ASSESSMENT OF UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT EAST BINABAG

AND CEBU-NORTH COASTAL ROAD USING WEBSTER’S METHOD &

MUTCD WARRANTS ON SIGNALIZATION

A Thesis
Presented to the Department of Civil Engineering
Cebu Institute of Technology University
Cebu City, Philippines

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

by
Mark Ryan B. Espenilla
Junesse E. Fernandez
Tom Gerard G. Francisco
Michael Renz E. Gequillo
Kimberly M. Rosales
Ayessa L. Saballa

May 2025
 APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis entitled, “ASSSESSMENT OF UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION AT EAST BINABAG AND CEBU-NORTH COASTAL ROAD
USING WEBSTER’S METHOD & MUTCD WARRANTS ON SIGNALIZATION”,
prepared and submitted by Mark Ryan B. Espenilla, Junesse E. Fernandez,
Tom Gerard G. Francisco, Michael Renz E. Gequillo, Kimberly M. Rosales,
and Ayessa L. Saballa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering is hereby recommended for approval.

Engr. June Carlo S. Encabo

Adviser
Date: _____________

Engr. Lee Ann R. Soyangco Engr. Rochel Ann P. Samalca

Panelist Panelist
Date: _____________ Date: _____________

Engr. Trixia Ella Marie Q. Duazo

Panelist
Date: __________________

This thesis is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

Engr. Felrem G. Lor Engr. Felrem G. Lor

Thesis Coordinator Department Chair, Civil Engineering
Date: _____________ Date: _____________

Dr. Evangeline C. Evangelista

Dean, College of Engineering and Architecture
Date: ____________
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, the researchers would like to express their sincere
gratitude to God Almighty, the source of all wisdom and knowledge, for giving
them the courage, hem the strength, determination, and guidance needed to
complete this study. His divine grace has been with them every step of the way.
Additionally, the researchers would like to express their sincere gratitude to
the thesis adviser — Engr. June Carlo S. Encabo, whose invaluable advice,
criticism, and assistance helped to shape this research. His knowledge and
guidance have been extremely helpful.
A special thank you as well to the CE Project 2 Coordinator—Engr.
Ferlem G. Lor, for his diligent supervision and coordination, which made sure the
study went well without complication.
Furthermore, sincere appreciation is given to the panelists — Engr.
Soyangco, Lee Ann R., Engr. Samalca, Rochel Ann P., and Engr. Trixia Ella
Marie Q. Duazo, whose guidance, knowledge, and wise suggestions enhanced
the thesis. Their support, inspiration, and encouragement have been momentous
in helping to improve the study.
The researchers would also like to express their genuine gratitude to Cebu
Institute of Technology-University for providing the necessary facilities,
resources, and a positive research environment. The research team's cooperation
and support were essential to the study's successful completion.
Additionally, the researchers would like to acknowledge the significant
contributions made by parents, friends, and loved ones, whose unwavering love,
support, and sacrifices have been significant.
Lastly, the researchers are genuinely appreciative of the support and
encouragement received from everyone involved in this study. Their input has
turned this research into a rewarding and enriching journey.
 ABSTRACT

Traffic congestion is one of the major issues in Cebu City, Philippines,

particularly at intersections without traffic signals, such as the East Binabag and
Cebu-North Coastal Road intersection, which experiences significant congestion,
especially during peak hours. This study evaluates the intersection’s
characteristics and traffic volume to determine whether signalization is necessary
to improve traffic flow and reduce delays. Using a descriptive quantitative
approach, an 8-hour traffic volume survey was conducted over three consecutive
days, from Tuesday to Thursday, with data collected manually through a Vehicular
Volume Count Survey and CCTV footage. Traffic movement patterns were
analyzed to assess control delays, Level of Service (LOS), and saturation flow
rates, applying Webster’s Method for optimal signal timing and MUTCD Warrants
2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and 3 (Peak Hour) to determine the need for
signalization. Findings indicate severe congestion at the intersection, particularly
during peak hours, with vehicular volume exceeding MUTCD limits. Streams 3 and
6 show Level of Service F, which identified as forced or breakdown flow conditions,
confirming the need for signalization. Using Webster’s Method, best signal timing
was computed to enhance traffic efficiency, reduce delays, and improve road
safety, with the proposed signal cycle length providing systematic phase
allocations for major and minor roads to ensure smoother traffic movement. This
study concludes that traffic signalization is necessary to manage congestion
effectively and mitigate delays at the intersection, offering valuable insights for
local government units, urban planners, and traffic engineers in implementing
evidence-based transportation strategies to enhance road safety and operational
efficiency. Future research could explore additional signal optimization techniques,
pedestrian impact assessments, and adaptive traffic control systems to further
enhance intersection management in similar urban environments.

Keywords: Traffic congestion, Intersection Signalization, Level of Service,

Webster’s Method, MUTCD Warrants.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale 1
1.2 Conceptual Framework 2
1.3 Problem Statement 3
1.4 Significance of the Study 3
1.5 Scope and Limitations 4
1.6 Definition of Terms 4
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 7
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 19
3.2 Research Environment 19
3.3 Research Instruments 21
3.4 Research Procedure 22
3.5 Data Analysis 24
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND 31
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary of Findings 46
5.2 Conclusion 47
5.3 Recommendation 48
REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A TRANSMITTAL LETTER 55
 vi

APPENDIX B SAMPLE TALLY SHEET 56

APPENDIX C COMPLETE TALLY OF PCU/HR/STREAM (WITH 57
CATEGORIES)
APPENDIX D TALLY SHEET (VEHICULAR PER HOUR) 69
HOURLY TRAFFIC
APPENDIX E AVERAGE TRAFFIC 73
APPENDIX F COMPUTATIONS 75
APPENDIX G DOCUMENTATION 86
APPENDIX H TIMETABLE OF ACTIVITIES 87
APPENDIX I RESEARCH BUDGET 88
APPENDIX J TURNITIN RESULT 89
APPENDIX K CURRICULUM VITAE 90
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 General Definitions of Level of Service 9
2 Different Streams of the Intersection 22
3 Equivalency Factor for PCU Conversion 25
4 V/s Ratio and Corresponding LOS 26
5 Control Delay and Corresponding LOS 29
6 Intersection Profile 32
7 Traffic Volume and PCU 33
8 Saturation Flow Rate of each Stream 36
9 Capacity Stream 37
10 LOS Value per Stream and Critical Lane 38
11 Four Hour Vehicular Volume 39
12 Distribution of Vehicles by Phases 42
13 Modified Critical Flow Ratio (CFR-Values) of each Phase 43
14 Calculated Signal Timing using Webster’s Formula 43
15 Final Signal Timing 44
 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1 Schematic Diagram of the Study 2
2 Location of the Study and Nearby Establishments 19
3 Location of the Study: East Binabag and Cebu-North 20
Coastal Road Intersection
4 Different Phases of the Intersection 21
5 Warrant 2, Four-hour Vehicular Volume 29
6 Warrant 3, Peak hour 30
7 Aerial View of the Intersection with Directional Flow 31
8 Conflict Points of the Intersection 32
9 Stacked Bar Chart of Hourly Vehicle Type 33
Distribution (AHT)
10 Combination Chart of Vehicular and PCU Hourly Volume 35
11 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 40
12 Warrant 3, Peak Hour Vehicular Volume 41
13 Distribution of Vehicles by Phases 42
14 Final Signal Timing Diagram 45
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale
Traffic congestion not only disrupts economic development but also creates
a significant threat to public safety. A study by the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) pointed out that traffic congestion in Metro Cebu has significantly
increased over the past five years. This escalation severely obstructs and
negatively impacts public safety, convenience, road conditions, and air quality.
Main factors in worsening traffic congestion are the increasing number of
automobiles, lack of a comprehensive traffic management system, overlapping
transport routes, and inadequate road infrastructure [1]. Among the areas affected
is the East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road Intersection, a highly congested
junction that connects both local and regional mobility. However, with the lack of a
traffic control system and the unregulated presence of overlapping transportation
services combined with the constant passage of large vehicles, the intersection
may experience heavy traffic and could become highly prone to accidents, risking
the safety of road users.
Furthermore, intersections are considered as a critical point in the roadway
network due to the conflicting traffic movement converge. Given its significance,
the lack of a signal system leaves it exposed to accidents and prone to traffic
congestion. Without proper action, these issues could cause traffic to worsen
further, which would slowly turn down the effectiveness of roads. Moreover,
unnecessary fuel consumption, financial losses for commuters, and degradation
to the environment can all be caused by traffic delays. To overcome these serious
issues, the researchers will conduct a thorough assessment of the current
condition of the existing intersection to provide data-based recommendations in
applying appropriate traffic control measures, such as a signalized system using
Webster's method that can be strategically improved to prevent the effects of
congestion at the intersection.
 2

1.2 Conceptual Framework

This framework describes how to use Webster's Method to create a
signalized intersection design, beginning with thorough data collection and
analysis.

