TR 323: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND

MANAGEMENT
PROJECT TITLE: SIGHT DISTANCE AND
GAP STUDY AT INTERSECTION

LOACTION: CHANGANIKENI-MSEWE JUNCTION

AT UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM
CONDUCTED BY GROUP 24
.

OUTLINE
1. INTDOCUTCTION
 Adequacy of level I
 Background
 Adequacy of level II
 Location of the study
 Requirements of level III
 Objective of the study
 Gap study
 Working and Site conditions
 Traffic Signalization
 Methodology for data collection
3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
2. ANALYSIS
 Conclusion
 Operating speed, V (km/hr.)
 Recommendation
 Determination of grade
4. REFERENCES
 Sight Distances
Background
• Intersection is point where two or more roads meet and complex point along roads where

potential vehicle conflict especially when it’s not controlled

• Sight distance; is the length of roadway that is clearly visible to driver without any obstruction.

• Gap refers to the time at which there are no vehicles within the marked region in the road

segments. Acceptable gap at intersections are more important which allows minor stream
vehicles to interact with major road safely

• Signalization: is the method used to control traffics using traffic control devices (signal). It

accommodates large amount of traffic at once. It’s mostly used for high capacity traffic
intersections.
Location of the study

 The study will be conducted at Changanyikeni-Msewe T-junction is located half a kilometer

from university road. The links at this junction performs an access function of local people at
Changanyikeni and Msewe. The T-junction is connecting Uvumbuzi road and Changanyikeni
roads. Both roads are local access roads giving access to University road as well as Morogoro
road though Uvumbuzi road seems to be a collector as well as an access road.

 Type of intersection: T-junction.

 Control: Un signalized (STOP/YIELD)

 Road function: local access road.

 Road type: Two way two lanes roads.

Objective of the study:

 To determine minimum sight distance based on operating speed of Major Street.

 To determine available sight distance at intersection of msewe road and changanyikeni road.

 To determine available gaps in the major street traffic stream for vehicles exiting and entering

intersection during peak hours.

 To check for signalization warrants.

Working and Site conditions

 Day: Friday 27th-May-2022
 Whether: Sunny
 Temperature:28
 Starting time: 07:00 hrs
 Ending time: 18:00 hrs
Methodology for data collection.
 Sight distance

In this case, sight distance was measured by a person moving in centerline of the lane in minor
road and observing at what distance he/she could observe an upcoming vehicle which is also
situated at a distance x from the meeting point. The distance was measured by using tape measure.

 Operating speed

The speed was obtained by fixing two pegs on the side of the minor road and major roads
respectively, then since the two pegs was apart by a known distance. By measuring the time taken for
a vehicle to cross one wooden peg to another will eventually lead to evaluation of the speed of the
vehicle in hand. As its well understood that;

Speed = distance/ time

Gap study

The gap is measured in terms of time taken for a vehicle to pass a point of intersection after one
vehicle ahead of it has done so. The time was measured again by using stopwatch. As the
vehicle pass the stopwatch was initiated and after another vehicle pass the stop watch was
stopped and the time recorded.

ANALYSIS

 Operating speed, V (km/hr.)

