.08 11.474 15.769 4.295 2.06
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 4.994 14.034 9.04 3.00 42 26.277 27.748 1.471 43.718 49.258 5.54 3.76
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 40.326 48.131 7.805 2.18 43 27.153 30.031 2.878 54.595 57.88 3.285 1.14
11 4.031 5.740 1.709 19.204 25.265 6.061 3.54 44 27.814 29.354 1.54 32.542 36.576 4.034 2.61
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 23.156 28.682 5.526 1.81 45 13.384 14.563 1.179 52.794 55.882 3.088 2.61
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 50.785 58.554 7.769 2.81
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 25.31 30.854 5.544 2.19
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 45.791 53.446 7.655 3.75 PCU calculation for Truck 2.95
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 44.234 51.294 7.06 3.31 (t)=
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 34.211 40.664 6.453 3.32
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 6.411 10.347 3.936 1.44
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 20.756 25.973 5.217 2.30
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 9.729 14.726 4.997 3.15
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 41.711 47.831 6.12 3.87
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 13.751 19.847 6.096 2.99
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 25.765 33.9 8.135 3.82
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 22.974 31.336 8.362 4.31
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 49.509 53.901 4.392 2.20
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 17.503 23.328 5.825 3.37
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 34.481 41.574 7.093 4.50
28 30.548 33.034 2.486 13.937 20.418 6.481 2.60
46
Comparison of PCU values of Truck in Two Intersection
SN PCU Values of Truck 28 2.13 2.60
(t) 29 2.95 3.68
Balkhu Maharajgunj 30 3.67 3.31
1 2.95 1.93 31 2.24 3.24
2 2.64 3.04 32 2.04 2.69
3 2.63 3.30 33 4.77 2.36
4 3 3.93 34 1.81 3.27
5 2.79 2.93 35 4.93 2.71
6 3.19 3.44 36 2.42 2.11
7 3.37 3.34 37 2.23 2.13
8 2.41 3.07 38 3.75 2.95
9 2.25 3.00 39 2.44 1.86
10 3.85 2.18 40 2.38 4.88
41 3.4 2.06
11 2.61 3.54 42 3.02 3.76
12 2.28 1.81 43 2.14 1.14
13 2.15 2.81 44 3.33 2.61
14 3.97 2.19 45 2.83 2.61
15 3.21 3.75 Average: 2.87 2.95
16 2.04 3.31 Variance: 0.625 0.643
17 3.93 3.32 Avg 2.91
18 1.87 1.44 PCU
19 2.38 2.30
20 2.56 3.15
21 1.81 3.87
22 2.48 2.99
23 3.98 3.82
24 2.61 4.31
25 4.06 2.20
26 1.99 3.37
27 3.96 4.50
47
Appendix 6 PCU of Mini Truck
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car and Mini Truck (c & 25 5.614 7.414 1.8 2.33 4.195 1.865 1.03
mt) 26 23.579 26.265 2.686 43.405 46.809 3.404 1.26
SN H c-c (a) H mt-mt (b) PCU 27 20.394 22.239 1.845 11.861 14.431 2.57 1.39
mini- 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 33.359 39.829 6.47 2.46
truck
29 9.474 10.475 1.001 16.687 17.856 1.169 1.16
(b/a)
From To From To 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 1.571 4.427 2.856 1.75
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 42.006 44.498 2.492 1.43 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 31.466 35.83 4.364 1.26
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 8.806 11.369 2.563 1.42 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 24.219 28.283 4.064 1.28
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 9.609 11.867 2.258 1.57 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 38.577 41.645 3.068 2.5
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 32.458 34.997 2.539 1.42 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 42.548 48.03 5.482 1.37
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 61.044 63.288 2.244 1.42 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 40.028 42.108 2.08 1.32
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 53.177 55.59 2.413 1.67 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 6.17 10.878 4.708 1.49
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 36.344 39.873 3.529 2.9 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 47.024 49.9 2.876 1.34
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 8.834 11.652 2.818 1.61 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 17.375 19.73 2.355 1.36
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 21.18 25.011 3.831 1.2 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 2.913 5.844 2.931 1.37
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 59.134 62.648 3.514 1.54 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 16.368 21.037 4.669 1.17
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 14.499 17.501 3.002 1.32 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 45.617 47.218 1.601 1.22
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 37.573 40.148 2.575 1.07 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 45.121 48.103 2.982 1.82
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 58.779 62.269 3.49 1.41 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 10.686 13.383 2.697 1.2
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 13.204 16.41 3.206 1.2 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 42.276 45.687 3.411 1.33
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 8.419 11.439 3.02 1.47 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 49.982 53.278 3.296 1
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 42.9 46.599 3.699 1.47
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 3.974 6.414 2.44 1.32
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 31.26 36.027 4.767 1.03 PCU calculation for Mini-Truck (mt) = 1.43
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 43.581 46.071 2.49 1.09
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 59.63 62.214 2.584 1.26
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 52.298 56.974 4.676 1.22
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 6.263 10.004 3.741 1.28
23 34.059 36.015 1.956 37.456 40.211 2.755 1.4
24 39.721 41.623 1.902 47.02 50.058 3.038 1.59
48
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car and Mini Truck (c & 27 53.737 55.313 1.576 43.168 46.248 3.08 1.95
mt) 28 30.548 33.034 2.486 58.375 62.073 3.698 1.48
SN H c-c (a) H mt- mt (b) PCU 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 23.605 27.196 3.591 1.55
mini 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 25.67 30.505 4.835 3.06
truck
31 27.618 29.301 1.683 24.443 27.343 2.9 1.72
(b/a)
From To From To 32 0.167 2.275 2.108 32.066 35.094 3.028 1.43
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 5.15 9.275 4.125 1.23 33 11.042 13.027 1.985 61.806 64.567 2.761 1.39
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 20.862 23.535 2.673 1.09 34 25.865 27.808 1.943 53.351 57.232 3.881 1.99
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 57.196 61.539 4.343 1.94 35 32.084 33.692 1.608 34.676 36.898 2.222 1.38
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 4.012 6.171 2.159 1.48 36 4.123 6.988 2.865 56.797 59.833 3.036 1.05
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 17.444 19.698 2.254 1.4 37 21.153 22.647 1.494 2.23 5.004 2.774 1.85
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 9.304 11.359 2.055 1.11 38 25.166 26.902 1.736 6.861 10.118 3.257 1.87
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 37.881 41.07 3.189 1.4 39 46.12 47.879 1.759 33.033 35.273 2.24 1.27
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 21.32 24.718 3.398 1.5 40 12.826 13.947 1.121 2.584 4.623 2.039 1.81
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 48.056 51.737 3.681 1.22 41 15.66 17.74 2.08 37.788 39.92 2.132 1.02
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 44.191 48.864 4.673 1.31 42 26.277 27.748 1.471 1.173 4.016 2.843 1.93
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 36.705 38.864 2.159 1.26 43 27.153 30.031 2.878 57.179 61.12 3.941 1.36
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 62.323 65.977 3.654 1.2 44 27.814 29.354 1.54 30.593 32.654 2.061 1.33
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 54.085 56.915 2.83 1.02 45 13.384 14.563 1.179 56.666 57.923 1.257 1.06
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 59.752 62.666 2.914 1.15
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 17.309 19.828 2.519 1.23
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 9.879 12.179 2.3 1.08 PCU calculation for Mini-Truck (mt) = 1.47
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 2.563 6.192 3.629 1.87
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 36.087 39.462 3.375 1.23
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 23.407 25.712 2.305 1.01
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 35.125 37.582 2.457 1.54
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 12.572 15.649 3.077 1.94
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 43.351 46.388 3.037 1.49
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 26.484 29.509 3.025 1.42
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 32.898 36.135 3.237 1.66
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 38.724 42.501 3.777 1.89
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 15.434 17.724 2.29 1.32
49
Comparison of PCU values of Mini-Truck in Two Intersection
SN PCU Values of Mini-Truck 27 1.39 1.95

