See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317840402

An Evaluation of Flyover-Improved Intersections: A Case Study of Airport

Intersection

Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.11175/easts.11.2028

CITATIONS READS

7 517

2 authors:

Narabodee Salatoom Pichai Taneerananon

Road Safety Audit office Prince of Songkla University
2 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 432 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Narabodee Salatoom on 08 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Evaluation of Flyover-Improved Intersections: A Case Study of Airport Intersection

Narabodee SALATOOM a, Pichai TANEERANANON b

a
PhD student, EU-Asia Road Safety Centre of Excellence (RoSCoE)
b
Prof. Dr.-Ing., Centre for Road Safety Research, Department of Civil Engineering
a,b
Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai 90112, Songkla, Thailand
a
E-mail: s.weerajak@gmail.com
b
E-mail: breathislife@yahoo.com

Abstract: A flyover over an existing at-grade intersection is constructed to reduce traffic

congestion. However, under the flyover which has been shown to help relieve traffic
congestion at the intersection, the traffic signal control still uses the same control method as
the “before” situation; that is the fixed time control plan. After the installation of the flyover,
it was found that about 45% of traffic diverted to it, the time delay reduced by 34% over the
same period. The economic evaluation results show that the net present value equals 361.64
million baht, benefit cost ratio, 1.34 and internal rate of return, 37.58 percent. The paper
describes economic benefits of the flyover and presents the performance of the flyover
improved intersection and points out the remaining problems under the flyover. Suggestions
for improving performance of the existing traffic signal are made using results from SIDRA
software.

Keywords: Flyover, Cost-benefit analysis, Delay, Traffic congestion

1. INTRODUCTION

The site in the case study is an existing at-grade signalized intersection where a flyover was
built. The site is located at the intersection of intercity Highway no. 43 and provincial
Highway no. 4135 which runs to the Hatyai international airport in Songkhla province,
Thailand. This cost of the flyover is 249.5 million baht.
A flyover is a bridge constructed along an intersecting highway over an at-grade
intersection. It allows two –direction traffic to flow at free flow speed on the bridge. The
flyover is one of the methods for solving traffic problems at at-grade junctions on highways
including capacity, congestion, long delay and queue length. Traffic signalization at the
improved intersection still uses the same fixed time control plans, even after the installation
of a flyover over the intersection. Most of the flyovers in Thailand are constructed at the
junctions on highway bypasses of big cities. There are 29 of these flyovers bridges
constructed on one of the two intersecting highways over existing at-grade fixed-time control
signalized intersections in Thailand (excluding Bangkok and its vicinity), it can support
traffic volume of around 25,000 – 45,000 vehicles/day.
To assess the benefits of a flyover, a study case was chosen. It was an at-grade signalized
intersection where two 4-lane highways intersect. The flyover was built along the intercity
highway over the highway to the Hatyai airport (Figure 1). Economic evaluation of the
flyover was conducted in terms of Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR) and
Internal Rate of Return (IRR). To improve the overall performance of this intersection, a
better traffic signal timing is needed; optimum cycle times and green times are ontained using
the SIDRA software for input into the various fixed time plans.
 Flyover‐ improved intersection

Existing At‐grade intersection

Figure 1. Layout of an at-grade intersection converted to a flyover-improved intersection

2. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

The research addresses two issues: the efficiency and the road safety aspects of the flyover
intersection. This paper focuses on the ecomic efficiency. The research framework consists
of six steps (see Figure 2) covering three time periods (before, during and after construction),
(see Table 1). The first is the literature review on road safety, cost-benefit analysis and
SIDRA software etc,. Second step involves the selection of case study location. The third is
data collection; intersection traffic movement count, time of vehicle delay, traffic signal
timing, physical layout, accident statistics, and inspection of all hazardous zones. The fourth
is the analysis/evaluation step; effect of the flyover on traffic flow, economic analysis,
hazardous areas, cause of accidents and accident costs. The fifth is conclusions followed by
the recommendations on how to improve the flyover model in terms of traffic flow, vehicles
delays and other problems that still exist.

