Republic of the Philippines

Batangas State University

College of Engineering, Architecture and Fine Arts
Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course

CE 418 - Transportation Engineering

Assessment of Three- Leg Intersection at Banay-Banay, Lipa City

By:
Alas, Norvie
Devilla, Michael John
Doce, Johnel
Fonte, Mary Shaira
Higuit, Jewel Emerald
Ilustrisimo, Harold Loyd
Lumanglas, Neraiza Lyn
Macatangay, Erika Camille
Mahaguay, Kim Edward
Rosas, John Leo
Talain, Jhannine Mae
Tolentino, Ma. Aika
Tolentino, Julius Mae
CE-4202

Engr. Kristine Joy Ropero Alonte

CE 418 Instuctor
Introduction

Traffic Management includes physical measures designed to influence that

movement of traffic on an existing network. If there were no traffic management, drivers

would try to find their own best path through the network and to move along the path as

expeditiously as possible. They would have freedom to use the network to their greatest

advantage, both for moving and for parking, subject to the impediments they imposed

upon one another. Traffic Management is by its very nature a restriction upon this

freedom. Every piece of traffic management is a restriction upon the movement of some

traffic. Moreover, its main purpose it to increase the capacity of the network. (Thompson,

1968)

Traffic Management Plan is a site-specific plan that involves the design,

implementation, maintenance and removal of temporary management measures while

work is carried out in the road corridor. This provides how the road users – including

cyclists and pedestrian – will be directed around a work site, accident, or other temporary

road disruption, to minimize inconvenience while providing safe conditions for both the

road user and those carrying out the activity.

Trucks and buses going to Lipa City or Manila use the Southern Tagalog Arterial

Road Tollway or also known as STAR Tollway. However, the ongoing repair and

construction of Sabang Bridge along STAR Tollway causes public and private vehicles,

even buses and trucks to use the major roads including Jose P. Laurel Road as an

alternative route. This affects the traffic flow and the level of service of the major road.

The study proposes a traffic management plan in President Jose P. Laurel

Highway – Banay-Banay Intersection at Lipa City, Batangas. It includes the assessment

of the traffic flow and analysis of the level of service of the intersection, evaluation of the

un-signalized intersection and also discusses the recommended modification of the un-

signalized intersection upon observation and thorough analysis.

 Fig 1.0 Location map of the three- leg intersection

Objectives of the Study

Volume of traffic in a given road at an interval of time is one of the fundamental

measures of traffic on road. It is expressed in Passenger Car Unit Values (PCU) per hour

or PCU per day. Knowing the flow characteristics, one can easily determine whether a

particular section of the road is handling traffic too much or below of its capacity.

The study comprises the following objectives:

1. To study the existing volume traffic in Banay-Banay, Lipa City.

2. To identify the level of service of the intersection at each structure of major

road traffic though its reserve capacity.

3. To evaluate the overall performance of the un-signalized intersection.

4. To find out possible modification and development on the intersection.

Scope of Work

A traffic study is conducted to evaluate the transportation system serving an area

and to identify any improvements necessary to accommodate existing or projected traffic

volumes on the roads at a particular section during a particular time. The study consists of data

collection, including traffic volume and turning movement counts.

Manual counts may produce a large number of data forms; therefore, the data

forms should be carefully labelled and organized. On each tally sheet, the observer

should record the location, time and date of observation, and weather conditions. Manual

counts are necessary when automatic equipment is not available. Manual counts are

typically used for periods of less than a day. The size of the data collection team depends

on the length of the counting period, the type of count being performed, the number of

lanes or crosswalks being observed, and the volume level of traffic. By this method, we

also obtain vehicle classification and turning movements of all the vehicles passing by in

the intersection. Since it is not practicable to have a 24-hour manual count, the

researchers selected a 3-hour manual count that started from 4 noon until 7 o’clock in the

afternoon on the 20th day of May 2017.

Data Presentation and Analysis

This presents the outcomes and tabulations representation of the numerical

informations gathered to evaluate the performance of the intersection at Banay-Banay,

Lipa City.