(mt) 28 2.46 1.48
Balkhu Maharajgunj
29 1.16 1.55
1 1.43 1.23
30 1.75 3.06
2 1.42 1.09
31 1.26 1.72
3 1.57 1.94
32 1.28 1.43
4 1.42 1.48
33 2.5 1.39
5 1.42 1.40
34 1.37 1.99
6 1.67 1.11
35 1.32 1.38
7 2.9 1.40
36 1.49 1.05
8 1.61 1.50
37 1.34 1.85
9 1.2 1.22
38 1.36 1.87
10 1.54 1.31
39 1.37 1.27
11 1.32 1.26
40 1.17 1.81
12 1.07 1.20
41 1.22 1.02
13 1.41 1.02
42 1.82 1.93
14 1.2 1.15
43 1.2 1.36
15 1.47 1.23
44 1.33 1.33
16 1.47 1.08
45 1 1.06
17 1.32 1.87
Average: 1.43 1.47
18 1.03 1.23
Variance: 0.138 0.148
19 1.09 1.01
Avg 1.45
20 1.26 1.54 PCU
21 1.22 1.94
22 1.28 1.49
23 1.4 1.42
24 1.59 1.66
25 1.03 1.89
26 1.26 1.32
50
Appendix 7 PCU of Bus
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car and Bus (c & b) 27 20.394 22.239 1.845 26.272 31.631 5.359 2.9
SN H c-c (a) H b-b (b) PCU 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 13.85 21.769 7.919 3.02
bus 29 9.474 10.475 1.001 26.015 29.837 3.822 3.81
(b/a) 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 9.688 16.008 6.32 3.87
From To From To 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 24.416 33.561 9.145 2.64
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 3.975 10.041 6.066 3.49 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 28.955 39.098 10.143 3.2
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 5.956 11.946 5.99 3.33 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 39.41 43.685 4.275 3.49
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 37.667 42.881 5.214 3.64 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 10.318 18.454 8.136 2.04
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 43.74 49.143 5.403 3.03 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 5.186 10.212 5.026 3.19
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 14.75 19.914 5.164 3.27 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 49.069 57.305 8.236 2.61
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 6.657 11.557 4.9 3.39 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 30.303 36.486 6.183 2.9
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 30.599 34.942 4.343 3.57 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 16.249 20.722 4.473 2.59
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 8.634 13.371 4.737 2.71 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 25.274 29.923 4.649 2.17
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 47.084 55.145 8.061 2.52 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 56.027 64.215 8.188 2.06
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 8.215 16.45 8.235 3.61 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 37.334 41.139 3.805 2.92
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 16.904 21.696 4.792 2.11 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 9.185 14.095 4.91 3
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 17.612 25.598 7.986 3.34 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 5.785 12.567 6.782 3.02
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 52.155 59.065 6.91 2.79 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 32.013 38.997 6.984 2.74
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 47.687 55.299 7.612 2.85 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 36.493 43.238 6.745 2.05
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 49.039 56.55 7.511 3.66
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 10.464 19.146 8.682 3.46 PCU calculation for Bus (b) = 2.98
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 12.361 19.012 6.651 3.62
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 34.508 46.784 12.276 2.65
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 54.306 61.447 7.141 3.15
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 10.365 17.893 7.528 3.69
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 14.813 23.412 8.599 2.24
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 7.923 15.879 7.956 2.74
23 34.059 36.015 1.956 4.219 9.534 5.315 2.71
24 39.721 41.623 1.902 50.865 56.34 5.475 2.87
25 5.614 7.414 1.8 40.047 46.036 5.989 3.32
26 23.579 26.265 2.686 50.9 57.071 6.171 2.29
51
Name of Intersection: Car and Bus (c & b) 28 30.069 31.357 1.288 41.271 46.257 4.986 3.87
Baneshwar 29 55.587 56.867 1.28 15.687 19.917 4.23 3.3
SN H c-c (a) H b-b (b) PCU 30 6.289 7.682 1.393 23.253 27.194 3.941 2.82
bus 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 15.973 19.841 3.868 2.58
(b/a)
32 34.614 35.945 1.331 7.965 12.34 4.375 3.28
From To From To
33 3.72 4.92 1.2 29.632 33.056 3.424 2.85
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 12.972 19.634 6.662 2.88
34 50.167 51.59 1.423 9.093 14.01 4.917 3.45
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 33.492 39.294 5.802 2.57
35 55.515 56.959 1.444 7.814 11.78 3.966 2.74
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 42.472 47.366 4.894 2.98
36 48.465 49.476 1.011 9.023 12.317 3.294 3.25
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 38.004 44.168 6.164 2.71
37 11.132 12.394 1.262 47.258 50.434 3.176 2.51
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 24.86 32.152 7.292 3.35
38 29.695 31.819 2.124 29.774 35.182 5.408 2.54
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 22.655 29.565 6.91 3.4
39 28.91 30.723 1.813 7.865 12.899 5.034 2.77
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 41.502 46.945 5.443 2.32
40 31.975 34.621 2.646 21.528 29.813 8.285 3.13
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 21.473 25.377 3.904 2.97
41 55.666 57.795 2.129 45.797 52.933 7.136 3.35
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 42.811 49.209 6.398 2.98
42 14.975 16.721 1.746 25.754 29.998 4.244 2.43
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 33.021 37.086 4.065 2.27
43 30.925 32.413 1.488 44.123 47.415 3.292 2.21
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 21.348 29.869 8.521 3.45
44 10.009 12.989 2.98 39.548 46.853 7.305 2.45
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 33.634 38.616 4.982 3.12
45 10.783 12.083 1.3 32.085 35.572 3.487 2.68
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 29.81 35.219 5.409 2.15
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 22.845 26.76 3.915 2.36
PCU calculation for Bus (b) = 2.89
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 37.791 44.168 6.377 3.47
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 49.619 54.95 5.331 2.6
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 11.6 18.951 7.351 2.99
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 20.071 25.625 5.554 3.02
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 36.923 41.989 5.066 3.86
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 17.295 23.375 6.08 3.85
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 11.151 15.769 4.618 2.11
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 20.775 25.028 4.253 3
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 48.971 52.448 3.477 2.69
24 3.058 4.316 1.258 13.682 17.591 3.909 3.1
25 8.379 10.298 1.919 11.703 16.402 4.699 2.44
26 21.27 23.649 2.379 47.068 53.585 6.517 2.73
27 27.035 30.069 3.034 30.961 39.556 8.595 2.83
52
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car and Bus (c & b) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 18.36 24.296 5.936 2.56
SN H c-c (a) H b-b (b) PCU 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 49.702 54.142 4.44 2.81
bus 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 30.657 35.078 4.421 2.62
(b/a) 32 0.167 2.275 2.108 55.715 63.418 7.703 3.65
From To From To 33 11.042 13.027 1.985 18.736 24.291 5.555 2.79
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 40.078 48.259 8.181 2.44 34 25.865 27.808 1.943 36.939 44.368 7.429 3.82
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 47.868 55.485 7.617 3.11 35 32.084 33.692 1.608 3.486 7.074 3.588 2.23
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 5.681 13.876 8.195 3.66 36 4.123 6.988 2.865 37.644 44.176 6.532 2.27
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 14.946 19.833 4.887 3.35 37 21.153 22.647 1.494 17.018 21.43 4.412 2.95
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 2.354 7.362 5.008 3.13 38 25.166 26.902 1.736 15.119 20.52 5.401 3.11
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 45.228 51.121 5.893 3.18 39 46.12 47.879 1.759 55.026 59.496 4.47 2.54
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 35.194 41.406 6.212 2.74 40 12.826 13.947 1.121 25.761 30.025 4.264 3.8
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 13.5 21.22 7.72 3.41 41 15.66 17.74 2.08 47.751 51.904 4.153 1.99
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 37.703 45.528 7.825 2.59 42 26.277 27.748 1.471 26.462 31.288 4.826 3.28
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 52.434 59.746 7.312 2.05 43 27.153 30.031 2.878 17.515 24.347 6.832 2.37
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 34.374 40.88 6.506 3.8 44 27.814 29.354 1.54 35.189 39.079 3.89 2.52
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 2.613 9.093 6.48 2.12 45 13.384 14.563 1.179 20.685 23.201 2.516 2.13
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 57.334 65.981 8.647 3.13
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 7.384 13.615 6.231 2.47 PCU calculation for Bus 2.94
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 58.375 65.279 6.904 3.38 (b) =
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 53.364 60.103 6.739 3.16
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 54.23 60.552 6.322 3.26
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 8.455 16.291 7.836 2.87
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 8.223 16.205 7.982 3.52
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 4.164 9.949 5.785 3.64
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 9.529 14.055 4.526 2.86
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 16.092 23.182 7.09 3.48
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 3.656 10.217 6.561 3.08
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 20.31 26.784 6.474 3.33
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 41.445 47.148 5.703 2.85
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 34.714 39.669 4.955 2.87
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 18.04 22.469 4.429 2.81
28 30.548 33.034 2.486 30.526 37.158 6.632 2.66
53
Comparision of PCU Value of Bus in Three Intersection
SN PCU Values of Bus (b) 28 3.02 3.87 2.66

