ESTIMATING PASSENGER CAR UNIT FACTORS FOR BUSES AND

ANIMAL DRIVEN CARTS IN GAZA CITY, PALESTINE

Yahya Sarraj1, Israa Jadili2

1: Associate Professor of Transportation, IUG, Palestine, ysarraj@iugaza.edu.ps

2: B.Sc, Civil Engineer, IUG, Palestine.

ABSTRACT. Transportation engineers and professionals in Palestine do not have local

standards to use for passenger car unit (PCU) values. They currently use standards
adopted by other countries without local validation. In this work the authors are trying
to provide local validation for some PCU values.
The purpose of this paper is to estimate PCU values for buses and animal-driven carts at
signalized intersections in Gaza City. PCU (or passenger-car equivalent unit, PCEU) is
a factor used to convert all vehicle types other than passenger car into passenger car.
The research team collected the required data at three main signalized intersections in
Gaza City using a digital video recorder. To calculate PCU values the headway method
was used. Statistical analysis of the results shows that a PCU value for buses was found
to be 2.0 while that for animal-driven carts was 1.67. The PCU for a bus in Gaza was
found to be similar to that in UK but different from India. The PCU for an animal-
driven cart in Gaza was found to be different from that in India. Local traffic engineers
may now use these results with more confidence of their local applicability. However, it
is recommended to conduct further research on other vehicle types as well as to confirm
the obtained PCU value for animal-driven carts.

KEYWORDS
Passenger car unit (PCU), Headway Method, bus, animal-driven cart, Gaza, Palestine.

INTRODUCTION
Different vehicle types occupy different spaces on the road, move at different speeds,
and start at different accelerations. Furthermore, the behavior of drivers of the different
types of vehicles may also vary considerably. This poses a problem for designing roads,
intersections, and traffic signals. A uniform measure of vehicles is thus necessary to
estimate traffic volume and capacity of roads under mixed traffic flow. This is rather
difficult to achieve unless the different vehicle types are stated in terms of a common
standard vehicle unit.
For this reasons, the concept of Passenger Car Unit (PCU) or Passenger Car Equivalent
(PCE) was developed to become as a common practice to convert the other vehicle
types into PCUs. It is generally expressed as PCU per hour, PCU per lane per hour, or
PCU per kilometer length of lane.
Transportation engineers and professionals in Palestine and more specifically in Gaza
Strip do not have local standards to use for PCU values. International standards
provided by the Highway Capacity Manual [1] adopted in the USA and standards
provided by the Department of Transport in the UK are usually used. These values are

1
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 being used without local validation. In this work the authors are trying to provide local
validation for some PCU values.
The main objective of this paper is to determine the value of passenger car units for
animal-driven carts and buses at signalized intersections in Gaza City. Like many other
cities in developing countries, Gaza City traffic includes animal-driven carts in addition
to other motorized vehicles. The paper will also compare the estimated Gaza PCU
values to those from United Kingdom and India.

LOCAL STATISTICS
It is important to present relevant local statistics showing the composition of traffic flow
in Gaza Strip. This is to show the percentage of buses and animal driven carts in traffic
flow. A report published by the Ministry of Planning in 2010 included several important
local statistics [2]. This report indicated that the records of the Ministry of
Transportation show that the total number of registered vehicles in Gaza Strip in 2009 is
64,938 vehicles. It also shows that traffic counts on Salah El Din Road and Haroun El
Rasheed Road indicate that the traffic composition consists of 0.99% and 1.60% buses
and 2.03% and 2.25% animal driven carts respectively. On some main roads and
intersections the percentage of buses and animal-driven carts reaches more than 3% and
5.8% respectively causing several problems to traffic movement.

Definitions
A bus is a large road vehicle intended to carry more than 20 persons in addition to the
driver and sometimes a conductor.

Figure 1: Two sample pictures of a bus

Animal – Driven Cart is a vehicle with two or four wheels driven by an animal (horse,
mule or donkey), designed for transport.