DATA GATHERING
1. Classified Traffic Volume Count Survey
2. PCU Conversion
3. Existing Traffic Flow

DATA ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT

LOS COMPUTATION
(Unsignalized Intersection, Highway Capacity Manual)

WARRANT FOR SIGNALIZATION

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD)
Warrant 2: 4 Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3: Peak Hour

ASSESSMENT
SIGNAL DESIGN, WEBSTER’S METHOD
• Determine Critical Lane Groups and Saturation Flow Rate (S)
• Calculate the Flow Ratio (V/S) for each Lane Group
• Determine the Critical Flow Ratio (∑(V/S))
• Compute the Cycle Length Using Webster’s Formula
• Allocate Green Time for Each Phase
SIGNAL TIMING DIAGRAM

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Study

1.3 Problem Statement

This study aims to evaluate the current flow of traffic in the intersection at
East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road Intersection in Tayud Consolacion,
Cebu and recommend ways to improve it. It primarily focused on finding the best
 3

timing for the traffic lights using Webster's method and MUTCD Warrants.
Furthermore, the researchers aim to answer the following questions:
1. What is the current traffic volume at the East Binabag and Cebu-North
Coastal Road Intersection?
2. What is the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection?
3. What is the proposed signal timing using Webster’s Method?

1.4 Significance of the Study

The assessment of unsignalized intersection at East Binabag and Cebu-
North Coastal Road using Webster’s method & MUTCD Warrants on signalization
will crucially benefit the following:
Local Government Unit. This research study will help the local
government develop better traffic management strategies, allocate resources
effectively, and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance road safety
and efficiency.
General Public. The study will contribute to a safer and more efficient road
system, reducing traffic congestion and minimizing accident risks. Commuters and
motorists benefited from improved travel times and a smoother traffic flow at the
intersection.
Academe. The data gathered in this study will serve as an essential
resource for educational institutions, offering valuable case studies in traffic
engineering, urban planning, and transportation management. The utilized
methodology and data–gathering methods enhanced the comprehension of urban
traffic tactics.
Future Researchers. The research outcome will establish a strong
groundwork for upcoming studies in traffic engineering and urban planning. It acted
as a guideline for enhancing road safety, increasing traffic efficiency, and planning
superior transportation systems in comparable regions.
 4

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The scope of the research will involve the following traffic volume count on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; it is the best days to represent the true
volume [2]. The traffic volume count will be conducted during peak hours both
morning and afternoon. The researchers will also use MUTCD to warrant the need
for signalization but for this study, it is limited to only Warrant 2 (4-hours vehicular
volume) and Warrant 3 (peak hour).
The factors such as the effect of nearby intersections, pedestrian volumes,
accidents, and the impact of neighboring businesses on traffic patterns are beyond
the researchers' control and fall outside the scope of this study. Pedestrians are
merely seen as contributors to traffic congestion, and the research will not
incorporate an assessment of pedestrian activities. Furthermore, the data
collection is restricted to the designated timeframe. The primary focus is on
gathering and analyzing data to ascertain the need for signalization at the
particular intersection being examined.

1.6 Definition of Terms

The researchers define the following terminologies:
Average Daily Traffic. A way to find out how many vehicles usually pass a certain
spot on a road or highway in a day, based on an average taken over a year.
Capacity. The maximum rate at which vehicles can pass through the intersection
under prevailing conditions.
Highway Capacity Manual. A reference guide that provides methods for
analyzing the capacity, performance, and quality of service of roadways and
intersections.
Intersection Traffic Signal Control Problem (ITSCP). The challenge of
optimizing traffic flow at intersections by finding the most efficient schedule for
traffic signal settings.
Level of Service (LOS). A measure of traffic flow quality that is used to describe
the operating conditions of an intersection.
 5

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A guide that helps decide
if a traffic light is needed at an intersection.
Mixed Decision Strategy for Freight and Passenger Transportation in Metro
Systems during Off-Peak Hours (MTS-OPH). A transportation strategy based on
the aforementioned mixed transportation standard, which satisfies the optimal
distribution cost of the cargo flow under the condition of determining the origin and
terminal stations of the goods
Off-peak Hours. Times of the day when traffic is lower than usual, typically outside
morning and evening rush hours.
Passenger Car Unit (PCU). This is used in Traffic Engineering to quantify the
impact of different vehicle types.
Peak Hours. The busiest times of the day when traffic volume is at its highest,
usually during morning and evening commutes.
Signalized Intersection. An intersection controlled by traffic lights to manage
vehicle and pedestrian movement efficiently.
Stream. For this study, “stream shall be considered synonymous with “flow” or
“approach”
Stream 1. National Highway to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 2. National Highway to East Binabag Road
Stream 3. National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 4. Cebu-North Coastal Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave.
Consolacion
Stream 5. Cebu-North Coastal Road to East Binabag Road
Stream 6. Cebu-North Coastal Road to National Highway
Stream 7. East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 8. Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion to East Binabag Road
Stream 9. Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion to East Binabag Road
Stream 10. East Binabag Road to National Highway
Stream 11. East Binabag Road to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 12. East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
 6

Traffic Congestion. A condition where the number of vehicles on a road exceeds

its capacity, leading to slow movement, longer travel times, and delays.
Traffic Flow. The study of the movement of individual drivers and vehicles
between two points and the interactions they make with one another.
Traffic Volume. The procedure to determine the volume of traffic or number of
vehicles moving on the roads at a particular section during a particular time. This
study utilizes an hourly interval.
Webster’s Method. A way to calculate the best timing for traffic lights to keep
traffic moving smoothly and reduce waiting time at an intersection.
 CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

As the country's population continues to grow, it is essential to address

these challenges. Road and Highway authorities must establish an effective traffic
management system and enhance the current road infrastructure. If not, people
will continue encounter numerous difficulties in the future. One of these challenges
is traffic congestion [3]. Certain cities in the Philippines are facing traffic issues due
to the rapid population growth and the transportation system. Despite extensive
engineering efforts by local government units to tackle traffic challenges in cities
beyond Metro Manila, issues such as road accidents, congestion, pollution, and
energy concerns continue to persist. As the daily number of vehicles continues to
rise dramatically, reducing road congestion has emerged as a major challenge in
recent years. [4] The increasing traffic congestion on various streets, intersections,
and highways is a significant issue for travelers, policymakers, businesses,
developers, and the community as a whole. Its adverse effects, such as extended
travel times, elevated fuel consumption, higher emissions of pollutants, increased
transportation costs, and shifts in investment choices, are becoming more
acknowledged and felt nationwide. Congestion hampers the accessibility of
residents to activities and job opportunities, leading to missed prospects for both
individuals and businesses. [5] This problem has become a considerable concern
in East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road Intersection. Consequently,
assessing traffic congestion and identifying the causes of this issue is the initial
step.
Traffic engineering falls under the umbrella of Transportation engineering.
It primarily focuses on traffic control systems, roadway illumination and signal
design, traffic management, pedestrian pathways, and more. Traffic engineering
involves specific strategies aimed at facilitating safe and efficient movement for
individuals on roadways. The safe and efficient movement of individuals greatly
relies on Traffic flow. Various factors influence Traffic flow, with traffic volume being
a significant element [3]. With the increasing number of vehicles at road
 8

intersections, the rise in road accidents, conflicts over traffic, and congestion have
become critical issues. To address invasion concerns at three selected
intersections, this research paper uses manual control (MC) strategies. These
locations were selected after a thorough analysis using Ranking-based Instance
Selection (RIS), which guided the creation of suitable measures meant to
guarantee smoother traffic flow and lessen accidents. To collect relevant data, the
study considers several factors such as traffic volume, peak flow rate (PFR), traffic
conflicts, accidents, and intersection inventory details. By applying our proposed
solutions, which combine MC techniques with signalized operations, a high level
of service (LOS) can be reached [6].

