Fasika Mekonnen

Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service
at Major Intersections in Adama City
By
Fasika Mekonnen Ayehu
Addis Ababa University

August, 2015

School of Graduate Studies
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service at Major

Intersections in Adama City
A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial
fulfillment of the Degree of Masters of Science in Civil Engineering under Road and
Transport Engineering.
By:
Advisor:
Dr. Bikila Teklu
Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
August, 2015

School of Graduate Studies
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service at Major

Intersections in Adama City
A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in partial
fulfillment of the Degree of Masters of Science in Civil Engineering under Road and Transport
Engineering
By
Approval by Board of Examiners
Dr, Bikila Teklu

---------------------------------------------------Advisor
-----------------Signature
Ato Ataklti Gidyalew

---------------------------------------------------- Internal Examiner
----------------Signature
Ato Hailu Shume

---------------------------------------------------External Examiner
-----------------Signature
Dr. Esayas G/yohannes

---------------------------------------------------Chairman (Department of graduate committee)
-----------------Signature
Certification
The undersigned certify that he has read the thesis entitled: Evaluation of Traffic Congestion
and Level of Service at Major Intersections in Adama City and hereby recommend for
acceptance by the Addis Ababa University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science.
____________________________________
Dr. Bikila Teklu (Advisor)
_______________________________________
Date
Declaration and Copy Right

I, Fasika Mekonnen Ayehu, declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has
not been presented and will not be presented by me to any other University for similar or any
other degree award. This dissertation is copyright material protected under the Berne convention.
It may not be reproduced by any means, in full or in part, except for short extracts in fair dealing,
for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with an acknowledgement,
without written permission of the Directorate of Postgraduate Studies, on behalf of both the
author and Addis Ababa University.

Fasomeku@gmail.com
+251911162578
Signature ___________
Acknowledgment
First and for most my gratitude goes to Adama Science and Technology University financing my
study at Addis Ababa University for last two years.
I cannot fully express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Bikila Teklu, his generosity and superb
guidance starting from proposal writing to the completion of this thesis was vital for the success
of the thesis work. Without his guidance and valuable comments and suggestions, it would not
been simple to shape this study at this current format.
I would like to extend my heartfelt acknowledgment to the staff members of ASTU civil
department staff members for their cooperation and assistance during my study. Lastly, I would
like to thank my mother Almi friends and family for their love and moral support through their
prayer. I am pent-up to the highest degree indebted to Almighty God who gave me health and era
to reach here with happiness and glory.
Abstract
The growth of traffic congestion on many streets and highways is a major concern to travelers,
administrators, merchants, developers and the community at large. Its detrimental impacts in
terms of longer journey times, higher fuel consumption, increased emissions of air pollutants,
greater transport and other affected costs and changing investment decisions are increasingly
recognized and felt across the country. Congestion reduces the effective accessibility of
residents, activities and jobs resulting in lost opportunities for both the public and business. This
issue is now days a great concern for Ethiopia and major cities in the country. Due to this
evaluation of traffic congestion and determination of level of service with the cause of traffic
congestion is the first step.
From these major cities in Ethiopia, Adama city is now affected by traffic congestion. In this
study the level of service and congestion measure using SIDRA intersection software and travel
time approach respectively and cost of congestion analysis were done for only four most
congested intersections. Accordingly traffic volume, travel rate, travel speed, delay rate and ratio
and total segment delay were calculated. Finally correlation between traffic accident and
congestion measures has been done.
After the analysis there exist 29,189 vehicles per day on Posta-bet intersection only which is
found on the main highway. The total segment delay analysis shows 1067veh-min was lost on
the selected four approaches. And also on average about 39.6 million birr lost on one approach
per year.
KEY WORDS: Level of Service, Congestion Measures, SIDRA Intersection, HCM Manual
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment..........................................................................................................................i
Abstract.........................................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables................................................................................................................................vii
List of Acronyms.........................................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE..........1
1. Introduction..................................................................................................
1.1.Background of the Study..........................................................................
1.2. Statement of Problem............................................................................
1.3. Research questions................................................................................
1.4. Objective of the Study...........................................................................
1.5. Limitation of The research....................................................................
1.6. Significance of the research..................................................................
1.7. Research Outline...................................................................................
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
CHAPTER TWO.4
2.
Literature Review...........................................................................................
2.1. Definition of Traffic Congestion..................................................................
2.2. Source and Impact of Traffic Congestion...........
2.3. Congestion Measures...................................................................................
2.4. Concept of Level of Service (LOS).............................................................
2.5. Traffic Congestion and Accident.................................................................
2.6. Cost of Traffic Congestion..........
2.7. Traffic Congestion Mitigation Strategies.....................................................
4
4
5
7
8
11
12
14
CHAPTER THREE16
3.
Materials and Methods...................................................................................

3.1. Research Approach.......................................................................................
3.2. Description of Study Area.............................................................................
3.2.1.
Description of Selected Study Intersection............................ ...
3.2.1.1. Description of Mebrat Haile Intersection.....................................
3.2.1.2. Description of Posta-bet Intersection..............................................
3.2.1.3. Description of Franco Intersection..................................................
3.2.1.4. Description of Genb Intersection....................................................
3.3. Methods of Data Collection and Equipment...............................................
3.3.1.
Traffic Volume Count.....................................................................
3.3.2.
Travel Time Data..............................................................................
3.3.3.
Passenger Car Unit...........................................................................
16
16
16
17
18
19
20
20
21
22
23
27
iii
3.3.4.
3.3.5.
Field Measures.................................................................................. 29
Secondary Datas.............................................................................. 32
CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................................34
4.
Result and Discussion........................................................................................... 34

4.1. Questioner Responses....................................................................................... 34
4.2. Traffic Volume and Flow Pattern Analysis...................................................... 35
4.2.1. Passenger Car Unit Analysis............................................................. 35
4.2.2. Traffic Volume at Mebrat Haile Intersection.................................... 36
4.2.3. Traffic Volume at Posta-bet Intersection.......................................... 37
4.2.4. Traffic Volume at Franco Intersection.............................................. 38
4.2.5. Traffic Volume at Genb Intersection................................................ 39
4.3. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis................................................. 41
4.4. Congestion Analysis.. 43
4.4.1. Travel Time....................................................................................... 44
4.4.2. Travel Speed and Travel Rate........................................................... 44
4.4.3. Delay, Delay Rate and Delay Ratio................................................. 46
4.4.4. Total Segment Delay......................................................................... 48
4.5. Causes of Traffic Congestion around the Intersections 50
4.6. Traffic Congestion Mitigation Measures . 50
4.7. Cost of Traffic Congestion............................................................................... 52
4.8. Traffic Congestion and Traffic Accident......................................................... 54
CHAPTER FIVE.........................................................................................................................59
5.
Conclusion and Recommendation.................................................................... 59

5.1. Conclusion....................................................................................................... 59
5.2. Recommendation............................................................................................. 60
References...................................................................................................................................61
Annexes........................................................................................................................................63
Annex-A: Traffic Volume and PCU Analysis
63
Annex-B: Level of Service Analysis Input and Output of SIDRA Intersection
70
Annex-C: Congestion Measures Analysis
82
Annex-D: Questioner..
86
iv
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Source of Traffic Congestion... 6
Figure 3.1: Mebrat haile Intersection.
19
Figure 3.2: Posta-bet Intersection 19

Figure 3.3: Franco Intersection... 20
Figure 3.4: Genb Intersection.. 20
Figure 3.5: Travel Time data Collection Location for Mebrat haile Intersection 26
Figure 3.6: Travel Time data Collection Location for Posta-bet Intersection. 26
Figure 3.7: Travel Time data Collection Location for Franco Intersection. 26
Figure 3.8: Travel Time data Collection Location for Genb Intersection 26
Figure 3.9: Layout of Mebrat haile Intersection. 29
Figure 3.10: Layout of Posta-bet Intersection.. 30
Figure 3.11: Layout of Franco Intersection.. 31
Figure 3.12: Layout of Genb Intersection. 32
Figure 4.1: Respondents Perceptions about: (a) Existence of Traffic Congestion and (b) Level of
Traffic Congestion at the Intersection.. 34
Figure 4.2: Traffic Volume at Mebrat haile Intersection. 36
Figure 4.3: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Mebrat haile Intersection. 37
Figure 4.4: Traffic Volume at Posta-bet Intersection.. 37
Figure 4.5: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Posta-bet Intersection.. 38
Figure 4.6: Traffic Volume at Franco Intersection.. 38
Figure 4.7: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Franco Intersection. 39
Figure 4.8: Traffic Volume at Genb Intersection 39
v
Figure 4.9: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Genb Intersection 40

Figure 4.10: Travel Time for the selected approach on all Intersection. 44
Figure 4.11: Travel Speed for the selected approach on all Intersection 45
Figure 4.12: Travel Rate for the selected approach on all Intersection.. 46
Figure 4.13: Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection.. 47
Figure 4.14: Delay Rate for the selected approach on all Intersection
47
Figure 4.15: Delay Ratio for the selected approach on all Intersection.. 48
Figure 4.16: Total Segment Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection.
49
Figure 4.17: Total Unit length Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection.
49
Figure 4.18: Accident Distribution in recent Nine year
55
Figure 4.19: Average Traffic Accident for the Past Nine Years and Travel speed 55
Figure 4.20: Average Traffic Volume on the Selected Approaches..
56
Figure 4.21: Average Accident and Average Travel Speed ..
56
Figure 4.22: Correlation between Average Accident and Average Traffic Volume. 57
Figure 4.23: Correlation between Average Accident and Average Travel Speed. 57
Figure 4.24: Correlation between: Accident vs. Traffic volume and Accident vs. Travel Speed
(Morning) .. 58
(Mid-day).. 58
(Evening) .. 58
vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Summary of Congestion Measures..
Table 2.2: Urban Street Levels of Service by Class 10

Table 2.3: Levels of Service Criteria For Intersections... 10
Table.3. 1: Name and Type of Major Intersection in the City..
17
Table.3. 2: Name of Selected Intersection for the Analysis..
18
Table.3. 3: Total Traffic Volume for all Approaches....
23
Table.3. 4: Travel Time Data in Second...
25
Table.3. 5: Headway in Second
28
Table.3. 6: Geometric Data for Mebrat haile Intersection.
30
Table.3. 7: Geometric Data for Posta-bet Intersection..
30
Table.3. 8: Geometric Data for Franco Intersection..
31
Table.3. 9: Geometric Data for Genb Intersection.
32
Table.3.10: Traffic Accident vs. Accident Severity 33

Table.3. 11: Traffic Accident Data by Time of the Day . 31
Table 4.1: Questionnaire Respondents profile... 34
Table 4.2: List of Selected Intersection.
35
Table 4.3: PCU Factor Result
35
Table 4.4: Input Datas for the Analysis of LOS using SIDRA Intersection
42
Table 4.5: LOS Output for the Analysis using SIDRA Intersection
42
Table 4.6: LOS Output after adding one lane using SIDRA Intersection.. 51
Table 4.7: LOS Output after removing large trucks using SIDRA Intersection. 52
Table 4.6: Traffic Congestion Cost Analysis
54
vii
List of Acronyms
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
GRP: Gross regional product
HCM: Highway Capacity Manual
L: Left Turning
LOS: level of service
R: Right Turning
TH: Through Traffic
TRR: Transportation Research Record
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction
1.1.
Background of the Study
Traffic congestion is one of many serious global problems of both developed and developing
countries. It always exerts a negative externality up on the society. It poses severe threat to
economy as well as the environment (Najneen et.al, 2010). Congestion become a common
characteristic in urban road transportation system of the cities of developing countries which
results in high operation cost, loss of time, high delay, high travel time and increase in fuel
consumption (Haregewoin, 2010).
Adama city is one of the fastest growing cities in Ethiopia. The city is working to become the
second most significant conference destination in Ethiopia after Addis Ababa which losses 58milion birr per intersection only for vehicle and fuel cost annually (Taddesse, 2011).
Accordingly traffic congestion is growing extremely in the city. This is due to the increase in
traffic volume with high percentage of heavy vehicle together with high pedestrian volume, even
though the city administration tries to mitigate the effect.
Therefore, in order to develop strategies to reduce congestion, extensive research has to be
conducted. From which this research proposal aims to assess the performance of major
intersection and quantifies their level of traffic congestion in the city. The study result can be
used to evaluate the proposed congestion mitigation measure and prioritization purpose.
1.2.
Statement of Problem
In Adama city traffic congestion has negative effect on road uses day to day activities. This
negative effect has never been evaluated before and the causes are not known yet. Now a days
traffic congestion become threat in the city economy growth by limiting the mobility of the road
uses and increase delay and fuel consumption.
Hence to reduce the congestion problem it is important to assess the possible causes of
congestion, the performance of intersection and measure the traffic congestion and the level of
services in order to make the traffic flow smooth and effective.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 1
CHAPTER ONE
1.3.
INTRODUCTION
Research questions
The major research questions are follows:

What are the main causes of traffic congestion in the city?
What are the levels of the traffic congestion quantitatively for the selected Intersections?
What is the level of service for the selected intersections?
What is the cost of congestion in the city?
What is the relationship between traffic congestion and traffic accident in the city?
What are the possible solutions to mitigate traffic congestion in the city?
1.4.
Objective of the Study
General objective:
The overall goal of this research is to assess the causes and impact of traffic congestion, quantify
the performance and the level of service of the selected intersection in Adama city.
Specific objectives:
To assess the causes of traffic congestion
To evaluate the level of service(LOS) and performance of the intersections
To estimate the cost of traffic congestion at the intersection
To assess the relationship of traffic congestion and traffic accident
To suggest some possible solution to the congestion
1.5.
Limitation of the Research
Due to different reasons it was challenging to collect traffic data for solid seven days to get
accurate traffic volume but the researcher take only one day traffic volume after collecting three
days count. Also for the analysis of congestion measures and cost of congestion only one
approach are selected for each intersection.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 2
CHAPTER ONE
1.6.
INTRODUCTION
Significance of the Research
Now a days traffic congestion has a serious effect on once country development so, without a
doubt the research on traffic congestion evaluation has a wide range of significance for both the
researcher and city administer.
The researcher will have a better understanding regarding the determination of level of service
and congestion measures. For the city admiration the research will help them to identify the
cause of congestion and prepare a master plane how to remove this effect. The level of service
and congestion measures analysis shows the existing situations and using these result we can
predict what will happen in the future.
1.7.
Research Outline
The thesis work is organized in five chapters and associated Annex.

The first chapter is an introduction that includes back ground, statement of the problem, research
questions and objectives and significance of the study as well as the overall thesis outline.
Chapter two covers the review of the main related facts from references used in the study and
review of earlier studies. The various studies conducted in specific parts of the entire study area
are well described and used in the study.
Chapter three gives a general description of the study area. This includes location, climate, land
use/land and cover. Also describes data input for analysis used in the study with clear methods of
collection. This chapter also briefs the methodology to be followed to address objectives of the
study.
Chapter four is about result and discussion. And the last chapter, chapter five, is concerned with
conclusion and recommendation.
Finally, annex in the form of tables and figures and serving as a supporting document to this
thesis are attached to make the work a complete one.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 3
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER TWO
2.
Literature Review
Traffic congestion is an extremely annoying feature of road transport. It consumes substantial

amounts of valuable time, creates difficulties for scheduling and on-time deliveries, and thus
reduces the potential advantages of road transport. Congestion typically occurs at times of high
travel demand or as a consequence of accidents or other non-recurring incidents that temporarily
reduce a road's capacity. It is associated with external costs in the sense that an additional driver
on a road forces everyone else using this same road at the same time to adapt to the higher traffic
volume by lowering driving speeds, so other drivers need more time to cover a given distance.
(Schrage, 2006).
It is clear that increasing traffic congestion does impose costs upon travelers and affect broader
business operations; it has been difficult to develop and apply empirical measures of the extent
of the traffic congestion and its economic costs. Even though, proper measuring the extent or
level of congestion is an important step for understanding the performance of the existing road
network, for evaluation of proposed congestion mitigation measures and for evaluation of cost of
congestion (Weisbrod et.al, 2003; Taddesse, 2011).
2.1.
Definition of Traffic Congestion
The definition of congestion is imprecise and is made more difficult since people have different
perceptions and expectations of how the system should perform based on whether they are in
rural or urban areas, in peak or off peak, and as a result of the history of an area (Bertini, 2005).
There is no consistent definition of congestion in terms of a single measure or set of measures
that considers severity, duration and spatial extent. Measures related to travel time and speed are
the most flexible and useful for a wide range of analyses (R. Narayanan et. al.2003). For instant
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines traffic congestion as: the level at which
transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference.
According to Lomax et.al, 1997, traffic congestion definition depends on the understanding of
the road users. Based on this the definition is divided as congestion and unacceptable congestion
and it is defined as:
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Congestion is travel time or delay in excess of that normally incurred under light or free
flow travel condition.
Unacceptable congestion is travel time or delay in excess of an agreed upon norm.
Traffic congestion refers to incremental delays and vehicle operating costs caused by interactions
among vehicles, particularly as traffic volumes approach roadway capacity (Todd Litman).
Generally definitions of traffic congestion generally fall in to two major categories. These are
definitions which based on the cause and the impact of traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion may be recurrent and nonrecurring. Recurrent congestion occurs at the same
place at the same time every weekday or weekend. It is a capacity problem and is logically
combated with raising roadway capacity. Nonrecurring congestion results from incidents such as
accidents, inclement weather or road way maintenance (Lomax et.al, 1997).
2.2.
Source and Impact of Traffic Congestion
In 2010, McGroarty explained the source of traffic congestion varies with the congestion type.
Hence, recurring congestion occur when the volume of traffic exceeds the roadway capacity
while nonrecurring congestion occur mostly by crashes and incident, vehicle breakdown, road
construction activities, special events etc. Similarly, Lomax et.al, 1997, supports traffic
congestion usually result when the road system is unable to accommodate traffic, conflict among
the different type of traffic and traffic control improper uses.
European Conference of Ministers of Transport suggested the sources of traffic congestion as a
reduction in road capacity caused by an unplanned event, for example, an accident with wrecks
blocking a lane; a planned reduction in capacity due to construction or maintenance of the lane
and finally a traffic demand higher than the maximum flow capacity as per European conference
of ministers of transport.
According to a research done by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2004 with Texas Transportation
Institute Traffic Congestion has several root causes that can be broken down into two main
categories and summarized the finding in Figure 2.1:
1. Too much traffic for the available physical capacity to handle:
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Bottlenecks
2. Traffic-influencing events:
Traffic Incidents Such As Crashes And Vehicle Breakdowns;
Work Zones;
Bad Weather;
Special Events; And
Poorly Timed Traffic Signals.
Figure 2.1: Source of Traffic Congestion
The growth of traffic congestion on many streets and highways is a major concern to travelers,
administrators, merchants, developers, and the community at large. Its detrimental impacts in
terms of longer journey times, higher fuel consumption, increased emissions of air pollutants,
greater transport and other affected costs, and changing investment decisions are increasingly
recognized and felt across the country. Congestion reduces the effective accessibility of
residents, activities, and jobs, resulting in lost opportunities for both the public and business
(Herbert & Lomax, TRR 1564).
General traffic congestion has impacts on the economy, environment, and commuters
(McGroarty, 2010). European conference of ministers of transport states that congestion involves
queuing, slower speeds and increased travel times, which impose costs on the economy and
generate multiple impacts on urban regions and their inhabitants. Also it has a range of indirect
impacts including the marginal environmental and resource impacts of congestion, impacts on
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
quality of life, stress, and safety as well as impacts on non-vehicular road space users such as the
users of sidewalks and road frontage properties. Although, traffic congestion increase fuel
consumption and emit high level of CO2 correspondingly high greenhouse gas emission on the
environment (Spalding, 2008).
2.3.
Congestion Measures
Traffic congestion is an unavoidable part of modern-day life. To understand the nature of

