You are on page 1of 22

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL Phenominal growth of motor vehicles in Indian cities has been creating enormous stress particularly at intersections. Major road junctions suffer from inadequate and inefficient traffic control system which invariably results increased delay and road accidents. Due to increase in delay and congestion at most of the intersections there has been a great loss to the society in terms of time loss in waiting at the intersections and the excess fuel consumed by motorized vehicles. Therefore there is an alternative need to look for an efficient alternative solution to the existing problem to ensure more efficient and less expensive travel both for the present and future traffic. A possible remedy is to separate the grades of the intersecting roads in the form of grade separated intersections. In developing countries grade separation is adopted successfully to control and reduce traffic congestion and accidents at intersections. Grade separation is essential for managing traffic at major intersections. In big cities, this type of intersection causes least delay and hazard to the crossing traffic and in general is much superior to at grade intersections from the point of view of traffic safety and efficient operation. It eliminates all crossing conflicts at the intersection. There are two types of grade separated intersection with interchange and without interchange. Interchange is a system where by facility is provided for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways at

different levels in the grade separated junction. A structure without an interchange is an over bridge or underpass or grade separator whereby traffic at different levels moves separately. NEED FOR THE STUDY Grade separation is the highest form of intersection treatment. The code for grade separator design practiced in our country is for homogeneous traffic system, but the traffic system prevailing in our country is heterogeneous. Hence the code has to be evaluated whether it suits for Indian traffic flow. Certain geometric standards like acceleration and deceleration lane, ramp, gradient, distance between two grade separators need to be studied, analyzed and compared with standards. Along a major corridor many intersections are present and grade separator is constructed at a major intersection to avoid congestion. The congestion avoided in the major intersection moves to the next minor intersection present along the corridor. Hence grade separator constructed at the major intersection may not serve its purpose. Hence the form, shape of the grade separator and the topography and geometry of the area should be analyzed before construction of grade separator. Grade separators have to be evaluated to check whether the deceleration lane is within the standards and whether it is possible to reach a safe speed before reaching an intersection, as otherwise it may lead to accident. If the ramp gradient provided is more or the acceleration lane is less then it may cause difficulty for vehicles to

The safe distance between two grade separators has to be evaluated or otherwise it may lead to ride with roller coaster effect. traffic movement.climb up. accident history • To compute the benefits of reduction in delay and accident and • To evaluate performance of existing grade separation facility STUDY METHODOLOGY Performance Evaluation of Grade Separator Need for the Study Literature Review Formulation of Objectives Identification of Grade Separated Intersections for Study Data Collection Secondary Survey Primary Survey • • Accident and traffic composition data (3 years before and after • • Traffic volume count and Composition Speed Delay . OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study are the following • To study the traffic characteristics.

Five grade separated intersections are selected based on the form and shape as follows • • • • IIT Intersection Royapettah New college Intersection Royapettah G. . Recommendations and Conclusion STUDY AREA (I) STUDY INTERSECTIONS The study intersections are selected in Chennai city area.Data Analysis and Findings Comparison with IRC Standards Evaluation.K Road Intersection.H Intersection T.T.

vehicle type. Delay at a signalized intersection means. the average delay caused to the vehicles at the signal due to various factors like traffic flow characteristics. Delay is estimated in this study using three methods namely manual stopped vehicle count method. Seldom one passes through all the intersections without delay of atleast few seconds.Estimation of Delay cost Delay is a common phenomenon occurring at signalized intersection. Webster’s model and TRANSYT12 for the non peak hour and the best among the . timing of signal phases and cycle length.

52/speed)+(0.0133*speed*speed))*distance -. car (old & new). .00436*speed*speed))*distance -.38+ (549. The fuel cost was estimated for the complete year assuming conditions similar to peak hour will be prevailing for 6 hrs in a day and for 5 working days in a week.(3) New Car = (21.(4) Old car = (10.64/speed)+(0. Substituting the speed and distance in TRRL fuel consumption equation for two wheeler.three methods is selected.57/Speed) + (0.00436*speed*speed))*distance) -.15/Speed) +(0.85+(504.(7) The fuel consumed per hour for various categories of vehicles was found and multiplying it with present fuel price and delay per hour for various categories of vehicles.31+(1675.(6) Auto = 2*((3.97+ (3904.0207*speed*speed))* distance -.57/speed)+(0.004957*speed*speed))*distance -.(5) Bus = (32. Two wheeler = (3. bus and auto rickshaw (Eq 3 to Eq 7).38+ (549. the total fuel cost consumed was arrived. For the peak hour delay is estimated using Webster’s model and TRANSYT12 3 Estimation of Fuel cost The queue length occurring at the intersection and the average speed of vehicles in the queue was observed.

