NORTH SOUTH

UNIVERSITY
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Traffic Operations and Signal Warrants Study on a Segment

of Aftab Uddin Ahmed Road (Bashundhara R/A) and its
Associated Intersections/Driveways

CEE 350
Section 1
Group 5
Members:
1. Amir Hossain Raju_161 2364 025
2. Rakibul Hossain Khan_161 1338 025
3. Khandaker Muntasir Hossain_161 0692 025
4. Aditya Barua_161 0447 025
5. Salah Arafin_161 1164 025
6. Romana Yasmeen_161 0843 025

Submitted to: MD Shoaib Chowdhury

Date of Submission: 23th April, 2018

1
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Data collections and Field observations ................................................................................................... 1
Traffic and Signal Warrant Study ............................................................................................................ 2
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................. i
T ABLE 1: D ATA C OMPILATION AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... I
T ABLE 2: S IGNAL W ARRANT 1A ANALYSIS ........................................................................ I
T ABLE 3: S IGNAL W ARRANT 1B ANALYSIS ....................................................................... II
T ABLE 4: S IGNAL W ARRANT 2 ANALYSIS ........................................................................ III
T ABLE 5: S IGNAL W ARRANT 3A ANALYSIS ...................................................................... III
T ABLE 6: S IGNAL W ARRANT 4A ANALYSIS ...................................................................... IV
T ABLE 7: S IGNAL W ARRANT 4B ANALYSIS ...................................................................... IV
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................. v
F IGURE 2: VEHICLES IN QUEUE , PEDESTRIANS CROSSING ................................................. V
FIGURE 3: RICKSHAWS IN BOTH DIRECTION AND VEHICLE…………………………………………....v

2
INTRODUCTION
Bashundhara Residential Area, though is a residential area, consists several large offices, two
universities, more than two schools, a hospital and shops and malls. As a result, it attracts a large
number of traffic each day and due to the undeveloped transportation planning, the whole area’s
roadway operation hampers and hence suffers from enormous congestion.
Being students of North South University, we are the everyday sufferers of this overcrowdings.
Thus we have selected a segment of Aftab Uddin Ahmed Road which is just in front of NSU gate
number eight. Being a major street, traffic enters from NSU and IUB driveways, NSU gate no.
eight and also there is another access point of traffic from the north.
Therefore, for the study purpose, we find this segment of Aftab Uddin Ahmed road appropriate
for traffic operation and signal warrant analysis.

OBJECTIVES
Main objectives of traffic operations study is –
 To determine the overall roadway operating and congestion conditions.
 To observe the queue lengths and major causes of queue formations.
 To determine pedestrian movements issues (difficulties of Sidewalk and Crosswalk).
 To address crowding conditions (pedestrian, rickshaws and cars) at NSU gate # 8 and to
observe their impacts on roadway operations.

DATA COLLECTIONS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS

Aforementioned, a particular segment of Aftab Uddin Ahmed Road was observed for the project
where the main street is directed along the east-west direction and a part of this segment was
considered to be the intersection for which warrant study has been prepared. Except for the
intersection, overcrowdings around the number 8 gate of the North South University was in our
surveillance as well during the one hour data collection. Figure 1 shows the study segment
below.

Since, the office exit hour which is from 5:00 pm to 6:00pm was our duration of data
accumulation, we have seen the most congested period. Both the driveways’ gates were opened
and in each minute more than one vehicle (V4 and V5) are entering the major streets where the
security guards are controlling traffic just by stopping the vehicular movement coming from the
eastward direction in the major streets. Moreover, vehicles (V 3) coming from the north access are
also entering the intersection and meets with traffic coming from the west. On the other hand, the
cars (C1 and C2) that are picking up passengers from the front of the NSU gate are stopping just
in the middle of the roads which in turn generate a massive congestion in front of the gate.
Therefore, in every 10 to 20 seconds intervals a dead condition occurs in that road. Added to
that, the rickshaw pullers coming from both direction of the main street try to gather in the
rickshaw lane in any way and stay there until they get any passenger. The security guards were
controlling rickshaw pullers by sometimes hitting the rickshaws or by using harsh words towards

1
them. Due to the presence of the security guards the vehicles could actually move and can leave
that area to their destinations and hence the queue lengths in each direction has been minimized
within few minutes, though it reaches end of the road several times.

North

FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA

In this whole hour, it is monitored that the pedestrian who are walking alongside the road are
mostly vulnerable compared to the pedestrian who are crossing the main street. Since vehicle
flow rate is very low and the jam density has been reached at that hour, the pedestrian who
wished to cross the road could easily make it. Nevertheless, the pedestrian walking alongside the
road or even tries to walk face difficulties due to lack of side walk. Alongside the NSU and IUB
driveways, there was a sidewalk which is simply inadequate to accommodate such a big rush of
pedestrians and on the other side of the road there was no such thing called side walk.