1 3.49 2.88 2.44 30 3.87 2.82 2.81
2 3.33 2.57 3.11 31 2.64 2.58 2.62
3 3.64 2.98 3.66 32 3.2 3.28 3.65
4 3.03 2.71 3.35 33 3.49 2.85 2.79
5 3.27 3.35 3.13 34 2.04 3.45 3.82
6 3.39 3.4 3.18 35 3.19 2.74 2.23
7 3.57 2.32 2.74 36 2.61 3.25 2.27
8 2.71 2.97 3.41 37 2.9 2.51 2.95
9 2.52 2.98 2.59 38 2.59 2.54 3.11
10 3.61 2.27 2.05 39 2.17 2.77 2.54
11 2.11 3.45 3.8 40 2.06 3.13 3.8
12 3.34 3.12 2.12 41 2.92 3.35 1.99
13 2.79 2.15 3.13 42 3 2.43 3.28
14 2.85 2.36 2.47 43 3.02 2.21 2.37
15 3.66 3.47 3.38 44 2.74 2.45 2.52
16 3.46 2.6 3.16 45 2.05 2.68 2.13
17 3.62 2.99 3.26 Average: 2.98 2.89 2.94
18 2.65 3.02 2.87 Variance: 0.264 0.206 0.256
19 3.15 3.86 3.52 Avg 2.93
20 3.69 3.85 3.64 PCU:
21 2.24 2.11 2.86
22 2.74 3 3.48
23 2.71 2.69 3.08
24 2.87 3.1 3.33
25 3.32 2.44 2.85
26 2.29 2.73 2.87
27 2.9 2.83 2.81
54
Appendix 8 PCU of Mini Bus
Name of Intersection: Balkhu 23 34.059 36.015 1.956 44.257 48.568 4.311 2.2
Car and Mini-bus ( c & mb) 24 39.721 41.623 1.902 16.881 21.416 4.535 2.38
SN H c-c (a) H mb- mb (b) PCU 25 5.614 7.414 1.8 16.794 21.483 4.689 2.6
mini- 26 23.579 26.265 2.686 4.477 9.55 5.073 1.88
bus
27 20.394 22.239 1.845 32.759 36.648 3.889 2.1
(b/a)
28 6.468 9.09 2.622 28.45 33.205 4.755 1.81
From To From To 29 9.474 10.475 1.001 50.525 53.013 2.488 2.48
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 3.109 7.476 4.367 2.51 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 23.384 27.165 3.781 2.32
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 35.042 38.44 3.398 1.89 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 1.345 6.646 5.301 1.53
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 2.817 6.039 3.222 2.25 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 32.753 36.629 3.876 1.22
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 39.1 42.044 2.944 1.65 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 25.39 28.67 3.28 2.68
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 46.95 51.549 4.599 2.91 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 2.57 9.085 6.515 1.63
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 19.908 24.332 4.424 3.06 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 9.164 12.88 3.716 2.36
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 7.76 10.414 2.654 2.18 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 3.325 9.938 6.613 2.09
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 14.593 19.405 4.812 2.76 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 49.617 55.037 5.42 2.54
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 42.614 47.82 5.206 1.63 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 33.96 39.063 5.103 2.95
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 3.077 9.068 5.991 2.62 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 50.253 56.122 5.869 2.74
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 12.308 16.608 4.3 1.89 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 3.483 8.775 5.292 1.33
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 28.795 32.207 3.412 1.42 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 26.765 30.198 3.433 2.63
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 23.421 29.138 5.717 2.31 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 20.595 24.519 3.924 2.39
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 28.454 34.591 6.137 2.29 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 34.5 40.215 5.715 2.54
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 25.878 31.258 5.38 2.62 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 7.811 14.643 6.832 2.68
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 27.262 34.256 6.994 2.79 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 32.945 40.077 7.132 2.16
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 38.704 41.445 2.741 1.49
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 20.363 27.669 7.306 1.58 PCU calculation for Mini-Bus (mb) = 2.18
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 40.714 45.025 4.311 1.9
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 15.297 21.359 6.062 2.97
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 24.233 28.563 4.33 1.12
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 26.342 29.849 3.507 1.2
55
Name of Intersection: Baneshwar Car and Mini-bus ( c & mb) 29 55.587 56.867 1.28 41.282 43.401 2.119 1.65
mini- 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 11.554 14.758 3.204 2.14
From To From To bus 32 34.614 35.945 1.331 30.128 33.777 3.649 2.74
(b/a)
33 3.72 4.92 1.2 23.912 25.586 1.674 1.39
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 44.379 49.458 5.079 2.2
34 50.167 51.59 1.423 4.972 7.352 2.38 1.67
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 13.986 19.928 5.942 2.63
35 55.515 56.959 1.444 47.45 49.617 2.167 1.5
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 27.409 30.831 3.422 2.08
36 48.465 49.476 1.011 37.204 39.317 2.113 2.09
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 51.737 57.745 6.008 2.64
37 11.132 12.394 1.262 38.036 41.259 3.223 2.55
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 27.814 32.148 4.334 1.99
38 29.695 31.819 2.124 3.234 5.955 2.721 1.28
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 37.169 41.285 4.116 2.02
39 28.91 30.723 1.813 52.954 56.36 3.406 1.87
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 40.36 43.79 3.43 1.46
40 31.975 34.621 2.646 4.907 10.525 5.618 2.12
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 43.295 48.254 4.959 3.77
41 55.666 57.795 2.129 36.231 40.941 4.71 2.21
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 30.79 34.099 3.309 1.54
42 14.975 16.721 1.746 13.037 17.539 4.502 2.57
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 24.75 29.313 4.563 2.55
43 30.925 32.413 1.488 26.118 28.827 2.709 1.82
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 20.214 26.166 5.952 2.41
44 10.009 12.989 2.98 38.782 45.038 6.256 2.09
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 21.087 25.241 4.154 2.6
45 10.783 12.083 1.3 47.463 50.138 2.675 2.05
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 44.641 49.692 5.051 2.01
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 38.365 41.318 2.953 1.78
PCU calculation for Mini-Bus (mb) = 2.09
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 27.417 31.508 4.091 2.22
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 37.828 41.744 3.916 1.91
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 9.842 13.641 3.799 1.54
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 9.698 12.503 2.805 1.52
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 49.807 53.361 3.554 2.7
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 17.83 21.32 3.49 2.21
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 45.836 49.635 3.799 1.73
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 34.347 37.057 2.71 1.91