3. DATA COLLECTION

This intersection data were collected over the three time periods (before, during and after
construction). Physical and traffic data, accident statistics and construction cost data were
collected. Data were collected for the year 2009 to 2012. These data were used to analyze the
benefits by comparing the before and after situations, the required data include traffic
movements, vehicle delays, signal control plans, and flyover construction cost.

3.1 Traffic movement count

For the existing at-grade intersection; traffic movements were recorded for each of the
legs/directions for all vehicles entering the intersection, at locations marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 in
Figure 4 (A), (Figure 3a).
For the flyover- improved situation; traffic movements were counted at the locations
marked A, 1, B, C, 2 and D on the main road, and on the secondary road at the locations
marked 3 and 4 (Figure 3b). Vehicles were categorized into five groups: 2-wheelers (MC), 3
and 4-wheelers (PC), 6-wheelers (MT), Bus (B) and Heavy truck (L), (Goyal et al., 2009).
The traffic volumes were converted to equivalent passenger car unit (PCU) by the unit factor
0.33, 1.0, 1.75, 2.25 and 2.25 (Vesper, A. 2011), respectively.

(1) Literature Review - Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering,

- Intersection design,
- Flyover construction project,
- Traffic Accident Costing,
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, and
- SIDRA.,

(2) Case Study selection At-grade intersection converted

to the flyover improved intersection

(3) Data Collection Before, during and after

- Traffic movement - Delay
- Physical layout - Accidents,
- Traffic signal - Road safety audit
- Construction cost

(4) Analysis/Evaluation Efficiency Road Safety

™ Effect of flyover on traffic flow

- Traffic volume
- Delay
™ Project evaluation
™ Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Benefit of the project
- Economic analysis
™ Output of SIDRA software
™ Hazardous zones,
™ Causes of accidents, and
™ Accidents costs.
(5) Conclusions
™ Advantage / disadvantage
™ Improved location
- Physical layout
™ Flyover limitations
™ Improved control
(6) Recommendations - Cycle phase time,

Figure 2. Research framework

The 12- hour traffic volumes before the flyover construction equal 60,351 PCU. On
highway route 43; from the "East" traffic entering the intersection equals 24,359 PCU, and
the "West" entering the intersection 11,842 PCU. On highway route 4135, traffic from the
"South" entering the intersection equals 12,196 PCU and traffic from the "North" equals
11,954 PCU (Figure 4 (a)).
After the completion of the flyover, the 12- hour traffic volumes equals 64,219 PCU, a
significant increase from the before situation. The traffic on highway route 43, at the ground
level, from the "East" entering the intersection equals 9,777 PCU, from the "West" equals
2,546 PCU. On highway route 4135; the corresponding volumes from the "South" and the
"North" are 14,298 PCU and 13,294 PCU respectively. On the flyover, the traffic from "East"
to "West" and vice versa was 13,426 PCU, and 15,958 PCU respectively (Figure 4 (b)).

Table 1. Summary collected data

Time period At-grade intersection being converted to Flyover
intersection
Items Before During After
1. Flyover location Highway route no 43 and highway route no 4135
2. Traffic movement Yes Yes Yes
3. Delay Yes - Yes
4. Queue length Yes - Yes
5. Traffic Signal Cycle time 244 s. Cycle time 254 s. Cycle time 224 s.
6. Speed Avg: 28.5 km/hr. - Avg: 45.7 km/hr.
7. Dimensions Yes - Yes
8. Conflict points 50 points - 64 points
9. Road Safety Audit Yes Yes Yes
17 crashes 52 crashes 9 crashes
10. Accident statistics (28 months) (30 months) (15 months)
7.3 crashes/year 20.8 crashes/year 7.2 crashes/year
11. Construction cost 249,597,672.5 Baht

III.
(a)
3.
marked of the at-grade intersection
1.
I. 2. II.

4.

IV.