congestion and to control its growth, a system for measuring the severity of traffic congestion is
needed. Such a measure provides the foundation for traffic engineers and policy makers to
identify problems and determines the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. In addition, a
consistent and uniform measure will allow comparison of traffic conditions at different locations
and also over time at the same location so that priorities for improvements can be developed,
which helps the public to understand the traffic conditions objectively (S. Hamad & S. Kikuchi,
TRR 1802).
Congestion continues to grow in Americas urban areas. In 2003, congestion caused increase of
79 million hours and 69 million gallons of wasted fuel from 2002 to a total cost of more than $63
billion (Schrank & Lomax, 2005). This result shows that how traffic congestion has a great effect
on once national economy and need to be measured or quantified before it cause irreversible
problem. Traffic congestions measures vary depending on the need, from the traditional volume
capacity ration to more complicated empirical equations (Lomax et.al, 1997).
Traffic congestion can be measured based on roadway volume to capacity ratios (V/C). A V/C
less than 0.85 is considered under-capacity, 0.85 to 0.95 is considered near capacity, 0.95 to 1.0
is considered at capacity, and over 1.0 is considered over-capacity or simply use Level-ofService (LOS) ratings, a grade from A the best to F worst. Also Congestion is a non-linear
function, so as a road approaches its maximum capacity, small changes in traffic volumes can
cause proportionately larger changes in congestion delays. (Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
2013). On the other hand Lomax, 1997 suggested measure related to travel time, delay and speed
are more flexible and useful for wide range of analysis and also it is easily understandable by the
professionals and the public. Further congestion measures can be explained by indexes like travel
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
time index, delay rate index, delay ratio. Some of the congestion measures are summarized in
Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Summary of Congestion Measures
Travel Rate
Delay Rate
Total Segment
Delay
Relative Dalay
Rate
Delay Ratio
Congested Travel
Source: NCHRP Report 398 Quantifying Congestion by Lomax et.al, 1997.
Jenks et.al, 2008 suggested that it is important to know the four components of congestion
namely; duration, extent, intensity and reliability to measure congestion easily. Duration is the
amount of time congestion affect the travel system. Extent described by estimating the number of
people or vehicle affected by congestion. Intensity shows the severity of congestion that affect
travel and Reliability described as the variation in the other three components.
2.4.
Concept of Level of Service (LOS)
The level of service at any intersection on a highway has a significant effect on the overall
operating performance of that highway. Thus, improvement of the level of service at each
intersection usually results in an improvement of the overall operating performance of the
highway. An analysis procedure that provides for the determination of capacity or level of
service at intersections is therefore an important tool for designers, operation personnel, and
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 8
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
policy makers. Factors that affect the level of service at intersections include the flow and
distribution of traffic, the geometric characteristics, and the signalization system. A major
difference between considerations of level of service on highway segments and level of service
at intersections is that only through flows are used in computing the levels of service at highway
segments, whereas turning flows are significant when computing the levels of service at
signalized intersections. (Nicholy J. & Laster A. 2009)
The concept of quality of service uses quantitative measures that characterize operational
conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is defined as a term which denotes a range of
operating conditions which occur on a transportation facility when it is accommodating a range
of traffic volumes. Highway capacity manual (HCM) developed by the transportation research
board of USA provides some procedure to determine level of service. It divides the quality of
traffic into six levels ranging from level A to level F. Level A represents the best quality of
traffic where the driver has the freedom to drive with free flow speed and level F represents the
worst quality of traffic.
HCM has defined six levels of service, level A to level F based on the mentioned measure of
effectiveness. Level of service A represents the zone of free flow. Here the traffic volume will be
less; traffic will be experiencing free flow. Level of service B represents zone of reasonably free
flow; free flow speeds are still maintained at this level of service. The drivers freedom to choose
their desired speed is only slightly restricted. At level of service C, the presence of other vehicles
begins to restrict the maneuverability within the traffic stream. At level of service D, the average
speeds begin to decline with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is
noticeably restricted. Level of service E defines operation at capacity. At this level, the stream
reaches its maximum density limit. Finally, Level of service F describes conditions in a queue
that has formed behind a point of breakdown or disruption.
Level of service is defined based on the measure of effectiveness (MOE). Typically three
parameters are used under this and they are speed and travel time, density, and delay. One of the
important measures of service quality is the amount of time spent in travel. Therefore, speed and
travel time are considered to be more effective in defining LOS of a facility. Density gives the
proximity of other vehicles in the stream. Since it affects the ability of the driver to maneuver in
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
the traffic stream, it is also used to describe LOS. Delay is a term that describes excess or
unexpected time spent in travel. Many specific delay measures are defined and used as MOE's in
the highway capacity manual. Generally, the LOS criteria on the HCM are given in the form of
average travel speed in Kilometer per hour for road way sections and as a maximum delay in
second per vehicle for signalized and un-signalized intersection and summarized in the Table 2.2
and Table 2.3 below considering Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
Table 2.2: Urban Street Levels of Service by Class
Range of freeflow
II
90 to 70 km/h
70 to 55 km/h
Typical free-flow
80 km/h
Level of Service
A
>72
B
> 56 - 72
C
> 40 - 46
D
> 32 - 40
E
> 26 - 32
F
26
Source: HCM 2000
III
IV
55 to 50 km/h 50 to 40 km/h
65 km/h
Average Travel Speed (km/h)
> 59
> 46 - 59
> 33 - 46
> 26 - 33
> 21 - 26
21
55 km/h
45 km/h
> 50
> 39 - 50
> 28 - 39
> 22 - 28
> 17 - 22
17
> 41
> 32 - 41
> 23 - 32
> 18 - 23
> 14 - 18
14
Table 2.3: Levels of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS UN-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Average Control Delay (s/veh)
10
0 - 10
> 10 - 20
> 10 - 15
>20 - 35
> 15 - 25
>35 - 55
> 25 - 35
>55 - 80
> 35 - 50
> 80
> 50
Source: HCM 2000
Sidra Intersection previously called Sidra and aaSidra is a software package used for intersection
or junction and network capacity, level of service and performance analysis by traffic design,
operations and planning professionals. First released in 1984, it has been under continuous
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
development in response to user feedback. A new major version with network modeling
capability and new vehicle movement classes was released in April 2013.
Sidra Intersection is a micro-analytical traffic evaluation tool that employs lane-by-lane and
vehicle drive cycle models. It can be used to compare alternative treatments of individual
intersections and networks of intersections involving signalized intersections (fixedtime/pretimed and actuated), roundabouts (unsignalized), roundabouts with metering signals,
fully signalized roundabouts, two-way stop and give-way (yield) sign control, all-way (4-way
and 3-way) stop sign control, merging, single-point urban interchanges, traditional diamond and
diverging diamond interchanges, basic freeway segments, signalized and unsignalized midblock
crossings for pedestrians, and merging analysis.
Sidra Intersection allows modeling of separate Movement Classes (Light Vehicles, Heavy
Vehicles, Buses, Bicycles, Large Trucks, Light Rail/Trams and two User Classes) with different
vehicle characteristics. These movements can be allocated to different lanes, lane segments and
signal phases; for example for modeling bus priority lanes and signals. (From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia)
2.5.
Traffic Congestion and Accident
There is an ongoing debate among transport planners and safety policy makers as to whether
there is any association between the level of traffic congestion and road safety. One can expect
that the increased level of traffic congestion aids road safety and this is because average traffic
speed is relatively low in a congested condition relative to an uncongested condition, which may
result in less severe crashes. The relationship between congestion and safety may not be so
straightforward, however, as there are a number of other factors such as traffic flow, driver
characteristics, road geometry, and vehicle design affecting crash severity. Previous studies have
employed count data models while developing a relationship between the frequency of traffic
crashes and traffic flow or density. (Quddus et.al, 2010)
Traffic congestion and road accidents are two external costs of transport and the reduction of
their impacts is often one of the primary objectives for transport policy makers. The relationship
between traffic congestion and road accidents however is not apparent and less studied. It is
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
speculated that there may be an inverse relationship between traffic congestion and road
accidents, and as such this poses a potential dilemma for transport policy makers. Based on the
research done on M25 London orbital motorway, divided into 70 segments, after collecting
relevant data on road accidents, traffic and road characteristics. Analysis was done to explore
the impact of traffic congestion on the frequency of road accidents using a spatial analysis
approach, while controlling for other relevant factors that may affect road accidents. Then, the
results suggest that traffic congestion has little or no impact on the frequency of road accidents
on the M25 motorway. All other relevant factors have provided results consistent with existing
studies. (Chaw w. et.al, 2009)
Similarly research done by Charitha D. et al, explains accidents and congestion are two
frustrating events, which can be observed very frequently on roads. Accidents, especially on
expressways, can trigger heavy traffic congestions imposing huge external costs and reducing the
level of service. Therefore it is obvious that accidents clearly have an impact on congestion. But
the opposite, i.e. the effect of congestion on occurrence of accidents, is less studied and still
questionable. One can argue that congestion can reduce the high speeds on expressways and as a
result of that the accident rate is reduced. But in a congested road section vehicles are closely
packed and as a result of that rear-end collisions, back-up collisions as well as side collisions can
occur. Therefore it is important to analyze the impact on the accidents by congestion so that the
policy makers can implement relevant measures to reduce the external costs of both accidents
and congestion.
Different researches and reports identified that traffic accidents are an empirically important
trigger of congestion, and they exacerbate pre-existing congestion levels (Schrage, 2006;
Hanmer & Wu M., 1999). Although in Addis Ababa a link between the traffic accident and the
traffic congestion is significant and efforts made to mitigate the traffic congestion minimize the
traffic accident (Taddesse, 2011).
2.6.
Cost of Traffic Congestion
Congestion has real costs for all travelers, including truckers both long-haul and local pickup and
delivery, household and business service providers such as plumbers, computer technicians,
police, and ambulance services, and personal travel such as commuters, vacationers, and
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
shoppers. Congestion causes more fuel to be used and more emissions to be produced. The extra
time spent in congestion causes service providers to make fewer calls per day, leading to higher
prices for consumers; this is particularly important for emergency medical, fire, and police
services which may be unnecessarily delayed from attending to medical, crime, and disaster
situations. Companies with production schedules timed to take advantage of trucks delivering
components to an assembly line as they are needed must instead plan for items to arrive early.
This consumes space and inventory, expending resources that could otherwise be spent on
productive activity. For personal travelers, congestion steals time that could be put to better
use in the workplace or for social or recreational purposes. (Cambridge Systematics, Inc, 2004)
For everyday travelers, the frustration of traffic is obvious. Understanding the impact on cities
and the economy, however, is not as straightforward as many would like. From an economic
perspective, congestions main impact is the lost productivity from more time spent traveling to
work rather than working, delaying (or missing) meetings, foregoing interactions among
individuals or personal activities due to long travel time and spending more time to accomplish
tasks than would otherwise be necessary if we could reliably plan for accomplishing the same
things at free-flow speeds.
Increasing traffic congestion does impose costs upon travel cost, affect broader business
operations costs, vehicle operating costs, environmental costs and productivity, it has been
difficult to develop and apply empirical measures of the extent of those economic costs
(Weisbrod et.al, 2003). Even though it is difficult to determine the cost of congestion, some
researchers determined it by putting their assumption with their results.
In 2009, Hartgen and Fields determine the effect of congestion on gross regional product (GRP);
they picked eight cities as representative examples performing detailed modeling and analysis on
each. The gross regional product per worker (job) range from $81,700 for Salt Lake City to
$125,400 for San Francisco from the eight cities amazingly improving traffic congestion and
creating free-flow traffic conditions throughout a region could improvement productivity for
workers by as much as 30 percent in highly congested areas.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Similarly, in Addis Ababa on average about 38 Veh-day and 352-person-day are wasted at each
major intersection entry and the city incurs annually about 5-8 Million Birr per intersection only
for vehicle and fuel cost on the east-west (Taddesse, 2011).
2.7.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Strategies
Many researchers identified different traffic congestion mitigation measures depends on the
causes and the type of congestion. From those researches Managing Urban Traffic Congestion,
2007 conclude there is no prescribe specific congestion management strategies since the
appropriateness and applicability of these depends largely on the local context. The report
suggests three strategic congestion management principles that should serve to guide policies in
this field.
Ensure that land use planning, and the community objectives it embodies, is coordinated
with congestion management policies;
Deliver predictable travel times; and
Manage highly trafficked roadways to preserve adequate system performance.
Transportation engineers and planners of Cambridge Systematics, Inc. & Texas Transportation
Institute, have developed a variety of strategies to deal with congestion. The strategies can be
grouped in to three as follows and each group has key strategies to address congestion:
1. Adding more capacity for highway, transit and railroads
Key Strategies to Address Congestion:
Adding travel lanes on major freeways and streets (including truck climbing lanes on
grades)
Adding capacity to the transit system (buses, urban rail or commuter rail systems)
Closing gaps in the street network
Removing bottlenecks
Overpasses or underpasses at congested intersections
High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
Increasing intercity freight rail capacity to reduce truck use of highways
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 14
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Operating existing capacity more efficiently

Optimizing the timing of traffic signals
Faster and anticipatory responses to traffic incidents
Providing travelers with information on travel conditions as well as alternative routes
and modes
Improved management of work zones
Geometric improvements to roads and intersections
Converting streets to one-way operations
Access management.
3. Encouraging travelers to use the system in less congestion-producing ways
Programs that encourage transit use and ridesharing
Curbside and parking management
Flexible work hours
Telecommuting programs
In 2010, Haregewoin summarized the traffic congestion relief strategies on the Total-Ayer Tena
road segment which is found in Kolfe Sub city, Addis Ababa. Based on the research congestion
relief strategies depends or varies with the existing conditions of the area. Some of the strategies
are following;
Apply flextime working schedules
Improve capacity of roads
Improving public transport
Experiencing adequate parking arrangements
Implement transit-oriented development and improved access management
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 15
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
CHAPTER THREE
3.
Materials and Methods
The methodology in this study includes office and field level investigation of the study area
and different methods and techniques applied for data collection and analysis. The
methodology of the study also required different materials and methods to arrive at the stated
objectives. Therefore, this part of the thesis discusses the methodology followed and the
reason for the selection of the methods in order to address the research problem.
3.1.
Research Approach
In this thesis the methods followed were designed in such a way that the key questions of the
research be answered properly. The research involves both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Quantitative data and analysis were used to determine the level of service of the
selected intersections and to measure the congestion levels. As a data source both primary
data or direct field measurements and secondary data were the main sources of quantitative
data. Although, qualitative data from questionnaire were also used to determine whether the
congestion in Adama city is significant or not, select intersections and to assess other related
parameters.
3.2.
Description of Study Area
Adama is located 100km east of the capital city Addis Ababa. Its climate condition is hot dry
with average daily temperature of 300c. There is no written history as to when Adama is
established, but it is estimated around 1910 GC. Its original name Adama was given after a
plant which abundantly found in the area at that time which is called Hadami in local
language. Around 1948 GC Emperor Haile Selassie renamed the town Nazareth after Biblical
Nazareth. But in the year 2000, the city officially reverted to its original Oromo language
name, Adama.
Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, Adama
city has a total population of 220,212, an increase of 72.25% over the population recorded in
the 1994 census. With an area of 29.86 square kilometers, Adama has a population density of
7,374.82 per square kilometer: all are urban inhabitants. This makes the city among the
densely populated urban areas in the country. Therefore provision of good public services
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 16
CHAPTER THREE
would mean the satisfaction of great number of people. One of the services that are provided
by the government is transportation.
Adama city is working to become the second most significant conference destination in
Ethiopia after Addis Ababa according to the Culture and Tourism Office. The town has
several international standard hotels to provide adequate service for any type of conference.
The hotels provide services such as swimming pools, internet access, parking lots and
meeting halls that make them desirable to tourists and event organizers. If city wants to
achieve this goal of being a conference destination focus must be given to assess the cause
and evaluate the level of traffic congestion and proved the proper mitigation measures.
3.2.1. Description of Selected Study Intersection