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 29.883 32.89 3.007 2.33
24 3.058 4.316 1.258 21.084 23.965 2.881 2.29
25 8.379 10.298 1.919 48.369 52.585 4.216 2.19
26 21.27 23.649 2.379 9.47 14.255 4.785 2.01
27 27.035 30.069 3.034 30.492 36.574 6.082 2
28 30.069 31.357 1.288 14.37 16.802 2.432 1.88
56
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car and Mini-bus ( c & 28 30.548 33.034 2.486 20.81 26.116 5.306 2.13
mb) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 27.434 32.544 5.11 2.21
From To From To mini- 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 30.98 35.895 4.915 2.92
bus
32 0.167 2.275 2.108 25.469 28.684 3.215 1.52
(b/a)
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 7.779 15.707 7.928 2.37 33 11.042 13.027 1.985 5.371 8.684 3.313 1.66
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 9.292 16.143 6.851 2.8 34 25.865 27.808 1.943 16.036 20.162 4.126 2.12
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 20.52 25.687 5.167 2.31 35 32.084 33.692 1.608 20.515 24.968 4.453 2.76
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 23.59 27.136 3.546 2.43 36 4.123 6.988 2.865 7.181 11.62 4.439 1.54
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 41.207 44.829 3.622 2.26 37 21.153 22.647 1.494 8.147 11.078 2.931 1.96
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 8.994 13.865 4.871 2.63 38 25.166 26.902 1.736 24.984 29.215 4.231 2.43
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 30.442 35.617 5.175 2.28 39 46.12 47.879 1.759 46.415 49.462 3.047 1.73
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 4.287 9.564 5.277 2.33 40 12.826 13.947 1.121 7.989 10.8 2.811 2.5
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 16.332 22.644 6.312 2.09 41 15.66 17.74 2.08 9.383 13.174 3.791 1.82
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 25.669 30.423 4.754 1.33 42 26.277 27.748 1.471 15.65 19.361 3.711 2.52
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 1.742 6.551 4.809 2.81 43 27.153 30.031 2.878 12.722 18.793 6.071 2.1
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 24.799 31.063 6.264 2.05 44 27.814 29.354 1.54 15.743 19.215 3.472 2.25
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 30.168 35.083 4.915 1.78 45 13.384 14.563 1.179 14.527 17.38 2.853 2.41
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 23.413 28.684 5.271 2.09
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 19.315 24.132 4.817 2.36 PCU calculation for Mini-Bus (mb) = 2.20
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 13.904 18.631 4.727 2.22
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 47.194 51.94 4.746 2.44
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 7.726 13.288 5.562 2.04
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 10.918 15.921 5.003 2.21
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 29.166 32.372 3.206 2.02
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 35.761 40.083 4.322 2.73
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 38.237 41.866 3.629 1.78
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 29.206 34.271 5.065 2.38
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 7.848 11.938 4.09 2.1
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 42.017 45.079 3.062 1.53
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 49.801 53.814 4.013 2.32
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 33.783 37.795 4.012 2.54
57
Comparison of PCU values of Mini-Bus in Three Intersection
SN PCU Values of Mini-Bus (mb) 33 2.68 1.39 1.66
1 2.51 2.2 2.37 35 2.36 1.5 2.76
2 1.89 2.63 2.8 36 2.09 2.09 1.54
3 2.25 2.08 2.31 37 2.54 2.55 1.96
4 1.65 2.64 2.43 38 2.95 1.28 2.43
5 2.91 1.99 2.26 39 2.74 1.87 1.73
6 3.06 2.02 2.63 40 1.33 2.12 2.5
7 2.18 1.46 2.28 41 2.63 2.21 1.82
8 2.76 3.77 2.33 42 2.39 2.57 2.52
9 1.63 1.54 2.09 43 2.54 1.82 2.1
10 2.62 2.55 1.33 44 2.68 2.09 2.25
11 1.89 2.41 2.81 45 2.16 2.05 2.41
12 1.42 2.6 2.05 Average: 2.18 2.09 2.2
13 2.31 2.01 1.78 Variance: 0.281 0.206 0.139
14 2.29 1.78 2.09 Avg 2.15
15 2.62 2.22 2.36 PCU
16 2.79 1.91 2.22
17 1.49 1.54 2.44
18 1.58 1.52 2.04
19 1.9 2.7 2.21
20 2.97 2.21 2.02
21 1.12 1.73 2.73
22 1.2 1.91 1.78
23 2.2 2.33 2.38
24 2.38 2.29 2.1
25 2.6 2.19 1.53
26 1.88 2.01 2.32
27 2.1 2 2.54
28 1.81 1.88 2.13
29 2.48 1.65 2.21
30 2.32 2.21 2.58
31 1.53 2.14 2.92
32 1.22 2.74 1.52
58
Appendix 9 PCU of Micro Bus
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car & Micro bus (c & mic-b) 27 20.394 22.239 1.845 47.935 50.168 2.233 1.21
SN H c-c (a) H micro-micro (b) PCU mic- 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 49.24 51.985 2.745 1.04
From To From To b (b/a) 29 9.474 10.475 1.001 53.214 55.102 1.888 1.88
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 51.337 52.446 1.109 0.63 30 4.428 6.057 1.629 37.072 39.058 1.986 1.21
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 54.308 56.169 1.861 1.03 31 27.51 30.962 3.452 49.34 54.57 5.23 1.51
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 26.191 27.948 1.757 1.22 32 45.121 48.283 3.162 23.671 28.147 4.476 1.41
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 30.518 32.751 2.233 1.25 33 26.353 27.576 1.223 38.208 41.236 3.028 2.47
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 35.087 37.832 2.745 1.74 34 17.345 21.327 3.982 49.554 53.775 4.221 1.06
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 27.718 30.606 2.888 2 35 50.913 52.487 1.574 55.716 57.308 1.592 1.01
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 38.07 39.056 0.986 0.81 36 12.746 15.9 3.154 39.562 43.301 3.739 1.18
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 38.949 41.179 2.23 1.27 37 53.808 55.939 2.131 48.664 51.132 2.468 1.15
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 42.248 46.724 4.476 1.4 38 6.83 8.554 1.724 35.857 37.493 1.636 0.94
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 31.287 34.315 3.028 1.32 39 6.623 8.762 2.139 29.526 32.993 3.467 1.62
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 41.559 44.78 3.221 1.41 40 31.087 35.051 3.964 16.519 21.297 4.778 1.2
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 48.182 52.774 4.592 1.92 41 7.622 8.925 1.303 43.147 45.799 2.652 2.03
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 37.112 39.851 2.739 1.1 42 13.149 14.785 1.636 34.904 37.627 2.723 1.66
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 32.796 37.264 4.468 1.67 43 16.505 18.749 2.244 35.795 39.683 3.888 1.73
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 46.687 49.323 2.636 1.28 44 54.574 57.122 2.548 33.188 36.972 3.784 1.48
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 51.854 55.955 4.101 1.63 45 29.722 33.012 3.29 25.996 30.553 4.557 1.38
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 49.223 51.396 2.173 1.18
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 15.141 20.871 5.73 1.23 PCU calculation for Micro-Bus (mic-b) = 1.36