Traffic Stream

It shows the different major road traffic streams that will be considered when

analyzing the road flow. This consist of traffic movements that are to be dealt in following

order: right turn into major road, left turn off major road, traffic crossing the major road

and left turn into the major road.

 Fig 2.0 Hourly Volume in PCU

Level of Service

After evaluation the performance of the intersection, traffic movements are

classified into different level of service shown on the Table 4. It can be seen that the right

turn into major road has a level of service C to D which is evaluated with approaching

unstable flow and average traffic delay. Also the left turn off the major road and the left

turn into the major road has a level service of F with an unstable flow and very long traffic

delay.
Traffic Count Data

Table 1.0 Traffic count converted to PCU from 4 pm – 5pm

Types of Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 Flow 5 Flow 6

Vehicles Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU
Motor- Tricycle 53 27 15 11 10 3 14 0.3 15 11 36 25
Motorcycle 70 35 50 35 56 17 22 7 21 15 185 93
Passenger Car 538 538 105 147 126 1 58 46 61 85 421 421
Passenger
Utility 86 86 52 1 64 51 3 2 3 4 93 93
Goods Utility 21 23 15 1 14 1 7 6 10 14 75 83
Small Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
Large Bus 30 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 69
Rigid Truck
(2axel) 30 45 3 9 1 1 2 2 2 6 17 26
Rigid Truck (3 +
Axel) 22 33 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 3 5 8
Truck Semi-
Trailer (3 And 4
Axel) 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 46
Truck Semi-
Trailer (5+
Axel) 17 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 18
Truck Trailers
(4 Axel) 5 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 10
Truck Trailers
(5+ Axel) 17 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 30
TOTAL 1011 204 76 66 138 923

The above table shows the conversion of the volume of vehicle per hour (VpH)

that passed in every flow between 4 pm – 5 pm. The highest total Passenger Car Unit

(PCU) was in Flow 1 and 6 while Flow 4 was the lowest having 66 PCU.
 Table 2.0 Traffic count converted to PCU from 5 pm – 6 pm

Types of Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 Flow 5 Flow 6

Vehicles Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU
Motor- Trycycle 52 26 25 17.5 19 5.7 10 0.3 5 3.5 51 35.7
Motorcycle 235 117.5 51 35.7 31 9.3 16 4.8 38 26.6 230 115
Passenger Car 455 455 94 131.6 143 0.8 56 44.8 54 75.6 492 492
Passenger
101 101 58 1.4 58 46.4 4 3.2 3 4.2 102 102
Utility
Goods Utility 22 24.2 13 1.4 10 0.8 7 5.6 1 1.4 47 51.7
Small Bus 1 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Large Bus 47 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 37 55.5
Rigid Truck
35 52.5 5 15 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 16.5
(2axel)
Rigid Truck (3
42 63 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 8 12
+ Axel)
Truck Semi-
Trailer (3 And 4 6 12 1 6 1 1.2 0 0 0 0 23 46
Axel)
Truck Semi-
Trailer (5+ 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20
Axel)
Truck Trailers
14 28 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 11 22
(4 Axel)
Truck Trailers
17 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 18
(5+ Axel)
TOTAL 931 209 73 63 117 986

The above table shows the conversion of the volume of vehicle per hour (VpH)

that passed in every flow between 5 pm – 6 pm. The highest total Passenger Car Unit

(PCU) was in Flow 1 and 6 having 931 PCU and 986 respectively, while Flow 4 was the

lowest having 63 PCU.

