TRAFFIC PERFROMANCE ANALYSIS OF CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED

INTERSECTIONS UNDER HETEROGENEOUS TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES FINDINGS

Intersections provide a lower capacity than the The study of existing traffic situation and Opposing Slow vehicle,
Right Turn; same
approach links. That is why they are supposed to be a detailed analysis of operational and safety 158; 25% direction;
67; 10%
“bottleneck” of any network. performance at different controlled and Left turn, Right turn,
same same
uncontrolled intersections. direction; 3; direction; 48;
0% 7%
Intersections are considered as the most complex Estimating the improvement in traffic U turn, same
direction; 20;
Lane Change;
33; 5%
point within an urban transportation network and performance such as reduction in average delays 3%
Right turn, Opposing
Non-
their operational performance is critical towards the & queue lengths due to the introduction of cross traffic;
motorized; 171; 27%
U-turn;
84; 13%
better overall performance of the entire network. traffic signal control. 21; 3%
Wrong
direction;
Analysis and modelling of obtained results with 23; 4%
High traffic volume, lack of proper road management, Pedestrian;
Simulation software packages such as SIDRA,
lane indiscipline are the main causes of congestion at 14; 2%
VISSIM or SYNCHRO.
an intersection.
Pareto Analysis
Situation is more complex when intersections are 180 120.0%
uncontrolled and heterogeneous (mixed) traffic METHODOLOGY 160
94% 97% 100%100%
100.0%

cummulative percentage
87% 91%
conditions exist. 140 82%

Number of conflicts
120 75% 80.0%
64%
100
51% 60.0%
80
RESEARCH MOTIVATION OPERATIONAL 60
27%
40.0%
PERFORMANCE 40
20.0%
20
Traffic • Delay 0 0.0%
Performance • Queue Length 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MDA, Multan Development Authority) official Analysis conflict type
• Level of Service
suggested a total of 24 key intersections are
operating without any control – and have high SAFETY PERFORMANCE
congestion.
Operational • (Surrogate
Drivers are non-compliant and usually do not obey measures)
signs such as stop and yield etc.
• Time to Collision
Lack of lane discipline in heterogeneous conditions. • No. of Conflicts
Safety • Traffic Conflict
A need was felt to analyze the operational Technique
performance of these uncontrolled intersections
since almost the exact situation exists in the country.  
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Eid Gah Intersection
30°12'36.21"N 71°28'43.36"E
 DELAYS COMPUTED BY VIDEOGRAPHY ANALYSIS
Heavy
Description Cars Rickshaws Motor Bikes Wagons
Vehicles
Total Vol.
944 543 1969 27 38

Straight/Through
(Veh/hr)
Sample Size 242 203 - 27 27
Total Delay
00:50:05 00:22:39 - 00:02:49 00:02:43
(HH:MM:SS)
East Bound

Average Delay
12.4 6.7 - 6.3 6.0
(sec/veh)
Total Vol.
239 187 397 5 1
(Veh/hr)
Right Turns

Sample Size 129 101 141 5 -

Total Delay
00:34:29 00:18:49 00:25:15 00:00:59 -
(HH:MM:SS)
Average Delay
16.0 11.2 10.7 11.8 -
(sec/veh)
Total Vol.
52 129 462 1 0
(Veh/hr)
North Bound

Right Turns

Sample Size 44 81 94 - -
Total Delay
00:14:50 00:21:22 00:25:02 - -
(HH:MM:SS)
Average Delay
20.2 15.8 16.0 - -
(sec/veh)
Total Vol.
1032 515 1912 16 35
Straight/Through

(Veh/hr)
West Bound

Sample Size 302 94 - 11 11

Total Delay
01:11:22 00:18:53 - 00:01:26 00:01:02
(HH:MM:SS)
Average Delay
14.2 12.1 - 7.8 5.6
(sec/veh)
Number of Conflicts using Traffic Conflict Technique

Description East Bound North Bound

Sr. No Conflict Type  Morning Evening Morning Evening

Slow vehicle,
1 27 21 12 7
same direction
Right turn, same
2 17 31 0 0
direction
3 Lane Change 18 4 4 7

4 Opposing U-turn 27 57 0 0
Right turn, cross
5 13 49 28 81
traffic
6 Pedestrian 5 6 2 1

7 Wrong direction 5 18 0 0

8 Non-motorized 5 9 3 4
U turn, same
9 0 0 10 10
direction
Left turn, same
10 0 0 1 2
direction
Opposing Right
11 0 0 59 99
Turn
Total = 117 195 119 211
Uncontrolled Intersections under Heterogeneous Traffic Mix in
Subcontinent Countries
Submitted: Transportation Research Record, [01/08/2019]

Review Results

Reviewer #1:
1. The study is very basic in nature and incomplete.
2. Delays and conflicts for an uncontrolled intersection (only one intersection) were reported and presented at a
preliminary level.
3. The manuscript is not a value addition to existing state of research and does not report any significant
advancement of research.

Reviewer #2:
The authors researched a topic that has limited application to the transportation community.  Yes, the narrative
states the intersection and driver types studied are not within the normal for drivers in developed countries.  That
being said it is interesting research but how does a practicing engineer in a country without these types of "wild
west" intersections use it?  It is interesting that authors noted there were 1,912 bikes represented at the
intersection but they were excluded from the study because they "usually zigzagged their way through the
intersection."  The remaining types of vehicles totaled ~ 1,600.
A good fascinating read, but unsure the application value.  
Reviewer #3:
The topic of heterogeneous traffic crossing uncontrolled intersections with non-compliance to rule of priority is
very interesting. The formulas used in western countries are indeed not usable in developing countries, and it
is worth finding a new formula adapted for this kind of junction.
The introduction, context and literature review are very well described. The goal of this study is to provide a
simplified approach to estimate the traffic performance at uncontrolled intersections. To achieve this goal, it
would have been better to study at least a few junctions, in order to see if each junction has approximately the
same capacity.
The paper stresses the differences between developing countries and western countries : non-compliance to
priority rule and heterogeneous traffic. But the rate of 2-wheelers is a very important difference too, which can
explain why the western formulas are not usable there. The paper should take this into account.
The paper should show a plan of the studied junction. The capacity depends on the number of lanes, which is
not described. If the lanes are not respected, it is at least important to tell the width of each approach, so we
can estimate the number of vehicles that can cross the junction at the same time.
The calculations page 7 seem wrong. It seems that the travel time is TT=TTy-TTx, and that the average delay is
equal to 1/N * Sum Sum (TTi - FFTTi).
About the conclusion, it would be interesting to find a formula to assess the capacity of such crossings, which
means how many vehicles can expect to cross the junction in one hour. It also would have been interesting to
compare the real capacity to what a western country formula would have estimated.

Reviewer #4:
While the topic is interesting, there are issues that have to be addressed before publishing the paper.
Comment 1: It would be better if you add more description on the location of the recorded video (Add some
images of recorded videos) as well as the process of reducing data.
Comment 2: Improve the methodology by adding other MOEs.
Comment 3: compare the results with a signalized T intersection with the same driving behavior.
Comment 4: Compare the results with the situation when drivers obey the law.