In the city there exist a number of intersections with different type. From these intersections
15 of them has been selected as major intersection on the basis of the importance they give.
The intersections are listed in Table 3.1 below.
Table.3. 1: Name and Type of Major Intersection in the City
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
By Fasika Mekonnen
Intersection Name
Awragodana intersection
Franco intersection
Bekele Mola Hotel intersection
Maya Hotel intersection
Post bet intersection
Amede intersection
Mebrat Haile intersection
Mariam intersection
Hospital intersection
"04" intersection
Gendegara intersection
Campus intersection
Geda Menafesha intersection
Sartera intersection
Genb intersection
Type of Intersection
2-leged roundabout
3-leged intersection
4-leged roundabout
Page 17
CHAPTER THREE
Due to time and budget constraint, the researcher decided to take only four intersections for
further analysis. To do so questionnaire was distributed to the population to participate on the
selection of most four congested intersection.
The main reason why the populations were invited, is, Traffic congestion definition depends
on the understanding of the road users. (Lomax et.al, 1997). According to Lomax et.al, 1997
report the level of traffic congestion is highly depends on the perception of different road
users. Considering this the researcher tried to check the perception of different road users by
the help of questioner.
The questioner contains two parts; Part-I: General Information and Part-II: Respondents
Perceptions toward traffic congestion in Adama City. Part-I helps to check whether the
questioner is distributed to all road users. Part-II is the main part of the questioner which tells
us to know Perceptions of road users toward Traffic congestion in Adama City. The
distributed questioner is attached in Annex D.
Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, Adama
city has a total population of 220,212. The calculated sample size for a population of
220,212, with a confidence level of 90%, and a margin of error (degree of accuracy) of 10%
was 68. Then 68 questioners were distributed and the result is presented in Table 3.2.
Table.3. 2: Name of Selected Intersection for the Analysis
No.
1
2
3
4
Selected Intersection Name

Posta-bet intersection
Franco intersection
Genb intersection
3.2.1.1.
Rank
4-leged roundabout
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Description of Mebrat Haile Intersection
According to the result of questioner Mebrate haile intersection is the most congested
one in the city. It has 4 approaches namely, Post bet Approach, Sartera Approach,
Mariam Approach and Tele Approach. Plain view of the intersections is shown in the
Figure 3.1.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 18
CHAPTER THREE
Figure 3.1: Mebrat Haile Intersection
3.2.1.2.
Description of Posta-bet Intersection
This intersection is the second most congested intersection found on the major highway
Addis Ababa-Djibouti. It is roundabout with four legs namely, Franco approach, Mebrat
haile approach, Amede approach and Sodere approach. Plain view of the intersections is
shown in the Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Posta-bet Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 19
CHAPTER THREE
3.2.1.3.
Description of Franco Intersection
Franco Intersection is a three legged intersection which is located near to the bus station.
Maya hotel Approach, Posta bet Approach and Genb Approach the three approaches. The
intersection is the third congested one according to the questioner result. Plain view of
the intersections is shown in the Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Franco Intersection
3.2.1.4.
Description of Genb Intersection
It is the fourth congested intersection and located around Genb gebeya. It is four legged
approaches namely, Franco Approach, Sartera Approach, Kera Approach and Genb
gebeya Approach. Plain view of the intersections is shown in the Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Genb Intersection

By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 20
CHAPTER THREE
3.3.
Methods of Data Collection and Equipment
In order to test the specific objective of investigation, datas has been collected from the
primary and secondary sources. For both data sources recommended techniques and steps has
been followed to minimize errors.
The primary datas are collected using the following techniques:
Questionnaires
Manual traffic volume counts
Passenger car unit
Manual travel time measure
Field measures.
Questionnaires were distributed randomly for road users (taxi drivers, private car owners,
public transport users) to gather information on the perception of the road users about the
traffic congestion at major intersection in the city, possible causes of congestion and to
identify the most congested four intersections. (Refer section 3.2.1.)
Manually traffic volume counts and travel time data were collected using pan and paper
method on the selected intersection and approaches for the traffic volume count and travel
time data respectively.
A field measures has been done to gather data on the geometrical features of intersection for
the determination of the level of services of the intersections. These include number of lanes,
lane width, configurations of lanes, grade, width of median, and movement policy.
The secondary data are:
Traffic accident data
Labor cost
Fuel Consumption and rental cost of Vehicles
Traffic accident data in the city has been collected from the responsible office namely Adama
special zone police administration. For the analysis of cost of congestion labor cost, fuel
consumption of vehicles and rental cost of vehicles has been collected by performing
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 21
CHAPTER THREE
interviews with the vehicle owners and vehicle rental offices and the weighted average
values has been taken for the analysis.
3.3.1. Traffic Volume Count

Traffic volume studies are conducted to determine the number, movements and
classifications of roadway vehicles at a given location. These data can help identify critical
flow time periods, determine the influence of large vehicles or pedestrians on vehicular
traffic flow or document traffic volume trends. The length of the sampling period depends on
the type of count being taken and the intended use of the data recorded. For example, an
intersection count may be conducted during the peak flow period. If so, manual count with
15-minute intervals could be used to obtain the traffic volume data.
For the analysis of LOS traffic volume has been counted on each intersection. This is done
by considering different type of vehicles and movement mechanism (TH, L and R). To get
accurate result it is important to count at least for 7 days but due to economic and time
constraint the count was done only for three days. These days have been selected on the basis
of information collected from the traffic police office. According to the traffic police office
mostly Thursdays and Fridays have the highest volume due to Thursday is market day and
Friday is a day most peoples come from different regions for recreational purpose. The
researcher chose Tuesday randomly to consider the days with low traffic volume. From this
days Tuesdays traffic count has been rejected due to multiple errors on the first Tuesday
count. Finally, Thursdays traffic volume is found to be higher than Fridays except two
approaches. Therefore, I took Thursdays traffic volume count for the analysis purpose.
The traffic volume count was made for 12 hours starting the morning 7:30 AM to the evening
7:30 PM at 15 minutes interval. The vehicles were counted in category as cycle, two wheel,
three wheel or Bajaj, cars and taxi, 4WD, minibus taxi, Mid-Bus and standard Bus, Light,
Medium and Heavy commercial or truck vehicles. The total traffic volume for each approach
is summarized in the Table 3.3 below for both Thursday and Friday count. The raw data of
traffic volume for each intersection for Thursday count is summarized in Annex-A.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 22
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 3: Total Traffic Volume for all Approaches
Post bet Intersection
Total
5/12/2013
6/12/2013
Franco Approach
7049
6839
12/12/2013
13/12/2013
Posta-bet
Approach
7462
6598
Mebrat Haile
Approach
6489
5675
Amede Approach
5291
4464
Sodere Approach
10390
10671
Franco Intersection
Total
Maya hotel Approach

17688
11520
Genb Approach
4913
5640
Genb Intersection
Total
Sartera Approach
6868
5610
Kera Approach
8401
5340
Genb gebeya
Approach
7382
6401
Tele Approach
12268
10895
19/12/2013
20/12/2013
Franco Approach
13904
10250
26/12/2013
Posta-bet
Approach
14190
Sartera Approach
26229
Mariam
Approach
26252
27/12/2013
9879
18608
22489
Mebrat Intersection
Total
3.3.2. Travel Time Data

Travel time or the time required to traverse a route between any two points of interest, is a
fundamental measure in transportation. There exists different method for the determination of
travel time. Accordingly, the pen and paper technique requires a driver and a recorder, one or
two stopwatches, data collection forms and a test vehicle. The test vehicle is driven along the
study route throughout the time period of interest. The recorder starts the first stopwatch as
the driver passes the first checkpoint, recording the cumulative elapsed time at subsequent
checkpoints on the field sheet. A second stopwatch may be used to record the amount of
delay time incurred by the test vehicle when slowed or stopped (0 to 8 km/h, or 0 to 5 mph),
also noting the cause of the delay. This procedure is followed through the entire course until
the time at the final checkpoint is recorded. Several runs are usually made on the same route,
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 23
CHAPTER THREE
requiring the test vehicle to return to the starting point. Data is typically collected on the
study route in the reverse direction with little or no additional cost. The stop watches are
reset, a new field data collection sheet is prepared and the above procedure is repeated until
the end of the study time period.
For this research, travel time has been measured manually using stop watch by fixing the
length in which the vehicle is travelling to determine congestion measures. To perform this
first the researcher had selected only one approach with the highest traffic volume for each
intersection except for post-bet intersection. For this intersection the researcher took Franco
approach which is on the major highway with highest number of large truck then using the
above pen and paper technique the data has been collected considering the following sample
size.
The sample size has been determined using the following formula from travel time hand
book (M.Turner et.al 1998).
Sample size for travel time (n) = [(t*c.v)/e] 2
Where: t=Statistical from student t-distribution for specific confidence level
c.v= Coefficient of variance
e=Relative error
Using the above formula the sample size has been found to be 6 for 30-min. Using the input
95% confidence level and 5% error with coefficient of variance 9% for traffic volume less
than 15,000 according to travel time hand book Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 which is about
Illustrative test vehicle sample size on arterial street and freeways. Finally 8 samples have
been conducted for 30-min and the raw data for the travel time of each approach is
summarized in Table 3.4.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 24
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 4: Travel Time Data in Second

Thursday January
2/2014
Time
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
Franco Intersection
Maya hotel Approach
Length=250m
58.9 44.3 55.1 60.8
96.1 88.2 72.2 63.2
121.6 89.3 106.4 121.6
91.2 119.7 127.3 131.1
98.8 121.6 153.9 110.2
131.1 102.6 87.4 127.3
138.7 91.2 68.4 134.9
85.5 134.9 121.6 133
123.5 70.3 110.2 112.1
64.6 93.1 131.1 102.6
127.3 106.4 89.3 91.2
79.8 81.7 66.5 115.9
72.2 98.8 87.4 100.7
60.8 72.2 68.4 93.1
62.7 74.1 93.1 87.4
60.8 79.8 79.8 115.9
58.9 51.3 108.3 81.7
81.7 60.8 77.9 66.5
64.6 79.8 70.3 81.7
102.6 74.1 98.8 102.6
81.7 64.6 87.4 72.2
60.8 98.8 70.3 81.7
66.5 64.6 66.5 98.8
55.1 87.4 79.8 66.5
77.9 100.7
95
74.1
76
79.8 81.7 81.7
64.6 68.4 74.1 77.9
85.5 64.6 68.4 106.4
115.9 74.1 106.4
95
85.5 81.7 93.1 89.3
64.6 117.8 70.3 72.2
79.8 70.3 100.7 81.7
110.2 91.2 127.3 108.3
129.2 112.1 159.6 153.9
138.7 131.1 123.5 138.7
112.1 159.6 112.1 129.2
129.2 184.3 148.2 136.8
87.4 110.2 129.2 121.6
148.2 131.1 172.9 155.8
121.6 165.3 123.5 144.4
112.1 129.2 138.7 121.6
129.2 150.1 81.7 110.2
184.3 169.1 110.2 157.7
169.1 148.2 115.9 150.1
110.2 127.3 108.3 153.9
121.6 169.1 93.1 131.1
148.2 144.4 102.6 121.6
112.1 108.3 127.3 96.9
Travel Time (sec.)

Posta-bet Intersection
Mebrat haile Intersection
Franco Intersection
Length=200m
Length=200m
62.4
72
76.8 56.2 51.2 46.4 51.2
56
91.2 64.8 97.2 71.2 47.5 52.8 43.1 52.8
115.2 105.6 94.8 110.4 110.4 86.4 73.6 107.2
105.6 91.2 105.6 104.4 116.8 76.8 57.6 113.6
104.4 108 109.2 93.6
72
113.6 102.4 112
121.2 98.4 98.4 100.8 104
59.2 92.8 94.4
116.4 94.8 94.8 106.8 54.4 78.4 110.4 86.4
103.2 110.4 103.2 110.4 107.2 89.6 75.2 76.8
97.2 98.4 105.6 94.8 67.2 68.8
56
97.6
90
84
126 104.4 60.8 83.2 73.6 84.8
86.4 79.2
102
97.2 51.2 60.8 57.6 78.4
103.2 70.8 105.6
90
52.8 62.4 78.4 73.6
99.6 82.8 86.4
84
51.2 67.2 67.2 97.6
93.6 81.6 81.6 104.4 73.6 68.8 89.6 73.6
102
92.4 112.8 108
78.4 89.6 97.6 76.8
82.8 91.2 97.2 99.6 84.8 68.8 83.2 52.8
99.6 87.6 98.4 75.6 62.4 51.2 70.4 65.6
82.8 74.4 88.8 85.2 89.6 52.8 91.2 73.6
103.2 75.6 104.4 91.2 62.4 44.8 73.6 57.6
82.8 69.6 91.2 79.2 97.6 62.4 91.2 70.4
109.2 82.8 104.4 88.8 73.6
48
60.8 54.4
91.2
72
81.6 76.8 57.6
48
59.2 54.4
79.2
72
80.4 76.8
56
41.6 57.6 57.6
78
67.2 79.2 79.2 60.8 49.6
72
54.4
81.6 73.2
90
76.8 67.2 46.4 60.8 52.8
86.4 70.8 81.6 75.6 70.4 51.2 67.2
72
88.8 74.4 86.4
90
76.8 44.8 70.4 57.6
93.6 69.6 88.8 79.2 70.4
40
68.8 65.6
91.2
66
87.6 85.2 62.4 51.2 62.4
64
82.8 74.4 82.8
84
100.8 73.6 91.2 99.2
86.4
72
103.2 79.2 91.2 99.2 78.4 83.2
93.6
78
110.4 98.4 115.2 94.4 108.8 100.8
98.4 91.2 103.2 79.2 118.4 99.2 115.2 120
103.2 86.4 123.6 100.8 124.8 92.8 118.4 105.6
94.8 79.2 112.8 97.2 118.4
88
116.8 113.6
110.4 98.4 117.6 91.2 110.4 99.2 110.4 112
105.6 91.2 124.8
90
115.2
96
137.6 105.6
104.4 100.8 109.2 85.2 124.8 104 147.2 131.2
103.2 109.2 118.8 81.6 131.2 121.6 137.6 105.6
106.8 100.8 122.4 91.2 137.6 115.2 164.8 134.4
111.6 99.6 118.8 99.6 126.4 105.6 150.4 129.6
108
94.8 116.4 111.6 147.2 131.2 156.8 121.6
103.2 110.4 111.6 73.2 140.8 121.6 166.4 120
102
91.2 124.8 74.4 139.2 134.4 145.6 113.6
117.6 97.2 123.6
90
137.6 145.6 158.4 108.8
93.6 104.4 116.4 112.8 89.6 99.2 116.8 99.2
103.2 91.2 115.2 91.2 68.8 100.8 107.2 86.4
99.6
90
99.6 93.6 86.4 78.4 92.8 78.4
Genb Intersection
Franco Intersection
Length= 150m
35
16
28
20
31
34
39
34
48.5 44.5 32 44.5
51.5 47
18 37.5
44.5 53.5 43
32
43 44.5 28.5 42
47
38 46.5 36.5
36.5 48.5 33.5 38
32
56
37
34
28 48.5 36.5 28
35.6 32.8 31.6 33.6
31.6 29.6 29.2 27.6
20.6 28.6 32.2 19.8
21.4 26.6 31.8 32.6
30.2 25
35 29.4
30.2 29 26.6 25.4
27 25.4 41.4 32.6
29.8 29.8 28.2 28.2
28.6 33.8 20.6 27.4
24.2 34.2 26.2 26.2
28.2 23 29.4 29.4
30.2 25.2 25.8 27.8
30.6 34.2 30.2 26.6
24.6 28.6 34.2 31.4
28.6 37.4 31.4 30.2
29.8 31.4 30.6 36.2
33 28.2 38.2 32.6
28.6 37.4 34.2 30.6
30.2 40.6 43.4 36.2
35.4 45.4 37.4 30.6
36.6 36.2 42.6 37.4
32.2 40.6 44.6 39.8
46 48.5 51.5 37.5
43 44.5 48.5 42
47
49
56
46
54
43
49
43
49
49 39.5 43.5
55 50.5 31.5 42.5
49
42
40 36.5
39.5 28
49
47
51 48.5 52.5 47.5
49 51.5 49.5 38
39 43.5 47.5 53
53
49 43.5 43.5
49 46.5 54
38
47.5 52 57.5 47
43.5 44.5 53
53
49
38
43 44.5
During travel time data collection, the data collector location is very significant especially
when the method of data collection is using stop watch by fixing the length of the road. This
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 25
CHAPTER THREE
is due to the length that we fix should be visible for the data collector. The selected locations
for all intersections are on buildings located at the mid points of the length fixed. These
locations are described in the Figure 3.5 up to 3.8.
Building on construction next to

Maraki Cafe
Posta-bet Approach 200m length
Figure 3.5: Travel Time data Collection Location for Mebrat haile Intersection
Castle Caf on Dashen

Bank Building
Building
Franco Approach
200m length
Figure 3.6: Travel Time data Collection Location for Posta-bet Intersection
Maya hotel Approach

250m length
Building next to BM Cafe
Figure 3.7: Travel Time data Collection Location for Franco Intersection
Franco Approach
150m length
Shopping Center next
to Palace Hotel
Figure 3.8: Travel Time data Collection Location for Genb Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 26
CHAPTER THREE
3.3.3. Passenger Car Unit