Level of Service (LOS)

The Level-of-Service (LOS) for a traffic facility is a concept that connects
the quality of traffic service to the specified flow rate. A quality metric known as
LOS describes the operational circumstances of a certain route. It mainly
concentrates on components that have a direct bearing on the driving experience
like speed, trip time, lanes of 9 travel flexibility, the frequency of disruptions like
road signs, and general comfort or convenience. LOS was introduced by HCM to
indicate the quality achievable from a local setting under various operational traits
and traffic volume. HCM defines LOS using letters to represent a spectrum of
operational conditions for a specific type of facility. The six LOS categories
established by HCM are A, B, C, D, E, and F, with A representing the highest
quality of service and F the lowest. These classifications rely on Measures of
Effectiveness (MoE) for that facility. Common measures of effectiveness include
speed, travel time, density, and delay. Each LOS level is associated with a
corresponding service volume. A service volume or service flow rate refers to the
maximum number of vehicles, passengers, or similar units that can be
accommodated by a particular facility or system under specific conditions at a
given LOS [7].
 9

Table 1. General Definitions of Level of Service (Source: Traffic Level of Service

Calculation Methods)
Level of Service General Operating Conditions
A Free Flow
B Reasonably Free Flow
C Stable Flow
D Approaching Unstable Flow
E Unstable Flow
F Forced or Breakdown Flow

Advancements in developing nations are accompanied by increased

mobility; however, improvements to pedestrian infrastructure are frequently
overlooked. This situation is particularly evident in the Philippines, especially in
Cagayan de Oro city, which has experienced significant urban growth over the last
decade. This research evaluated pedestrian facilities using a Level of Service
(LOS) assessment, pedestrian traffic counts, and walkability metrics based on the
Asian walkability index. Collectively, these factors gauge pedestrian flow, spatial
allocation, speed, and the volume-capacity ratio. The findings indicate that all
areas received a "low" rating for walkability, with nearly all (83%) assessed as
having "very poor" LOS. Additionally, 93% of the sidewalks and 62% of the
crosswalks were rated from D to F in terms of LOS. Overall, most intersections
lack essential features such as lighting, traffic signals, pavement markings, and
accessible ramps. Moreover, the existing facilities are inadequately designed to
accommodate the "high" pedestrian traffic [8].

Traffic Management at Intersection

The traffic management system is viewed as one of the key aspects of a
Smart city. As the population and urban movement in metropolitan areas continue
to grow, roadways frequently experience traffic congestion. To address the
challenges of road traffic management and assist authorities with effective
planning, this paper proposes a smart traffic management system utilizing the
 10

Internet of Things (IoT). A hybrid method, which combines both centralized and
decentralized strategies, is implemented to enhance the flow of traffic on the roads,
and an algorithm has been created to efficiently handle various traffic conditions.
For this purpose, the system gathers traffic density data from a) cameras b) and
sensors to control traffic signals. Additionally, another algorithm powered by
Artificial Intelligence is employed to forecast future traffic density, aiming to reduce
traffic congestion [9]. The challenge of controlling traffic signals at intersections
(ITSCP) has gained greater significance due to the increasing problem of traffic
congestion. The ITSCP aims to make an effective schedule for traffic signal
settings at intersections to improve traffic flow while considering several aspects
such as real-time strategies, signal timing limitations, rapid advancements in traffic
systems, and practical application. Since the factors involved in the ITSCP are
highly complex and unpredictable, it's important to understand them clearly. This
understanding will help in creating practical methods that can handle this
complexity and still be applied successfully in real-world situations [10].

Unsignalized Intersection
A research study analyzed how traffic flows at an unsignalized T-shaped
intersection that has three vehicle entry points—two for right turns and one for a
left turn. The researchers used a cellular automata traffic model to simulate vehicle
movements. The study focused on how vehicles interact within the different lanes
and how the traffic conditions on each road affect the intersection's overall capacity
and efficiency [11]. The study also looks at how traffic conditions change in
different lanes. The findings suggest that the model is applicable for real-world
traffic analysis and forecasting. X-shaped intersections are irregular junctions that
frequently create obstructions and challenges in traffic management within small
to medium-sized urban areas. Based on the specific requirements for engineering
modifications at X-shaped intersections, the design for widening the junction is
integrated with a left-turn strategy for the adjacent road. The traffic performance
before and after the modification is analyzed through simulation comparisons,
demonstrating that the suggested approach yields effective results in practical
 11

engineering applications [12]. The design of a 4-phased traffic control system for
both intersections indicated that performance was inadequate for the base year.
Although increasing the number of lanes from 1 to 2 on the primary approaches of
the SRS junction, as allowed by its right-of-way, slightly enhanced its performance
from Level of Service (LOS) E to D. Meanwhile, the B-Division junction exhibited
failed performance in the base year with a degree of saturation ratio of one. Given
that the right-of-way and land-use characteristics at the B-Division intersection do
not allow for an increase in the number of lanes, the redesign and construction of
a roundabout, grade-separated, or continuous flow intersection as recommended
by other researchers for underperforming cross-intersections were suggested to
enhance the performance of these intersections. Additionally, the implementation
of annotated pavement markings to assist motorists in improving lane discipline
and strict enforcement policies to regulate on-street parking near intersections to
boost lane capacity were proposed for the efficient functioning of cross-
intersections [13].

Signalized Intersection
Signalized intersections play a vital role in the highway system; therefore,
enhancing the conditions of these intersections notably affects the overall
efficiency of highways in terms of delays and level of service (LOS). A decrease in
capacity and an increase in delays at signalized intersections may indicate
suboptimal signal timing and insufficient road geometric factors. Gaining a better
understanding of the factors influencing the performance of signalized
intersections can aid in minimizing delays and enhancing the LOS. Signalized
intersections are implemented within traffic networks to enhance the safety and
effectiveness of both vehicle and pedestrian movement. Various strategies
categorized under education, enforcement, and engineering are being used to
bolster the safety and efficiency of operations at these intersections [14].
Additionally, signalized intersections with designated crosswalks improve safety
for pedestrians by granting them the right of way. Nevertheless, a notable number
of pedestrian fatalities occur at these intersections, likely due to violations by
 12

pedestrians themselves. Given that pedestrian fatalities are not evenly distributed
across signalized intersections within a city, it stands to reason that interactions
involving violations would also differ by location. Therefore, it is important to
explore whether pedestrian signal violations can serve as an effective indicator of
fatal pedestrian accidents at these intersections, and if so, what factors related to
behavior, location, and the built environment contribute to these violations [15].
Signalized intersections are crucial for enhancing transportation efficiency and
vehicle fuel economy within urban settings. Furthermore, with the rise of
Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs), the mixed traffic environment
comprising various traffic participants with different levels of intelligence will play a
significant role in the intelligent transportation system [16]. The installation of a
signal countdown timer, which displays the remaining time for red and green
phases, is one such strategy and is widely adopted in India. Nonetheless, research
on how countdown timers impact Indian traffic conditions is quite limited. The
diversity of traffic and lack of lane discipline hinder the applicability of models
created in other countries with more orderly traffic. This study aims to evaluate the
effects of a timer on queue-discharge characteristics and red-light violations
(RLVs) within Indian traffic contexts. The assessment was performed for various
vehicle types considering the presence or absence of timers separately at the
beginning and end of red and green phases [14]. Another research aims to review
several previously published studies on the assessment of traffic operations at
signalized intersections utilizing both the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM
2010) and various optimization software. Different methodologies have been
employed to pinpoint the primary input data (traffic volume data, geometric
characteristics, and signal timing) necessary for the HCM and various optimization
strategies, which include video recording techniques and field surveys. Findings
from the published studies suggest ways to enhance the operational performance
of these intersections, such as adjusting cycle lengths, adding lanes, constructing
overpasses, restricting certain traffic from entering the intersection, and combining
multiple proposals [17]. Amistad, aimed to evaluate the necessity for traffic
signalization from the viewpoint of local government units (LGUs) [18]. The
 13

perceived necessity for traffic signalization is regarded as very high, while the
achieved objectives surrounding this issue are considered high as well. Some
LGUs have not implemented traffic signals due to financial limitations. They have
sought the expertise of the Traffic Engineering Center (TEC), Traffic Engineering
and Management (TEAM), and academic institutions like the National Center for
Transportation Studies to carry out traffic engineering analysis. The TEC warrant
is the most commonly applied criterion, with vehicular volume being the primary
factor considered for the warrants.

Signal Timing at Intersection

Current fixed-time traffic signal optimization techniques primarily rely on
traffic volume data gathered from infrastructure-based detectors (e.g., loop
detectors). However, these detectors typically involve high maintenance costs and
limited coverage. The introduction of probe vehicles allows for the collection of
vehicle trajectory data, which provides more comprehensive insights into traffic
conditions and can be leveraged for signal timing purposes [19]. At present, the
predominant method for controlling urban road intersections is signal control mode.
Since the efficiency of road intersections is significantly influenced by signal timing
arrangements, optimizing signal timing at these locations is essential.
Consequently, this study investigates various methods for timing signal
optimization at urban road intersections, recognizing that the choice of optimization
objectives plays a crucial role [20]. This study presents a combined decision-
making strategy for handling both freight and passenger transport in metro
systems during off-peak hours (MTS-OPH). It defines this approach by considering
both fixed and flexible loading methods, depending on how many passengers are
using the system. A mathematical model is developed for MTS-OPH and solved
using an improved variable neighborhood search algorithm. Case studies are used
to show how effective and practical the model and algorithm are, with a focus on
different delivery distances, passenger volumes, and metro network setups. This
strategy works well for long-distance deliveries, and the model can be applied to
different types of metro networks, regardless of their difficulties This approach
 14

helps metro and freight companies by providing solutions that adjust to different
passenger flow situations [21].