Operating speed was determined by sectioning a distance (d) known as of trap distance
marked at each end. Using a stopwatch, an observer start counting time just when a car enters
and leave the marked region. Several data taken and speed calculated as shown.
Data for major street Vehicle Time (s)  
1 3.60  
2 4.26 Lane width = 3.3 m
3 5.18 Shoulder = 1.0 m
4 4.20 Carriageway = 6.6 m
Roadway = 8.6 m
5 4.16
a = 6.65 m
6 4.46
LB = 41.0 m
7 5.25 Trap distance, d = 37 m
8 6.50  
9 8.45  
10 3.54 Average time = = 4.46 secs
11 4.32  
12 3.66 Operating speed = = = 8.30 m/s = 30 km/h
13 4.40
14 3.94
15 4.51
16 5.25
17 2.71
18 5.00
19 2.90
20 2.89
Total 89.18
Data for minor street
Vehicle Time(s)  
1 3.48
2 2.62 Lane width = 3.6 m
3 1.51 Shoulder = 2.2 m
4 2.54 Carriageway = 7.2 m
5 2.02 Roadway = 11.6 m
6 3.40 b = 13.7 m
7 2.62 LA = 35.0 m
8 2.16 Trap distance = 21.0 m
9 3.20  
10 1.25  
11 2.41 Average time = = 2.55 sec
12 2.48  
13 2.29 Operating speed = = = 8.25 m/s = 30 km/h
14 3.42
15 2.29
16 2.68
17 2.58
18 4.00
19 1.90
20 2.12
Total 50.97
Determination of grade (G)
Procedures
A measuring tape was carefully horizontally straightened from one point on the road surface at a
known distance and recorded as H.
Then, the vertical distance from far end on the road surface to the measuring tape was measured
and recorded as V.
Using the approximate method of trigonometric relationship, the grade of the road way was
determine as follow:-
H = 6.200 m
G

V = 0.190 m

G = VH=
0.1906.200=0.0306≅3%
SIGHT DISTACES

Procedures

 The distance from Centre of major approaching lane (Centre of car A) to the obstruction

was measured using a measuring tape and recorded as (a)

 The distance from Centre of minor approaching lane (Centre of car B) to the obstruction

was measured using a measuring tape and recorded as (B)

 The minimum sight distance of car A was calculated by using the minimum sight distance

formula and maintained (measured) on the site as a known distance d A

 The actual sight distance of car B was calculated by using the geometry of similarity of

triangles.
ADEQUACY OF LEVEL I:
This is to check that whether the intersection can operate under basic rule due to the current
operating speed.
Basic Rule of the road
CHANGANYIKENI
Considering the Approaching Sight Triangle below: -
N
OBSTRUCTION

W E
Collision point
dA

MSEWE S
b

dB

OBSTRUCTION

dA - a a

UNIVERSITY
ADEQUACY OF LEVEL II:
Direct assignment of a right of way using yield or stop sign
Since a check of intersection sight triangle indicates that it would not be safe to apply the basic rules of
the road, now the check for the STOP sign.
GAP STUDY
Procedures
 The trap lines were established.
 Then data were collected using stopwatch method.
 The same procedure was repeated until one hour ends and collected data recorded in the table as shown.

Analysis
 Total number of gaps available for one hour = 69
 Total gaps in seconds per hour = 506.421sec
 Average gap in one hour =
= 7 seconds
 Ranges of gaps in peak are 6.5sec to 12.5sec, but the average gap in our study was 7 sec, this show that
the there was gap during the peak hour which will allow the drivers of minor road to enter the major road
safely
 Generally, the number of gapes is adequate in relations to the available number of vehicles on both major
and minor streets.
 MAJOR STREET MINOR STREET PED
VOLUME (Veh/h) VOLUME (Veh/h) VOLUME
  CROSSING
REQUIREMENTS OF LEVEL MAJOR STR
TIME
III:
NB SB TOTAL L1 L2 HIGH V NUMBER
Traffic Signalization 7:00-8:00 224 769 993 277 72 277 116