TRAFFIC AND SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY

Placing the traffic signal is the most expensive way of controlling traffic. However, purpose of
our study is only to perform the traffic analysis and find if there are requirement s for signal
warrant merely for learning purpose. The MUTCD 2009 edition was followed for the traffic and
signal warrant study where nine diverse warrants were specified. The major street is considered
to have one lane and the minor street have lanes in one direction. From those nine warrants,
number 1 to number 4 warrants which are, ‘eight-hour vehicular volume’, ‘four hour vehicular
volume’, ‘peak hour volume’ and ‘pedestrian volume’ respectively were been checked for the
study. Warrant 5, 6, 8 and 9 which are ‘School crossing’, ‘coordinated signal system’, ‘Roadway
network’, were not practicable for the study area chosen. And the warrant 7: ‘Crash experience’

2
was not being checked due to lack of previous data regarding accidents. For the warrant study of
2, 3 and 4, the curve for ‘two of more lanes and one lane’ was considered for our case study.

Warrant 1: For the condition A (minimum vehicular volume), major street VPH met the
requirement for 80%, while minor street VPH fulfilled the requirement for 100%. Therefore,
For condition B (interruption of continuous traffic), minor street VPH met the requirement for
100%, however major street VPH could not fulfilled requirements even for 80%. Thus, condition
B is not satisfied. Since, both conditions should be fulfilled in case of 80% value, the warrant 1
does not satisfy.

Warrant 2: the graph of VPH-major Street versus VPH-minor Street for normal condition was
followed and from the ten hour data, four of them crossed the curve of ‘2 or more lanes and 1
lane’. Therefore, the intersection condition satisfies the warrant 2 condition.

Warrant 3: for this warrant, only condition A (Volume warrant) was taken into consideration and
condition B was discarded from the study due to unfavorable condition of data collection
regarding ‘Delay Warrant’(condition B). And observing no change in the result, warrant satisfied
following the graph of major street VPH versus minor street VPH.

Warrant 4: the warrant was analyzed for both condition A (four hour pedestrian warrant) and
Condition B (peak hour pedestrian warrant) and both condition was fulfilled to satisfy warrant.

Appendix A has all data analysis records regarding the warrants agreement.

CONCLUSION
According to our analysis on the traffic operation & signal warrants on an arterial intersection of
Aftab Uddin Road we figured out the congestion condition , queue length & it's causes , issues
regarding the pedestrian movements & impacts due to passenger pick-up & drop-off of that road.
We counted the number of pedestrians, vehicles which were getting out of IUB & NSU
driveways along with the vehicles that were moving through The East-West direction. Although
the vehicles were moving pretty fast so we had to keep the count quickly but overall what we did
went perfectly, except for the fact that we had to make some necessary assumptions. Added to
that, during afternoon of the day of data collection, we could not manage to take data for half an
hour due to rain and assumed the probable data for that half an hour. Our warrant study on 4
different warrants based on the data we collected was checked whether they satisfy the
conditions for that specific intersection or not. Except warrant 1 rest of the warrants satisfy the
conditions.
An intriguing study on this topic in the future might be inspected involving other warrants on
broader aspects of this case.

3
APPENDIX A
Table 1: Data Compilation and analysis
Data Compilation
Pedestrian Crossing Main
Major Street Minor streets
Street
Time V1 Total Total
V2 (East Total Highest
(West V4 V5 (North V3 (South P1 P2 Total
Bound) Volume Volume
Bound) Bound) Bound)
8.00 am-9.00 am 487 354 841 109 265 374 135 135 374 84 61 145
9.00 am-10.00 am 620 478 1098 141 25 166 155 155 166 127 54 181
10.00 am-11.00 am 382 480 862 131 17 148 260 260 260 150 69 219
11.00 am-12.00 pm 352 243 595 65 144 209 90 90 209 305 212 517
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 204 1230 1434 81 142 223 887 887 887 175
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 374 367 741 68 157 225 113 113 225 68 90 158
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 203 293 496 11 145 156 86 86 156 311 112 423
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 200 274 474 86 162 248 94 94 248 150 84 234
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 217 299 516 79 175 254 178 178 254 50 62 112
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 105 223 328 99 132 231 66 66 231 34 78 112

Table 2: Signal Warrant 1A Analysis

Warrant 1: Eight Hour Vehicular Volume; Condition A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
VPH on Major Street (total, Both Approach) VPH on Minor street (highest Volume)
Time
Minimum number to Minimum number to
Warrant 1A satisfies
Data satisfy warrant Warrant 1A satisfies Data satisfy warrant
100% 80% for 100% for 80% 100% 80% for 100% for 80%
8.00 am-9.00 am 841 500 400 Yes yes 374 200 160 yes yes
9.00 am-10.00 am 1098 500 400 Yes yes 166 200 160 No yes
10.00 am-11.00 am 862 500 400 Yes yes 260 200 160 yes yes

i
 11.00 am-12.00 pm 595 500 400 Yes yes 209 200 160 yes yes
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 1434 500 400 Yes yes 887 200 160 yes yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 741 500 400 Yes yes 225 200 160 yes yes
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 496 500 400 No yes 156 200 160 No No
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 474 500 400 No yes 248 200 160 yes yes
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 516 500 400 Yes yes 254 200 160 yes yes
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 328 500 400 No No 231 200 160 yes yes
Not Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Table 3: Signal Warrant 1B Analysis