Utilizing CCTV Cameras

CCTV cameras are utilized for traffic management to observe designated
spots on the roadway. CCTV produces unstructured data in the form of images
and videos. Due to the complexity of this data, processing it can be quite difficult.
This research suggests employing big data analytics to convert real-time
unstructured data obtained from CCTV into insights that can be displayed on a
web dashboard [22]. With this in mind, the philosophy of traffic management needs
to adapt to support smart cities, which utilize computer vision techniques for a
responsive traffic management system that relies on real-time analysis of CCTV
image streams. The adaptive traffic management system accurately detects and
counts vehicles. This approach is especially beneficial in smart cities where traffic
signals need to be automated in accordance with vehicle density. This study
explored intelligent traffic management by collecting and monitoring traffic data
through CCTV imagery. It reflects on the potential risks associated with the
implementation phase, along with the advantages, challenges, and future outlook
of ITS [23]. During the research, data were gathered from a street CCTV camera
monitoring traffic patterns at a specific intersection. In the initial phase of analyzing
vehicle dynamics as they clear the queue at a red light, it was discovered that
behaviors vary significantly among different vehicle types. Consequently, the next
phase involved formulating a statistically valid mathematical model for the
intersection's capacity as a multiple regression equation that incorporates all
relevant vehicle categories. This model enabled the estimation of intersection
capacity under various uncertain traffic flow parameters displayed in a 3D graphic
format. The study focused on creating an algorithm to assess the time taken for a
mixed queue of vehicles to navigate the intersection in real-time. This algorithm is
applicable in intelligent transportation systems, particularly concerning continuous
traffic management for autonomous vehicles. The models discussed could provide
 15

a strong basis for making informed decisions to improve vehicle-to-infrastructure

communication (V2I) [24].

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

The delay-based warrant suggests that the intersection functions effectively
below the threshold created by the reduced capacity by 100 vehicles per hour
allotted as reserved capacity. Based on the comparative study, it is apparent that
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and locally adopted
Traffic Engineering Criteria (TEC) warrants have the potential to overstate the
operation efficiency of unsignalized intersections in the Philippines. This paper is
primarily concerned with problems stemming from conflicting traffic movement,
unplanned pedestrian crossing, and sudden stoppage by automobiles [25].
Nevertheless, not always must the installation of a traffic signal be done. The
MUTCD provides certain standards, referred to as traffic signal warrants, for
considering whether or not an intersection with no traffic signal requires installing
a traffic signal. These warrants examine a vast variety of factors that influence
traffic conditions and safety and thus have signals installed only where they are
able to make maximum contributions. These warrants are implemented for optimal
traffic signal design and improving efficiency at intersections [26]. Following are
the warrants that must be considered while considering the unsignalized
intersection at East Binabag and Cebu-North Coast Road Intersection.
Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. This warrant is meant for use
from locations with significant cross traffic, and this is the main reason why a traffic
control signal is to be put in place. This is also relevant in situations where the
traffic congestion on a main road is sufficient to cause significant delays or conflicts
to other vehicles on a secondary road that wish to enter or cross over the main
road.
Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. The requirements that have been
set for these signal warrants are to be used primarily where traffic volumes in
intersections are the primary criterion for determining whether or not a traffic
control signal is to be employed.
 16

Warrant 3 – Peak Hour. This signal warrant is prepared for situations where,
at least for one hour of a typical day, the traffic on the minor road is seriously held
up as it tries to enter or cross the main road.
Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume. This warrant for signalization is applicable
if there is sufficient traffic on the major road that causes considerable delay for
pedestrians who are attempting to cross the street.
Warrant 5 – School Crossing. It is for instance when the most important
justification for evaluating the employment of a traffic control signal is the presence
of children who cross the main road.
Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System. This warrant is for conditions
where the provision of a steady stream of traffic in a coordinated signal system
may necessitate the use of traffic control signals. This warrant is for intersections
where traffic control signals are not usually needed to enable effective vehicle
platooning.
Warrant 7 – Crash Experience. This establishes particular conditions to be
used when the most important considerations in evaluating the installation of a
traffic control signal are the frequency and severity of crashes.
Warrant 8 – Roadway Network. This signal warrant is designed for
situations where the installation of a traffic control signal could be deemed
appropriate to promote the focused and orderly movement of traffic within a
roadway network.
Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. The warrant for traffic
signals at an intersection near a grade crossing is designed for situations where
none of the criteria detailed in the other eight signal warrants apply. However, the
closeness of a grade crossing to an intersection approach that is regulated by a
STOP or YIELD sign is the main factor for contemplating the installation of a traffic
signal.

Peak Hour
In numerous transportation initiatives, the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is an
essential metric for evaluating flow and traffic modeling. The objective of this study
 17

was to analyze the characteristics of the PHF on two average off-peak days and
average workdays over a week. Traffic volume has been steadily increasing
throughout the region. People are facing significant challenges due to traffic
issues, especially during peak hours. One of the most pressing concerns in
Baqubah, Iraq, is the traffic congestion at major signalized intersections. These
intersections help manage changes in traffic flow direction. The peak hour factor
illustrates variations in traffic flow during the busiest 15 minutes of the highest hour.
This metric is utilized to analyze rush-hour traffic flow conditions, including volume
and Level of Service [27]. Another study, aimed to investigate how effective
manual control by traffic police officers is compared to traffic signals. For the
analysis, four junctions managed by traffic police during peak hours were chosen.
The traffic micro simulation software VISSIM was utilized for the analysis, and it
was calibrated and validated to reflect local conditions prior to its application [28]
The junctions were modeled for both the traffic police's phase arrangement and
cycle time, and for a set traffic signal duration. In situations where the junction is
undersaturated, traffic signals result in less delay compared to control by traffic
police officers. Conversely, in cases of oversaturation, traffic police officers prove
to be more effective as they permit risky merging maneuvers to alleviate critical
flows. To obtain valuable insights regarding the performance and effectiveness of
various intersection design configurations and their influence on traffic flow during
peak hours in urban road networks. This research focuses on a case study
conducted in the country's second largest city and examines three different
scenarios: 1) substituting some signalized intersections with roundabouts; 2)
replacing all signalized intersections with roundabouts; and 3) enhancing the signal
plans of the current signalized intersections. The study uses mesoscopic
simulation to assess how well traffic flows, focusing on delays and queue lengths,
to compare the performance of each scenario. [29].

Webster’s Method
The Webster method provides a systematic strategy in designing for signals
that helps minimize delays by defining the entire signal cycle. The length of the
 18

sampling interval depends on the type of count being measured [30]. Traffic lights
are an important part of keeping traffic moving smoothly at intersections, and
getting the signal timing right is key to reducing congestion. This article presents a
way to determine the best signal timing for an intersection, using a modified version
of the Webster method. The method looks at the signal cycle length and the green
light duration as key factors in creating a formula that predicts vehicle delays at the
intersection. This function is then transformed from a multi-objective optimization
problem into a single-objective optimization formulation, and a modified genetic
algorithm is employed to find the optimal solution to this function [31]. A fixed-timed
signal-controlled traffic system was developed for two candidate intersections, the
"SRS" and "B-Division," located in Makurdi town, utilizing Webster's traffic signal
design models to assess their performance. The geometric designs of the
intersections were evaluated, and a manual count of traffic was conducted to
determine the average travel demand (pcu/h) for both the base year (2017) and
the projected year (2027) using a traffic growth rate of 3% [13]. Another study,
suggested approach utilizes fuzzy logic along with the Webster optimum cycle
formula. This method operates on a cyclic basis, ensuring that every feasible
phase at the intersection receives a minimum green signal during each cycle.
These minimum green intervals can also accommodate pedestrian crossings. This
approach addresses the issue of starvation experienced by minor roads in non-
cyclic strategies. The proposed method is examined in both coordinated and
isolated scenarios. According to the results obtained, the adaptive fuzzy logic and
Webster-based coordinated method surpasses the other strategies in metrics such
as average waiting time, travel time, travel speed, and queue lengths [32].
Additionally, using Webster Analysis and Newton's Difference Interpolation we find
that normal-wave values is directly proportional to the cycle time. From the
analysis, if we reset the direct measurement duration to the analysis results
duration, it can decrease the signal duration up to 21.7%. It also can reduce the
vehicle delay up to 13.0 % and the cycle time can also be reduced by 14.8 %,
which means it can cut the waiting time duration so far. This setting can optimize
the efficiency of the signal duration at the intersection [33].
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study will utilize a descriptive quantitative research design, which aims
to systematically characterize traffic congestion and create an optimized signalized
system at East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road Intersection using
numerical data. Quantitative research design is efficient in objectively measuring
variables and identify patterns, making it valuable approach in traffic analysis [34].
Through this method, the researchers will collect traffic volume counts, level of
service (LOS), vehicle flow rates, and other variables used for the assessment and
signalization design.

3.2 Research Environment

The study will be conducted at the road intersection of Tayud linking
Consolacion town proper, Mandaue City and Municipality of Liloan, the intersection
is unsignalized surrounded by commercial, residential and industrial estates
resulting in high traffic volumes, especially during peak hours.
The researchers considered one major road, the Cebu North Coastal Road,
and two supporting minor roads, the East Binabag Road and the road connecting
to Gov. Francis Burton Harrison Ave. in Consolacion. This intersection experiences
a mix of private vehicles, motor vehicles, modern jeepneys and delivery vans, all
contributing to the peak hour congestion.