Figure 2: Two sample pictures of an animal-driven cart

2
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Several methods are explained in several references for the determination of passenger
car unit values for different types of vehicles. Most of these methods were developed
for the case of multilane highways and some methods were used at road intersections.
(Cunagin and Messer, 1983) [3] used a combination of the Walker method of relative
numbers of passing and the relative delay method to calculate PCU values on multilane
highways.
PCUs as reported in TRB Circular 212 were developed based on the constant v/c
method. An article published by (Linzer et al, 1979) [4] describes the constant v/c
method, whereby PCUs are calibrated such that the mixed traffic flow will produce the
same v/c ratio as a passenger car only flow.
(Huber, 1982) [5] developed the above method by relating PCU to the flow of a
passenger car only traffic stream and a mixed vehicle traffic stream. The effect of trucks
is quantified by relating the traffic flows for an equal level of service (LOS).
(Sumner et al, 1984) [6] expanded the relationship described by Huber to calculate the
PCU of a single truck in a mixed traffic stream, which includes multiple truck types.
This calculation requires an observed base flow, mixed flow, and flow with the subject
vehicles.
Kockelman and Shabih 1999 [7] found that light-duty trucks such as single large sport-
utility vehicles in through traffic is equivalent to 1.41 passenger cars; and a van is
equivalent to 1.34. They used the headway method to determine these PCE values at
two signalized intersections in Austin, Texas. They also concluded that such long
headways reduce intersection capacity and increase urban congestion.

(Van Aerde and Yagar, 1984) [8] developed a methodology to calculate PCU based on
relative rate of speed reduction.
The PCU for a vehicle type n is calculated as:
C
En = n (1)
C1
Where Cn is the speed reduction coefficient for vehicle type n and C1 is the speed
reduction coefficient for passenger cars.

• PCUs Based on Headways

(Greenshields et al, 1947) [9] estimated PCU value by the following equation. This
method is known as basic headway method.
PCUi = Hi / Hc (2)
Where: PCUi = passenger car unit of vehicle type i.
Hi = average headway of vehicle type i, (sec).
Hc = average headway of passenger car, (sec).
(Miller, 1968) [10] developed PCU values at intersections based on the headway a
heavy vehicle would require over a passenger car. His result for PCU value of a truck
was 1.85.
(Werner and Morrall, 1976) [11] suggested that the headway method is the best method
to determine PCUs at low levels of service. The PCU is calculated as:

3
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 HM
− PC
HB
ET = (3)
PT
Where HM is the average headway for a sample including all vehicle types, HB is the
average headway for a sample of passenger cars only, PC is the proportion of cars, and
PT is the proportion of trucks.
Other methods were also used to calculate PCU values based on Queue Discharge Flow
(Al-Kaisy et al, 2002) [12] and traffic density (Webster and Elefteriadou, 1999) [13].

METHODOLOGY
Although many methods exist to calculate PCU values, the authors utilized the
Headway method for its simplicity and easy application. Furthermore, the literature
review showed that the Headway method is well suited to determine PCU on level
terrain and at low levels of service, the prevailing conditions in Gaza City.

The chosen method requires measurements of time headway data. The research team
collected time headway data from three major signalized intersections meeting the
following criteria: high traffic volume, good mix of different vehicle types, no parking
allowed on the intersection approach, the presence of traffic signals or a traffic
policeman to organize traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the location of these selected sites.

Figure 3: Location of the three selected sites.

4
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 Using an 8-mm digital video recorder, vehicle movements at the three sites were
recorded for the period from February 4th to April 5th, 2008. Data were collected under
dry weather conditions and during day time only. Data were then transferred to a
computer and processed in the office to add a time stamp on the video display to track
time of each vehicle considered.
The recordings were then replayed and discharge time headways for passenger cars,
buses, and animal-driven carts were then manually computed for vehicles in the queue
as the elapsed time, front bumper to front bumper, as successive vehicles passed the
intersection stop line.

To ensure the validity of results, a representative and a statistically accepted sample was
chosen in which time headways of the following vehicles were rejected and excluded
from the analysis:
• The first three vehicles discharging from the queue.
• Vehicles impeded by pedestrians or turning vehicles.
• Platoons within which vehicles did not stop before entering an intersection.
• Platoons with turning vehicles.