Warrant 1B: Interruption of continuous Traffic
VPH on Major Street (total, Both Approach) VPH on Minor street (highest Volume)
Minimum number to Minimum number to
Time Warrant 1B satisfies Warrant 1B Satisfies
Data satisfy warrant Data satisfy warrant
for 100% for 80% for 100% for 80% for 100% for 80% for 100% for 80%
8.00 am-9.00 am 841 750 600 Yes yes 374 100 80 yes yes
9.00 am-10.00 am 1098 750 600 Yes yes 166 100 80 yes yes
10.00 am-11.00 am 862 750 600 Yes yes 260 100 80 yes yes
11.00 am-12.00 pm 595 750 600 No No 209 100 80 yes yes
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 1434 750 600 Yes yes 887 100 80 yes yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 741 750 600 No yes 225 100 80 yes yes
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 496 750 600 No No 156 100 80 yes yes
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 474 750 600 No No 248 100 80 yes yes
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 516 750 600 No No 254 100 80 yes yes
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 328 750 600 No No 231 100 80 yes yes
Not Not
Satisfied Satisfied
satisfied satisfied

ii
Table 4: Signal Warrant 2 Analysis
Warrant 2: Four Hour Vehicular Volume
VPH on Major Street VPH on Minor street Minimum number of VPH on minor street corresponds
Time Warrant 2 satisfies
(total, Both Approach) (highest Volume) to the number of VPH on major street to satisfy warrant
8.00 am-9.00 am 841 374 190 yes
9.00 am-10.00 am 1098 166 115 yes
10.00 am-11.00 am 862 260 185 yes
11.00 am-12.00 pm 595 209 300 No
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 1434 887 115 yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 741 225 240 No
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 496 156 340 No
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 474 248 360 No
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 516 254 320 No
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 328 231 430 No
Warrant 2 Issued

Table 5: Signal Warrant 3A Analysis

Warrant 3A: Peak Hour
VPH on Major Street VPH on Minor street Minimum number of VPH on minor street corresponds
Time Warrant 3 satisfies
(total, Both Approach) (highest Volume) to the number of VPH on major street to satisfy warrant
8.00 am-9.00 am 841 374 345 yes
9.00 am-10.00 am 1098 166 260 no
10.00 am-11.00 am 862 260 330 no
11.00 am-12.00 pm 595 209 465 no
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 1434 887 155 yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 741 225 385 no
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 496 156 525 no
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 474 248 560 no
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 516 254 515 no
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 328 231 Nil no
Warrant 3 issued

iii
Table 6: Signal Warrant 4A Analysis
Warrant 4A: Four Hour Pedestrian Warrant
Pedestrian Crossing Main Minimum number of Pedestrian crossing major street
Street VPH on Major Street corresponds
Time Warrant 4A satisfies
(total, Both Approach) to the number of VPH on major street to satisfy
P1 P2 Total warrant
8.00 am-9.00 am 84 61 145 841 175 No
9.00 am-10.00 am 127 54 181 1098 105 yes
10.00 am-11.00 am 150 69 219 862 165 yes
11.00 am-12.00 pm 305 212 517 595 298 yes
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 175 1434 107 yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 68 90 158 741 210 No
2.00 pm-3.00 pm 311 112 423 496 350 yes
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 150 84 234 474 365 No
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 50 62 112 516 330 No
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 34 78 112 328 480 No
Warrant 4A issued

Table 7: Signal Warrant 4B Analysis

Warrant 4B: Peak Hour Pedestrian Warrant
Pedestrian Crossing Main Minimum number of Pedestrian crossing major
VPH on Major
Street street corresponds Warrant 4B
Time Street (total, Both
to the number of VPH on major street to satisfy satisfies
Approach)
P1 P2 Total warrant
8.00 am-9.00 am 84 61 145 841 350 No
9.00 am-10.00 am 127 54 181 1098 240 No
10.00 am-11.00 am 150 69 219 862 330 No
11.00 am-12.00 pm 305 212 517 595 498 yes
12.00 pm-1.00 pm 175 1434 133 yes
1.00 pm-2.00 pm 68 90 158 741 400 No

iv
 2.00 pm-3.00 pm 311 112 423 496 570 No
3.00 pm-4.00 pm 150 84 234 474 590 No
4.00 pm-5.00 pm 50 62 112 516 560 No
5.00 pm-6.00 pm 34 78 112 328 Nil No
Warrant 4B Issued

APPENDIX B

FIGURE 2: VEHICLES IN QUEUE , PEDESTRIANS CROSSING F IGURE 3: R ICKSHAWS IN BOTH DIRECTION AND
VEHICLES