III. (b)

marked of the flyover intersection 3.

A 1. B
I. D C II.
2.
4.

IV.
Traffic count locations:
A : Vehicles travelling on the main road over the to Intersection to II.
B : Vehicles travelling from A to main road II.
C : Vehicles travelling from II over the Intersection to I.
D : Vehicles from C over the Intersection main road I.
1, 2, 3, 4 : Vehicles approaching the intersection (under bridge) and
dispersing to I., II., III. and IV. directions

Figure 3. Turning movement count locations at the existing and flyover improved intersection
 (a)

(b)

Figure 4. At-grade intersection traffic volume and Flyover intersection traffic volume

3.2 Delay (DL)

This data depend on the cycle phase time of each event, the total delay at the at-grade
intersection is 535.27 minutes (32,116 seconds) (Figure 5 (a)) and at the flyover- improved
intersection is 347.42 minutes (20,845 seconds) (Figure 5 (b)). Average delay per vehicle for
the at-grade situation is 94.88 second and for the flyover- improved situation 90.41 second.

3.3 Queue Length (QL)

The q-length of the vehicles that stop to wait for new cycle time on each leg of the
intersection depends on the red period of the cycle time. After the installation of the flyover,
the queue is reduced. The stopped vehicle ratio of the at-grade situation is 1.55 : 1 and the
flyover situation 3.16 : 1.

3.4 Traffic Signal

Traffic signal for both situations was controlled by fixed time plans. The before situation was
controlled by two programs; the cycle time in the first program is 244 seconds (Figure 6 (a)),
applied during 0600 to 2100 (4 phases per cycle), and the second program was flashing
yellow, applied during 2100 - 0600. The flyover- improved intersection is similarly
controlled as in the before situation of the at-grade intersection, although the length of the
cycle time has been reduced to 224 seconds (DOH, 2011), but it is still a long cycle time
(Figure 6 (b)).
 (a) (b)

A A
B
B
D

Figure 6. Traffic signal programs for At-grade and Flyover- improved situation

3.5 Other important data

Accident statistics : Accident statistics collected between 2007 – August 2013 by the
Department of Highways, Police and Emergency Medical Services System (EMS) are shown
in Table 2.

Vehicle Speed : Vehicle speeds in the direction of the flyover were measured by means of a
radar-gun are shown in Figure 7, which displays the 50 percentile (mean speed) and the 85
percentile data.

Investment cost : The investment cost of the flyover is about 249 Million Baht, the standard
construction cost of a flyover is about 75,000 (2,318.9 USD) Baht/square meter.

Table 2. Accident statistics (2007 – August 2013)

Number of casualties for the 3 periods
Casualty type Flyover-improved
Existing intersection During construction
intersection
Fatal - 6 -
Disabled 0.85 1.95 0.45
Seriously injured 8 23 1
Slightly injured 17 39 9
Property damage only 25 67 times + 701,400 Baht 10
Damage to DOH property - 533,500 Baht -
Number of Years considered 2.33 2.50 1.25

4. PROJECT EVALUATION

The project evaluation compares the case with and without the flyover project in order to
assess the benefits arising from the project. The benefits include savings in the value of time
(VOT), vehicle operating cost (VOC) and saving in cost of accidents as shown in Table 3.
Details are as follows;
 85% vehicle speed (under flyover) 85% vehicle speed (on the flyover)
Speed (km./hr.)

mean speed (under flyover)

Distance from center (m.)