The result is a sample of 431 (228 passenger cars, 103 buses, 100 animal-driven carts)
time headway measurements. Equation 2 was then used to compute PCU factors for
both buses and animal-driven carts at the three sites in Gaza City.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The values of passenger car unit at the three representative intersections and their
average are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: PCU values for buses and animal-driven carts in Gaza City
AL- Azher AL-Samer Asqoula Average value
intersection intersection intersection of PCU
PCU of a bus 1.91 2.04 2.0 2.0
PCU of a cart 1.76 1. 52 1.58 1.6

Figure (4) shows the variation of PCU of buses & animal-driven carts at the selected
intersections respectively.

5
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 2.5 PCU of carts
PCU of buses

2
PCU Value

1.5

0.5

0
Asqoula AL-Samer AL-Azhar

INTERSECTION NAME

Figure 4: PCU values of Buses and Animal-Driven Carts at Each Intersection.

Prior to generalize these results, the researchers conducted a statistical analysis to show
the homogeneity of the calculated PCU values among the three intersections, and to
show if there is a significant difference or not in PCU values for buses and animal-
driven carts between Gaza, UK and India.

Comparisons of results at the studied intersections

The purpose of this analysis is to compare the results obtained at the three sites in Gaza
City, namely; Al-Azhar, Al-Samer, and Asquola intersections. Time headway values are
used to estimate the homogeneity of PCU values at the studied intersections for each
vehicle type. In other words if time headway values are homogeneous for each vehicle
type at the three intersections, the PCU values are homogeneous and these values may
be generalized and considered as representative to Gaza City traffic conditions.
To achieve this purpose the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used.
The one-way ANOVA is a method for testing the hypothesis that three or more
population means are equal; i.e., null hypothesis (Ho): µ1 = µ2 = µ3 =………. µk thus,
reject Ho if the P-value ≤ 0.05 for 95% confidence level and fail to reject Ho if the P-
value ≥ 0.05. If there is at least one mean different, the alternative hypothesis (H1) (8) will
be assumed. It is an essential step before performing one way ANOVA test to check
normality of the input data as well as homogeneity of the variances of the data groups.
One-Sample Kolmogorov Smirnov [14] (SPSS Inc. 2009) test was performed to check
normality of each group of data. There is not sufficient evidence that the time headway
of vehicles does not have a normal distribution with Level of significance α = 0.05
(95% confidence level). Also, Levene test (SPSS Inc. 2009) cleared that the
homogeneity of the variances of the data groups is achieved at level of significance α =
0.05 (95% confidence level).

6
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 Table (2) shows the average time headway for passenger cars at the three sites. It is
clear that the average time headway values for passenger cars at the three intersections
are close to each other, which is confirmed by the small standard deviations. Therefore,
it is likely that there are no major variations in these values among the three
intersections. To prove whether these variations among the three sites are statistically
significant, we further used the ANOVA test. ANOVA test result reflects p-value of
0.895 that is greater than the level of significance α = 0.05. So, no significant difference
in time headway for passenger cars among the three intersections with level of
significance α = 0.05 (95% confidence level).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for passenger cars

Group No. of Average time headway Standard
(Road Intersection) samples (seconds) deviation
Asqoula 48 2.45 0.5889
AL-Samer 84 2.39 0.6363
AL-Azhar 96 2.41 0.6482

Table (3) shows the average time headway for buses at the three sites. The average time
headway values are close, especially between Asqoula and Al-Samer intersections.
ANOVA test shows p-value of 0.433 that is greater than the level of significance α =
0.05. So, no significant difference in time headway for buses among the three
intersections with level of significance α = 0.05.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics for buses
Group No. of Average time headway Standard
(Road Intersection) samples (seconds) deviation
Asqoula 30 5.07 1.6701
AL-Samer 30 4.94 1.2394
AL-Azhar 43 4.66 1.2387
Table (4) shows the average time headway for animal-driven carts at the three sites.
There are clear differences between the average time headways for the animal-driven
carts, especially that for Al-Samer intersection. ANOVA shows a p-value of 0.008 that
indicates a significant difference in time headway for animal-driven carts among the
three intersections with level of significance α = 0.05.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for animal-driven carts

Group No. of Average time headway Standard

(Road Intersection) samples (seconds) deviation
Asqoula 32 4.06 1.1177
AL-Samer 36 3.51 0.8779
AL-Azhar 32 4.26 1.0603

7
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 Figure (5) shows some center measures of time headway data such as the median, the
first quartile, the third quartile, the minimum value and the maximum value in each
intersection.