Different types of vehicles in a traffic stream have different characteristics like width, length
and height and sometimes they produce inconvenience for other vehicles, so for expressing
highway capacity a unit is used called passenger car unit. A passenger car unit is essentially
the impact that a mode of transport has on traffic variables (such as headway, speed, density)
compared to a single car.
According to Ahmed, 2009, several approaches to estimate PCU values have been used. The
most commonly applied approaches are the constant volume-to-capacity ratio approach and
the headway approach. The constant volume-to-capacity ratio approach was developed based
on the output of a multilane freeway simulation model developed at the Midwest Research
Institute. PCU values were based on mixed traffic volumes that consumed the same
proportion of roadway capacity (produced the same volume-to- capacity ratio) as PC-only
volumes. The constant volume-to-capacity ratio approach was appropriate for calculating
PCUs when LOS was a consideration for PCU calculation. But it is not applicable to the
current procedure, which estimates PCU only under a steady-state condition, that is why
headway approaches is used for the determination of PCU for this research.
PCU=hi/hc
Where: PCU=passenger car unit
hi= headway of i-th vehicle
hc= headway of passenger car
Then headways has been collected for each type of vehicles considering three cases;
morning, midday and evening peak period and the sample size taken was the same with
travel time sample size shown in travel time section. The headways are presented as follow in
Table 3.5.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 27
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 5: Headway in Second
Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Car &
Taxi
4.20
4.60
3.80
4.30
4.10
4.90
2.50
3.40
4.10
3.60
Cycle
9.00
8.90
9.70
7.90
6.80
8.20
Two
wheel
4.30
5.10
4.10
3.90
4.60
3.20
3.30
3.60
3.10
2.90
3.50
3.60
3.70
2.80
3.30
5.30
4.90
5.10
4.90
6.10
4.20
3.70
3.50
4.30
3.00
4.20
4.50
4.20
4.90
5.10
4.30
3.60
4.50
4.40
3.80
4.20
7.20
5.80
6.20
4.70
5.40
6.20
4.70
6.70
5.60
4.30
5.10
4.30
6.20
3.90
4.20
4.30
By Fasika Mekonnen
HEADWAY (Second)
Morning Peak Period
Mini Mediun
Bajaje 4-WD Bus
bus
4.10
4.60
4.70
5.40
3.90
4.20
5.20
6.20
3.80
4.60
4.80
5.80
4.10
4.30
4.60
6.30
3.40
4.60
5.00
4.90
3..9
4.20
4.80
6.20
4.20
3.80
4.80
6.50
4.60
4.30
5.30
4.80
3.80
4.60
4.90
5.70
4.30
4.30
5.30
4.80
Mid-day Peak Period
3.20
3.80 3.60
4.90
3.30
3.90 4.90
4.60
3.20
4.20 4.20
6.10
3.10
2.70 5.70
4.30
3.00
3.20 5.40
5.40
4.00
2.80 3.90
5.10
3.20
3.80 4.60
5.30
3.30
3.60 3.90
4.70
3.40
3.70 4.20
4.90
3.10
3.90 3.90
5.20
Evening Peak Period
4.60
4.80 5.30
5.90
4.50
4.50 5.20
4.80
3.90
3.80 4.80
5.70
4.80
4.30 4.90
6.10
5.30
4.10 4.30
5.80
4.60
4.70 5.10
6.30
4.80
3.80 4.20
4.90
4.30
4.70 5.30
5.80
4.10
4.60 4.80
6.90
4.10
4.40 4.90
6.70
Std. Medium Large

Bus Trucks Trucks
7.80
7.20
7.30
8.00
8.30
8.90
7.10
8.50
8.40
8.20
8.30
9.00
7.40
10.20
7.20
8.90
8.10
8.30
7.60
7.90
7.90
10.30
7.20
8.20
6.20
5.90
7.10
6.40
6.30
5.40
7.30
6.90
8.20
7.30
6.90
7.80
6.90
8.40
6.80
5.70
7.40
6.90
7.80
8.60
7.80
7.30
9.20
7.30
7.80
6.90
7.50
6.20
8.00
7.30
8.30
8.40
7.70
9.80
10.30
8.90
7.90
10.40
9.90
8.70
10.90
9.80
10.80
Page 28
CHAPTER THREE
3.3.4. Field Measurements

The field measurements have been conducted on the geometric feature of the intersections
selected. Intersection layout is primarily composed of the alignment of the legs, width of
traffic lanes, bicycle lanes, crosswalks, sidewalks on each approach, number of lanes,
median, street side elements and the method of treating and channelization of turning
movements. Like the design of the thoroughfare's cross-section, the design of an
intersection's layout requires a balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles,
freight and transit in the available right of way. Beyond intersection layout, the practitioner
needs to work with a multidisciplinary team to address accessibility, traffic control and
placement of equipment, traffic operations, lighting (safety and pedestrian scaled),
landscaping and urban design.
During field measurement, alignment of the legs, width of traffic lanes, crosswalks, number
of lanes, median and the method of treating and channelization of turning movements has
been measured on each approach for the selected intersection.
The width of traffic lane and median measurement is done manually using tape meter; the
same method is used for the roundabout. The rest of the data were collected by visual
observation. The collected data are summarized in the following tables and figures for the
four selected intersection.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 29
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 6: Geometric Data for Mebrat haile Intersection
Approach
Sartera
Posta-bet
Mariam
Tele

No of lane Lane width
Median width
2
3.5m
2.5m
2
3.5m
2.5m
2
3.5m
2.5m
2
3.5m
2.5m
Cross walk
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Figure 3.9: Layout of Mebrat haile Intersection
Table.3. 7: Geometric Data for Posta-bet Intersection
Approach
No of lane
Franco
2
Amede
2
Mebrat haile
2
Sodere
2
Circulating lane
Circulating width
Island diameter
By Fasika Mekonnen
Lane width Median width
3.5m
2m
3.5m
2m
3.5m
2m
3.5m
2m
2
8.5m
15m
Lane type
Normal & Giveway
Normal & Giveway
Normal & Giveway
Normal & Giveway
Cross walk
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 30
CHAPTER THREE
Figure 3.10: Layout of Posta-bet Intersection

Table.3. 8: Geometric Data for Franco Intersection
Approach
Maya hotel
Posta-bet
Genb
Franco Intersection
No of lane Lane width Median width
2
3.5m
2m
2
3.5m
2m
1
4m
0
Cross walk
Yes
Yes
No
Figure 3.11: Layout of Franco Intersection

By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 31
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 9: Geometric Data for Genb Intersection
Approach
Franco
Sartera
Genb-gebeya
Kera
Genb Intersection
No of lane Lane width
Median width
1
4m
0
1
4m
0
2
3m
2m
2
3m
2m
Cross walk
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Figure 3.12: Layout of Genb Intersection
3.3.5. Secondary Data

Traffic accident data has been collected from Adama special zone police administration. The
office provides the researcher with nine years accident data by time of the day, cause of
accident, profiles of drives and etc. But for this particular research the researcher collect only
nine years accident data and presented as follow.
Table.3.10: Traffic Accident vs. Accident Severity
Accident Severity
Fatal
High
Low
Property Damage
By Fasika Mekonnen
Traffic Accident vs. Accident Severity

Year
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
16
13
25
35
39
24
8
13
23
34
36
41
13
7
19
65
27
52
60
42
50
99
116
125
2004
36
57
59
161
2005
31
29
52
175
2006
22
37
50
177
Page 32
CHAPTER THREE
Table.3. 11: Traffic Accident Data by Time of the Day
Time
7:00AM-8:00AM
8:00AM-9:00AM
9:00AM-10:00AM
10:00AM-11:00AM
11:00AM-12:00AM
12:00Am-1:00PM
1:00PM-2:00PM
2:00PM-3:00PM
3:00PM-4:00PM
4:00PM-5:00PM
5:00PM-6:00PM
6:00PM-7:00PM
7:00PM-8:00PM
By Fasika Mekonnen
Total Traffic Accident

Year
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
10
8
15
21
16
18
24
17
20
15
16
15
17
10
20
26
26
20
6
5
10
13
7
29
25
20
32
6
6
10
10
8
12
22
24
17
5
5
8
8
23
11
19
13
19
4
3
5
14
25
15
21
15
26
5
0
1
9
20
28
15
14
16
4
2
3
12
9
19
16
13
18
4
0
3
11
18
10
27
20
17
5
0
1
14
17
14
25
22
16
4
4
11
7
14
21
21
16
17
7
16
4
6
6
3
14
10
10
4
8
2
3
7
10
15
9
9
Page 33
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
CHAPTER FOUR
4. Result and Discussion
Analysis was done on the selected intersection using the collected datas following the proper
and best method and the results are presented in the following sections with brief explanation.
4.1.
Questionnaire Responses
As discussed in section 3.2.1 questioner was distributed randomly to evaluate the perception of
different road users to wards traffic congestion in the city. Out of the distributed 68 questioner
100% of it was returned. Table 4.1 shows questioner respondent profile and Figure 4.1 shows the
respondent perception related to the existence and level of traffic congestion at intersections.
Table 4.1: Questionnaire respondents profile
Questioner
Sex
Age
Distribution
(a)
Number Percentage
Distributed
68
100.00%
Returned
68
100.00%
Male
53
77.94%
Female
15
22.06%
Total
68
100.00%
15-20
7
10.29%
20-30
30
44.11%
30-40
13
19.12%
40-50
10
14.70%
Above 50
8
11.78%
Total
68
(b)
4.42%
9.24% 0%
100.00%
12.30%
Very High
High
Yes
Moderate
No
Low
Very Low
95.58%
41.54%
36.92%
Figure 4.1: Respondents Perceptions about: (a) Existence of Traffic Congestion and (b) Level of Traffic
Congestion at the Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 34
CHAPTER FOUR
Each respondent was given a chance to rank four intersections they think it is congested for LOS
and cost of congestion analysis. Accordingly, the intersection listed in Table 4.2 has been
selected for further evaluation. The questioner result shown below was similar with the
researcher initial selection except Genb intersection.
Table 4.2: List of Selected Intersection
No.
1
2
3
4
4.2.
Selected Intersection Name

Franco intersection
Genb intersection
Totally
Selected
59
57
53
29
4-leged roundabout
Rank
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Traffic Volume and Flow Pattern Analysis
4.2.1. Passenger Car Unit Analysis

Passenger car unit analysis is important because it considers different characteristics like width,
length and height that cause serious variations in the traffic stream. Due to this difference each
type of vehicle has distinct effect on the traffic steam. Therefor the PCU is important because it
compare the effect of different vehicle with respect to single car. Using headway method
analysis was made to compute PCU.
Unfortunately this method gave almost same with the average values except cycle and two wheel
vehicle, while comparing the result with literature like final report done by Innovative Transport
Solutions (iTrans) Pvt.Ltd. on Two and Three wheeler in India (2009) and South African
geometric design manual. After this comparison for cycle and two wheel vehicles the calculated
values are far from the average values therefore, the PCU values has been taken form these
literatures. The result is summarized in the Table 4.3 below and the calculated value has been
attached in Annex A Table 5. Finally the result was used for the computation of traffic volume in
terms of passenger car unit for the selected intersections.
Table 4.3: PCU Factor Result
Vehicle
Type
Cycle
Two
wheel
Bajaj
4-WD
Mini
Bus
Medium
bus
Std.
Bus
Medium
Trucks
Large
Trucks
PCU
0.25
0.5
1.25
1.5
2.25
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 35
CHAPTER FOUR
4.2.2. Traffic Volume at Mebrat Haile Intersection

This intersection is located at the center of the city and considered as the most congested by the
road users perception. The traffic count was done for 12hr starting from 7:30AM up to 7:30PM
on each approachs. Accordingly Posta-bet, Sartera and Mariam approaches have high number of
traffic volume at the morning and evening period but the morning period volume is relatively
less than the evening period. When we see Tele approach it has almost uniform traffic volume
distribution and low volume of traffic throughout the day. The result is summarized in the Figure
Traffic Volume (Veh.)
4.2.
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Posta-bet Approach
Sartera Approach
Mariam Approach
Tele Approach
Figure 4.2: Traffic Volume at Mebrat haile Intersection
Figure 4.3 below shows traffic composition by vehicle class. Accordingly, there exist 32,982
vehicles on the four approaches out of this 21,680 vehicles or 65% of the total traffic is
composed of Bajaj or three wheel vehicles, passenger cars and mini buses have moderately high
but commercial vehicle like std. bus, medium and large trucks have very low volume.
Traffic Volume (in PCU)
20000
15000
10000
Posta-bet Approach
5000
Sartera Approach
Mariam Approach
Tele Approach
Figure 4.3: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Mebrat haile Interesction
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 36
CHAPTER FOUR
4.2.3. Traffic Volume at Posta-bet Intersection

Posta-bet intersection is a roundabout intersection found on the main road which connects Addis
Ababa with Dire Dawa. The traffic count was performed on the four approaches for 12hr
considering all the turning movement independently.
As shown in the Figure 4.4 below Sodere approach has the highest traffic volume and very much
variable throughout the day. Next to this approach Franco approach which is found on the main
road has the second highest traffic volume and has morning and evening peak period. The rest
namely Amede and Mebrat haile approach have moderately high traffic and similarly they have
morning and evening peak period.

300
250
200
150
Franco Approach
100
Mebrat haile Approach
50
Amede Approach
Sodere Approach
Figure 4.4: Traffic Volume at Posta-bet Intersection
When we see the traffic composition from the total traffic of 29,219 vehicles about 9,165 or 31%
are only Bajaj or three wheel vehicles which are found on Sodere and Mebrat haile approach
cause Bajajs are not allowed to travel on the main road. Franco approach has relatively high
number of passenger car and commercial vehicles when it is compared with the others according
to Figure 4.5.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 37
CHAPTER FOUR
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Franco Approach
Mebrat haile Approach
Amede Approach
sodere Approach
Figure 4.5: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Posta-bet Intersection
4.2.4. Traffic Volume at Franco Intersection

This intersection is found near the citys bus station and has three approaches. As shown in the
Figure 4.6 below Posta-bet approach has the highest traffic volume with both morning and
evening peak period. In addition the evening peak period traffic volume is found to be higher
than the morning peak period. Similarly Maya hotel approach has relatively higher traffic
volume and it has similar characteristics with Posta-bet approach. Finally Genb approach has low
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Posta bet Approach

Maya hotel Approach
7:30-7:45AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:30-8:45AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:30-9:45AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:30-11:45AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:30-12:45AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:30-1:45PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:30-2:45PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:30-3:45PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:30-5:45PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:30-6:45PM
7:00-7:15PM
traffic volume with uniform distribution of traffic throughout the day.
Genb Approach
Figure 4.6: Traffic Volume at Franco Intersection
As it is mentioned before the intersection is found near the bus station due to this Figure 4.7
shows there exist 5,322 vehicles or 32% of mini bus from the total of 16,422 vehicles. Again
large number of passenger car and commercial vehicles are found on the approach Posta-bet and
Maya hotel because this approach found on the main road.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 38
CHAPTER FOUR
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
Post bet Approach
2000
Maya hotel Approach
1000
Genb Approach
Figure 4.7: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Franco Intersection
4.2.5. Traffic Volume at Genb Intersection

The intersection has four leg and traffic count was done for 12hr for each intersection. As per the
Figure 4.8 Franco intersection which connects the intersection with Franco intersection and the
bus station has the highest traffic volume with relatively high evening peak period volume. The
others three approaches have relatively moderate traffic volume with similar characteristics with
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Franco Approach
Sartera Approach
Kera Approach
Genb gebeya Approach
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
each other.
Figure 4.8: Traffic Volume at Genb Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 39
CHAPTER FOUR
When we see the traffic composition from the total traffic of 23,158 vehicles about 17,463 or
75.4% are only Bajaj or three wheel vehicles which are found on the four approaches. The
number of Bajaj is higher because the intersection is located at Genb market center according to
Figure 4.9.
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Franco Approach
Sartera Approach
Kera Approach
Genb gebeya Approach
Figure 4.9: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Genb Intersection
Based on the results presented in section 4.2 traffic volume and flow pattern analysis the
following points can be pointed out.
The traffic count was done for solid 12hrs starting from 7:30AM up to 7:30PM on each
approach for all intersection considering the turning movement principle. Intersection found on
the main highway from Addis Ababa to Dire dawa namely Posta-bet and Franco intersection, the
traffic volume distribution as per Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.6 all the approaches have morning and
evening peak period except Genb approach on Franco intersection which shows uniform
distribution and Sodere approach on Posta-bet intersection which shows variable traffic volume
distribution. From Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.7 the traffic distribution considering vehicle type is
dominated by car & taxi, 4WD mini & medium bus and medium & large truck for both
intersections. But Posta-bet intersection has exceptionally high number of Bajajs.
The traffic volume distribution at Mebrat haile and Genb intersection which are found around
major market centers in the city shows morning and evening peak period for all approaches on
Mebrat haile intersection and Franco approach on Genb intersection for the rest the distribution
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 40
CHAPTER FOUR
is uniform with little variation though out the day as per Figure 3.8 and Figure 4.2. Also, Figure
3.3 and Figure 3.9 show the distribution of vehicle by type and Bajaj is the dominant one for
both intersections.
4.3.
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Using the data collected in the previous section level of service (LOS) analysis was made using
aaSIDRA intersection software version 5.0. In order to get the right result proper selection was
made to make it compatible with Ethiopian driving rule and HCM 2000 metric version was used.
The level of service (LOS) analysis was made only on the selected four intersections namely:
Franco intersection
Genb intersection
Directional traffic hourly flow data, number of pedestrian, peak hour factor, heavy vehicle
percentage, number of lane, lane width, median width used from field measure for the analysis of
level of service. However default values like saturated flow with the value 1900 Veh/hr have
been used as input data for the analysis. Also left turning factor 5 has been used as conversion
factor from HCM 2000 manual. This factor is taken because the left lane is shared lane. The
default value is adapted from similar analysis done in Addis Ababa by Taddesse W. (2011)
unpublished MSc thesis. The input datas for the program are summarized in the Table 4.4.
Accordingly the analysis run and the results of the analysis are summarized below in Table 4.5
based on average control delay (sec/veh) levels of service criteria for intersections shown in the
Table 2.3 and the outputs of the analysis for each intersection are attached in the Annex B.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 41
CHAPTER FOUR