Figure 2. Location of the Study and nearby establishments

 20

Figure 3. Location of the Study: East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road
Intersection

Table 2. Different Streams of the Intersection

Streams Route
Stream 1 National Highway to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave.
Consolacion
Stream 2 National Highway to East Binabag Road
Stream 3 National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 4 Cebu-North Coastal Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave.
Consolacion
Stream 5 Cebu-North Coastal Road to East Binabag Road
Stream 6 Cebu-North Coastal Road to National Highway
Stream 7 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion to National Road
Stream 8 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion to Cebu-North
Coastal Road
Stream 9 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion to East Binabag
Road
Stream 10 East Binabag Road to National Highway
Stream 11 East Binabag Road to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 12 East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave.
Consolacion
 21

Figure 4. Different Phases of the Intersection (A) Phase A (B) Phase B (C) Phase
C (D) Phase D

3.3 Research Instruments

The evaluation utilizes a data collection method. Traffic volume information
is collected manually through CCTV footage and Vehicular Volume Count Survey
Form, enabling a thorough comparison of traffic flow trends during peak and off-
peak times. For this study's analysis, the researchers employed Microsoft Excel to
efficiently and accurately organize and tabulate data. The Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) 2000 and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways, published by the United States Department of Transportation's
Federal Highway Administration, provide guidelines for the assessment.
Traffic Volume Count (Using CCTV and Vehicular Volume Count Survey
Form) - The researchers will analyze CCTV footage counting the number of
vehicles passing through the intersection manually using Vehicular Volume Count
Survey Form. This procedure requires the user to identify the type of vehicle as
seen in the video recording. The CCTV recording, legally offered by the Tayud
Consolacion, Cebu local government, is used as a traditional approach in the
manual traffic volume estimation. The procedure is being applied to acquire data
with respect to traffic flow at the uncontrolled intersection at the intersection of East
Binabag and the Cebu-North Coastal Road. By using the traffic volume data
collected during peak and off-peak periods, the researchers are able to calculate
the most appropriate signal timing for the proposed traffic light system.
Furthermore, this method enabled them to analyze the capacity of the road
 22

segment or intersection and to identify areas vulnerable to traffic jams, offering

valuable data for optimizing traffic control at the intersection.
Microsoft Excel - Microsoft Excel was deemed by the researchers as essential in
organizing and analyzing data gathered from manual traffic count surveys. Excel
allows researchers to monitor traffic volume systematically by time period and
direction and thus make it simpler to determine total traffic count, peak hours, and
rising traffic trends. Excel also facilitates the effective representation of findings by
creating informative charts and graphs.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 - The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
published In 2000 is a key tool in the field of transportation engineering, enabling
the study of various transport infrastructures, including highways, freeways, main
roads, and intersections. It provides key information and procedures necessary to
quantify the capacities of these infrastructures and estimate their level of service
(LOS). Traffic engineering engineers globally utilize HCM as a key source of
information to conduct traffic engineering studies.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) - The Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a comprehensive set of guidelines and
standards for the installation, design, and maintenance of traffic control devices
(TCDs) on streets, highways, and public roads. The general objective of MUTCD
is to encourage uniformity and standardization of traffic control practices
nationwide. Although mainly used in the United States, other foreign nations such
as the Philippines may opt to adopt and use the MUTCD in their quest for uniformity
of their traffic control practices.

3.4 Research Procedure

This part explains the steps that the researchers will follow to collect data
for evaluating the unsignalized intersection at East Binabag and Cebu-North
Coastal Road using Webster’s Method and MUTCD Warrants on Signalization.
Preliminary procedures
First, the researchers will visit to observe the flow of traffic and how vehicles
and pedestrians move at the intersection. This will help them understand the
 23

current situation and possible issues with traffic control. Next, they will ask
permission from the Barangay Office to check if traffic volume data is available.
They will also send a formal request letter to the authorities for CCTV footage of
the intersection.
• If the Barangay provides traffic data, the researchers will review and use it.
• If no data is available, the researchers will check CCTV footage (if
accessible) to count the number of vehicles and analyze traffic patterns
themselves.
Actual Data Collection
Tally Sheet Survey (Traffic Volume Counting)
The researchers will collect traffic volume data from either the Barangay’s
records or by manually counting vehicles from CCTV footage using tally sheet. The
data collected from the tally sheet will then be processed using Excel to estimate
vehicular volume during various times of the day and peak hours when traffic is
heaviest. These findings will be important for deciding if a traffic signal is needed.
After gathering the necessary data, the researchers will:
1. Use Webster’s Method to calculate the best traffic signal timing if a signal is
needed.
2. Check if the MUTCD Warrants are met, which means seeing if the
intersection meets the official requirements for installing a traffic signal.
Post-Data Collection & Results
After the computations, the researchers will analyze the results to determine:
• If the intersection needs a traffic signal based on the collected data.
• If Webster’s Method suggests a specific timing for a signal.
• What are possible effects of adding a traffic signal would be on traffic flow
and safety.
However, if the traffic situation is manageable and under control, the
researchers will suggest additional traffic management techniques to optimize the
traffic flow without the need for a signal.
 24

3.5 Data Analysis

The collected raw data is utilized to analyze traffic patterns and other traffic-
related information. To gather this data, the following formulas will be necessary.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Average Daily Traffic serves as the main method for predicting and
observing traffic patterns. It provides a comprehensive measurement of traffic
volume along with supplementary traffic data. This figure is derived by taking the
total traffic volumes for a specific duration and dividing it by the number of days
within that timeframe.
1
𝐴𝐷𝑇 = 𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑉𝑂𝐿𝑖 [Eq. 3.1]

Where: ADT = average daily traffic

VOLi = daily volume in the ith day
n = the number of whole days

Flow rate or Volume (AHT)

Flow refers to the speed at which vehicles travel past a specific location on
the roadway and is typically expressed in vehicles per hour. This is determined by
averaging the hourly vehicle count over the course of the week. See the equation
provided below.
𝑁
𝐴𝐻𝑇 = ∑ 𝑇 [Eq. 3.2]

Where: AHT = flow rate

N = number of vehicles
T = time at this point

PCU Conversion
Passenger Car Unit (PCU) is very crucial in transportation planning and
engineering. It defines the maximum number of different types of vehicles in a
consistent manner as far as possible based on their effect on road capacity and
infrastructure so that roads have enough space to carry them safely without severe
traffic congestion.
 25

Table 3. Equivalency factor for PCU Conversion

PCU Conversion
Bus 3
Private Car 1
Motorcycle 0.5
Tricycle 1
Truck 3

The PCU, or Passenger Car Unit, is a basic unit used in traffic engineering
to measure the impact of different types of vehicles on traffic conditions.
Motorcycles are assigned a PCU value of 0.5, meaning that one motorcycle takes
up half the space of a passenger car. This means that two motorcycles take up
roughly the space of one car roadway space and collective traffic impact. Private
Cars and Tricycle carry a PCU value of 1, meaning they have an impact on traffic
similar to that of a standard passenger car. Buses and Trucks, with a PCU of 3,
are considerably larger vehicles that take up space equivalent to three passenger
cars, signifying that their contribution to traffic congestion is threefold compared to
an average car.

Saturation Flow Rate (SFR)

The Traffic Signal Timing Manual, describes saturation flow rate (SFR) as
the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an intersection during a
designated period. Expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or per lane (vphpl), SFR
effectively indicates the maximum volume of traffic that an intersection can
accommodate before congestion occurs [35].
3600 (𝑡10 −𝑡4 )
𝑆= ; ℎ= [Eq. 3.3]
ℎ 6

Where: S = Saturation Flow (Veh/hr/In)

h = Saturation Headway (sec/veh)
t10 = time of the tenth vehicle to pass the stop line
t4 = time of the fourth vehicle to pass the stop line
 26

Expected Capacity of an Approach

The highest flow rate of vehicles allowed to enter the intersection from a
designated stream under certain circumstances, considering the arrival of
vehicles and breaks in the traffic. Utilize the standardized data provided from
HCM 2000.
3600
𝐶 = 𝑞𝑚+𝑇 [Eq. 3.4]

Where: C = capacity (veh/hr)

qm = the average time gap between vehicles (seconds)
T = the time it takes for the next vehicle (seconds)

Flow Rate Ratio and Equivalent LOS

Flow Ratio represents the correlation between the existing traffic flow rate
and the peak capacity of a road or intersection. This ratio is generally computed
by comparing the average hourly traffic volume to the saturation flow rate. The
calculation follows the equation presented below.
𝑉
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = [Eq. 3.5]
𝑆

Where: V = Volume (veh/hr)