The Fig 4. Traffic flow is one way. from Raj Bhavan Volume count survey was done at intersection. simple injury and no injury. Accident data for the study intersections was collected from Chennai City Traffic Police. Accident data was collected such that it has different types of accident data like fatal. IIT intersection is a T-junction with the grade separator segregating the straight traffic flow. grievous. Compilation of Accident Data Accident data was collected for 3 years before and after construction of grade separator. IIT INTERSECTION IIT intersection grade separator was constructed in the year 2000 with a cost of 7 crores. the . The length of the grade separator is 511 m.1 shows the arm wise flow at IIT – Junction. 5. towards Madhya Kailash.4.

5 5513 2.3 Delay Estimation after Construction of IIT Grade Separator Capacity Analysis Eastern Arm Wester Northern .Fig 4.5 5513 2. The peak hour volume flow through the grade separator was 1741 Pcu per hour.1 Arm Wise Flow at IIT Intersection The total peak hour flow at the intersection was 13535 Pcu per hour. Table 4.70 341 156 Northern Arm 2212 26 4 7 3675 2.78 92 99 Capacity Analysis Adjusted flow rate. s (Pcu/hr) v/c ratio arm wise Delay in Sec/Pcu using Webster’s Delay in Sec/Pcu using TRANSYT12 Y 41 4 10.68 313 147 Weste rn Arm 5093 41 4 10.2 Delay Estimation before Construction of IITGrade Separator Easte rn Arm 5056 G Timing Width of approach road Saturation flow rate. v (Pcu/hr) Table 4.

90 151 26 2.n Arm Arm Phase I Phase II No.8 Accidents Occurrence at IIT Intersection before and after Construction of Grade Separator .33 119 1.66 25 102 3 60 110 19 3.31 19 231 3 44 138 43 93 Table 4. X Simple Delay in Sec/Pcu using Webster’s Non-Injury Model Total Delay in Sec/Pcu using TRANSYT12 During (1996Straig 1999) Right Right During (2001Right and 2004) after ht and Left before construction Left construction 3485 1782 1398 2999 6 3 1. v Fatal (Pcu/hr) Grievous v/c ratio. of Accidents Type of Accident Adjusted flow rate.

The total peak hour flow at the intersection was 6733 Pcu per hour. 4.5 crores. It is a four arm intersection with the grade separator segregating the straight traffic flow. ROYAPETTAH G. The peak hour volume flow through the grade separator was 1070 Pcu per hour. Fuel cost .H junction grade separator was constructed in the year 2000 with a cost of 8. .H JUNCTION Royapettah G. Traffic flow is two way. The length of the grade separator is 540 m. Arm wise flow at intersection is as shown in Fig.3. Fuel cost – 22 Lakhs).6 Lakhs).The savings was 188 Lakhs per year.Source: Chennai City Traffic Police The total cost of delay and fuel cost before construction of IIT grade separator was 367 Lakhs per year (Delay cost .173 Lakhs.345 Lakhs. 6. The total cost of delay and fuel cost after construction of grade separator was 179 Lakhs per year (Delay cost .

v (Pcu/hr) v/c ratio.27 1.4 Delay Estimation before Construction of Royapettah G. X Delay in Sec/Pcu using Webster’s Model Delay in Sec/Pcu using TRANSYT12 EB 199 3 1.Table 4.51 66 79 67 72 71 118 .38 1.40 67 92 WB 1957 SB 135 4 NB 161 6 1.H junction Grade Separator Capacity Analysis Adjusted flow rate.

5 Delay Estimation after Construction of Royapettah G.Table 4. v (Pcu/hr) EB WB SB 211 7 NB 187 3 744 996 v/c ratio. X Delay in Sec/Pcu using Webster’s Model Delay in Sec/Pcu using TRANSYT12 0.H junction Grade Separator Capacity Analysis Adjusted flow rate.97 1.49 1.73 54 54 0.32 51 57 63 84 58 71 .