Table 4.4: Input Datas for the Analysis of LOS using SIDRA Intersection
Total Traffic Volume (Veh/hr)
Po
Fr
an
co
Ge
nb
Peak Hour Factor (%)
Heavy Vehicle Factor (%)
TH
500
250
377
LT
564
2180
1133
RT
291
161
282
TH
97.81
93.48
95.44
LT
91.88
94.41
95.8
RT
96.08
95.04
93.81
TH
0.82
1.88
2.11
LT
2.01
0.41
1.46
RT
0.43
0.87
0
Tele
Franco
Amede
Mebrat Haile
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2
2
2
93
717
513
480
1097
0
0
0
156
243
143
266
96.88
97.21
96.86
95.96
94.52
0
0
0
96.31
95.66
90.77
94.84
1.88
17.15
20.87
1.16
0.41
0
0
0
0.87
17.81
2.5
1.12
Sodere
Posta bet
Maya hotel
Genb
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
2
2
2
0
917
684
794
0
0
69
1159
551
122
183
0
76
96.86
94.61
94.84
0
0
81.82
93.72
97.94
94.44
97.32
0
91.04
2.29
16.93
15.19
0
0
7.7
3.58
5.9
7.05
4.06
0
7.28
Franco
Sartera
Kera
1
1
2
1
1
2
4
4
3
0
0
2
870
298
133
165
114
189
240
122
84
97.12
97.21
93.5
91.79
85
94.01
96.53
97
93.06
0.34
1.27
2.79
4.09
3.42
2.12
0
0
3.53
Genb gebeya
103
173
219
92.25
91.87
94.03
2.6
4.67
0.91
sta
-b
et
M
eb
r
at
H
ail
e
Intersecti Approac
on
h leg
Posta bet
Sartera
Mariam
Number Number
Median
of Entry of Exit
Lane
Width
Lane
Lane Width(m) (m)
2
2
3.5
2.5
2
2
3.5
2.5
2
2
3.5
2.5
Table 4.5: LOS Output for the Analysis using SIDRA Intersection
Intersection
Mebrat
Haile
Posta-bet
Franco
Genb
Approach leg
Posta bet
Sartera
Mariam
Tele
Franco
Amede
Mebrat Haile
Sodere
Posta bet
Maya hotel
Genb
Franco
Sartera
Kera
Genb gebeya
Delay(Sec.)
TH
LT
RT
512.9 512.6 513.9
189.5 187.9 189.5
370.3 369.7 370.8
50.6
48.8
52.2
622.7
19.5
289.5
4.5
29.8
4.6
313.5
2.8
15.2
16.6
13.8
15.3
20.5
80.7
80.7
44
44
44
69
69
69
15.5
42.6
15.5
12.7
28.2
12.2
TH
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
D
E
F
B
B
LOS
LT
F
F
F
F
F
E
F
E
F
F
F
RT
F
F
F
F
B
A
A
A
E
F
E
F
B
B
As mentioned above level of service analysis was performed for Mebrat haile, Posta-bet, Franco
and Genb intersection after collecting all the necessary data listed in the Table 4.4 and the result
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 42
CHAPTER FOUR
is presented in Table 4.5 based on LOS criteria for intersection of HCM manual shown in Table
2.3 of chapter two.
According to Table 4.5, on all approaches and turning movement, Mebrat haile intersection has a
LOS of F with a very high delay.
The through movement on Franco and Amede on Posta-bet intersection which is found on the
main highway and Sodere approach with high number of Bajaj has LOS of F due to the turning
difficulty of large truck at the roundabout. But the right turning movement serving well enough.
For Franco intersection Posta-bet and Maya hotel approaches on the main highway although
Genb approach which has turning movement crossing the main highway it has LOS F due to the
existence of high traffic volume of through movement on the main highway.
Finally Genb Intersection which is dominated by Bajaj traffic on a single lane for the approach
Franco and Sartera, the LOS is E and F respectively.
However, Kera and Genb gebeya
approaches with very low traffic volume characterized by better LOS.
4.4.
Congestion Analysis
Congestion analysis was made based on the travel time approach for the determination of
congestion measures. These congestion measures are average travel time, delay, average travel
speed, travel rate, delay rate, travel time, total segment delay and delay ratio. While performing
the analysis only one approach with highest traffic volume and found on the main street was
selected for each intersection as follows.
From Mebrat haile intersection Posta-bet approach length 200m.
From Posta-bet intersection Franco approach length 200m
From Franco intersection Maya hotel approach length 250m.
From Genb intersection Franco approaches length 150m.
Accordingly, the analysis of each congestion measure are presented in the following sections and
summarized in the attached Annex C.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 43
CHAPTER FOUR
4.4.1. Travel Time

Average travel time at15min interval was determined for the selected approaches. According to
the result shown in the Figure 4.10 below, it shows the morning and evening peak periods
recorded the highest travel time and the lowest travel time recorded during mid-day for all
approaches from Mebrat haile, Franco and Posta-bet intersections. Similarly, these approaches
have higher peak travel time during the evening time than the morning period. But for the Franco
approach of Genb intersection, it has relatively uniform travel time even though it has slightly
higher in the morning and evening peak.
When they are compared to each other, the four approaches on the different intersection Maya
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Posta-bet App. From Mebrat

haile Int
6:45-7:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
12:45-1:00AM
12:00-
11:15-
10:30-
9:45-10:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
Franco App. From Posta-bet Int.
7:30-7:45AM
Travel Time (Sec.)
hotel approach on the Franco intersection has the highest travel time from the other.
Maya hotel App. From Franco

Int.
Franco App. From Genb Int.
Figure 4.10: Travel Time for the selected approach on all Intersection
Figure 4.10 Maya hotel approach on Franco intersection has the highest morning and evening
peak period and on the intersection 80 second is the average travel time assuming all the
approaches have equal length.
4.4.2. Travel Speed and Travel Rate

Approaching speed on the selected intersection leg has been performed. This is done for the
approach previously selected based on traffic volume and location. Figure 4.11 below shows
average speed distribution throughout the day for the approach. As per the result during morning
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 44
CHAPTER FOUR
and evening period the travel speed is lower up to 5km/hr but maximum speed occurs at the midday period.
Although for approaches on Mebrat haile, Genb and Franco intersection the evening period
average travel speed is lower relative to the morning period. However, for Franco approach on
25.00
20.00
Posta-bet App. From

Mebrat hail Int.
15.00
10.00
Franco App. From Posta-bet

Int.
5.00
0.00
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
Travel Speed km/hr
the Posta bet intersection which have relatively uniform travel speed throughout the day.
Maya hotel App. From

Franco Int.
Figure 4.11: Travel Speed for the selected approach on all Intersection
The other important congestion measure is travel rate which is the invers of travel speed has been
calculated and presented on the Figure 4.12 below. This congestion measure is significant
because it allow the comparison of the four approaches each other even though their length
varies. Based on this it shows all approach on the selected intersections have similar
characteristics. In short, the travel rate has morning and evening peak period with relatively
higher evening peak period and Franco approach on Posta-bet intersection has the highest travel
rate until 3:00PM then Posta-bet intersection on Mebrat haile intersection takes over.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 45
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

haile Int.
Int.
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
Travel Rate min/km
CHAPTER FOUR

Franco Int.
Figure 4.12: Travel Rate for the selected approach on all Intersection
Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 shows the travel speed on Posta-bet approach on Mebrat haile
intersection has a minimum of 5km/hr. With the highest travel rate of 11min/km this is due to the
on street parking near the intersection.
4.4.3. Delay, Delay Rate and Delay Ratio

Delay is one of the important parameter in congestion measure analysis. For the analysis of
delay, delay ratio and delay rate the posted speed at the intersection is used as reference.
Delay is the amount of extra time spent in congestion compared to the time it would take under
ideal or free-flow conditions.
Delay rate is the rate of time loss for vehicle operating in congested conditions, expressed in
minute per kilometer for a specified roadway segment. It is calculated as the difference between
the actual travel rate and the acceptable travel rate. The quantity can be used to estimate the
difference between system performance and the expectation for those system elements, which
can be used to prioritize alternative improvement.
Delay ratio is a dimensionless measure that can be used to compare or combine the relative
congestion level of facilities with different operating characteristics like freeways, arterial streets
and transit routes. It is calculated as the delay rate divided by the actual travel rate. The delay
ratio identifies the magnitude of mobility problem in relation to actual condition.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 46
CHAPTER FOUR
Accordingly, the result of delay, delay rate and delay ratio are shown in the Figure 4.13 through
Figure 4.15 below.
120
100
haile Int.
60

Int.
40
20

Franco Int.
6:45-7:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
12:45-1:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
0
7:30-7:45AM
Delay in Second
80
Figure 4.13: Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection

0.80
0.60
haile Int.
0.50
0.40

Int.
0.30
0.20
Maya hotel App. From Franco

Int.
0.10
6:45-7:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
12:45-1:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
0.00
7:30-7:45AM
Delay Rate min/km
0.70
Figure 4.14: Delay Rate for the selected approach on all Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 47
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

haile Int.
Int.
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
Delay Ratio
CHAPTER FOUR

Franco Int.
Figure 4.15: Delay Ratio for the selected approach on all Intersection
On the delay analysis, Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.15 shows Maya hotel approach on Franco
intersection has the highest delay both at the morning and evening peak period with 73second
and 110 second respectively. Again, the four intersections have an average of delay rate of 0.6 to
0.7 was observed except for Genb intersection with 0.4 delay rate. The delay rate 0.6 to 0.7
shows only 30-40% of the time wasted at the intersection was enough to pass the intersection at
uncongested condition.
4.4.4. Total Segment Delay

Total segment delay measured in Vehicle-min is the measure of congestion intensity. It shows
how the congestion is serious and indicates the extent of the congestion that how much Vehicle
is being affected with the congestion. Figure 4.16 shows the total segment delay in Vehicle-Min
for the selected approach length considered. The result in the Figure 4.16 should not be
compared each other because these approaches are not equal in length, therefore it should be read
for a single approach only at once.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 48
CHAPTER FOUR
1000.00
Posta-bet App. From
Mebrat haile Int.
800.00
600.00

Int.
400.00
200.00
0.00
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
Total Delay in Veh-min
1200.00

Franco Int.
Figure 4.16: Total Segment Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection
However, in order to compare the selected four approaches each other the total delay was divided
by the length of the segment and the delay was converted to a unit length delay and shown in the
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Posta-bet App. From

Mebrat haile Int.
Int.
7:30-7:45AM
8:15-8:30AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:30-10:45AM
11:15-11:30AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:30-1:45PM
2:15-2:30PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:30-4:45PM
5:15-5:30PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:45-7:00PM
Unit Length Delay

(veh-min)/meter
Figure 4.17.

Franco Int.
Figure 4.17: Total Unit length Delay for the selected approach on all Intersection
Total segment delays which explain the severity of congestion on Figure 4.16 shows that an
average of total delay of approximately 1067 Veh-min was lost on the four approaches selected
on each intersections, this means 72 vehicles are idle for full day. On average the maximum
delay occurs during the evening peak period, it is about 1623 Veh-min and during the morning
891 Veh-min was lost. Similarly Figure 4.17 shows the comparison of each approach each other,
the highest morning peak delay exist on Franco and Maya hotel approach on Posta-bet and
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 49
CHAPTER FOUR
Franco intersection respectively. Although, the highest evening peak delay exist on Posta-bet and
Maya hotel approach on Mebrat haile and Franco intersection respectively.
4.5.
Causes of Traffic Congestion around the Intersections
Traffic congestion is now a days an unavoidable phenomena due to the rapid growth of traffic
volume and reduction of road capacity due to different reasons. Due to this traffic congestion
measures should be prepared before it is out of control. After performing some observation for
full day time starting 7:30AM up to 7:30PM the cause of traffic congestion for the selected four
intersections namely Mebrat haile intersection, Posta-bet intersection, Franco intersection and
Genb intersection are more or less the same and explained below.
There exist the presences of on street parking near the intersection on all intersections, this
results excessive delay near the intersection. Although most of the pedestrians travers on the
outer edge of the travel lane causing discomfort on the driver. Around Mebrat haile intersection,
working zone causes reduction on the capacity of Sartera approach causing delay and there exists
broken traffic signal.
At Posta bet and Franco intersection on the major highway vehicle breakdown, existence of large
traffic in large number and traffic incident like crash is the major causes.
The level of service analysis on the intersections on Table 4.5 shows, almost all of the
intersections are under capacity with LOS F. this id due to the increase traffic volume in the city
resulting reduction in the road capacity. In short traffic congestion causes are listed below:
Traffic Incidents (Crash)
Work Zones
Damaged Traffic Signals
Reduction in road capacity
Vehicle breakdown
On Street Parking
4.6.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Measures
Most of congestion causes could be avoided with simple traffic management. On all
intersections, on street parking near the intersection should be prohibited this will minimize
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 50
CHAPTER FOUR
excessive delay near the intersection; similarly, the pedestrian should be forced to use walk ways
rather than the outer lanes.
For nonrecurring causes like work zone, traffic incident and vehicle break down the city
administration should use one of the following methods listed literature review part like faster
and anticipatory response to traffic incidents, access management and improvement of work
zones.
The most serious cause of congestion is reduction in highway capacity, due to increase in traffic
volume. To improve the capacity of the highway, there are two possible solutions: increase the
capacity of the highway or decrees the traffic volume by any means.
One way to increase the capacity of the highway is adding one or more additional lane. To
evaluate the effect of adding lane on the capacity, one lane has been added on the intersections
approach and the result is shown in the Table 4.6 below.
Table 4.6: LOS Output after adding one lane using SIDRA Intersection
Existing LOS
Intersection
Mebrat
Haile
Posta-bet
Franco
Genb
Approach leg
Posta bet
Sartera
Mariam
Tele
Franco
Amede
Mebrat Haile
Sodere
Posta bet
Maya hotel
Genb
Franco
Sartera
Kera
Genb gebeya
By Fasika Mekonnen
TH
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
D
E
F
B
B
LT
F
F
F
F
F
E
F
E
F
E
F
LOS after Adding one lane

RT
F
F
F
F
B
A
A
A
F
F
E
F
B
B
TH
F
F
F
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
F
C
B
B
LT
F
F
F
E
A
A
A
F
C
B
B
RT
F
F
F
F
A
A
A
A
B
F
F
F
E
D
Page 51
CHAPTER FOUR
Based on the Table 4.6 adding one lane has significantly change the capacity of Posta-bet,
Franco, Genb intersections but not Mebrat haile intersection.
The other method to increase capacity is reducing traffic volume so, for Posta bet and Franco
intersection this method was tried by removing large truck vehicles from the highway. This is
due to, most of the truck pass through Adama so they can use the newly built express road. Then
by removing this vehicles LOS has been evaluated and the following result has been found.
Table 4.7: LOS Output after removing large trucks using SIDRA Intersection
Existing LOS
Intersection
Posta-bet
Franco
Approach leg
Franco
Amede
Mebrat Haile
Sodere
Posta bet
Maya hotel
Genb
TH
F
F
C
F
F
D
-
LT
F
E
F
RT
B
A
A
A
F
F
LOS after Removing

Large Trucks
TH
F
F
A
E
B
B
-
LT
A
A
F
RT
A
A
A
A
B
F
According to Table 4.6 the best method to increase the capacity of the intersections is by adding
one additional lane. But for Mebrate haile interaction the possible solution is traffic signal to
provide orderly movement for conflicting traffics.
4.7.
Cost of Traffic Congestion
In order to calculate cost of traffic congestion, there exist a number of parameters to be conceded
to in the analysis. But it was difficult to obtain all the parameters to determine the total cost of
traffic congestion at the intersections. Therefore, the researchers decided to consider three major
parameters which are seriously affected by the congestion namely, ideal time or labour cost, fuel
cost and rental cost of vehicles. The rental cost of vehicles was included to consider parameters
like vehicle maintenance cost, vehicle emissions, quality of life (due to personal time delays),
and business activity (due to the additional costs and reduced service areas for workforce,
supplier and customer markets).
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 52
CHAPTER FOUR
The fuel consumption of vehicles varies for different vehicles and whether they are new or old.
To consider this variation the weighted average of vehicle fuel consumption is considered and
the same thing was done for the rental cost of vehicle. The daily labour cost was taken from a
paper prepared by Bemnet Aschenak in march18, 2004 by a title Transport Costs in Ethiopia: As
impediment to export.
The total cost of congestion is the summation of labour cost, total fuel cost and total rental cost
per day then finally converted to per year by multiply by 365. The total labour income lost has
been calculated by multiplying cost of labor per day and total segment delay per day in vehiclehour unit finally, the total labour income lost is presented in birr per day. The total fuel cost lost
per day equals to unit cost of fuel in birr times total fuel consumed per liter by considering
weight average of fuel consumption for different type of vehicle. Then for the last parameter
total vehicle rental cost in birr per day is calculated by multiplying average daily rental cost of
vehicle in birr per day and total segment delay per day in vehicle-hour unit.
Finally, based on the above mentioned parameters the total cost of congestion has been
determined and summarized tin the Table 4.6 for the approach selected on the major
intersections.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 53
CHAPTER FOUR
Table 4.8: Traffic Congestion Cost Analysis
Cost of Congestion
Mebrat hail
Posta-bet
Posta-bet
Franco
9,058.00
9,089.00
Franco
Maya hotel
10,636.00
Genb
Franco
10,854.00
8,812.39
10,642.12
6,940.16
146.87
8.40
177.37
8.40
115.67
8.40
67.20
67.20
67.20
9.95
9.95
9.95
98,205.25
118,595.84
77,341.18
0.83
122.58
20.70
2,537.39
0.60
106.54
20.70
2,205.46
0.12
13.74
20.70
284.40
962.79
887.11
141.00
17,676.09
19,668.27
2,038.70
118,418.72
140,469.56
79,664.28
43,222,833.69
51,271,390.34
29,077,463.50
Intersection
Approach
Total Traffic (Vehicle- Day)
Total Segment Delay per day
(Vehicle-min)
8,129.58
Total Segment Delay per day
(Vehicle-Hr)
135.49
Labour Cost (birr/Hr)
8.40
Labour Cost (birr/Day) for
8Hr
67.20
Average Vehicle Occupancy
(Persons/Veh)
9.95
Labour Income Lost
(birr/Day)
90,596.00
Weighted Average Fuel
Consumption (Lit/hr)
0.24
Total Fuel Consumed (lit)
32.43
Unit Cost of fuel (birr)
20.70
Total Fuel Cost per day
671.35
Average daily Rental cost of
Vehicles (birr/day)
243.79
Total Daily Vehicle Rental
cost (birr/day)
4,128.97
Total Daily Labour, Fuel &
Vehicle cost (birr/day)
95,396.32
Total Labour, Fuel & Vehicle
cost (birr/year)
34,819,655.39
4.8.
Traffic Congestion and Traffic Accident
As per the data collected from Adama special zone police administration, the following Figure
4.18 shows the distribution of traffic accident in the city from year 1998 up to 2006EC. It shows
that the number of accident increases from year 1998 to 2006EC, it seems fatal accident is in
decreasing order but property damage in increasing order.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 54
CHAPTER FOUR
200
Number of Accident
180
160
140
120
Fatal Accident
100
High Accident
80
Low Accident
60
Property Damege
40
20
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 4.18: Accident Distribution in recent Nine year
According to Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.20 the average number of accident is higher during the
morning peak period and decreases around midday and evening period. But the average traffic
Average Accident
volume shows higher during evening time and relatively low at morning period.
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Average number of Accident
Figure 4.19: Average Traffic Accident for the Past Nine Years
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 55
CHAPTER FOUR
Average Traffic Volume
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Average number of Traffic
Figure 4.20: Average Traffic Volume on the Selected Approaches
According to Figure 4.21 below both number of accidents and travel speed has almost exactly
opposite characteristics. Average travel speed decreases at the morning and evening period but
Average Accident &Travel

Speed
the number of accident is higher during these periods.