Figure 7. Vehicle speed at marked locations

4.1 Vehicle operating costs (VOC)

Vehicle operating costs comprise the cost of fuel, lubricant cost, idling of the engine and
operating cost, these correlated to traffic volume, composition, and vehicle speed
(V.Watcharin, 1994).
When vehicles are waiting for green signal at the intersection stop line with the engine
running; wasteful fuel consumption results which also vary with types of vehicles (Goyal, S.
K., Goel, S., & Tamhane, S. M., 2009). The different traffic volume between the case without
and with project can be converted to equivalent monetary term.
This study used an average fuel cost of 37.18 Baht/litre (6/08/2013,
http://www.pttplc.com/th/Pages/home.aspx), and the fuel consumption of an average
passenger car unit (PCU) which stops and idles for 1 minute = 20 cc.
(http://www.sahavicha.com/?name=knowledge&file=readknowledge&id=1623). This
amounts to a monetary loss of 0.75 Baht per minute. On the bridge, Luophongsok used the
HDM-4 software to calculate the cost in terms of transportation saving cost at free flow
speed, the results are show in Table 4 (Luophongsok et al., 2011).

4.2 Value of time (VOT)

Value of time means the cost (equivalent to money) that is lost due to delay during a trip, but
when traffic flow through the intersection is improved after the flyover is operational, the
increased intersection eficiency helps reduce travel time and road users can use this time to
do other activities.
Value of time in the province of the case study can be calculated from the gross province
product (GPP), number of people employed and average hours of work (Table 5).
Accordingly, the value of time in Songkhla province was 83.86 Baht/PCU/hour in 2011,
adjusted for 2012, the value of time for 2012 was estimated at 84.38 Baht/ PCU/hour.
On the flyover bridge, Luophongsok using the data from Department of Highways
estimated the VOT at 117 Baht/PCU/hr (Luophongsok et al., 2011). Adjusted for inflation in
at 3.3% (Bank of Thailand, 2012), give the value of time for 2012 at 120.86 Baht/PCU/ hour.
The benefits of the project that consisted of savings in vehicle operating costs (VOC) and
the value of time (VOT) are summarized in Table 6.
 Table 3. Summary of delay, traffic volume and accident statistics
Items Intersection situation Results
No. At-
Issues (units) Flyover Reduction Increase
grade
Total (second) 32,116 20,845 11,271
vehicle
1 (minute) 535.3 347.4 187.9 34.5% -
delay per
day (hour) 8.9 5.8 3.1

64,219
Traffic PCU Truck
2 volume (PCU/
60,351 - 3,904 6.0%
day) 47,261 16,958
per day
73.6% 26.4%
39,915 (62.16%)
PCU Truck
Under the flyover 60,351 20,436 33.8% -
32,837 7,078
82.2% 17.8%
24,304 (37.8%) 24,304 (37.8%)
PCU Truck PCU Truck
On the flyover - -
14,424 9,880 14,424 9,880
59.4% 39.6% 59.4% 39.6%

3 Accident statistics Before During After After - Before

Fatality (Fal) - 6 - - - -
Disability (Dis) 0.85 1.95 0.45 0.01 1% -
Serious Injury (SI) 8 23 1 6 people 75.0% -
Slight Injury (SL) 17 39 9 0 people 1.0% -
Property Damage 67 times + 701,400
25 10 22.6% -
Only (PDO) Baht
DOH damage - 533,500 Baht -
set at 28 months -
Months 28 30 15
Crash/year 7.3 20.8 7.2 0.1 1.37% -

Table 4. Vehicle operating costs in PCU (Luophongsok et al., 2011)

Speed (kilometer per hour)
VOC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
(Baht/PCU/Km.) 10.23 6.15 4.91 4.34 4.09 3.99 4.01 4.13 4.35 4.65 5.04 5.54
Source : Calculated by HDM-4 software

Table 5. Value of time (VOT) in Songkhla province

GPP Avg of hours work Value of time: VOT
Year Employed
(Million THB) (year) (THB/hour)
2007 159,008 744,042 2,950 72.44
2008 160,683 766,674 2,985 70.21
2009 151,755 790,553 2,930 65.52
2010 186,457 815,618 2,870 79.65
2011 214,799 837,093 3,060 83.86
Source: Adapted from the National Statistical Office (2012)
 4.3 Cost of Accidents

Accident costs were obtained by using Equation . As the accident statistics from the 3
agencies did not record the number of disability people, the calculation was based on the
work of Dr.Nima Asgari (WHO, 2013) who stated that “ for every road crash, where there is
one death, there will be 20 injured people and 1 of 20 injured people will become to a
disabled person”. Thus for this study, 5% of the number of injured number are taken as the
number of disabled.