Figure 5: Some center measures of time headway data among the three intersections

It can be inferred from Table (4) and Figure (5) that AL-Samer intersection has the
lower average time headway as well as the lower median and quartiles than the other
intersections.
Independent samples T-test was performed between time headway data of Asqoula
intersection and time headway data of AL-Azhar intersection. With p-value of 0.472,
there is no significant difference in time headway for carts between the two
intersections. Also, this test was performed between time headway data of Asqoula
intersection and time headway data of AL-Samer intersection. The p-value was 0.025
which is lower than the level of significance α = 0.05. So there is a significant
difference in time headway for carts between the two intersections with level of
significance α = 0.05. The same test between time headway data of AL-Azhar intersection
and time headway data of AL-Samer intersection was performed and the p-value was
0.002 which reflects a significant difference in time headway for buses between the two
intersections with level of significance α = 0.05.

The probabilities (P-value) for passenger cars and buses are greater than 0.05 but the
probability for animal-driven carts is less than 0.05. This means that there are no
statistically significant differences among the three intersections for passenger cars and
buses. However, the differences among the three sites are significant for the animal-
driven carts.
In other words there is no significant difference in PCU values for buses among the
three intersections and there is a significant difference in PCU values for animal-driven
carts among the three intersections. However, there is no significant difference in PCU

8
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 values between Asqoula intersection and AL-Azhar intersection for animal-driven carts
that reflects a specialty for AL-Samer intersection.
Thus, the PCU for animal driven carts at AL-Samer intersection will be neglected, and
the average PCU value for Al-Azhar and Asqoula intersections will only be considered
giving an average value of 1.67.
Comparisons with other Countries
The purpose of this analysis is to compare the computed PCU values for Gaza to those
for other countries. Comparison is to be made with values from a developed country and
others from a developing country. The authors decided to choose the United Kingdom
and India. The reason for that is because local transportation engineers usually use
United Kingdom standards where local standards are not available. India was selected to
represent developing countries because authors could not find values produced in other
developing countries. Table (5) and Figure (6) show the PCU values for both buses and
animal-driven carts in Gaza, UK and India.
Table 5 : PCU for buses and animal-driven carts in Gaza, India and UK
PCU Value Gaza UK [15] India [16]
Bus 2.00 2.00 3.6
Animal -driven cart 1.67 - 2.6
3.5
PCU for buses
PCU for carts
3

2.5

2
PCU

1.5

0.5

0
Gaza UK India

Figure 6 : PCU values of buses and animal-driven carts in Gaza, UK and India
In order to conduct this analysis hypothesis testing using the student t-test was
employed:
x−µ
t= (4)
s
n
Where:
t: statistical test value which compare with tabulated t value for t-distribution (tcrit)
x : sample mean
µ: population mean
s: is the standard deviation
n: is the sample size

9
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 In order to use the t-test, it was assumed that the sample mean is the PCU value for
Gaza and the population mean is the PCU value for UK or India. Since our sample
measurements are for headways rather than for PCU, the standard deviation for PCU
was estimated as the ratio of the standard deviation for buses or animal-driven carts to
the standard deviation of passenger cars. Finally, the least number of measurements was
used as the sample size.
t-statistic Calculations and Results
Table (6) show a summary of the headway values after averaging the three sites in
Gaza:
Table 6 : A summary of the headway values after averaging the three sites in Gaza
Type of vehicle Sample size (n) Average time Standard deviation
headway (H) (s)
Passenger Car 228 2.4136 ۰٫٦۲۹۳
Buses 103 ٤٫۸٦۳۱ ۱٫۳۷٥۸٤
Carts 100 3.929 1.0589

Comparison with UK
U

The pcu value for buses in Gaza can be calculated as follows:

H 4.8631
PCUbus = bus = = = 2.015
H car 2.4136
x = PCUbus = 2.015
S 1.37584
S = bus = = 2.1862
S car 0.6293
µ = 2.0 (Table 5)
n = 103

The statistical test value (t) = 0.07. tcrit = 1.983. Because t < tcrit, it can be concluded
that there is not sufficient evidence that the population mean of PCUbus in Gaza differs
from that in UK. In other words, the average PCUbus value in Gaza is not different from
that in UK.