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Average number of Accident

Average Travel Speed (Km/hr.)
Figure4.21: Average Accident and Average Travel Speed
In order to see the correlation between traffic volume and travel time with traffic accident, linear
equations and regression coefficients were determined as shown in Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23
respectively. Accordingly, the regression coefficient of travel speed with traffic accident is
greater than the regression coefficient of traffic volume. But, the R2 is almost zero this means
both travel speed and traffic volume has almost no relation with traffic accident in the city.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 56
CHAPTER FOUR
20.00
18.00
y = -0.0054x + 17.727
R = 0.0353
Average Accident
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Average Traffic Volume (veh.)
Figure 4.22: Correlation between Average Accident and Average Traffic Volume
20.00
18.00
y = 0.2669x + 10.538
R = 0.0378
Average Accident
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Average Travel Speed (Km/h)
12.00
14.00
Figure 4.23: Correlation between Average Accident and Average Travel Speed
This is because the correlation is done with the average accident, the result may change if the
correlation was done with fatal accident vs travel speed and property damage vs traffic volume
based on the theory. The correlations mentioned above were not done because traffic accident
data for fatal accident and property damage were not given by time of the day.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 57
CHAPTER FOUR
However, correlation was done by dividing full day accident data in to morning period from
7AM-11AM, mid-day period 11AM-3PM and evening period 3PM-7PM. Then similar analysis
Average Accident
has been done and the results are presented in the figure below.
20.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
y = 0.0387x - 14.332
R = 0.4481
10.00
y = -1.4425x + 31.625
R = 0.6612
10.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
740
760
780
800
820
840
10
15
Figure 4.24: Correlation between: Accident vs. Traffic volume and Accident vs. Travel Speed (Morning)
15.00
Average Accident
15.00
10.00
10.00
y = -0.0083x + 18.231
R = 0.1283
5.00
y = 1.0733x - 1.0826
R = 0.4517
5.00
0.00
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
10
15
Average Accident
Figure 4.25: Correlation between: Accident vs. Traffic volume and Accident vs. Travel Speed (Mid-day)
15.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
y = 0.0204x - 7.2153
R = 0.7676
5.00
y = -5.2581x + 53.513
R = 0.4822
5.00
0.00
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.2
8.4
Figure 4.26: Correlation between: Accident vs. Traffic volume and Accident vs. Travel Speed (Evening)
According to the figure above average travel speed has better relation with accident for morning
and mid-day period. For the evening period traffic volume has better relation. Therefore,
considering time as a variable, accident has relation with speed and traffic volume.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 58
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions and Recommendations
CHAPTER FIVE
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:

Traffic volume distribution and congestion are similar with the theoretical principle.
Traffic volume has the morning and evening peak period for almost all approaches on the
selected four intersections. Similarly, traffic congestion during morning and evening peak
period are congested and during midday it is relatively uncongested.
The level of service on the intersections are performing above their capacity specially
Mebrat haile, Posta-bet and Genb intersection with the LOS of F for most approach.
For all selected approach the average delay and total segment delay have the morning and
evening peak period. Accordingly, based on the delay analysis delay rate 0.6 to 0.7 shows
on average only 30-40% of the time wasted at the intersection was enough to pass the
intersection at uncongested condition.
Based on total segment delay, on average approximately 48 vehicles are idle for full day
on one intersection per day in Adama city and on average the maximum delay of 1623
Veh-min and 891 Veh-min was lost during the evening and the morning peak period
respectively.
Based on observation, most of causes of congestion are due to improper traffic. However
LOS analysis shows almost all approach on the intersections are serving above their
capacity resulting increase in travel time and transportation cost.
As a mitigation measure, increase the capacity of the highway has a better result than
decrees the traffic volume.
Assuming ideal time or labour cost, fuel cost and rental cost of vehicles only, on average
the cost of congestion at the selected approach varies from 29 to 51 million birr per year
with the average of 39.6 million birr on one approach per year.
Even though it is difficult to explain their correlation, it shows when the travel speed is
lower the accident rate increases. However, correlation analysis has been done between
average accident & average travel speed and average accident & average traffic volume
and based on the R2 values it seems it is almost insignificant for full day analysis.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 59
CHAPTER FIVE
5.2.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Recommendations
To further enhance the results of this study the following recommendations are formulated:
Further research should be conducted to extend all aspects of this research, such as by
collecting more data in order to improve results. From this data traffic volume is the one
and it is recommended to count at least for seven days. Similarly during collecting travel
speed and travel time automatic data collection method are better to minimize error.
To fully estimate the cost of congestion it is recommended to use different factors like
vehicle operation cost specifically maintenance.
The result shows traffic accident has no or insignificant relation with traffic volume and
speed. Therefore, further research should be conducted to evaluate the possible cause of
accident in the city.
From the analysis result, it shows the intersections are serving above their capacity.
Therefore, the city administration should consider this issue and formulate capacity
improvement methods.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 60
Reference
Reference
Bemnet, A.(2004,March) Transport Costs in Ethiopia: An impediment to Export. Paper prepare
for World Banks FY04 Country Economic Memorandum of Ethiopia.
Bertini, L. R. (2005, November). You Are the Traffic Jam: An Examination of Congestion
Measures. Paper presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington D.C.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. & Texas Transportation Institute.(2004). Traffic Congestion &
Reliablity: Linking Solutions to Problems: Final Report.
Chao W., Mohammed A., Stephen G. (July, 2009): Impact of traffic congestion on road
accidents: A spatial analysis of the M25 motorway in England
European conference of ministers of transport (1998). Report Of The Hundred And Tenth
Round Table On Transport Economics Held In Paris On 12th-13th March 1998 On The
Following Topic: Traffic Congestion In Europe:
Nicholas J. Garber & Lester A. Hoel (2009): Traffic and Highway Engineering. Fourth edition,
University of Virginia
Haregewoin, Y. (2010). Impact of Vehicle Traffic Congestion in Addis Ababa (A Case study
of Kolfe sub-city: Total -Ayer Tena Road): Unpublished MSc Thesis, Ethiopian Civil
Service College.
Hartgen D. & Fields G. (2009). Gridlock and Growth: The Effect of Traffic Congestion on
Regional Economic Performance. Policy Summary of Study No. 371.
Herbert S. Levinson and Timothy J. Lomax. Developing a Travel Time Congestion Index.
Transportation Research Record # 1564.
Jenks, W., Jenks, F., Sundstorm, L., Delanely, P., & B.Hagood. (2008). NCHRP Report 618:
Cost Effective Performance Measures for Travel Time Delay, Variation and
Reliablity. Transportation Research Board. Washington DC: National Accadamy.
Khaled Hamad and Shinya Kikuchi. Developing a Measure of Traffic Congestion:Fuzzy
Inference Approach. Transportation Research Record #1802, Paper No. 02-2770.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 61
Reference
Lomax, T., Turner, S., & Shunk, G. (1997). NCHRP Report 398 " Quantifying Congestion".
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C: National Academy Press.
McGroarty J. (2010, Jan. 29). Recurring and Non-Recurring Congestion: Causes, Impacts, and
Solutions. Paper presented at Neihoff Urban Studio.
Quddus, M., Wang, C., and Ison, S. (2010). Road Traffic Congestion and Crash Severity:
Econometric Analysis Using Ordered Response Models.
R. Narayanana, R. Urdayakumar, K. Kumar & K. Subbaraj (2003). Quantification of congestion
using Fuzzy Logic and Network Analysis using GIS. Paper Presented at Map India
Conference 2003
Schrage A. (2006). Traffic Congestion and Accidents: Nr. 419. University of Regensburg
Working Papers in Business, Economics and Management Information Systems,
Germany.
Schrank D.& Lomax T. (2005). The 2005 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation
Institute. [On line] available http://www.mobility.tamu.edu.
Spalding S. (2008). RACQ Congested Roads report: The effect on Fuel Consumption
and Vehicle Emissions: version (1) 0408.
Taddesse W. (2011). Assessing & quantifing the level of traffic congestion at
major
intersections in Addis Ababa (a case for east-west corridor): Unpublished MSc

thesis: Addis Ababa University.
Umama A. (2010,Augest). Passenger Car Equivalent Factors for Level Freeway Segments
Operating under Moderate and Congested Condition. Published MSc thesis: Marquette
University
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2013). Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II
Congestion Costs. [On line] available http://www.vtpi.org.
Weisbrod G. , Vary D. & Treyz G. (2003). Measuring the Economic Costs of Urban Traffic
Congestion to Busines. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Published
in Transportation Research Record, #1839.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 62
Annexes
Annexes
Annex-A: Traffic Volume and PCU Analysis
Table 1: Traffic volume at Mebrat haile Intersection
Traffic Volume
Post bet Approach
Sartera Approach
TH R
L
Ped. TH R
L Ped.
7:30-7:45AM
80 41 80
65 24 20 180 24
7:45-8:00AM
88 58 105 103 41 31 315 185
8:00-8:15AM
119 64 140 298 54 32 460 298
8:15-8:30AM
126 61 120 300 56 32 475 286
8:30-8:45AM
121 53 135 235 56 33 505 300
8:45-9:00AM
112 62 155 214 62 32 577 215
9:00-9:15AM
101 61 130 106 58 39 585 196
9:15-9:30AM
94 64 135 118 70 39 526 250
9:30-9:45AM
121 66 120 248 52 39 595 196
9:45-10:00AM 113 68 125 216 52 39 515 310
10:00-10:15AM 111 65 130 200 50 28 410 287
10:15-10:30AM 101 60 150 240 57 31 525 296
10:30-10:45AM 125 75 155 270 61 38 430 315
10:45-11:00AM 111 46 170 261 50 34 400 320
11:00-11:15AM 107 48 120 178 49 36 310 215
11:15-11:30AM 113 50 105 179 51 36 450 236
11:30-11:45AM 104 56 100 132 34 35 390 198
11:45-12:00AM 82 48 125 98 37 37 285 124
12:00-12:15AM 91 48 110 103 46 36 410 135
12:15-12:30AM 96 48 135 98 38 32 351 147
12:30-12:45AM 89 42 115 115 38 29 290 168
12:45-1:00AM 100 42 130 87 34 31 330 200
1:00-1:15PM
93 58 110 96 42 33 291 189
1:15-1:30PM
108 53 135 100 42 36 340 98
1:30-1:45PM
106 59 115 87 46 36 396 103
1:45-2:00PM
108 53 85 215 36 36 395 142
2:00-2:15PM
111 48 115 235 42 31 385 136
2:15-2:30PM
109 55 110 210 42 35 456 215
2:30-2:45PM
100 45 145 189 48 32 515 178
2:45-3:00PM
120 41 105 231 54 30 591 264
3:00-3:15PM
106 53 120 248 58 36 530 232
3:15-3:30PM
109 45 145 263 56 29 485 225
By Fasika Mekonnen
Mariam Approach
TH R
L Ped.
38 27 195 23
67 46 295 98
81 58 345 256
91 53 435 289
101 49 455 213
97 52 455 245
87 62 405 256
85 54 420 300
67 55 420 298
66 68 460 165
85 63 475 180
93 59 405 196
98 72 485 265
92 53 475 213
78 58 445 101
93 56 425 113
73 57 450 189
88 69 435 214
79 51 385 97
64 50 415 110
64 65 350 123
56 49 345 148
83 53 350 214
74 58 355 101
66 57 335 97
86 48 320 98
87 50 335 197
68 54 310 246
62 57 340 223
88 53 370 241
89 47 370 123
84 51 450 289
26/12/2013
Tele Approach
TH R
L
Ped.
15 21 85
45
15 33 125 65
21 33 165 250
25 40 195 125
20 37 230 345
30 42 215 268
18 42 235 276
19 39 205 310
24 41 215 248
25 39 240 213
24 38 225 201
26 31 235 289
20 45 270 256
24 37 255 189
12 37 255 198
20 41 220 214
18 35 240 231
13 34 180 225
13 37 140 187
14 38 195 165
15 30 200 132
18 25 180 114
13 33 170 214
12 28 175 89
11 38 155 97
14 27 195 65
15 26 150 111
19 36 170 168
8 37 200 214
15 44 175 253
9 40 175 278
14 39 230 254
Page 63
Annexes
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
121
128
124
112
106
121
126
129
115
121
102
104
95
78
101
84
39
52
60
69
70
79
74
77
81
82
69
73
71
70
59
62
110
140
130
145
135
140
120
165
175
155
140
150
160
115
150
120
104
361
341
298
310
256
234
264
231
310
201
256
198
231
314
261
52
60
55
67
68
54
55
59
66
58
56
60
52
48
49
49
34
29
44
41
47
44
30
48
42
37
47
46
38
40
41
36
593
615
501
535
550
485
586
565
526
490
420
482
560
507
490
465
345
310
302
289
186
186
245
234
251
168
245
214
189
245
168
187
72
90
89
97
101
94
89
73
84
81
63
93
77
73
61
66
58
74
80
81
79
74
71
62
67
81
80
68
67
49
82
62
400
465
450
475
420
485
415
445
440
450
465
375
460
455
410
410
243
231
315
326
286
213
245
261
203
189
234
253
231
201
231
114
15
20
15
20
23
22
27
22
18
26
17
24
27
22
18
20
35
39
45
31
41
37
37
39
40
40
33
33
39
26
33
42
245
205
250
235
210
255
255
200
250
215
185
165
200
145
175
150
Table 2: Traffic volume at Posta-bet Intersection

7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
By Fasika Mekonnen
Traffic Volume
Franco Approach
TH R
Ped.
94 40
70
92 33 135
106 47 115
117 40 135
122 46 142
132 44 104
131 42 170
114 51 192
114 43 254
102 48 161
99 42 215
101 40 241
103 41 164
97 39 150
95 44
96
95 35
48
88 42
50
87 45
74
Mebrat haile
Approach
TH
R
Ped.
60
56
37
64
65
45
74
77
98
74
76
124
82
74
136
78
74
87
83
75
96
79
76
84
83
71
101
83
69
86
82
74
98
66
76
87
76
63
46
73
59
68
51
58
95
61
57
76
53
57
68
61
56
103
05/12/2013
Kela Approach
TH R
Ped.
59 17
26
66 22
89
69 30 116
76 26 189
84 26 112
73 23
96
86 23
85
87 27
93
85 27 105
93 34
86
101 35
75
95 36
34
100 27
26
80 25
56
89 18
38
85 27
49
78 32
65
82 30
76
Sodere Approach
TH R
Ped.
132 26
42
129 32
86
165 24 142
189 21 156
185 32 113
181 25 103
151 25
97
164 34
96
192 32 124
148 33 101
167 21
76
184 26
65
210 28
97
212 28 112
174 27
86
195 28
34
192 28
76
202 27
56
Page 64
263
214
187
214
234
198
124
138
116
121
187
215
234
256
245
214
Annexes
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
106
92
88
93
104
101
101
95
110
123
143
158
137
130
101
125
120
127
136
132
120
108
106
103
108
107
93
87
88
93
36
39
42
40
36
31
33
33
35
37
40
40
52
43
35
47
45
45
39
36
38
36
40
28
28
23
26
23
20
17
68
84
96
87
93
103
142
91
103
146
96
76
130
198
214
236
346
265
189
245
213
236
178
126
243
214
198
176
200
158
60
53
53
58
59
62
65
67
59
64
70
86
78
75
96
84
84
101
86
81
73
68
67
76
72
76
70
80
73
74
58
58
56
61
58
54
53
51
59
53
66
67
72
70
62
64
62
61
63
64
58
61
69
63
57
65
62
62
58
56
86
89
57
68
96
103
86
68
64
101
104
90
76
87
104
96
103
123
98
103
134
124
189
214
176
132
102
132
142
136
81
80
79
94
91
91
80
79
88
92
90
101
99
97
81
100
94
112
92
104
94
97
100
84
94
84
73
85
80
69
24
26
23
20
18
22
26
22
23
21
14
28
36
24
20
25
23
20
29
21
19
22
13
19
14
20
23
13
9
16
85
24
89
76
85
34
64
65
45
87
96
125
111
132
142
132
136
176
103
98
86
124
105
86
76
84
63
57
52
43
155
174
200
176
213
183
178
188
198
209
175
225
217
246
180
214
219
210
215
214
201
219
174
198
203
204
201
193
183
190
27
21
28
24
24
24
17
17
21
29
30
32
25
20
18
31
33
30
29
22
27
29
32
33
20
24
27
29
24
19
35
86
94
93
103
123
96
76
98
84
114
139
124
96
135
189
154
163
143
103
87
98
126
246
156
134
104
123
98
103
Table 3: Traffic volume at Franco Intersection

Franco Intersection
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
Maya hotel Approach

TH
L
Pedestrian
102 305
115
114 235
389
130 305
574
132 290
486
149 245
368
140 215
345
152 180
425
By Fasika Mekonnen
12/12/2013`
Traffic Volume
Posta bet Approach
TH R
L
Pedestrian
65 26 30
104
90 33 25
246
101 33 45
378
107 44 50
460
123 33 50
524
115 36 50
345
119 34 30
365
R
15
16
17
17
18
19
16
Genb Approach
L
Pedestrian
60
265
75
321
90
450
75
436
100
426
95
368
75
256
Page 65
Annexes
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
136
134
144
132
104
117
112
117
124
123
106
100
101
100
107
117
121
98
103
108
138
136
137
139
162
149
169
165
158
162
151
143
156
139
130
150
120
127
126
126
112
By Fasika Mekonnen
190
195
230
200
220
220
190
215
200
190
205
225
240
225
245
260
220
255
225
215
225
205
235
300
310
285
305
295
350
295
305
265
235
185
235
260
220
245
180
205
190
462
268
297
278
365
210
195
211
264
195
111
89
65
89
109
104
99
87
76
92
198
245
265
195
245
368
379
420
398
285
460
580
461
510
285
312
482
346
412
319
294
103
106
102
89
83
79
82
81
85
98
97
96
93
95
106
82
80
83
77
92
81
88
82
94
88
91
105
137
133
130
142
132
158
127
92
96
85
99
83
79
81
35
31
36
35
29
26
28
29
31
32
21
26
31
24
22
23
24
23
23
20
22
24
27
21
28
25
27
39
33
44
33
32
41
46
45
32
30
19
25
24
25
45
10
25
10
30
10
40
25
20
15
20
20
25
30
15
25
20
15
30
50
25
10
35
15
30
25
5
40
30
20
45
35
35
30
20
25
40
25
20
10
20
420
487
286
201
214
145
89
264
126
98
87
101
96
136
86
94
65
110
98
108
125
94
87
126
368
426
394
486
510
543
480
456
497
510
420
365
496
471
501
389
394
18
19
19
18
17
23
12
13
14
16
12
14
11
16
10
12
11
13
9
8
14
10
12
9
9
13
22
8
7
11
17
11
14
16
17
11
12
13
12
14
18
85
70
70
90
70
85
90
65
55
70
60
60
70
70
50
55
60
70
55
75
85
90
55
70
60
65
125
150
155
135
155
135
165
115
110
110
100
120
95
95
105
364
246
420
316
253
243
364
346
460
367
450
362
249
126
105
148
198
249
281
348
497
560
346
305
489
517
435
525
489
456
501
467
518
489
387
498
386
398
478
465
348
Page 66
Annexes
Table 4: Traffic volume at Genb Intersection