Table 6. The benefits of the project in terms of VOC and VOT

Vehicle operating cost
No. At-grade to Flyover Value Unit Value of time (VOT)
(VOC)
1 Fuel consumption Loss of time
Under the flyover (intersection)
(0.75 Baht/PCU/minute) (84.38 Baht/PCU/hour)
Time of all vehicle delay 187.9 x 0.75 = 187.9 x (84.38/60) =
(reduced results) 140.93 Baht/day 264.25 Baht/day
minute/ 140.93 x 300 = 264.25 x 300 =
187.9
day 42,279.00 Baht/year 79,275.01 Baht/year

Total = 121,554.01 Baht per year

2 At 60 Km/hr speed (3.99 Value of time on highway

On the flyover-bridge
Baht/PCU/km) (120.86 Baht/PCU/hour)
Free flow speed of the PCU/ 24,304 x 3.99 = 2,025 x 120.86 =
vehicles in two directions 24,304
day 96,972.96 Baht/day 244,741.5 Baht/day
over the bridge
96,972.96 x 300 = 244,741.5 x 300 =
PCU/ 29,091,888 Baht/year 73,422,450 Baht/year
2,025
hour
Total = 102,514,338 Baht per year

A(F)*MCA(F) + A(Dis)*MCA(Dis) + A(SI)*MCA(SI) + A(LI)*MCA(LI) + A(PDO)*MCA(PDO)

ACa = (1)
t

Where, ACa : annual average accident cost (Baht/year),

A : number of accidents (acci),
MCA : the mean cost per accident (Baht/acci) as shown in Table 7, and
t : the period of time under review (year).

An annual average accident costs for the three situations calculated by Equation (1) are
shown in Table 8.

Table 7. Mean cost per accident for various severities

Thailand Bangkok Other Provinces
Severity
(Million Baht) (Million Baht) (Million Baht)
Fatality (F) 5.062 – 5.956 10.561 - 12.413 4.757 - 5.599
Disability (Dl) 5.114 - 6.910 11.611 - 13.934 5.608 - 6.729
Serious Injury (SI) 0.158 - 0.164 0.328 - 0.337 0.148 - 0.155
Slight Injury (SL) 0.0386 - 0.0389 0.1731 - 0.1733 0.0297 - 0.0298
Property Damage Only 0.052 0.164 0.039
Source: Department of Highways, Thailand (2012)
 Table 8. Annual average accident cost in each situation
Locations Number of casualties in 3 situations

Mean cost per accident At-grade intersection During construction Flyover intersection
Fatal 5,178,000 - 6 -
Disabled 6,168,500 0.85 1.95 0.45
Seriously injured 151,500 8 23 1
Slightly injured 29,750 17 39 9
Property damage only 39,000 25 67 times + 701,400 Baht 10
DOH damage - 533,500 Baht -
Year consider (year) 2.33 2.50 1.25
Cost 3,405,997 20,635,690 2,868,060
Saving in accident costs resulting from converting at-grade intersection to the flyover intersection per year
= 537,937.85 Baht

5. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)

CBA is the method for calculating all benefits and costs. The CBA is normally carried out in
terms of three key indicators: the Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR) and
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (Garber, N. J., & Hoel, L. A. (2009)).
In this study, the recommended interest rate (i) of 12% was used (DOH, 2009 and World
Bank and Office of the National Economic and Social Development). The period of analysis
is 10 years (n). The result of analysis is shown in Figure 8.