S = Saturation Flow Rate
Table 4. V/s Ratio and Corresponding LOS (Source: HCM 2000)
LOS V/s Remarks
A Less than 0.6 Free Flow
B 0.60 – 0.70 Reasonable Free Flow
C 0.71 – 0.80 Stable Flow
D 0.81 – 0.90 Approaching Unstable Flow
E 0.91 – 1.0 Unstable Flow
F More than 1.0 Forced or Breakdown Flow

Control Delay and Equivalent LOS

Control delay is an important parameter for determining the degree of
Service (LOS) at an unsignalized intersection. Control delay is the sum of time a
 27

vehicle waits in line at an intersection, from the moment it stops to when it can
resume movement. It computes the additional time that automobiles spend at
Intersection because of congestion. It is a vital measure in determining Level of at
an unsignalized intersection (Refer Table 5). The calculation of control delay is
derived from the equation given below.
2 3600 𝑣
3600 𝑣 𝑣 ⋅
𝑑= + 900𝑇 [𝑐 − 1 + √(𝑐 − 1) + 𝑐 𝑐
]+5 [Eq. 3.6]
𝑐 450𝑇

Where: d = Control Delay

c = Capacity (veh/hr)
v = Volume of Flow (veh/hr)
T = Time of observation
Table 5. Control Delay and Corresponding LOS (Source: HCM 2000)
LOS Control delay (s) Remarks
A <10 Free Flow
B 10 – 15 Reasonable Free Flow
C 15 – 25 Stable Flow
D 25 – 35 Approaching Unstable Flow
E 35 – 50 Unstable Flow

Modified Critical Flow Ratio

The Critical Flow Ratio in traffic engineering refers to the ratio between the
current flow rate and the saturation flow rate for a lane or movement at a particular
phase of traffic signals. It is a useful tool for traffic engineers in designing efficient
and effective signal timing plans. The Critical Flow Ratio is computed using the
formula given below. This research utilizes a Modified Saturation Flow Rate, in
which the lane width is multiplied by 600. This is also corroborated by studies
conducted [36] and [37]. In order to find the ratio, please refer to the formula
provided below.
𝑣
𝑐𝑓𝑟 = [Eq. 3.7]
𝑠

Where: v = number of going out vehicles per phase

s = Modified Saturation Flow Rate (600*lane width)
 28

Amber Seconds
Amber seconds indicate the duration of the yellow light in a traffic signal.
This phase occurs between the green light and the red light, indicating that the
green light will soon turn off, prompting drivers to get ready to stop. The length of
the amber light is usually predetermined, commonly lasting between 3 to 5
seconds, providing drivers with adequate time to respond and slow down safely.
The duration is determined using the following equation.
𝑉 𝑊+𝐿
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑡𝑟 + 2∗𝑑 + [Eq. 3.8]
𝑉

Where: tmin = minimum amber seconds

tr = Perception reaction time (s)
V = Design Speed (m/s)
D = Comfortable deceleration rate
W = Width of intersection
L = Length of vehicle

Optimum Cycle Length using Webster’s Formula

The cycle that has the minimum intersection delay is referred to as the
optimal cycle length. Webster’s formula is commonly employed to approximate this
cycle length. The computation is provided in Equation 3.9.
1.5𝐿+5
𝐶𝑜 = [Eq. 3.9]
1−𝑌

Where: Co = optimum cycle length (sec)

L = total lost time per cycle (sec)
Y = sum pf y-values (quotient of the volume and saturated flow rate)

Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

The Four-Hour Vehicle is applied when an engineering assessment shows
that, throughout any four-hour interval during an average day, the data
representing vehicles per hour on the main street (which combines both streams)
and the vehicles per hour on the more significant minor street flow (in one direction
only) consistently surpass the relevant thresholds illustrated in Figures 5 below,
 29

pertaining to the current lane setup. Consequently, the need for a traffic signal
should be considered.
Furthermore, it is not necessary for the more critical volume on the minor
street to be derived from the same flow during each of these four hours. The more
significant minor-street volume meets the criteria for that stream, and in instances
where there is a one-lane minor-street flow opposing a multi-lane minor-street flow,
it may not necessarily exhibit a higher volume

Figure 5. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Source: MUTCD 11th Edition)

Warrant 3 – Peak Hours

The necessity for a traffic control signal should be evaluated if an
engineering analysis determines that the requirements in at least one of the
following two categories are satisfied:
A. If both of the following conditions occur during a single one-hour timeframe on
an average day:
1. The total duration of stopped traffic on a single minor street stream (in one
direction only) governed by a STOP sign totals at least: 4 vehicle-hours for
a single-lane stream or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane stream, and
 30

2. The traffic flow on the same minor street stream (in one direction only)
reaches or surpasses 100 vehicles per hour for a single lane of traffic or
150 vehicles per hour for two lanes, and
B. The total number of vehicles arriving and leaving during that hour is equal to or
greater than 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three streams or 800
vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more streams. The data point that
indicates the total number of vehicles per hour on the main street (combining both
streams) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more significant minor
street stream (in one direction only) over the span of one hour of a typical day
exceeds the relevant threshold in Figures 6 for the current stream lane
configuration.

Figure 6. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (Source: MUTCD 11th Edition)

 CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Intersection Profile and Traffic Volume

Figure 7. Aerial View of the Intersection with Directional Flow

A four-legged, at-grade junction in Consolacion, Cebu connects a
secondary road to the major arterial route CNCR, which is part of National Route
8 (N8). The junction accommodates diverse traffic-private vehicles, public utility
jeepneys, buses, and trucks-with East Binabag acting as a feeder road. The area
surrounding the intersection includes residential and commercial properties, as
well as institutions, making it a focus of pedestrian and turning vehicle activities. It
does not, however, have traffic signal control. Road markings guide users to the
occasional manual direction, leading to mostly rock congestion and queues and
with safety issues.
The study is directed to assess both the operational and the geometric
characteristics of the East Binabag-CNCR intersection in the hope of
recommending a design for a signalized intersection. Data on traffic volume and
turning movements analyzes pedestrian flow and peak hour conditions to
determine the feasibility and benefits which accrue out of signalization. The
 32

outcome should be an enhancement of traffic efficiency, reduce delay, and

improve safety at this critical junction in northern Metro Cebu.

Table 6: Intersection Profile

Name of Leg Stream Approach/Exit Lane Width Conflict
(m) Points
Phase A 1 Exit 6 Left Turn
2 Approach 6 Right Turn
3 Approach 6 None
Phase B 4 Approach 6 Right Turn
5 Exit 6 Left Turn
6 Approach 6 None
Phase C 7 Approach 3 Right Turn
8 Exit 3 Left Turn
9 Approach 3 None
Phase D 10 Exit 3 Right Turn
11 Approach 3 Left Turn
12 Approach 3 None

Figure 8. Conflict Points of the Intersection

Figure 8 shows conflict points at a four-leg intersection, it is evident that the
intersection contains a high density of conflicts, especially at its center. Most of
these are crossing conflicts indicated in yellow and are the most dangerous
because they are perpendicular and occur primarily as a consequence of left-turn
 33

and straight-through movements from different approach streams. Left-turn

movements occur in streams 1, 5, 8, and 11, which correspond to Phases A
through D, and these contribute considerably to both merging (red) and crossing
conflicts. Right turn movements from streams 2, 4, 7 and 10 are created by
diverging conflicts (green) which, although they are not mandatory exist, and few
numbers being present create additional complexity within the intersection.
Streams 3, 6, 9, and 12 contain no points of conflict and so are more probably
straight-through streams with a minor level of interaction. Also, the difference in
lane widths 6 meters for major approaches and 3 meters for minor ones could
affect the maneuverability of vehicles, where narrower lanes might raise the level
of conflict risks during turning maneuvers. Generally, the intersection displays a
complicated configuration of vehicle interactions that could be improved by
phasing signals or turning prohibitions to improve safety and minimize conflict
points.