Genb Intersection
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
Franko Approach
TH R
L Ped.
112 41 60
65
106 35 30
75
128 35 80
64
148 29 70
56
131 38 75
87
144 36 70 104
157 37 85 165
162 44 85 187
144 34 60 249
139 31 100 156
143 29 50 210
179 31 55 236
165 24 30 214
152 23 65 200
144 31 85 146
163 21 20
98
150 26 35
65
173 25 40
86
185 28 50
50
168 27 80
98
170 27 85
76
158 29 70 101
167 26 50 126
164 21 85 187
161 24 85 234
154 33 50 226
164 31 65 164
151 23 45 180
173 36 50
97
158 30 75 103
179 32 90 111
212 38 55 213
202 49 80
98
242 49 85 213
By Fasika Mekonnen
Traffic Volume
Sartera Approach
TH R L Ped.
53 27 40 98
60 30 9
87
61 30 14 65
52 33 8 142
55 28 12 189
60 36 13 256
66 28 12 316
61 27 7 378
57 27 11 265
64 28 5 198
65 24 4 165
65 30 11 246
60 24 12 236
60 24 5 351
62 30 7 303
57 29 10 268
49 28 12 271
53 27 7 186
51 29 10 103
49 23 11 96
44 25 12 111
48 29 8
86
49 30 14 62
54 23 3
74
47 19 13 93
48 27 13 56
41 22 15 146
41 29 8 135
53 22 15 312
48 33 10 186
44 29 12 256
51 27 13 247
46 35 12 234
82 31 9 315
Kera Approach
TH R
L Ped.
25 18 110
7
27 12 130 16
29 16 115 12
33 17 110 45
23 13 120 68
25 20 115 124
25 17 120 87
16 14 100 76
24 6 100 92
22 13 165 105
25 10 140 110
22 11 105 96
22 12 150 87
29 10 120 65
23 13 125 43
17 9 110 89
29 11 115 82
27 16 120 94
20 13 110 56
21 18 115 46
14 13 110 84
25 16 95
62
21 13 120 34
21 12 105 76
25 12 115 65
24 11 115 43
26 17 120 89
27 12 120 79
29 17 120 68
29 17 135 94
28 16 95 100
22 12 140 86
32 14 125 104
38 18 130 96
TH
29
25
25
29
33
26
23
31
26
27
24
29
31
28
27
29
19
19
30
26
23
17
23
24
23
30
20
30
22
27
31
35
30
21
19/12/2013
Geng gebeya
Approach
R
L
Ped.
28 85
24
34 90
89
29 105 65
39 105 78
36 90 111
46 100 106
43 80 123
42 75
98
41 65 103
36 80 104
45 75 114
44 90
89
34 70
79
31 65
98
46 70 110
37 60
68
40 85
95
49 55 112
34 50
89
36 55
86
39 75
94
35 50
56
32 95
89
37 50
76
43 65
75
37 70
89
42 50
88
43 65
96
46 70 103
37 60 1113
36 115 83
40 90
96
46 90 120
50 75 118
Page 67
Annexes
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
215
200
221
216
226
217
197
230
218
195
174
178
209
197
54
65
64
70
56
55
49
52
53
58
72
59
66
47
95
115
100
120
125
100
70
110
120
130
115
110
110
55
123
134
120
132
240
180
198
256
235
215
170
231
261
193
62
81
77
81
73
70
66
74
81
74
65
61
62
55
29
28
35
34
33
32
31
36
28
40
27
31
34
34
18
12
17
18
15
12
18
11
14
9
9
10
8
11
289
176
200
315
214
302
345
214
158
251
180
251
190
187
35
39
31
37
29
38
33
31
34
28
26
24
30
30
23
23
21
20
19
22
18
20
16
19
20
13
17
16
140
195
190
220
170
115
195
175
165
175
180
130
140
145
79
94
96
130
98
111
86
135
98
76
56
100
45
32
23
28
30
30
29
29
23
19
19
25
19
25
17
22
53
57
55
67
64
61
60
58
48
38
49
53
48
43
95
85
105
95
75
105
130
115
115
135
90
110
120
120
99
126
105
135
110
127
98
78
89
86
111
89
102
97
Table 5: PCU Factor Analysis

PCU Factor
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Avetage h,
PCU=hi/hcar
Car &
Taxi
4.20
4.60
3.80
4.30
4.10
4.90
2.50
3.40
4.10
3.60
3.95
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
3.20
3.30
3.60
3.10
2.90
3.50
3.60
3.70
By Fasika Mekonnen
Cycle
9.00
8.90
9.70
7.90
6.80
8.20
8.42
2.13
Two
wheel
4.30
5.10
4.10
3.90
4.60
4.40
1.11
Bajaj
4.10
3.90
3.80
4.10
3.40
3..9
4.20
4.60
3.80
4.30
3.62
0.92
4-WD
4.60
4.20
4.60
4.30
4.60
4.20
3.80
4.30
4.60
4.30
4.35
1.10
Mini
Bus
4.70
5.20
4.80
4.60
5.00
4.80
4.80
5.30
4.90
5.30
4.94
1.25
Medium
bus
5.40
6.20
5.80
6.30
4.90
6.20
6.50
4.80
5.70
4.80
5.66
1.43
Std.
Bus
7.80
8.00
7.90
2.00
Medium
Trucks
7.20
8.30
7.10
8.40
8.30
7.40
7.20
8.10
7.60
7.90
7.75
1.96
Large
Trucks
7.30
8.90
8.50
8.20
9.00
10.20
8.90
8.30
7.90
10.30
8.75
2.22
5.30
4.90
5.10
4.90
6.10
-
4.20
3.70
3.50
4.30
3.00
4.20
-
3.20
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
4.00
3.20
3.30
3.80
3.90
4.20
2.70
3.20
2.80
3.80
3.60
3.60
4.90
4.20
5.70
5.40
3.90
4.60
3.90
4.90
4.60
6.10
4.30
5.40
5.10
5.30
4.70
7.20
8.20
-
6.20
5.90
7.10
6.40
6.30
5.40
7.30
6.90
6.90
7.80
6.90
8.40
6.80
5.70
7.40
6.90
Page 68
Annexes
9.00
10.00
Avetage h,
PCU=hi/hcar
2.80
3.30
3.30
1.00
5.26
1.59
3.82
1.16
3.40
3.10
3.28
0.99
3.70
3.90
3.56
1.08
4.20
3.90
4.43
1.34
4.90
5.20
5.05
1.53
7.70
2.33
8.20
7.30
6.70
2.03
7.80
8.60
7.32
2.22
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
4.50
4.20
4.90
5.10
4.30
3.60
4.50
4.40
3.80
4.20
7.20
5.80
6.20
4.70
5.40
6.20
4.70
6.70
5.60
-
4.30
5.10
4.30
6.20
3.90
4.20
4.30
-
4.60
4.50
3.90
4.80
5.30
4.60
4.80
4.30
4.10
4.10
4.80
4.50
3.80
4.30
4.10
4.70
3.80
4.70
4.60
4.40
5.30
5.20
4.80
4.90
4.30
5.10
4.20
5.30
4.80
4.90
5.90
4.80
5.70
6.10
5.80
6.30
4.90
5.80
6.90
6.70
7.80
7.30
9.20
-
7.30
7.80
6.90
7.50
6.20
8.00
7.30
8.30
8.40
7.70
9.80
10.30
8.90
7.90
10.40
9.90
8.70
10.90
9.80
10.80
Avetage h,
PCU=hi/hcar
4.35
1.00
5.83
1.34
4.61
1.06
4.50
1.03
4.37
1.00
4.88
1.12
5.89
1.35
8.10
1.86
7.54
1.73
9.74
2.24
Average PCU
1.00
1.00
1.69
0.25
1.11
0.50
0.98
1.00
1.06
1.00
1.24
1.25
1.44
1.50
2.07
2.00
1.91
2.00
2.22
2.25
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 69
Annexes
Annex-B: Level of Service Analysis Input and Output of SIDRA Intersection

Table 6: Input data for LOS Analysis at Mebrat haile Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 70
Annexes
Figure 1: Lay out and Intersection Movement ID of Mebrat haile Intersection
Figure 2: Traffic Volume Distribution and Truck Percentage on the Mebrat haile Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 71
Annexes
Figure 3: Delay in second for all movement ID
Figure 4: LOS values for Mebrat haile Intersection

By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 72
Annexes
Table 6: Input data for LOS Analysis Posta-bet Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 73
Annexes
Figure 5: Lay out and Intersection Movement ID of Posta-bet Intersection
Figure 6: Traffic Volume Distribution and Truck Percentage on the Posta-bet Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 74
Annexes
Figure 8: LOS values for Posta-bet Intersection

By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 75
Annexes
Table 7: Input data for LOS Analysis Franco Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 76
Annexes
Figure 9: Lay out of Franco Intersection
Figure 10: Movement ID of Franco Intersection
Figure 11: Traffic Volume Distribution and Truck Percentage on the Franco Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 77
Annexes
Figure 13: LOS values for Franco Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 78
Annexes
Table 8: Input data for LOS Analysis Genb Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 79
Annexes
Figure 14: Lay out and Intersection Movement ID of Genb Intersection
Figure 15: Traffic Volume Distribution and Truck Percentage on the Genb Intersection
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 80
Annexes
Figure 17: LOS values for Franco Intersection

By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 81
Annexes
Annex-C: Congestion Measures Analysis

Table 9: Congestion Measures Analysis for Mebrat haile Intersection
Intersection:
Approach:
Length:
Duration
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
Mebrat haile
Posta-bet
200m
Average
Travel
Time(Sec)
51.2
49.05
94.4
91.2
100
87.6
82.4
87.2
72.4
75.6
62
66.8
70.8
76.4
85.6
72.4
62.4
76.8
59.6
80.4
59.2
54.8
53.2
59.2
56.8
65.2
62.4
61.2
60
91.2
88
104.8
113.2
110.4
109.2
108
113.6
126.8
124
138
128
139.2
137.2
133.2
137.6
101.2
90.8
84
By Fasika Mekonnen
Delay
(Sec)
15.2
13.05
58.4
55.2
64
51.6
46.4
51.2
36.4
39.6
26
30.8
34.8
40.4
49.6
36.4
26.4
40.8
23.6
44.4
23.2
18.8
17.2
23.2
20.8
29.2
26.4
25.2
24
55.2
52
68.8
77.2
74.4
73.2
72
77.6
90.8
88
102
92
103.2
101.2
97.2
101.6
65.2
54.8
48
Average
Travel Speed
(Km/h)
14.06
14.68
7.63
7.89
7.20
8.22
8.74
8.26
9.94
9.52
11.61
10.78
10.17
9.42
8.41
9.94
11.54
9.38
12.08
8.96
12.16
13.14
13.53
12.16
12.68
11.04
11.54
11.76
12.00
7.89
8.18
6.87
6.36
6.52
6.59
6.67
6.34
5.68
5.81
5.22
5.63
5.17
5.25
5.41
5.23
7.11
7.93
8.57
Travel Rate
(min/Km)
4.27
4.09
7.87
7.60
8.33
7.30
6.87
7.27
6.03
6.30
5.17
5.57
5.90
6.37
7.13
6.03
5.20
6.40
4.97
6.70
4.93
4.57
4.43
4.93
4.73
5.43
5.20
5.10
5.00
7.60
7.33
8.73
9.43
9.20
9.10
9.00
9.47
10.57
10.33
11.50
10.67
11.60
11.43
11.10
11.47
8.43
7.57
7.00
Delay Rate
(min/Km)
1.27
1.09
4.87
4.60
5.33
4.30
3.87
4.27
3.03
3.30
2.17
2.57
2.90
3.37
4.13
3.03
2.20
3.40
1.97
3.70
1.93
1.57
1.43
1.93
1.73
2.43
2.20
2.10
2.00
4.60
4.33
5.73
6.43
6.20
6.10
6.00
6.47
7.57
7.33
8.50
7.67
8.60
8.43
8.10
8.47
5.43
4.57
4.00
Travel Time
Index
1.42
1.36
2.62
2.53
2.78
2.43
2.29
2.42
2.01
2.10
1.72
1.86
1.97
2.12
2.38
2.01
1.73
2.13
1.66
2.23
1.64
1.52
1.48
1.64
1.58
1.81
1.73
1.70
1.67
2.53
2.44
2.91
3.14
3.07
3.03
3.00
3.16
3.52
3.44
3.83
3.56
3.87
3.81
3.70
3.82
2.81
2.52
2.33
Traffic
Volume
(Veh)
184
237
312
278
283
306
268
270
287
284
285
309
329
307
259
257
247
242
245
270
222
254
236
281
258
241
261
260
282
258
274
300
251
313
300
316
318
322
311
357
372
334
291
308
319
241
296
239
Total Segment
Delay (Veh-Min)
46.61
51.44
303.68
255.53
302.13
263.16
207.06
230.61
173.96
187.61
123.39
158.62
190.68
206.38
214.31
155.76
108.68
164.56
96.17
199.62
85.74
79.67
67.73
108.56
89.44
117.29
114.62
109.20
112.60
237.13
237.03
343.71
323.28
387.50
366.31
379.50
410.96
486.54
455.77
606.48
569.63
573.62
490.82
498.15
540.60
261.62
270.58
191.40
Total Segment
Delay (VehMin)/meter
0.17
0.18
1.02
0.93
1.05
0.85
0.70
0.76
0.63
0.65
0.42
0.49
0.66
0.64
0.73
0.57
0.39
0.52
0.32
0.63
0.29
0.25
0.24
0.36
0.32
0.44
0.40
0.39
0.34
0.83
0.79
1.04
1.14
1.31
1.27
1.25
1.31
1.69
1.66
1.98
1.77
1.98
1.63
1.62
1.64
0.90
0.86
0.64
Delay
Ratio
0.30
0.27
0.62
0.61
0.64
0.59
0.56
0.59
0.50
0.52
0.42
0.46
0.49
0.53
0.58
0.50
0.42
0.53
0.40
0.55
0.39
0.34
0.32
0.39
0.37
0.45
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.61
0.59
0.66
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.72
0.71
0.74
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.73
0.74
0.64
0.60
0.57
Page 82
Annexes
Table 10: Congestion Measures Analysis for Posta-bet Intersection

Intersection:
Approach:
Length:
Duration
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
Posta-bet
Franko
200m
Average
Travel
Time(Sec)
66.85
81.10
106.50
101.70
103.80
104.70
103.20
106.80
99.00
101.10
91.20
92.40
88.20
90.30
103.80
92.70
90.30
82.80
93.60
80.70
96.30
80.40
77.10
75.90
80.40
78.60
84.90
82.80
82.50
81.00
85.20
95.10
93.00
103.50
96.00
104.40
102.90
99.90
103.20
105.30
107.40
107.70
99.60
98.10
107.10
106.80
100.20
95.70
By Fasika Mekonnen
Delay
(Sec)
30.85
45.10
70.50
65.70
67.80
68.70
67.20
70.80
63.00
65.10
55.20
56.40
52.20
54.30
67.80
56.70
54.30
46.80
57.60
44.70
60.30
44.40
41.10
39.90
44.40
42.60
48.90
46.80
46.50
45.00
49.20
59.10
57.00
67.50
60.00
68.40
66.90
63.90
67.20
69.30
71.40
71.70
63.60
62.10
71.10
70.80
64.20
59.70
Average
Travel Speed
(Km/h)
10.77
8.88
6.76
7.08
6.94
6.88
6.98
6.74
7.27
7.12
7.89
7.79
8.16
7.97
6.94
7.77
7.97
8.70
7.69
8.92
7.48
8.96
9.34
9.49
8.96
9.16
8.48
8.70
8.73
8.89
8.45
7.57
7.74
6.96
7.50
6.90
7.00
7.21
6.98
6.84
6.70
6.69
7.23
7.34
6.72
6.74
7.19
7.52
Travel Rate
(min/Km)
5.57
6.76
8.88
8.48
8.65
8.73
8.60
8.90
8.25
8.43
7.60
7.70
7.35
7.53
8.65
7.73
7.53
6.90
7.80
6.73
8.03
6.70
6.43
6.33
6.70
6.55
7.08
6.90
6.88
6.75
7.10
7.93
7.75
8.63
8.00
8.70
8.58
8.33
8.60
8.78
8.95
8.98
8.30
8.18
8.93
8.90
8.35
7.98
Delay Rate
(min/Km)
2.57
3.76
5.88
5.48
5.65
5.73
5.60
5.90
5.25
5.43
4.60
4.70
4.35
4.53
5.65
4.73
4.53
3.90
4.80
3.73
5.03
3.70
3.43
3.33
3.70
3.55
4.08
3.90
3.88
3.75
4.10
4.93
4.75
5.63
5.00
5.70
5.58
5.33
5.60
5.78
5.95
5.98
5.30
5.18
5.93
5.90
5.35
4.98
Travel Time
Index
1.86
2.25
2.96
2.83
2.88
2.91
2.87
2.97
2.75
2.81
2.53
2.57
2.45
2.51
2.88
2.58
2.51
2.30
2.60
2.24
2.68
2.23
2.14
2.11
2.23
2.18
2.36
2.30
2.29
2.25
2.37
2.64
2.58
2.88
2.67
2.90
2.86
2.78
2.87
2.93
2.98
2.99
2.77
2.73
2.98
2.97
2.78
2.66
Traffic
Volume
(Veh)
175
155
195
203
213
216
221
209
195
200
186
188
190
177
182
168
173
176
178
163
164
168
179
171
170
166
180
208
236
265
228
226
184
223
219
223
222
216
205
191
190
170
181
172
155
139
137
138
Total Segment
Delay (Veh-Min)
89.98
116.51
229.13
222.29
240.69
247.32
247.52
246.62
204.75
217.00
171.12
176.72
165.30
160.19
205.66
158.76
156.57
137.28
170.88
121.44
164.82
124.32
122.62
113.72
125.80
117.86
146.70
162.24
182.90
198.75
186.96
222.61
174.80
250.88
219.00
254.22
247.53
230.04
229.60
220.61
226.10
203.15
191.86
178.02
183.68
164.02
146.59
137.31
Total Segment
0.45
0.58
1.15
1.11
1.20
1.24
1.24
1.23
1.02
1.09
0.86
0.88
0.83
0.80
1.03
0.79
0.78
0.69
0.85
0.61
0.82
0.62
0.61
0.57
0.63
0.59
0.73
0.81
0.91
0.99
0.93
1.11
0.87
1.25
1.10
1.27
1.24
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.13
1.02
0.96
0.89
0.92
0.82
0.73
0.69
Page 83
Delay
Ratio
0.46
0.56
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.65
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.61
0.61
0.59
0.60
0.65
0.61
0.60
0.57
0.62
0.55
0.63
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.55
0.54
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.62
0.61
0.65
0.63
0.66
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.64
0.63
0.66
0.66
0.64
0.62
Annexes
Table 11: Congestion Measures Analysis for Franco Intersection