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 15.38 18.741 3.361 1.48
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 42.991 45.143 2.152 1.05
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 34.314 39.22 4.906 1.28
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 35.723 39.469 3.746 1.29
23 34.059 36.015 1.956 28.174 31.642 3.468 1.77
24 39.721 41.623 1.902 26.25 28.359 2.109 1.1
25 5.614 7.414 1.8 22.731 24.592 1.861 1.03
26 23.579 26.265 2.686 53.266 56.023 2.757 1.02
59
Name of Intersection: Baneshwar Car & Micro bus (c & mic-b) 30 6.289 7.682 1.393 1.469 2.966 1.497 1.07
SN H c-c (a) H micro-micro (b) PCU mic- 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 36.092 38.081 1.989 1.33
From To From To b (b/a) 32 34.614 35.945 1.331 34.682 36.884 2.202 1.65
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 28.013 30.673 2.66 1.15 33 3.72 4.92 1.2 3.682 5.133 1.451 1.2
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 2.008 4.962 2.954 1.31 34 50.167 51.59 1.423 12.749 14.691 1.942 1.36
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 14.22 16.055 1.835 1.11 35 55.515 56.959 1.444 7.122 9.027 1.905 1.31
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 8.347 10.731 2.384 1.04 36 48.465 49.476 1.011 51.536 53.011 1.475 1.45
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 21.315 23.904 2.589 1.18 37 11.132 12.394 1.262 7.314 9.006 1.692 1.34
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 27.282 29.871 2.589 1.27 38 29.695 31.819 2.124 34.612 37.236 2.624 1.23
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 44.762 47.226 2.464 1.05 39 28.91 30.723 1.813 45.64 47.793 2.153 1.18
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 53.839 55.104 1.265 0.96 40 31.975 34.621 2.646 47.448 50.892 3.444 1.3
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 9.998 12.929 2.931 1.36 41 55.666 57.795 2.129 18.203 20.212 2.009 0.94
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 21.713 25.062 3.349 1.87 42 14.975 16.721 1.746 12.259 14.208 1.949 1.11
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 11.824 15.135 3.311 1.34 43 30.925 32.413 1.488 19.368 21.132 1.764 1.18
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 32.827 34.738 1.911 1.19 44 10.009 12.989 2.98 21.164 24.562 3.398 1.14
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 12.747 16.63 3.883 1.54 45 10.783 12.083 1.3 50.703 52.145 1.442 1.1
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 4.028 6.289 2.261 1.36
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 29.221 31.263 2.042 1.11 PCU calculation for Micro-Bus (mic-b) = 1.25
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 2.008 5.013 3.005 1.47
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 7.888 11.695 3.807 1.55
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 44.259 46.726 2.467 1.34
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 23.112 24.931 1.819 1.38
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 15.512 17.814 2.302 1.45
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 20.769 23.623 2.854 1.3
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 30.332 31.972 1.64 1.15
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 25.122 26.667 1.545 1.19
24 3.058 4.316 1.258 4.153 5.688 1.535 1.22
25 8.379 10.298 1.919 53.749 55.727 1.978 1.03
26 21.27 23.649 2.379 20.176 23.298 3.122 1.31
27 27.035 30.069 3.034 40.359 44.249 3.89 1.28
28 30.069 31.357 1.288 27.234 28.28 1.046 0.81
29 55.587 56.867 1.28 28.922 30.626 1.704 1.33
60
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car & Micro bus (c & mic- 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 46.206 48.921 2.715 1.17
b) 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 17.877 19.78 1.903 1.2
SN H c-c (a) H micro-micro (b) PCU 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 31.534 33.428 1.894 1.12
From To From To mic-b 32 0.167 2.275 2.108 17.863 22.307 4.444 2.1
(b/a)
33 11.042 13.027 1.985 0.883 3.435 2.552 1.28
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 30.281 34.026 3.745 1.12
34 25.865 27.808 1.943 3.64 6.037 2.397 1.23
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 15.185 18.579 3.394 1.38
35 32.084 33.692 1.608 22.384 24.274 1.89 1.17
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 46.000 48.612 2.612 1.16
36 4.123 6.988 2.865 14.512 18.394 3.882 1.35
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 6.259 8.299 2.04 1.39
37 21.153 22.647 1.494 51.534 53.162 1.628 1.08
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 11.481 13.286 1.805 1.12
38 25.166 26.902 1.736 17.548 20.083 2.535 1.46
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 8.634 11.25 2.616 1.41
39 46.12 47.879 1.759 0.9 3.211 2.311 1.31
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 14.726 17.11 2.384 1.05
40 12.826 13.947 1.121 55.305 57.684 2.379 2.12
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 32.692 36.044 3.352 1.48
41 15.66 17.74 2.08 15.034 17.891 2.857 1.37
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 42.474 46.257 3.783 1.25
42 26.277 27.748 1.471 14.528 16.406 1.878 1.27
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 0.76 4.391 3.631 1.01
43 27.153 30.031 2.878 7.813 10.776 2.963 1.02
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 49.635 51.577 1.942 1.13
44 27.814 29.354 1.54 51.488 53.643 2.155 1.39
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 35.732 38.937 3.205 1.05
45 13.384 14.563 1.179 47.541 49.123 1.582 1.34
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 53.938 57.554 3.616 1.31
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 46.297 49.681 3.384 1.34
PCU calculation for Micro-Bus (mic- 1.37
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 17.339 21.589 4.25 2.08
b)=
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 1.178 5.354 4.176 1.96
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 10.531 13.284 2.753 1.41
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 43.882 46.673 2.791 1.02
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 14.481 18.303 3.822 1.68
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 53.809 56.807 2.998 1.89
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 9.015 11.328 2.313 1.46
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 52.144 55.156 3.012 1.47
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 10.469 13.495 3.026 1.42
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 39.733 43.65 3.917 2.02
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 19.857 22.301 2.444 1.22
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 13.459 16.011 2.552 1.47
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 28.325 30.651 2.326 1.47
28 30.548 33.034 2.486 52.2 55.471 3.271 1.31
61
Comparison of PCU values of Micro-Bus in Three Intersection
SN PCU Values of Micro-Bus (mic-b) 31 1.51 1.33 1.12