Summery on available data 8:00-9:00 154 467 621 197 38 197 73

Average 30 minutes delay to stop 9:00-10:00 126 236 362 95 39 95 96

controlled vehicle is.ec 10:00-11:00 156 278 434 69 49 69 51

• There is no school crossing 11:00-12:00 215 207 422 96 78 96 68

• No information on signal 12:00-13:00 192 213 405 71 60 71 65

13:00-14:00 190 136 326 83 76 83 43

progression
14:00-15:00 211 201 412 80 84 84 77
• Annual accidents not accessible.
15:00-16:00 364 227 491 70 92 92 65
• No information concerning a road
16:00-17:00 380 239 619 72 115 115 79
way network
17:00-18:00 490 218 709 73 194 194 97
Warrant I: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A: Minimum vehicular volume
Condition B: Interruption of continuous traffics
 Requirement 1: Either condition A or condition B is met to 100% level.
 Observation 1:
Condition A requires 500 veh-h in both directions on the major street and 150 veh-h in
the high-volume direction on the one-lane minor street. While only four hours volume
are greater than 500 veh denying major criteria, and only three of the same hours have a
one-way volume higher than 150 veh on the minor street denying minor street criteria.
 Condition B requires 750 veh-h in both directions on the major street and 75 veh-h on
the minor street on one direction. While only one-hour volume is greater than 750 veh
on Major Street denying major criteria, and more than eight hours have a one-way
volume higher than 75 veh on the minor street satisfying minor criteria.
 Generally, requirement one is not satisfied.
 Requirement 2: Both conditions A and B are met at 80%
Condition A requires 400 veh-h in both directions on the major street and 120 veh-h in
the high-volume direction on the one-lane minor street. While more than eight hours
volume are greater
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
The hourly volume data plotted against the four-hour warrant graph. The lower decision curve (one street
with one lane approaches) is used.
Requirements: At least four hours must plot above the
appropriate decision curve.
Observations: Only one of the 12 hours of data is above
the criterion. To meet the warrant, four are required.
The warrant is not met.

Requirements: At least four hours must plot above the

appropriate decision curve.
Observations: Only two of the 12 hours of data is above the criterion. To meet the warrant, four are required.
The warrant is not met.
Warrant 3: Peak hour warrant:

 The hourly volume data plotted against the peak-hour volume warrant graph for each hour of the

study period. The lower decision curve is used.

 Volume portion

 Requirement: One hour must plot above

the appropriate decision curve.

 Observation: One of the 12 hours of

data is above the criterion.

 So the volume portion of this warrant is met.

Warrant 4: Pedestrians crossing
 The number of pedestrians crossing the main street were
taken.
 Requirements: Pedestrian volume crossing the major
street or mid-block at an average day should not be less
than
 100 For each of any four hour hours
 190 During one hour
Observation:
 There is only one hour with more than 100 pedestrians
crossing the major.
 And non-number of pedestrians greater than 190 crossing
Major Street.
 Generally; warrant 4 is not met.
Warrant 5: School crossing:
 The school-crossing warrant does not apply.
Warrant 6: Signal progression:
 Since there is no information on signal progression, so
this warrant cannot be applied.
Warrant 7:Crash experience:
 Data were not accessible concerning with traffic control
crashes, so the crash experience warrant does not apply.
Warrant 8: Roadway network:
 There is no information given concerning the roadway
network, and the data reflects an existing situation. This
warrant is not applicable.
General conclusion
 In general, since only warrant 3 is met, signal should not
be considered at this junction.
 This is due to the fact that Warrant 3 shall be applied only
on unusual cases includes
 Office complexes
 Manufacturing plants
 Industrial complexes
 High occupancy vehicles facilities attracts or discharge
large number of vehicles over a short time
CONCLUSION
Minimum sight distance based on operating speed on major street was 62.55

The available sight distance at intersection was 241 m

Available gaps in the major street traffic stream were 69 gapes per hour

which is 7 secs adequate to enable minor road drivers to enter the major road

safely.

Signalization is not warranted.

RECOMMENDATION

 Since the intersection is safe in operation basis on the STOP sign. It recommended

that, to increase its efficiency, the existing sight obstructions such as bushes and

embankments should be reduced or removed.

 The junction sign at the major road from Changanyikeni to Utawala and from Utawala

to Changanyikeni should be placed to enhance attention to drivers.

 The cross walk should be placed so as to facilitate pedestrians cross movements

 The stop line at the minor road should at least to be painted since it is faint.
References
 AASHTO, A policy on Geometric design of highways and streets, 6 th edition, Washington

DC, 2011

 Highway Capacity Manual, 4thedition, Transportation research board, National research

council, Washington DC, 2000

 Roger P. Roess, Elena S. Prassas, Willium R. McShane, Traffic engineering handbook, 3 rd

edition, New Jersey 2004

THANKS YOU FOR YOU ATTENTION