Table 7. Traffic Volume and PCU

Stream ADT AHT ([Link]/Hr) PCU/Hr
([Link]/Day)
1 452 57 80
2 753 95 101
3 6038 756 1157
4 1301 163 126
5 375 48 57
6 6606 826 1137
7 406 51 72
8 1023 127 109
9 485 61 67
10 753 95 102
11 908 114 97
12 624 78 65

The analysis of the twelve streams at the intersection reveals varying traffic
volumes and Passenger Car Unit (PCU) metrics. Stream 1 has an Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) of 452 vehicles, an Average Hourly Traffic (AHT) of 57, and a PCU
of 80. Stream 2 is notably busier, with an ADT of 753 vehicles, 95 AHT, and a PCU
 34

of 101. Stream 3 stands out with the highest volume, showing an ADT of 6,038
vehicles, 756 AHT, and a PCU of 1,157, making it a key contributor at the
intersection. Similarly, Stream 6 exhibits a significant ADT of 6,606 and a PCU of
1,137 per hour. Moderate volumes are noted in Streams 4 and 8, both exceeding
1,000 vehicles daily, with AHTs of 163 and 127, and respective PCUs of 126 and
109. Conversely, Streams 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 reflect lighter traffic, with daily
volumes ranging from 375 to 908 vehicles and lower PCUs, particularly Streams 5
and 9, which recorded PCUs of 57 and 67, respectively. Overall, Streams 3 and 6
emerge as crucial for traffic management, warranting focused attention for lane
assignments and traffic control strategies.

stream 12 13.92% 64.56% 17.72% 3.80%

stream 11 11.21% 77.59% 6.03%5.17%
stream 10 17.53% 70.10% 5.15% 7.22%
stream 9 20.31% 45.31% 29.68% 4.69%
stream 8 23.44% 61.72% 10.94% 3.90%
stream 7 44.44% 35.19% 12.96% 7.41%
stream 6 40.12% 49.64% 0.96%
8.67%
0.60%
stream 5 18.75% 64.58% 8.33% 8.33%
stream 4 13.77% 71.26% 11.38% 3.59%
stream 3 31.13% 56.46% 0.53%11.35%
0.53%
stream 2 17.53% 70.10% 5.14% 7.21%
stream 1 40.35% 40.35% 10.53% 8.77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Bus Private Car Motorcycle Tricycle Truck

Figure 9. Stacked Bar Chart of Hourly Vehicle Type Distribution (AHT)

The analysis of traffic volume across twelve different streams reveals
significant variation in vehicle type representation, particularly highlighting
Motorcycle as the dominant category in most streams, with proportions exceeding
60%, peaking at 77.59% in stream 11. Stream 7, however, deviates notably, with
Private Cars constituting 44.44% of traffic, surpassing Motorcycle at 35.19%.
Stream 9 further contrasts, featuring a lower Motorcycle percentage of 45.31%
while Tricycle account for 29.68%. Notably, streams 1 and 6 show Private Cars
 35

nearly matching Motorcycle, each around 40%. Truck are less prevalent overall
but appear in stream 9 and exceed 10% in a few others. Bus remain minimally

represented throughout, often below 1%, reflecting considerable disparities in

vehicle type distribution across the analyzed streams.
Figure 10. Combination Chart of Vehicular and PCU Hourly Volume
The analysis of vehicle counts segmented by type—Bus, Private Car,
Motorcycle, Tricycle, and Truck—across twelve-time frames reveals substantial
variability in traffic volume. Streams 3 and 6 stand out with significantly higher
totals, where Motorcycles dominate with counts of 428 and 412, respectively.
Private Cars follow as the second-most prevalent vehicle type during these peak
hours, with counts of 235 in stream 3 and 333 in stream 6, while Tricycles show
notable, albeit lower counts of 86 and 72. Conversely, other streams display
diminished traffic volumes. In these less congested intervals, Private Cars remain
the most counted vehicle, albeit with lower numbers (119 in stream 4, 79 in stream
8, and 90 in stream 11). Buses and Trucks contribute minimally overall, with Buses
peaking at 23 in stream 4 and Trucks at 29 in stream 9. Thus, the data delineates
a traffic profile characterized by periods of high congestion, predominantly
dominated by Motorcycles, interspersed with significantly lower traffic volume
intervals.
 36

Level of Service of the Intersection

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measurement to help identify the
operational efficiency of an intersection. It is used in traffic engineering to describes
the overall performance experienced by the drivers. LOS is characterized into six
levels, from A which represents free flow, to F that indicates severe congestion.

Table 8. Saturation Flow Rate of each Streams

Streams Route Lane Saturation
Width Flow
Stream 1 National Highway to Gov. Francis Burton 6
70.8196
Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 2 National Highway to East Binabag Road 6 113.6842
Stream 3 National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal 6
540
Road
Stream 4 Cebu-North Coastal Road to Gov. Francis 6
270
Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 5 Cebu-North Coastal Road to East Binabag 6
60
Road
Stream 6 Cebu-North Coastal Road to National 6
360
Highway
Stream 7 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 3
66.66667
Consolacion to National Road
Stream 8 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 3
180
Consolacion to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 9 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 3
69.23076
Consolacion to East Binabag Road
Stream 10 East Binabag Road to National Highway 3 127.0588
Stream 11 East Binabag Road to Cebu-North Coastal 3
130.90909
Road
Stream 12 East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton 3
120
Harisson Ave. Consolacion

The Saturation Flow Rate of Each Stream provides better understanding

about how these traffic streams are going to be modified saturation flow rates
according to changes in lane width. Streams with high saturation flow in 6-meter
lanes, such as Stream 3 (National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal Road), with a
saturation flow rate of 540 vehicles per hour, prove the efficiency of a broader lane
to absorb larger volumes of traffic. Those with 3-meter lanes register reduced
saturation flows, such as Stream 5 (Cebu North Coastal Road to East Binabag
 37

Road) with only 60 vehicles per hour. Surprisingly, streams like Stream 11 (East
Binabag Road to Cebu-North Coastal Road) and Stream 10 (East Binabag Road
to National Highway) had fairly high saturation flows of 130.91 and 127.06,
respectively, in narrow lanes, suggesting that other localized factors affecting flow
are also at play in addition to lane width. Generally, it is confirmed that wider lanes
give higher saturation flows, but that might also have spatial effects; so that site-
specific and operational conditions can show random deviations. This points to a
clear emphasis on lane geometry and roadways in traffic flow capacity analysis,
an important aspect of urban traffic management and infrastructure design.

Table 9. Capacity Stream

Streams Route Expected Capacity
(veh/hr)
Stream 1 National Highway to Gov. Francis Burton 818.18
Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 2 National Highway to East Binabag Road 642.86
Stream 3 National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal 765.95
Road
Stream 4 Cebu-North Coastal Road to Gov. Francis 734.69
Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
Stream 5 Cebu-North Coastal Road to East Binabag 750
Road
Stream 6 Cebu-North Coastal Road to National 818.18
Highway
Stream 7 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 765.95
Consolacion to National Road
Stream 8 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 631.58
Consolacion to Cebu-North Coastal Road
Stream 9 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 553.85
Consolacion to East Binabag Road
Stream 10 East Binabag Road to National Highway 692.31
Stream 11 East Binabag Road to Cebu-North Coastal 642.85
Road
Stream 12 East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton 571.43
Harisson Ave. Consolacion

Capacity Stream shows what can be expected in terms of traffic capacity

for different transportation streams between important routes in the study area.
Stream 1 is the one from National Highway to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson
 38

Avenue in Consolacion, and it had the highest expected capacity of all streams at
818.18 vehicles per hour. Streams 6 and 3, from Cebu-North Coastal Road to
National Highway and National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal Road,
respectively, have similar high capacities at 818.18 and 765.95 vehicles per hour.
However, low capacities are represented by routes like Stream 9 (Gov. Francis
Burton Harisson Avenue to East Binabag Road) with 553.85 vehicles per hour and
Stream 12 (East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Avenue) with
571.434. Moreover, the East Binabag Road serves multiple streams (Streams 2,
5, 10, 11, and 12) with generally moderate to lower capacity figures when
compared to other routes from 571.43 to 692.31 vehicles per hour. Knowing the
results, the National Highway and Cebu-North Coastal Road are discovered to be
primary corridors with higher vehicular capacities. The rest involving the East
Binabag Road have relatively lower expected flows making them good areas for
future traffic management improvements.

Table 10. LOS Value per Stream and Critical Lane

Stream V/s LOS Control Delay LOS Critical Flow Ratio
1 0.805 D 9.728 A
2 0.827 D 11.555 B 0.984
3 1.396 F 87.279 E
4 0.6 B 11.279 B 1.008
5 0.783 C 10.119 B (Critical Lane)
6 2.291 F 107.017 E
7 0.75 C 10.027 B
8 0.694 B 12.099 B 0.198
9 0.852 D 12.272 B
10 0.739 C 11.0138 B
11 0.863 D 11.788 B 0.176
12 0.641 B 12.277 B

The data in Table 10 provides a detailed assessment of the Level of Service

(LOS) and operational performance of 12 traffic streams at the East Binabag and
Cebu-North Coastal Road intersection in Tayud, Cebu City. It highlights that
streams 3 and 6 are experiencing severe congestion, as evidenced by high
volume-to-saturation flow ratio and control delays of 1.396 and 2.291, also 87.279
 39

and 107.017, respectively, and both being rated with a LOS of F and E.
Furthermore, streams 4, 5, and 6 are categorized as critical lanes due to elevated
critical flow ratios, which exceeds ideal capacity with a ratio of 1.008. These figures
reflect significant operational stress and suggest that the affected lanes are likely
functioning beyond their designed capacity, contributing to inefficiencies and
potential gridlock during peak periods. The findings emphasize the urgent need for
proactive traffic management measures to enhance the operational efficiency of
the intersection.