1 0.63 1.15 1.12 33 2.47 1.2 1.28
2 1.03 1.31 1.38 34 1.06 1.36 1.23
3 1.22 1.11 1.16 35 1.01 1.31 1.17
4 1.25 1.04 1.39 36 1.18 1.45 1.35
5 1.74 1.18 1.12 37 1.15 1.34 1.08
6 2 1.27 1.41 38 0.94 1.23 1.46
7 0.81 1.05 1.05 39 1.62 1.18 1.31
8 1.27 0.96 1.48 40 1.2 1.3 2.12
9 1.4 1.36 1.25 41 2.03 0.94 1.37
10 1.32 1.87 1.01 42 1.66 1.11 1.27
11 1.41 1.34 1.13 43 1.73 1.18 1.02
12 1.92 1.19 1.05 44 1.48 1.14 1.39
13 1.1 1.54 1.31 45 1.38 1.1 1.34
14 1.67 1.36 1.34 Average: 1.36 1.25 1.37
15 1.28 1.11 2.08 Variance: 0.128 0.037 0.089
16 1.63 1.47 1.96 Avg 1.32
17 1.18 1.55 1.41 PCU
18 1.23 1.34 1.02
19 1.48 1.38 1.68
20 1.05 1.45 1.89
21 1.28 1.3 1.46
22 1.29 1.15 1.47
23 1.77 1.19 1.42
24 1.1 1.22 2.02
25 1.03 1.03 1.22
26 1.02 1.31 1.47
27 1.21 1.28 1.47
28 1.04 0.81 1.31
29 1.88 1.33 1.17
30 1.21 1.07 1.2
62
Appendix 10 PCU of Utility Vehicle
Name of Intersection: Balkhu Car & Utility Vehicle 25 5.614 7.414 1.8 21.746 24.053 2.307 1.280
(c & uv) 26 23.579 26.265 2.686 33.572 36.408 2.836 1.050
SN H c-c (a) H uv-uv (b) PCU 27 20.394 22.239 1.845 37.552 39.535 1.983 1.070
From To From To uv 28 6.468 9.09 2.622 40.674 43.759 3.085 1.170
(b/a)
29 9.474 10.475 1.001 31.474 32.528 1.054 1.050
1 11.096 12.833 1.737 31.21 33.256 2.046 1.170
30 4.428 6.057 1.629 26.448 28.590 2.142 1.310
2 30.734 32.53 1.796 39.726 41.994 2.268 1.260
31 27.51 30.962 3.452 30.846 34.964 4.118 1.190
3 23.833 25.263 1.43 10.414 11.993 1.579 1.100
32 45.121 48.283 3.162 24.473 27.994 3.521 1.110
4 25.575 27.354 1.779 44.328 46.189 1.861 1.040
33 26.353 27.576 1.223 6.946 8.124 1.178 0.960
5 30.966 32.542 1.576 9.274 11.031 1.757 1.110
34 17.345 21.327 3.982 51.152 55.104 3.952 0.990
6 51.478 52.921 1.443 8.528 10.791 2.263 1.560
35 50.913 52.487 1.574 11.734 13.457 1.723 1.090
7 52.921 54.135 1.214 2.132 3.620 1.488 1.220
36 12.746 15.9 3.154 13.663 17.151 3.488 1.100
8 20.85 22.593 1.743 18.785 21.647 2.862 1.640
37 53.808 55.939 2.131 14.754 17.038 2.284 1.070
9 10.853 14.044 3.191 48.321 51.782 3.461 1.080
38 6.83 8.554 1.724 5.661 7.718 2.057 1.190
10 1.059 3.338 2.279 27.104 29.521 2.417 1.060
39 6.623 8.762 2.139 31.973 34.241 2.268 1.060
11 41.668 43.937 2.269 51.593 53.934 2.341 1.030
40 31.087 35.051 3.964 26.166 31.932 5.766 1.450
12 39.491 41.878 2.387 37.175 39.815 2.640 1.100
41 7.622 8.925 1.303 47.452 50.208 2.756 2.110
13 44.586 47.054 2.468 32.499 35.127 2.628 1.060
42 13.149 14.785 1.636 49.532 51.095 1.563 0.950
14 59.285 61.955 2.67 23.7 26.068 2.368 0.880
43 16.505 18.749 2.244 31.082 33.583 2.501 1.110
15 1.569 3.616 2.047 20.966 22.928 1.962 0.950
44 54.574 57.122 2.548 18.596 21.749 3.153 1.230
16 55.051 57.554 2.503 22.043 24.363 2.320 0.920
45 29.722 33.012 3.29 50.587 54.865 4.278 1.300
17 47.113 48.949 1.836 50.825 52.756 1.931 1.050
18 10.737 15.359 4.622 41.346 46.289 4.943 1.060
PCU calculation for Utility Vehicle (uv) = 1.15
19 44.431 46.695 2.264 22.161 24.905 2.744 1.210
20 49.898 51.938 2.04 34.419 37.222 2.803 1.370
21 2.444 6.276 3.832 50.842 55.359 4.517 1.170
22 6.276 9.179 2.903 8.19 11.368 3.178 1.090
23 34.059 36.015 1.956 1.577 3.565 1.988 1.010
24 39.721 41.623 1.902 8.43 10.278 1.848 0.970
63
Name of Intersection: Baneshwar Car & Utility Vehicle (c & 24 3.058 4.316 1.258 27.978 29.131 1.153 0.910
uv) 25 8.379 10.298 1.919 10.787 12.452 1.665 0.860
SN H c-c (a) H uv-uv (b) PCU uv 26 21.27 23.649 2.379 50.408 53.105 2.697 1.130
(b/a)
27 27.035 30.069 3.034 32.258 35.898 3.64 1.190
From To From To 28 30.069 31.357 1.288 17.38 18.651 1.271 0.980
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 50.211 52.832 2.621 1.130 29 55.587 56.867 1.28 14.107 14.984 0.877 0.680
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 36.244 38.218 1.974 0.870 30 6.289 7.682 1.393 52.803 54.174 1.371 0.980
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 45.021 47.136 2.115 1.280 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 52.762 54.374 1.612 1.070
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 15.245 17.999 2.754 1.210 32 34.614 35.945 1.331 9.255 10.827 1.572 1.180
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 18.147 20.004 1.857 0.850 33 3.72 4.92 1.2 49.806 51.204 1.398 1.160
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 15.287 16.831 1.544 0.760 34 50.167 51.59 1.423 45.271 47.244 1.973 1.380
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 2.019 4.857 2.838 1.210 35 55.515 56.959 1.444 39.813 41.605 1.792 1.240
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 49.444 50.62 1.176 0.890 36 48.465 49.476 1.011 23.581 24.691 1.11 1.090
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 43.743 45.64 1.897 0.880 37 11.132 12.394 1.262 10.871 12.47 1.599 1.260
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 50.211 51.932 1.721 0.960 38 29.695 31.819 2.124 25.991 27.732 1.741 0.810
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 50.252 52.371 2.119 0.850 39 28.91 30.723 1.813 35.931 37.899 1.968 1.080
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 50.331 53.026 2.695 1.680 40 31.975 34.621 2.646 14.54 17.203 2.663 1.000
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 17.383 19.703 2.32 0.920 41 55.666 57.795 2.129 34.184 35.985 1.801 0.840
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 42.946 44.574 1.628 0.980 42 14.975 16.721 1.746 31.064 32.805 1.741 0.990
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 8.644 10.074 1.43 0.770 43 30.925 32.413 1.488 48.526 50.104 1.578 1.060
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 22.273 24.615 2.342 1.140 44 10.009 12.989 2.98 22.449 25.954 3.505 1.170
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 43.502 45.177 1.675 0.680 45 10.783 12.083 1.3 47.335 48.998 1.663 1.270
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 22.195 24.431 2.236 1.210
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 29.962 31.045 1.083 0.820 PCU calculation for Utility Vehicle (uv) 1.06
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 32.678 34.673 1.995 1.260 =
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 12.323 15.46 3.137 1.430
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 36.652 38.724 2.072 1.460
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 40.739 42.432 1.693 1.310
64
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car & Utility Vehicle (c 28 30.548 33.034 2.486 31.742 33.951 2.209 0.88
& uv) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 26.253 28.127 1.874 0.81
SN H c-c (a) H uv-uv (b) PCU 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 50.201 52.331 2.13 1.34
uv 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 10.76 12.134 1.374 0.81
(b/a)
32 0.167 2.275 2.108 22.094 24.288 2.194 1.04
From To From To
33 11.042 13.027 1.985 39.272 41.491 2.219 1.11
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 17.301 21.453 4.152 1.24
34 25.865 27.808 1.943 23.519 25.148 1.629 0.83
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 41.723 44.345 2.622 1.07
35 32.084 33.692 1.608 25.271 26.991 1.72 1.06
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 23.834 25.787 1.953 0.87
36 4.123 6.988 2.865 46.95 49.614 2.664 0.92
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 35.709 37.367 1.658 1.13
37 21.153 22.647 1.494 8.676 10.98 2.304 1.54
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 44.402 46.725 2.323 1.45
38 25.166 26.902 1.736 5.919 7.78 1.861 1.07
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 5.728 8.035 2.307 1.24
39 46.12 47.879 1.759 19.043 20.827 1.784 1.01
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 8.969 11.797 2.828 1.24
40 12.826 13.947 1.121 11.329 12.618 1.289 1.14
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 32.652 34.634 1.982 0.87
41 15.66 17.74 2.08 6.236 8.804 2.568 1.23
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 38.036 41.009 2.973 0.98
42 26.277 27.748 1.471 4.211 6.095 1.884 1.28
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 3.433 6.182 2.749 0.77
43 27.153 30.031 2.878 22.986 26.168 3.182 1.1
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 36.885 38.956 2.071 1.21
44 27.814 29.354 1.54 44.644 47.264 2.62 1.7
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 14.315 16.932 2.617 0.85
45 13.384 14.563 1.179 34.916 35.948 1.032 0.87
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 16.499 20.193 3.694 1.33
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 2.012 4.342 2.33 0.92
PCU calculation for Utility Vehicle (uv) = 1.12
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 32.1 34.227 2.127 1.04
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 22.457 24.813 2.356 1.1
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 31.454 34.175 2.721 1.4
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 44.084 47.271 3.187 1.16
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 15.102 17.026 1.924 0.85
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 3.983 5.995 2.012 1.26
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 14.887 16.773 1.886 1.19
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 21.025 23.623 2.598 1.27
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 20.855 23.059 2.204 1.03
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 43.069 44.997 1.928 0.99
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 44.925 46.877 1.952 0.97
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 50.242 53.068 2.826 1.63
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 7.576 10.271 2.695 1.71
65
Comparison of PCU values of Utility Vehicle in Three
Intersection
SN PCU Values of Utility Vehicle (uv) 27 1.07 1.19 1.71