Comparison with India

U

For Buses
H 4.8631
PCUbus = bus = = = 2.015
H car 2.4136
x = PCUbus = 2.015
S 1.37584
S = bus = = 2.1862
S car 0.6293
µ = 3.6 (Table 5)
n = 103
The statistical test value (t) =|-7.358| = 7.358. tcrit = 1.983. Because t > tcrit, it can be
concluded that there is a sufficient evidence that the population mean of PCUbus in Gaza

10
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 differs from that in India. In other words, the average PCU value of buses in Gaza is
different from that in India.
Trying to explain the reason for PCUbus in Gaza to be similar to that in UK but different
from the same value in India, the authors suggest that the reason might be because the
size and type of buses used in Gaza are similar to those in UK and might also be
because the driving environment is also be similar. It is also suggested that the driving
environment in India might be different form that in Gaza.
For Animal-Driven Carts
The pcu value for animal-driven carts in Gaza can be calculated as follows:

H cart 3.929
PCUcart = = = = 1.6278
H car 2.4136
x = PCUcart = 1.6278
S 1.0589
S = cart = = 1.6826
S car 0.6293
µ = 2.6 (Table 5)
n = 100

The statistical test value (t) = |-5.864| = 5.864. tcrit = 1.983. Because t > tcrit, it can be
concluded that there is a sufficient evidence that the population mean of PCUcart in Gaza
differs from that in India. In other words, the average PCU value of carts in Gaza is
different from that in India.
It is suggested that PCUcart value in Gaza is different from that in India because of the
difference in the type of animal used to drive the cart in both countries as well as the
difference in the driving environment.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an analysis of PCU values for buses and animal-driven carts in
Gaza, using the headway method. This method was used because of its simplicity and
suitability to determine PCU values on level terrain at a low level of service. To conduct
this analysis, the work team chose three main signalized intersection sites; Al-Azhar,
Asqoula, and Al-Samer. The three sites are located in Gaza City, Palestine. All locations
were with through lanes, and they were carefully selected so that there was no obvious
deficiency of roadway or traffic condition that would affect the estimated PCU value.
Data were collected under dry weather conditions and during morning and afternoon
periods. The minimum sample size was selected to be 30 samples of each vehicle type
at each intersection.
The result of PCU value for buses is 2.00 and for animal-driven carts is 1.67. Using
one-way ANOVA test, no significant difference was found between passenger car unit
values for buses at the three signalized intersections. No significant difference was
found between passenger car unit values for animal driven carts at Al-Azhar and Asqula
intersections. However, passenger car unit value for animal-driven carts at Al-Samer
intersection was significantly different.
Furthermore, using t-statistic test no significant difference was found in passenger car
units for buses between Gaza and UK. However, a significant difference was found

11
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 between Gaza and India. The value of passenger car units for animal-driven carts was
found to be significantly different between Gaza and India. This variation might be due
to the animal type, the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions, and driver behavior
between Gaza and India.
Several problems were faced during the data collection stage such as: traffic signals did
not function all the time due to frequent electricity cutoffs, animal-driven carts rarely
followed traffic law and vehicles don’t always respect the traffic regulations.
It is suggested that local traffic engineers may now use the PCUbus = 2 with some
confidence of its applicability to the situation in Palestine. They might also use PCUcart
= 1.67 instead of the value of 5 PCU that was suggested by Dornier System Consult
Company [17] a German engineering firm in their report Master Traffic Plan in Gaza City,
which was carried out in 1996.