Intersection:
Approach:
Length:
Duration
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
Franco
Maya hotel
250m
Average Travel
Time(Sec)
54.78
79.93
109.73
117.33
121.13
112.10
108.30
118.75
104.03
97.85
103.55
85.98
89.78
73.63
79.33
84.08
75.05
71.73
74.10
94.53
76.48
77.90
74.10
72.20
86.93
79.80
71.25
81.23
97.85
87.40
81.23
83.13
109.25
138.70
133.00
128.25
149.63
112.10
152.00
138.70
125.40
117.80
155.33
145.83
124.93
128.73
129.20
111.15
By Fasika Mekonnen
Average
Delay Travel Speed
(Sec)
(Km/h)
9.78
16.43
34.93
11.26
64.73
8.20
72.33
7.67
76.13
7.43
67.10
8.03
63.30
8.31
73.75
7.58
59.03
8.65
52.85
9.20
58.55
8.69
40.98
10.47
44.78
10.03
28.63
12.22
34.33
11.35
39.08
10.70
30.05
11.99
26.73
12.55
29.10
12.15
49.53
9.52
31.48
11.77
32.90
11.55
29.10
12.15
27.20
12.47
41.93
10.35
34.80
11.28
26.25
12.63
36.23
11.08
52.85
9.20
42.40
10.30
36.23
11.08
38.13
10.83
64.25
8.24
93.70
6.49
88.00
6.77
83.25
7.02
104.63
6.02
67.10
8.03
107.00
5.92
93.70
6.49
80.40
7.18
72.80
7.64
110.33
5.79
100.83
6.17
79.93
7.20
83.73
6.99
84.20
6.97
66.15
8.10
Travel Rate
(min/Km)
3.65
5.33
7.32
7.82
8.08
7.47
7.22
7.92
6.94
6.52
6.90
5.73
5.99
4.91
5.29
5.61
5.00
4.78
4.94
6.30
5.10
5.19
4.94
4.81
5.80
5.32
4.75
5.42
6.52
5.83
5.42
5.54
7.28
9.25
8.87
8.55
9.98
7.47
10.13
9.25
8.36
7.85
10.36
9.72
8.33
8.58
8.61
7.41
Delay Rate
(min/Km)
0.65
2.33
4.32
4.82
5.08
4.47
4.22
4.92
3.94
3.52
3.90
2.73
2.99
1.91
2.29
2.61
2.00
1.78
1.94
3.30
2.10
2.19
1.94
1.81
2.80
2.32
1.75
2.42
3.52
2.83
2.42
2.54
4.28
6.25
5.87
5.55
6.98
4.47
7.13
6.25
5.36
4.85
7.36
6.72
5.33
5.58
5.61
4.41
Travel Time
Index
1.22
1.78
2.44
2.61
2.69
2.49
2.41
2.64
2.31
2.17
2.30
1.91
2.00
1.64
1.76
1.87
1.67
1.59
1.65
2.10
1.70
1.73
1.65
1.60
1.93
1.77
1.58
1.81
2.17
1.94
1.81
1.85
2.43
3.08
2.96
2.85
3.33
2.49
3.38
3.08
2.79
2.62
3.45
3.24
2.78
2.86
2.87
2.47
Traffic
Volume
(Veh)
531
434
520
500
484
435
418
423
396
463
402
371
401
372
392
396
379
361
390
402
381
426
455
422
424
394
390
430
425
466
528
569
513
565
571
643
584
560
512
473
422
463
505
433
472
386
406
381
Total Segment
Delay (Veh-Min)
86.47
252.33
560.41
602.71
614.08
485.92
441.25
519.94
389.32
407.39
392.29
253.19
299.43
177.24
224.26
258.06
189.82
160.68
188.91
331.61
199.74
233.59
220.68
191.31
296.27
228.67
170.63
259.31
373.91
329.31
318.93
361.23
548.80
882.34
836.73
892.51
1018.35
626.27
912.18
739.06
565.15
561.77
928.11
726.78
629.08
538.28
569.05
420.33
Total Segment
0.13
0.47
1.03
1.13
1.24
1.01
1.00
1.07
0.82
0.84
0.80
0.49
0.61
0.35
0.44
0.52
0.40
0.31
0.36
0.62
0.39
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.53
0.42
0.33
0.52
0.79
0.65
0.59
0.71
1.08
1.81
1.70
1.61
1.97
1.16
1.79
1.58
1.25
1.12
1.90
1.41
1.23
1.13
1.19
0.87
Delay
Ratio
0.18
0.44
0.59
0.62
0.63
0.60
0.58
0.62
0.57
0.54
0.57
0.48
0.50
0.39
0.43
0.46
0.40
0.37
0.39
0.52
0.41
0.42
0.39
0.38
0.48
0.44
0.37
0.45
0.54
0.49
0.45
0.46
0.59
0.68
0.66
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.70
0.68
0.64
0.62
0.71
0.69
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.60
Page 84
Annexes
Table 12: Congestion Measures Analysis for Genb Intersection

Intersection:
Approach:
Genb
Franco
Length:
150m
Duration
7:30-7:45AM
7:45-8:00AM
8:00-8:15AM
8:15-8:30AM
8:30-8:45AM
8:45-9:00AM
9:00-9:15AM
9:15-9:30AM
9:30-9:45AM
9:45-10:00AM
10:00-10:15AM
10:15-10:30AM
10:30-10:45AM
10:45-11:00AM
11:00-11:15AM
11:15-11:30AM
11:30-11:45AM
11:45-12:00AM
12:00-12:15AM
12:15-12:30AM
12:30-12:45AM
12:45-1:00AM
1:00-1:15PM
1:15-1:30PM
1:30-1:45PM
1:45-2:00PM
2:00-2:15PM
2:15-2:30PM
2:30-2:45PM
2:45-3:00PM
3:00-3:15PM
3:15-3:30PM
3:30-3:45PM
3:45-4:00PM
4:00-4:15PM
4:15-4:30PM
4:30-4:45PM
4:45-5:00PM
5:00-5:15PM
5:15-5:30PM
5:30-5:45PM
5:45-6:00PM
6:00-6:15PM
6:15-6:30PM
6:30-6:45PM
6:45-7:00PM
7:00-7:15PM
7:15-7:30PM
Average
Travel
Time(Sec)
24.75
34.50
42.38
38.50
43.25
39.50
42.00
39.13
39.75
35.25
33.40
29.50
25.30
28.10
29.90
27.80
31.60
29.00
27.60
27.70
27.50
27.25
30.40
29.70
31.90
32.00
33.00
32.70
37.60
37.20
38.20
39.30
45.88
44.50
49.50
47.25
45.25
44.88
41.88
40.88
49.88
47.00
45.75
47.25
46.88
51.00
48.50
43.63
Delay
(Sec)
0.00
7.50
15.38
11.50
16.25
12.50
15.00
12.13
12.75
8.25
6.40
2.50
0.00
1.10
2.90
0.80
4.60
2.00
0.60
0.70
0.50
0.25
3.40
2.70
4.90
5.00
6.00
5.70
10.60
10.20
11.20
12.30
18.88
17.50
22.50
20.25
18.25
17.88
14.88
13.88
22.88
20.00
18.75
20.25
19.88
24.00
21.50
16.63
By Fasika Mekonnen
Average
Travel Speed
(Km/h)
21.82
15.65
12.74
14.03
12.49
13.67
12.86
13.80
13.58
15.32
16.17
18.31
21.34
19.22
18.06
19.42
17.09
18.62
19.57
19.49
19.64
19.82
17.76
18.18
16.93
16.88
16.36
16.51
14.36
14.52
14.14
13.74
11.77
12.13
10.91
11.43
11.93
12.03
12.90
13.21
10.83
11.49
11.80
11.43
11.52
10.59
11.13
12.38
Travel Rate
(min/Km)
2.75
3.83
4.71
4.28
4.81
4.39
4.67
4.35
4.42
3.92
3.71
3.28
2.81
3.12
3.32
3.09
3.51
3.22
3.07
3.08
3.06
3.03
3.38
3.30
3.54
3.56
3.67
3.63
4.18
4.13
4.24
4.37
5.10
4.94
5.50
5.25
5.03
4.99
4.65
4.54
5.54
5.22
5.08
5.25
5.21
5.67
5.39
4.85
Delay Rate
(min/Km)
0.00
0.83
1.71
1.28
1.81
1.39
1.67
1.35
1.42
0.92
0.71
0.28
0.00
0.12
0.32
0.09
0.51
0.22
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.03
0.38
0.30
0.54
0.56
0.67
0.63
1.18
1.13
1.24
1.37
2.10
1.94
2.50
2.25
2.03
1.99
1.65
1.54
2.54
2.22
2.08
2.25
2.21
2.67
2.39
1.85
Travel Time
Index
0.92
1.28
1.57
1.43
1.60
1.46
1.56
1.45
1.47
1.31
1.24
1.09
0.94
1.04
1.11
1.03
1.17
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.13
1.10
1.18
1.19
1.22
1.21
1.39
1.38
1.41
1.46
1.70
1.65
1.83
1.75
1.68
1.66
1.55
1.51
1.85
1.74
1.69
1.75
1.74
1.89
1.80
1.62
Traffic
Volume
(Veh)
202
169
241
243
235
253
279
281
235
273
218
255
221
229
256
199
205
254
250
259
286
250
245
258
288
229
256
225
253
271
303
303
331
382
359
385
365
415
411
356
309
389
391
373
356
353
377
298
Total Segment
Delay (Veh-Min)
0.00
96.89
169.85
155.93
169.22
166.72
195.13
183.40
155.36
160.39
121.35
125.50
93.19
107.37
127.70
92.20
107.70
122.53
115.00
119.34
130.85
113.31
124.13
127.71
152.99
122.27
140.80
122.35
158.39
168.18
193.07
198.30
253.27
282.95
296.18
302.79
275.08
310.01
286.84
242.35
256.86
304.52
298.14
293.34
277.73
300.05
304.94
216.31
Total Segment
0.00
0.57
0.82
0.81
0.86
0.85
0.98
0.95
0.83
0.75
0.66
0.71
0.54
0.57
0.63
0.57
0.62
0.68
0.65
0.62
0.65
0.59
0.69
0.66
0.73
0.69
0.75
0.66
0.91
0.84
0.98
1.14
1.36
1.52
1.57
1.51
1.49
1.55
1.41
1.29
1.42
1.59
1.49
1.44
1.38
1.45
1.59
1.24
Delay
Ratio
0.00
0.22
0.36
0.30
0.38
0.32
0.36
0.31
0.32
0.23
0.19
0.08
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.03
0.15
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.09
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.28
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.41
0.39
0.45
0.43
0.40
0.40
0.36
0.34
0.46
0.43
0.41
0.43
0.42
0.47
0.44
0.38
Page 85
Annexes
Annex-D: Questionnaire
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Dear Sir/Madam
I, the researcher, am student in Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, currently doing my M.Sc. in
Civil Engineering under Road and Transport Engineering at Addis Ababa Institute of technology. I am
doing my M.Sc. research/thesis entitled: Evaluation of traffic congestion and level of service at
major intersection in Adama City with the aim of assessing the causes and impact of traffic
congestion, quantify the performance and the level of service of the selected intersection in Adama
city.
Your genuine, honest and prompt response to the questionnaire will have contribution to the
success of the research. Your response will be kept confidential, and anonymity will be
maintained. Moreover, the information you provide will be used strictly for academic purpose.
Filling the questionnaire will not take more than 10 minutes. I thank you in advance for the time
you devote, effort you make, and consideration you give in filling this questionnaire.
If you have any question concerning the items of the questionnaire, please call on mobile: 0911 16 25
78, or e-mail Fasomeku@gmail.com
With Great Respect
Fasika Mekonnen
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 86
Annexes
Questionnaire
Title: Evaluation of traffic congestion and level of service at major intersections in
Adama City
Objective of the Research:
To assess the causes of traffic congestion
To evaluate the level of service(LOS) and performance of the intersections
To estimate the cost of traffic congestion at the intersection
To assess the relationship of traffic congestion and traffic accident
To suggest some possible solution to the congestion
Part-I: General Information
1. Respondents Name (Optional):_______________________________
2. Respondents: ( Use X )
Sex___________
Age: 15- 20___ 20-30___ 30-40___ 40-50___ above 50___
3. Respondents occupation:__________________________________
Part-II: Respondents Perceptions toward Traffic congestion in Adama City
1. Do you think there is traffic congestion at intersections in Adama city at some level?
Yes_____
No_____
2. If your answer for question number 1 is yes. What do you think the level of traffic congestion
at the intersections?
Very High___
High___
Moderate___
Low___
Very Low___
3. What do you think the cause of traffic congestion at the intersection in the city?
___Bottlenecks
___Traffic Incidents (Crash)
___Work Zones
___Road construction activities
___Poorly Timed Traffic Signals ___Special Events
___Reduction in road capacity
___Bad Weather
___vehicle breakdown
___On Parking Street

Other_______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 87
Annexes
4. Rank the four most congested intersections from the listed below.
___Roundabout at Awragodana
___4 Leg intersection at Maya Hotel
___3 Leg intersection at Franco
___Roundabout at Post bet
___3 Leg intersection at Bekele Mola Hotel ___4 Leg intersection at Amede
___4 Leg intersection at Mebrat Hiyle
___4 Leg intersection at Mariam
___3 Leg intersection at Hospital
___4 Leg intersection at 04
___4 Leg intersection at Gendegara
___3 Leg intersection at Campus
___3 Leg intersection at Geda Menafesha
___4 Leg intersection at Sartera
___4 Leg intersection around National Building

Other_______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
5. What do you suggest to minimize the congestion at the intersections in the city?
___Improve capacity of roads ___Adding travel lanes on major freeways and streets
___ Improve parking arrangements
___ converting streets to one-way operations
___Geometric improvements to roads and intersections; ___ improving public transport;

Other_________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your Time.
By Fasika Mekonnen
Page 88

Fasika Mekonnen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fasika Mekonnen

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

Fasika Mekonnen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the thesis about?

What is the thesis about?

What are some of the causes of traffic congestion mentioned?

What are some of the causes of traffic congestion mentioned?

Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service

at Major Intersections in Adama City

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa University

Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service at Major

Addis Ababa University

Evaluation of Traffic Congestion and Level of Service at Major

Approval by Board of Examiners

Dr, Bikila Teklu

Ato Ataklti Gidyalew

Ato Hailu Shume

Dr. Esayas G/yohannes

Declaration and Copy Right

Fasika Mekonnen Ayehu

Materials and Methods...................................................................................

Result and Discussion........................................................................................... 34

Conclusion and Recommendation.................................................................... 59

Annex-B: Level of Service Analysis Input and Output of SIDRA Intersection

Annex-C: Congestion Measures Analysis

Figure 3.2: Posta-bet Intersection 19

Figure 4.9: Traffic Volume Distribution by Vehicle Type at Genb Intersection 40

Figure 4.18: Accident Distribution in recent Nine year

Figure 4.21: Average Accident and Average Travel Speed ..

Table 2.2: Urban Street Levels of Service by Class 10

Table.3. 2: Name of Selected Intersection for the Analysis..

Table.3. 3: Total Traffic Volume for all Approaches....

Table.3. 4: Travel Time Data in Second...

Table.3. 5: Headway in Second

Table.3. 6: Geometric Data for Mebrat haile Intersection.

Table.3. 7: Geometric Data for Posta-bet Intersection..

Table.3. 8: Geometric Data for Franco Intersection..

Table.3. 9: Geometric Data for Genb Intersection.

Table.3.10: Traffic Accident vs. Accident Severity 33

Table 4.3: PCU Factor Result

Background of the Study

The major research questions are follows:

Objective of the Study

Limitation of the Research

Significance of the Research

The thesis work is organized in five chapters and associated Annex.

Traffic congestion is an extremely annoying feature of road transport. It consumes substantial

Definition of Traffic Congestion

Source and Impact of Traffic Congestion

Figure 2.1: Source of Traffic Congestion

Traffic congestion is an unavoidable part of modern-day life. To understand the nature of

Concept of Level of Service (LOS)

Table 2.3: Levels of Service Criteria for Intersections

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS UN-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Source: HCM 2000

Traffic Congestion and Accident

Cost of Traffic Congestion

Traffic Congestion Mitigation Strategies

2. Operating existing capacity more efficiently

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials and Methods

Description of Study Area