1 1.17 1.13 1.24 29 1.05 0.68 0.81
2 1.26 0.87 1.07 30 1.31 0.98 1.34
3 1.1 1.28 0.87 31 1.19 1.07 0.81
4 1.04 1.21 1.13 32 1.11 1.18 1.04
5 1.11 0.85 1.45 33 0.96 1.16 1.11
6 1.56 0.76 1.24 34 0.99 1.38 0.83
7 1.22 1.21 1.24 35 1.09 1.24 1.06
8 1.64 0.89 0.87 36 1.1 1.09 0.92
9 1.08 0.88 0.98 37 1.07 1.26 1.54
10 1.06 0.96 0.77 38 1.19 0.81 1.07
11 1.03 0.85 1.21 39 1.06 1.08 1.01
12 1.1 1.68 0.85 40 1.45 1 1.14
13 1.06 0.92 1.33 41 2.11 0.84 1.23
14 0.88 0.98 0.92 42 0.95 0.99 1.28
15 0.95 0.77 1.04 43 1.11 1.06 1.1
16 0.92 1.14 1.1 44 1.23 1.17 1.7
17 1.05 0.68 1.4 45 1.3 1.27 0.87
18 1.06 1.21 1.16 Average: 1.15 1.06 1.12
19 1.21 0.82 0.85 Variance: 0.045 0.048 0.057
20 1.37 1.26 1.26 Avg 1.11
21 1.17 1.43 1.19 PCU
22 1.09 1.46 1.27
23 1.01 1.31 1.03
24 0.97 0.91 0.99
25 1.28 0.86 0.97
26 1.05 1.13 1.63
66
Appendix 11 PCU of Tempo
Name of Intersection: Baneshwar Car & Tempo (c & tem) 25 8.379 10.298 1.919 11.346 12.668 1.322 0.68
SN H c-c (a) H tempo- (b) PCU- 26 21.27 23.649 2.379 13.235 15.643 2.408 1.01
tempo tem 27 27.035 30.069 3.034 21.201 23.859 2.658 0.87
From To From To (b/a) 28 30.069 31.357 1.288 42.317 43.276 0.959 0.74
29 55.587 56.867 1.28 18.066 19.157 1.091 0.85
1 32.284 34.592 2.308 26.686 28.750 2.064 0.89 30 6.289 7.682 1.393 13.755 14.958 1.203 0.86
2 14.674 16.925 2.251 35.048 36.622 1.574 0.69 31 46.045 47.54 1.495 35.297 36.458 1.161 0.77
3 54.524 56.165 1.641 14.088 15.125 1.037 0.63 32 34.614 35.945 1.331 17.642 18.972 1.330 0.99
4 10.386 12.659 2.273 24.527 26.151 1.624 0.71 33 3.72 4.92 1.2 40.936 42.029 1.093 0.91
5 17.153 19.329 2.176 14.392 15.973 1.581 0.72 34 50.167 51.59 1.423 15.894 17.252 1.358 0.95
6 44.786 46.817 2.031 36.842 38.473 1.631 0.8 35 55.515 56.959 1.444 26.91 28.682 1.772 1.22
7 33.124 35.467 2.343 6.002 8.168 2.166 0.92 36 48.465 49.476 1.011 41.521 42.179 0.658 0.65
8 42.158 43.472 1.314 28.5 29.837 1.337 1.01 37 11.132 12.394 1.262 48.929 50.205 1.276 1.01
9 27.52 29.66 2.14 19.107 20.698 1.591 0.74 38 29.695 31.819 2.124 25.055 26.946 1.891 0.89
10 53.903 55.692 1.789 12.198 14.178 1.980 1.1 39 28.91 30.723 1.813 7.198 8.580 1.382 0.76
11 53.225 55.692 2.467 28.448 30.854 2.406 0.97 40 31.975 34.621 2.646 10.626 12.432 1.806 0.68
12 8.652 10.248 1.596 7.815 9.323 1.508 0.94 41 55.666 57.795 2.129 26.199 28.268 2.069 0.97
13 20.553 23.063 2.51 31.938 33.807 1.869 0.74 42 14.975 16.721 1.746 44.987 46.120 1.133 0.64
14 52.276 53.934 1.658 42.686 44.245 1.559 0.94 43 30.925 32.413 1.488 15.042 16.168 1.126 0.75
15 34.191 36.026 1.835 9.95 11.881 1.931 1.05 44 10.009 12.989 2.98 22.924 25.669 2.745 0.92
16 34.337 36.38 2.043 10.447 12.619 2.172 1.06 45 10.783 12.083 1.3 9.599 10.871 1.272 0.97
17 4.274 6.726 2.452 12.328 13.977 1.649 0.67
18 8.241 10.079 1.838 28.118 29.705 1.587 0.86 PCU calculation for tempo (tem) = 0.86
19 38.515 39.827 1.312 32.101 33.545 1.444 1.1
20 54.747 56.324 1.577 27.743 29.151 1.408 0.89
21 56.324 58.511 2.187 40.067 41.460 1.393 0.63
22 12.986 14.403 1.417 45.903 46.867 0.964 0.68
23 23.173 24.463 1.29 6.373 8.171 1.798 1.39
24 3.058 4.316 1.258 13.941 14.883 0.942 0.74
67
Name of Intersection: Maharajgunj Car & Tempo (c & tem) 29 2.559 4.871 2.312 16.573 18.356 1.783 0.77
SN H c-c (a) H tempo- (b) PCU- 30 19.725 21.304 1.579 32.833 33.906 1.073 0.67
tempo tem 31 27.618 29.301 1.683 26.076 27.596 1.52 0.9
(b/a) 32 0.167 2.275 2.108 48.324 50.445 2.121 1
From To From To 33 11.042 13.027 1.985 6.844 8.429 1.585 0.79
1 30.784 34.125 3.341 53.815 56.85 3.035 0.9 34 25.865 27.808 1.943 48.882 50.401 1.519 0.78
2 36.097 38.54 2.443 2.019 4.711 2.692 1.1 35 32.084 33.692 1.608 23.797 25.252 1.455 0.9
3 1.279 3.512 2.233 18.124 20.246 2.122 0.95 36 4.123 6.988 2.865 9.822 12.204 2.382 0.83
4 17.252 18.71 1.458 21.372 22.767 1.395 0.95 37 21.153 22.647 1.494 12.525 14.23 1.705 1.14
5 18.71 20.309 1.599 29.779 31.672 1.893 1.18 38 25.166 26.902 1.736 8.423 10.378 1.955 1.12
6 13.345 15.196 1.851 3.014 4.249 1.235 0.66 39 46.12 47.879 1.759 40.175 41.622 1.447 0.82
7 16.356 18.623 2.267 41.659 43.279 1.62 0.71 40 12.826 13.947 1.121 4.465 5.573 1.108 0.98
8 43.325 45.583 2.258 38.712 40.554 1.842 0.81 41 15.66 17.74 2.08 33.529 36.207 2.678 1.28
9 45.583 48.596 3.013 44.322 46.62 2.298 0.76 42 26.277 27.748 1.471 11.136 12.939 1.803 1.22
10 3.395 6.96 3.565 37.657 40.897 3.24 0.9 43 27.153 30.031 2.878 26.448 29.004 2.556 0.88
11 4.031 5.74 1.709 52.722 54.291 1.569 0.91 44 27.814 29.354 1.54 2.039 4.044 2.005 1.3
12 11.506 14.551 3.045 21.554 23.72 2.166 0.71 45 13.384 14.563 1.179 10.577 12.042 1.465 1.24
13 14.551 17.311 2.76 16.011 19.025 3.014 1.09
14 11.524 14.046 2.522 7.48 9.224 1.744 0.69 PCU calculation for tempo (tem) = 0.91
15 10.892 12.929 2.037 8.632 10.718 2.086 1.02
16 27.576 29.703 2.127 5.147 7.412 2.265 1.06
17 11.034 12.973 1.939 19.04 20.587 1.547 0.79
18 29.518 32.244 2.726 33.038 34.987 1.949 0.71
19 1.248 3.511 2.263 43.412 45.477 2.065 0.91
20 18.653 20.239 1.586 2.053 3.724 1.671 1.05
21 6.069 7.648 1.579 44.548 46.117 1.569 0.99
22 10.892 12.929 2.037 51.506 52.878 1.372 0.67
23 27.576 29.703 2.127 28.251 30.252 2.001 0.94
24 11.034 12.973 1.939 34.101 35.64 1.539 0.79
25 43.227 45.223 1.996 44.804 46.124 1.32 0.66
26 48.043 49.769 1.726 50.016 51.286 1.27 0.73
27 53.737 55.313 1.576 13.153 15.027 1.874 1.18
28 30.548 33.034 2.486 52.713 54.669 1.956 0.78
68
Comparison of PCU values of Tempo in Two Intersections
SN PCU Values of Tempo 28 0.74 0.78
(tem) 29 0.85 0.77
Baneshwar Maharajgunj 30 0.86 0.67
1 0.89 0.90 31 0.77 0.90
2 0.69 1.10 32 0.99 1.00
3 0.63 0.95 33 0.91 0.79
4 0.71 0.95 34 0.95 0.78
5 0.72 1.18 35 1.22 0.90
6 0.8 0.66 36 0.65 0.83
7 0.92 0.71 37 1.01 1.14
8 1.01 0.81 38 0.89 1.12
9 0.74 0.76 39 0.76 0.82
10 1.1 0.90 40 0.68 0.98
11 0.97 0.91 41 0.97 1.28
12 0.94 0.71 42 0.64 1.22
13 0.74 1.09 43 0.75 0.88
14 0.94 0.69 44 0.92 1.30
15 1.05 1.02 45 0.97 1.24
16 1.06 1.06 Average: 0.86 0.91
17 0.67 0.79 Variance: 0.028 0.033
18 0.86 0.71 Avg 0.88
19 1.1 0.91 PCU
20 0.89 1.05
21 0.63 0.99
22 0.68 0.67
23 1.39 0.94
24 0.74 0.79
25 0.68 0.66
26 1.01 0.73
27 0.87 1.18
69
Appendix 12 Photographs
Photo No. 1: Digital Video Camera used for data Collection (Sony: DCR-SR65E)
Photo No. 2: Videography of Baneshwar Intersection From High Raised Building