5.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

This method is defined as the summation of the present values of the individual cash flows of
the same entity, Eq (2).
n
( Bt − C t )
NPV = ∑ (2)
t =0 (1 + i ) t
10
( B 10 − C 10 ) 88.7 * 10 6
43.2 * 10 6
NPV = ∑
t = 12 (1 + 0 . 12 ) 10
=
(1.12) 1
+ ... +
(1.12) 10
− 270.2 * 10 6
− 3.8 * 10 6

NPV = 361,641,982 Baht

5.2 Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR)

A ratio ishowing the relationship between the costs and benefits of a proposed project, Eq (3);

Benefits 361,641,98 2 + 537,938 + 121,544 (3)

BCR = = = 1.34
Cost 249,597,672.5 + 20,635,690

5.3 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The interest rate for which NPV equals to zero. For the flyover project, i = 37.58 %

6. ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SIDRA

To make recommendation to the DOH to improve the performance of the intersection, the
authors used SIDRA to analyse the current traffic signal control under the flyover. The
 software is an advanced micro-analytical tool used for evaluating of alternative intersection
designs in terms of capacity, level of service and a wide range of performance measures,
including time delay, queue length, as well as fuel consumption, pollutant emissions and
operating costs (Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd., (2011)). The software was used to analyze
the performance of the traffic flow, cycle phase time, delay and level of service. Table 9
shows the optimum cycle times as computed by SIDRA, the values are much smaller than the
existing cycle time of 224 seconds.

Cash Flow

Intersection Before During After Construction

Items Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2018 2019 2020 2021

Traffic data
Traffic volume 64219 70789 78031 80606 83266 86013
On the bridge PCU/day 54912 24304 26791 29532 30506 31513 32553
Under the bridge 39915 43998 48499 50100 51753 53461
Delay minute 32116 20845 23035 25392 26230 27096 27990
Cost
Invesment cost Baht -249597672.5

Maintenance cost Baht/year -27000 -27000 -27000 -27000 -27000 -27000

Accident cost Baht/year -3405998 -20635690 -2868060 -2868060 -2868060 -2868060 -2868060
Saving accident cost Baht 537938
Delay cost Baht/year -346286 -224732 -248346 -273756 -282790 -292122 -301762
Saving delay cost Baht 121544

Free flow cost Baht/year 102.5E+6 113.0E+6 124.6E+6 128.7E+6 132.9E+6 137.3E+6
Sum Baht/year -3.8E+6 -270.2E+6 99.4E+6 109.9E+6 121.4E+6 125.5E+6 129.7E+6 134.1E+6
Cash Flow Baht -3.8E+6 -138.9E+6 -274.0E+6 -185.2E+6 42.1E+6 221.0E+6 271.7E+6 318.5E+6 361.6E+6

Figure 8. Cost benefit results (2009 – 2021)

 Table 9. Optimum cycle-times by SIDRA for 12 time periods (7:00 – 19:00)
Time Periods New cycle time run by SIDRA (second/cycle) Time Delay (second)
7:00 – 8:00 140 45.5
8:00 – 9:00 140 45.8
9:00 – 10:00 130 42.2
10:00 – 11:00 130 41.5
11:00 – 12:00 125 40.8
12:00 – 13:00 125 41.4
13:00 – 14:00 115 44.1
14:00 – 15:00 115 48.0
15:00 – 16:00 120 45.2
16:00 – 17:00 130 47.5
17:00 – 18:00 145 61.6
18:00 – 19:00 135 45.8

7. CONCLUSIONS

An at-grade intersection was upgraded with an installation of a flyover-bridge at a cost of