The total cost of delay and fuel cost after construction of grade separator was 83 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 80 Lakhs. . of Accidents Type of Accident During (19961999) before construction 6 21 21 2 50 During (20012004) after construction 3 12 18 0 33 Fatal Grievous Simple Non-Injury Total Source: Chennai City Traffic Police The total cost of delay and fuel cost before construction of Royapettah G. The savings was 37 Lakhs per year.H junction No.H junction grade separator was120 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 112 Lakhs.9 Accidents comparison before and after construction of grade separator at Royapettah G. Fuel cost – 8 Lakhs). Fuel cost -3 Lakhs).Table 4.

The peak hour volume flow through the grade separator was 834 Pcu per hour. The length of the grade separator is 502 m.7. Arm wise flow at intersection is as shown in Fig 4.5 crores. ROYAPETTAH NEW COLLEGE JUNCTION Royapettah New college junction grade separator was constructed in the year 2000 with a cost of 8. It is a four arm intersection with the grade separator segregating the straight traffic flow.5. .H towards New College The total peak hour flow at the intersection was 5184 Pcu per hour. Traffic flow is one way from Royapettah G.

10 Accidents comparison before and after construction of grade separator at Royapettah New college junction .Table 4.

of Accidents Type of Accident During (19961999) before construction Fatal Grievous Simple Non-Injury Total 6 24 28 4 62 During (20012004) after construction 4 13 14 1 32 Source: Chennai City Traffic Police .No.

C. Traffic flow is one way through the grade separator .P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction and TTK road and Luz Church road junction with the grade separator segregating the straight traffic flow from TTK road to C. TTK ROAD JUNCTION TTK road junction grade separator was constructed in the year 2000 with a cost of 10 crores. The length of the grade separator is 610 m with two four arm intersection namely TTK road.8.P Ramaswamy road.

.P Ramaswamy road. Flow through grade separator is one way from TTK road to C.P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction was 6609 Pcu per hour. Arm wise flow at intersection is as shown in Fig 4. The peak hour flow at the intersection was found.7. At TTK road. C. The total peak hour flow through TTK road and Luz Church road intersection was 5076 Pcu per hour. The peak hour volume flow through the grade separator was 2355 Pcu per hour.Volume count survey was done at the intersection.

6 Delay Estimation before Construction of TTK road Grade Separator TTK road. C. v (Pcu/hr) EB 20 5 WB SB NB TTK road and Luz Church road junction SB 171 4 EB 136 2 NB 235 5 497 419 298 3 5 Delay in Sec/ PCU using TRANSYT12 70 65 76 78 86 69 48 Table 4.P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction Capacity Analysis Adjusted flow rate.Table 4.7 Delay Estimation after Construction of TTK road Grade Separator .

P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction Capacity Analysis EB WB SB NB TTK road and Luz Church road junction SB EB Adjusted flow rate.11 Accidents comparison before and after construction of grade separator at TTK Road junction No. v (Pcu/hr) 205 497 4193 825 1714 1362 Delay in Sec/ PCU using TRANSYT12 52 58 72 59 36 40 Table 4.TTK road. C. of Accidents Type of Accident During (19961999) before construction 4 30 28 3 65 During (20012004) after construction 6 19 14 2 41 Fatal Grievous Simple Non-Injury Total Source: Chennai City Traffic Police .

The 21% reduction in accident was observed at IIT junction after construction of grade separator. The savings in delay and fuel cost after construction of TTK road junction grade separator was 98 Lakhs per year The 32 % reduction in accident was observed at TTK road junction after construction of grade separator. C. • • • • • • In planning stage itself future modification in the grade separator should be considered. Fuel cost – 2 Lakhs) and at TTK road.P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction was 123 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 115 Lakhs. The savings was 98 Lakhs per year. Fuel cost -8 Lakhs). Conclusion • The savings in delay and fuel cost after construction of IIT junction grade separator was 188 Lakhs per year.H junction grade separator was 37 Lakhs per year. Fuel cost -3 Lakhs). The savings in delay and fuel cost after construction of Royapettah G.P Ramaswamy road and Eldams road junction was 81 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 78 Lakhs. Fuel cost – 5 Lakhs) and at TTK road. 9. .H junction after construction of grade separator. The total cost of delay and fuel cost after construction of grade separator at TTK road and Luz Church road junction was 28 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 23 Lakhs.The total cost of delay and fuel cost before construction of TTK road junction grade separator at TTK road and Luz Church road junction without grade separator is 79 Lakhs per year (Delay cost – 74 Lakhs. The 37 % reduction in accident was observed at Royapettah G. C.