 Table 3.0 Traffic count converted to PCU from 6 pm – 7 pm

Types of Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 Flow 5 Flow 6

Vehicles Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU Volume PCU
Motor-
37 18.5 9 6.3 12 3.6 9 0.3 20 14 22 15.4
Trycycle
Motorcycle 243 121.5 36 25.2 34 10.2 18 5.4 33 23.1 160 80
Passenger Car 442 442 116 162.4 120 0.8 36 28.8 72 100.8 389 389
Passenger
83 83 87 1.4 50 40 1 0.8 8 11.2 85 85
Utility
Goods Utility 12 13.2 10 1.4 9 0.8 5 4 18 25.2 56 61.6
Small Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5
Large Bus 46 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 38 57
Rigid Truck
22 33 20 60 0 0 0 0 4 12 10 15
(2axel)
Rigid Truck (3
34 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 19.5
+ Axel)
Truck Semi-
Trailer (3 And 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 26
4 Axel)
Truck Semi-
Trailer 9 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6
(5+ Axel)
Truck Trailers
16 32 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 8 16
(4 Axel)
Truck Trailers
15 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8
(5+ Axel)
TOTAL 848 257 60 39 189 780

The above table shows the conversion of the volume of vehicle per hour (VpH)

that passed in every flow between 6 pm – 7 pm. The highest total Passenger Car Unit

(PCU) was in Flow 1 and 6 having 848 PCU and 780 respectively, while Flow 4 was the

lowest having 39 PCU.

Inventory of the Intersection

Fig 3. Un-signalized Road Inventory

Figure 3 shows the un- signalized three-leg intersection with different road

markings. The un- signalized intersection in which the right- of- way of motorists and

pedestrians are not controlled by a highway traffic signal.

Analysis of Un-signalized Intersections

Fig 4.0 Traffic Flow of Un-signalized Intersection in PCU

 Table 4. Level of service at different traffic movement

Structure of major road

Description Level of Service (LOS)
traffic
Approaching
Unstable Flow,
Right turn into major road C to D
Average Traffic
Delay
Forced Flow,
Left turn off major road F
Congestion

Forced Flow,
Left turn into major road F
Congestion

Table 4 shows that level of service in three different traffic movement. Based on

the table, left turn into major road and left turn into major road had the least level of service

(F) that indicates a forced flow and congestion.

Analysis of Signalized Intersection

Fig 5.0 T-intersection flow designation

 Figure 7.0: Timing Diagram

Figure 7 shows the signal coordination of the proposed signalized intersection. In

this case, the longest green time is 173 seconds and the shortest red time is 174 seconds

at phase 1. For the traffic signals that are closely spaced, it is necessary to coordinate

green time so that vehicles may move efficiently through the set of signals. It reduces the

delay and travel time in one direction and provide well - organized traffic flow.

Summary and Conclusion

Intersections are a critical component of a roadway system and frequently act as

a congest points on the transportation system. The current state practice of the un-

signalized three- leg intersection, based on the calculations done, in the said intersection

is to be in poor level of service that an intersection may provide. The level of service of C

to D, F and F at three different traffic movement that indicates that there is a need for the

modification and signalization of the intersection. Through analysis and evaluation,

signalized intersection is recommended.

Recommendations

To improve the conventional design practice of the three- leg intersection at Banay-

Banay City, Batangas, the following proposals are recommended:

Fig. 8.0. Proposed intersection design

For the proper improvement of the intersection, the researchers proposed a

signalized intersection design which comprises: traffic markings, installation of traffic

signals, placing off traffic signs such as directional and regulatory signage and provides

a zoning area for loading and unloading of vehicles.

Fig. 9.0. Location of traffic signal pedestal at section 1

Fig. 10.0. Location of traffic signal pedestal at section 2

 Fig. 11.0. Location of traffic signal pedestal at section 3

Figure 9, 10 and 11 shows the location of the traffic signal pedestal at the three

sections of the intersection. Dimensions were adopted from the Department of Public

Works and Highways (DPWH) Highway Safety Design Standards for Road Signs and

Pavement Markings Manual.

Fig. 12.0. Proposed Directional Signage at Section 1

Fig. 13.0. Proposed Directional Signage at Section 2

 Fig. 14.0. Proposed Directional Signage at Section 3

Figure 9, 10 and 11 shows the proposed directional signage at different

intersections. Specifications were adopted from the Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH) Highway Safety Design Standards for Road Signs and Pavement

Markings Manual.

Fig. 15.0. Proposed Traffic Signal (Primary)

 Fig. 16.0. Proposed Traffic Signal (Secondary)

Figure 12 and 13 shows the proposed traffic signal at different intersections.