Recommendations
This research is probably the first to be carried out in Gaza in order to investigate the
passenger car unit values for buses and animal-driven carts. Therefore, it is
recommended to conduct more research in this field in order to collect more data and to
investigate the PCU values at different locations and sites and for various types of
vehicle such as; heavy commercial vehicles, medium commercial vehicles, bicycles and
motorcycles. During the past few years, a new mode of transportation has been
introduced in Gaza Strip. It is a three-wheeled vehicle known locally as the Toktok.
Therefore, it is highly recommended to establish PCU value for this new type of
vehicle.
Further research is also required to produce a more reliable value of PCU for animal
driven carts in Gaza. This is necessary because a significant difference between
passenger car unit values for animal-driven carts was found at the three signalized
intersections.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express thanks and gratitude to those who supported this
research and helped in producing it. Special thanks are due to Heba Sbeeh , Raniah
Shaat and Najlaa abu Ghrabah who participated in the data collection and analysis as
part of their graduation project. Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Khaled Hamad and
Mr. Tamer Eshtawi for their valuable comments and help in reviewing the statistical
tests

REFERENCES
[1] National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C, 2000.
[2] Ministry of Planning, (2010), "Sector Planning, Highways and Transportation",
Palestinian National Authority, Gaza, 2010, pp. 8-15.
[3] Cunagin, W., and Messer, C. “Passenger Car Equivalents for Rural Highways”. In
Transportation Research Record 905. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC., 1983, pp. 61-68.

12
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century
 [4] Linzer, E., Roess, R., and McShane, W. “Effect of Trucks, Buses, and Recreational
Vehicles on Freeway Capacity and Service Volume”. In Transportation Research
Record 699. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., 1979, pp. 17-24.
[5] Huber, M. “Estimation of Passenger Car Equivalents of Trucks in Traffic Stream”.
In Transportation Research Record 869. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC., 1982, pp. 60-70
[6] Sumner, R., Hill, D., and Shapiro, S. “Segment Passenger Car Equivalent Values for
Cost Allocation on Urban Arterial Roads”. In Transportation Research, Vol. 18A,
No. 5/6, 1984, pp. 399-406.
[7] Kara M. Kockelman and Raheel A. Shabih, EFFECT OF VEHICLE TYPE ON
THE CAPACITY OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: The Case of Light-Duty
Trucks, The University of Texas at Austin, USA, 1999.
[8] Van Aerde, M., and Yagar, S. “Capacity, Speed, and Platooning Vehicle
Equivalents for Two-Lane Rural Highways”. In Transportation Research Record
971. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., 1984, pp. 58-67.
[9] Greenshields, B.D., Shaspior, D. and Erickson, E.L. (1947) Traffic Performances at
Urban Intersections, Bureau of Highway Traffic, Technical Report No. 1, Yale
University, New Haven, Conn.
[10] Miller, A.J. (1968) The Capacity of Signalized Intersections in Australia, Australian
Road Research Board Bulletin, No. 3. March.
[11] Werner, A., and Morrall, J. “Passenger Car Equivalencies of Trucks, Buses, and
Recreational Vehicles for Two-Lane Rural Highways”. In Transportation Research
Record 615. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., 1976, pp. 10-17.
[12] Al-Kaisy, A., Hall, F., and Reisman, E. “Developing Passenger Car Equivalents for
Heavy Vehicles on Freeways During Queue Discharge Flow”. In Transportation
Research, Vol. 36A, 2002, pp. 725-742.
[13] Webster, N., and Elefteriadou, L. “A Simulation Study of Truck Passenger Car
Equivalents (PCE) on Basic Freeway Sections”. In Transportation Research, Vol.
33B, 1999, pp. 323-336.
[14] SPSS Inc., SPSS 17.0 Integrated Student Version. 17th edition,2009. Amazon.
[15] Salter, R. J., (1985) Highway Traffic Analysis and Design, 2nd Edition, Macmillan,
p.285.
[16] TRL, (1996), The Use of Traffic Signals in Developing Cities, Overseas Road Note
13, Overseas Centre, Transport Research laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, p.18.
[17] Dornier System Consult Company, (1996) Master Traffic Plan in Gaza City,
unpublished report.

13
Copyright © 2012 IUG. The 4th International Engineering Conference –Towards engineering of 21st century