249.5 million THB, with the aim of increasing capacity of the intersection and reduce vehicle
delay and long queue at the ground level. The study results can be summarized as follows:
Traffic volume at the intersection increases around 4,000 PCUs or 6.02%, the volume at
ground level accounts for 33.8% and free flow on the bridge 45.7%.
Delay at intersection: average time delay was reduced by 34.5%.
Queue length at intersection: The stopped vehicle ratio at this intersection for the at-grade
situation and the flyover situation is 1.55 : 1 and 3.16 : 1 respectively.
Traffic signalization: Both before and after situations were controlled by fixed time
control plans. At-grade situation operated two daily plans, the first plan used 244 seconds of
cycle length, for the period 0600 -2100 (4 phases per one cycle); the second plan used
flashing signal for the period 2100-0600. The flyover-improved intersection used similar
fixed time control plan, but with the shorter cycle time of 224 seconds.
Speed: saving in travel time from increased vehicle speed, especially on the flyover where
the speed increased from 29.8 to 52.5 km/hr.
Project evaluation: the benefits were considered in terms of saving in VOC, VOT and
Accident Costs. The saving in costs of 29.13, 73.50 and 0.54 million THB were realized
respectively realized with the flyover installation.
The project net present value (NPV) was 361.64 million THB, benefit cost ratio (B/R)
1.34 and internal rate of return (IRR) 37.58%, indicating that it is a worthwhile project.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, the project is economically worthwhile and can reduce congestion at the intersection.
However, the operation of traffic signal has been and is still controlled by fixed time control
plans as the previuos situation of before the construction of the flyover. Long queue and
delay of vehicles especially on the minor highway still exist.
To improve performance of the intersection, shorter optimum cycle times as calculated by
SIDRA should be adopted for different time of day. The cycle times are shown in Table 9.
 REFERENCES

Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd., (2011) Signalized (and unsignalized) Intersection Design
and Research Aid, PO Box 1075G, Greythorn, Vic 3104 AUSTRALIA, Management
Systems Registered to ISO 9001: ABN 79 088 889 687.
Bureau of Traffic Safety, (2005). Traffic Accident on National Highways 2004.
Department of Highways, Ministry of Transport, Thailand.
Department of Highways., (2010 - 2012). Highway Accident Information Management
System. [Online]. Available: http://haims.doh.co.th.
Department of Highways., (2011-2013). Traffic Accident on National Highways, Bureau
of Highway Safety, Department of Highways, Ministry of Transport, Thailand.
Department of Highways., (2011). The flyover construction project, Hatyai City, Songkhla,
Thailand.
Department of Highways., (2012). “Mean cost of severities per road accident in Thailand”
Bureau of Highway Safety, Department of Highways, Ministry of Transport, Thailand.
Department of Land Transport., (2012). Annual of vehicle increase per year in Thailand.
(http://www.dlt.go.th).
EMS at Hat Yai hospital., (2010-2012). Accident statistic at the flyover area, Hatyai City,
Songkhla, Thailand.
Garber, N. J., & Hoel, L. A. (2009). Traffic and highway engineering. CengageBrain.com.
Goyal, S. K., Goel, S., & Tamhane, S. M. (2009). Assessment of environmental benefits of
flyover construction over signalized junctions: a case study.Environmental monitoring
and assessment, 148(1-4), 397-408.
Hatyai Police Station., (210-2012) Accident statistic at the flyover area, Hatyai City,
Songkhla, Thailand.
Luophongsok. P., Cathrynchu. N., and Dithwirulh. N., (2011) Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Sanpatong-Hangdong (Phase 1) Bypass Project, Chiangmai. Journal of Management
Science and Information Science, Volume 6, No. 2, April - September 2011.
Ministry of Education, (2009). An average fuel economy and fuel consumption during
idling conditions of vehicles, (http://www. sahavicha. com/?name=knowledge&file=
read knowledge&id=1623).
National statistical office. (2010). Population and housing census 2010. Advanced report.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), (2013). Gross
Regional and Provincial Product, (http://www.nesdb.go.th/Default.aspx?tabid=96)
PTT Pty Ltd., (2013). Fuel cost: Blue Gasohol 91 is 37.83 THB (22/1/13),
(http://www.pttplc. com/th/Pages/home.aspx)
Vesper, A. (2011). 2nd One-Day Training: collection of traffic volume data at
intersections, at Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, TECII-Project, BUW, Germany.
Watcharin, V. (1994). Economic highway engineering, Bangkok; physics center.
World Health Organization., (2013) Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013 (supporting
a decade of action), ISBN 978 92 4 156456 4.

View publication stats