Top Nearby Intersection
70
Photo No. 3: Video Played on Media Player Classic – Home Cinema (MPC-HC) For
Time Headway Data Collection (Maharajgunj Intersection)
Photo No. 4: Video Played on Media Player Classic – Home Cinema (MPC-HC) For
Time Headway Data Collection (Balkhu Intersection)
71
Passenger Car Bus
Mini - Bus Micro – Bus
Truck Mini-Truck
Motorbike Utility Vehicle (Pick-up) Tempo
Photo No. 5: Nine Different Vehicle Types (Whose PCU is Calculated in Present
Study)
72

34 Sundar Subedi 011-1130

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Sundar Subedi 011-1130

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master’s thesis

Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles-

Nepal Engineering College - Center for Postgraduate Studies

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Nepal Engineering College - Center for Postgraduate Studies

This thesis entitled Determination of Passenger Car Unit of Vehicles- A Case

Er. Subhash Dhungel Signature Date signed

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thusitha Chandani Shahi Signature Date signed

Prof. Dr. Khem Raj Sharma Signature Date Signed

I express my thanks to Nepal Engineering College (nec), Pokhara University for

DoR Department of Roads

PCU is a metric used in Transportation Engineering to assess traffic-flow rate on a highway

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.3. Research Questions

Research question for the determination of PCU are as following:

1.4. Objectives of the Study

General Objectives of the study:

The main objectives of the study are as following:

1.5. Significance of the Study

1.6. Scope and Limitations

The following constitute scope of work:

 Determination of time headway among through traffic in the three intersections.

Major limitations of the study are:

 Only time headway method for PCU calculation was used.

2.1 Road Traffic in Nepal

Figure 2.1 Percentage Composition of Registered Vehicle in Nepal

 Bus: With the seating capacity of 26 to 56 passengers including the driver,

2.2 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) Definition and Importance

1. Car, Auto Rickshaw, SUV, Light Van and Pick Up 1

2. Light (Mini) Truck, Tractor, Rickshaw 1.5

3. Truck, Bus, Minibus, Tractor with trailer 3

4. Bicycle, Motorcycle 0.5

(Source: NRS 2070)

2.3 Factors Affecting PCU Value

 Vehicle Characteristics: Physical and mechanical, such as length, width, power,

 Traffic Stream Characteristics: Mean stream speed, transverse gap or lateral

 Roadway characteristics: Horizontal alignment of road, location i.e., whether it is

 Environmental characteristics: Roadway surroundings and local factors, traffic

2.4 Methods of PCU Determination:

 Method Based on Time Headway

Figure 2.2 Measurement of Time Headway Between Passenger Car

Figure 2.3 Measurement of Time Headway Between Multi-Axle Vehicle

Where, hc = time headway for passenger car in seconds. Eq. 2.3

Items Asquola Baghdad Al-Samer

Table 2.3 PCE Value Among Three Intersections

Vehicle Type Asqoula Baghdad Al-Samer Average

SN Vehicle Type PCU

Vehicle Type PCU Values

 Methods Based on Traffic Stream Speed

Vehicle Big Small Auto- Motorcycle Bicycle Cycle

 Method based on Multiple Regression Analysis

3.1 Research Process

Primary Data Collection Secondary Data Collection

 Headway of Vehicle  Types of Vehicle

Number of Trip in Route

 PCU calculation and

Research finding and

Figure 3.1 Research Process (Flow Chart)

3.2 Research Approach

3.3 Study Area

(Source: Google Maps)

3.4 Study Population

1.962 ∗ 7,55,546 ∗ .5 ∗ (1 − .5)

3.6 Secondary Data Collection