Specifications were adopted from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

Highway Safety Design Standards for Road Signs and Pavement Markings Manual.

Fig. 17.0. Proposed Restrictive Signage

Figure 14 shows the proposed restrictive signage at Intersection 1 (Figure 8.0).

Specifications was adopted from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

Highway Safety Design Standards for Road Signs and Pavement Markings Manual.
Computations
For Un- signalized:
I. Right turn into major road

a. Structure of major

road traffic:

Mh = 0.5M1 + M2

(Since there is no

channelization, it can be assumed that the inhibiting effect of M1 may

not be ignored.)

Mh = 0.5(257) + 930

Mh = 1139.5 ≈ 1140 pcu

b. Critical Gap

tg = 6.0 s ( See Table 5.4)

c. Basic Capacity

Mno = 210 pcu/hr (See table 5.8)

Max Mn=210 pcu/hr

d. Existing Mn

Mn = 66 pcu/hr

e. Reserve Capacity

Reserve Capacity = 210 – 66 = 144 pcu/hr

f. Evaluation

Approaching unstable flow, average traffic delay; LOS C to D (See

Table 5.6)

II. Left turn off major road

a. Structure of major road

traffic:

Mh = M1 + M2
 Mh = 257 + 1011

Mh = 1268 pcu/hr

b. Critical Gap

tg = 6 s ( See Table 5.4)

c. Basic Capacity

Mno = 170 pcu/hr (See table 5.8)

Max Mn= 170 pcu/hr

d. Existing Mn

Mn = 189 pcu/hr

e. Reserve Capacity

Reserve Capacity = 170-189 = -19 pcu/hr

f. Evaluation

Forced Flow, Congestion; LOS F (See Table 5.6)

III. Left turn into Major road

a. Structure of major road traffic:

Mh = 0.5M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 +

M5

Mh = 0.5(257) + 1011 + 0 + 182

+ 986

Mh = 2314. 5 ≈ 2315 pcu/hr

b. Critical Gap

tg = 9 s ( See Table 5.4)

c. Basic Capacity

Mno = 50 pcu/hr (See table 5.8)

d. Existing Mn

Mn = 76 pcu/hr

e. Reserve Capacity
 Reserve Capacity = 50 –76 = -26 pcu/hr

f. Evaluation

Forced Flow, Congestion; LOS F (See Table 5.6)

For Signalized:

Fig 6.0 Phase Patterns

Computations:

Saturation Flow
Movements Volume (pcu/hr) Y-values
Rate (pcu/hr)
1 1011 2100 0.481
2 257 2100 0.122
3 76 1800 0.042
4 66 1800 0.037
5 189 2100 0.090
6 986 2100 0.470

Y  value  0.481  0.470

Y  value  0.951

L  ( 2 x 2 )  ( 2 x 2)
L  8 sec

1.5 L  5
Co 
1  ( y  value)
(1.5 x8)  5
Co 
1  0.951
C o  346 .94

Say Co = 350 secs

G  Co  L
G  350  8
G  342 sec s
 0.481
g1  x342
0.951
g1  173 sec s

Phase 2:

g 2  342  173
g 2  169 sec s

Appendices

Table 5.4. Critical gap tg for passenger cars, sec

Figure 5.8. Basic capacity of minor road flow

Table 5.6. Reserve Capacity

Documentation
References

Department of Public Works and Highways. DPWH Highway Safety Design Standards
Part 2: Road Signs and Pavement Markings Manual. Bonifacio Drive, Port Area
Metro Manila: N.p., 2012. Print.

Sigua, Ricardo G. Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering. 1st ed. Diliman, Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 2008. Print.

Thomson, J. M. The value of traffic management. Available: http://www.bath.ac.uk/e-

journals/jtep/pdf/Volume_11_No_1_3-32.pdf. Last accessed May 22, 2017.

Transport, A., Traffic management plans. Auckland Transport. Available at:

https://at.govt.nz/about-us/working-on-the-road/traffic-management-plans/
[Accessed May 22, 2017].