Warrant for Signalization

Table 11. Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Time Minor Street Volume(veh/hr) Major Street Remarks
Volume(veh/hr)
EB WB Total High NB SB Total
Volume
7:00- 8:00 193 302 495 302 1109 1465 2574 Peak
hour in
morning
8:00 - 9:00 198 303 501 303 991 816 1807
9:00 - 10:00 205 268 473 268 864 922 1786
10:00 - 11:00 229 314 543 314 917 756 1673
1:00 - 2:00 200 309 509 309 892 915 1807
2:00 - 3:00 175 258 433 258 898 646 1544
3:00 - 4:00 176 273 449 273 1002 979 1799
4:00 - 5:00 243 353 596 353 1287 1455 2742 Peak
hour in
afternoon

Based on the data presented in the table, vehicular volumes at the

intersection were analyzed using Webster’s Method, revealing distinct traffic
patterns throughout the day. The morning peak occurred from 7:00 to 8:00 AM,
where a significant total volume of 2,574 vehicles per hour was recorded,
comprising 495 vehicles on minor streets (193 eastbound and 302 westbound) and
2,574 on major streets (1,109 northbound and 1,465 southbound). Traffic volumes
slightly declined over the next few hours, with totals ranging between 1,673 and
1,807 vehicles per hour from 8:00 to 11:00 AM. In the afternoon, volumes gradually
 40

rose again, culminating in another peak from 4:00 to 5:00 PM with the highest
observed total of 2,742 vehicles per hour. This included 596 vehicles on minor
streets (243 eastbound and 353 westbound) and 2,742 on major streets (1,287
northbound and 1,455 southbound). These results indicate two critical peak
periods, one in the early morning and another in the late afternoon, emphasizing
the sustained high traffic flow on major streets throughout the day.

Figure 11. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

The figure above represents a warrant graph for the requirement of a traffic
signal at the intersection in terms of VPH on both major and minor streets. The
vertical axis, which generally represents approach volume from the minor street,
is complemented by the total volume constituting both directions of the major street
on the horizontal axis. The various curves are representative of the various lane
configurations. The red and blue points are for AM and PM four-hour average
volumes respectively: for the AM average, 503 VPH for minor street and 1960 VPH
for major street; and for PM average, 497 VPH for minor street and 1973 VPH for
the major street. Both points lie above all the threshold curves indicating that traffic
volumes on both major and minor streets are high enough to meet or exceed
standard signal requirement conditions. These may indicate that the intersection
experiences extensive delays or safety concerns at peak times and is probably
justified for a traffic signal.
 41

Figure 12. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Vehicular Volume

It graphs vehicle volumes per hour (VPH) on the minor and major roads to
see if conditions warrant signal installation. Two points are graphed: a red dot for
A.M. peak hour and a blue dot for P.M. peak hour. Both are located near or above
the lower threshold lines on the graph.
The red dot (A.M.) is set about 2574 VPH on the main street and 302 VPH
on the minor street, and the blue dot (P.M.) is a bit to the right at 2742 VPH on the
main street and also about 353 VPH on the minor street. The threshold lines on
the graph represent the lowest traffic volumes at which various lane combinations
warrant signalization. Both points lie above the threshold for "2 or more major-
street lanes and 1 minor-street lane," and well above the threshold for "1 lane & 1
lane." This indicates that at both peak times, the intersection sees traffic volumes
high enough to satisfy signal warrant requirements.
The data confirms the validity of traffic signals at this intersection during
morning and evening rush hours. The presence of both factors at levels above
critical levels indicates a recurring trend of high vehicle demand, with possible
delay or safety risk. This lends credence to the need to adopt signalization as a
feasible traffic control measure and can be used as supporting evidence in
academic research to optimize intersection performance, congestion relief, and
road safety.
 42

Estimation of Signal Timing by Webster’s Method

Figure 13. Distribution of Vehicles by Phases

Table 12. Distribution of Vehicles by Phases
Road Route Outgoing Incoming
Vehicles/Hr Vehicles/Hr
1 National Highway 908 972
2 Cebu-North Coastal Road 1037 997
3 Francis Borton Harisson Avenue 239 298
4 East Binabag Road 287 204

The vehicular distribution analysis shows the traffic pattern by hour on major
roads In the study area, pointing out that the Cebu-North Coastal Road is the most
utilized road for outbound traffic, with a peak of 1,037 vehicles per hour. The
National Highway is a close second with a flow of 908 vehicles per hour. For
incoming traffic, the National Highway reached the highest figure at 972 vehicles
per hour, while the Cebu-North Coastal Road reached a figure of 997 vehicles per
hour, showing a practically even bidirectional flow on these major roadways.
Francis Burton Harrison Avenue and East Binabag Road, on the other hand, had
much lower traffic figures, with outbound traffic of 239 and 287 vehicles per hour,
and incoming traffic figures of 298 and 204 vehicles per hour, respectively. This
analysis points out the critical significance of the National Highway and Cebu-North
 43

Coastal Road as major roads for vehicular flow, while the other roads are
secondary feeders. The information obtained is essential for optimizing traffic
signal timings, improving the road network, and establishing effective traffic
management measures.

Table 13. Modified Critical Flow Ratio (CFR-Values) of each Phase

Road Route Modified Outgoing CFR
Saturation Vehicles/Hr
Flow Rate
1 National Highway 3600 908 0.252
2 Cebu-North Coastal Road 3600 1037 0.288
3 Francis Borton Harisson Avenue 1800 239 0.133
4 East Binabag Road 1800 287 0.159
Total 0.832

Table 13 shows the Modified Critical Flow Ratio (CFR-values) for each
traffic phase, based on the saturation flow rate and leaving volumes per hour. From
the four routes considered, Cebu-North Coastal Road (Road 2) has the highest
cfr-value of 0.288, meaning that this road had a higher volume-to-capacity usage
compared to the rest of the routes. After this was the National Highway (Road 1),
with a cfr-value of 0.252. On the other hand, Francis Borton Harisson Avenue
(Road 3) and East Binabag Road (Road 4) exhibited significantly lower cfr-values
of 0.133 and 0.159, respectively, indicating that these roads were less congested.
It can be deduced that Roads 1 and 2 were working at near-capacity conditions
and may need to be prioritized for traffic management interventions, whereas
Roads 3 and 4 are presently experiencing much lighter traffic volumes compared
with their designed capacities.

Table 14. Calculated Signal Timing using Webster’s Formula

Road Route Green Amber Red
Time Seconds Time
1 National Highway 48 4 122
2 Cebu-North Coastal Road 55 4 116
3 Francis Borton Harisson Avenue 25 4 145
4 East Binabag Road 30 4 140
 44

The table shows the calculated signal timing for each road section based
on Webster's Formula concerning the green, amber, and red times. The longest
green time of 55 seconds was allocated to the Cebu-North Coastal Road (Road
2), which was high in traffic volume, thus a longer flow duration was required. The
National Highway (Road 1) had a green time of 48 seconds, while East Binabag
Road (Road 4) had 30 seconds and Francis Borton Harisson Avenue (Road 3)
each for green, indicating the fact that these road segments were lower in traffic.
The amber time was consistent at 4 seconds across all these routes to allow for
an adequate safe transition from one phase to another. The red times vary: roads
3 having the longest red intervals of up to 145 seconds, ensuring sufficient
clearance and negotiation of a balanced traffic flow across intersections. All these
calculated timings are necessary in the optimization of traffic movement to the least
possible, reducing delays and therefore enhancing road safety.

Table 15. Final Signal Timing

Green Amber Red
Phase Route
Time Seconds Time
A From National Highway 50 5 125
B From Cebu-North Coastal Road 55 5 120
C From Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 25 5 150
Consolacion
D From East Binabag 30 5 145

The final signal timing for the intersection, as derived from the calculated
values, based on green, amber and red times for each phase’s adjustments were
applied to ensure uniform cycle length and effective flow. The green and amber
times were aligned in a way that maintains consistency and maximizes efficiency
at the intersection. For Phase A (National Highway), the signal time in 50 seconds
green, 5 seconds amber, and 125 secs red. Phase B (Cebu-North Coastal Road)
receives 55 seconds green, 5 seconds amber, and 120 seconds red. Phase C
(Harisson Street) have 25 seconds green, 5 seconds amber, 150 seconds red.
And Phase D (East Binabag) have 30 seconds green, 5 seconds amber and 145
 45

seconds red. These timings aim to manage traffic efficiently while accommodating
traffic volume distribution at each route.

A 50 5 125

B 55 55 5 65

C 115 25 5 35

D 145 30 5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Green Time Amber Seconds Red Time

Figure 14. Final Signal Timing Diagram

 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary of Findings

The study was conducted to assess the unsignalized intersection of East
Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road. After the analysis of data gathered, the
summary of findings are as follows.

Current Traffic Volume and Intersection Profile

The analysis of the unsignalized intersection at East Binabag and Cebu-
North Coastal Road reveals a significant variation in traffic volume and conflict
points across the different phases. The highest average traffic (AHT) is observed
in Stream 6 under Phase B with 826 Veh/hr, indicating a major approach route.
Several streams show left-turn conflict points include Stream1, 5, 8 and 10, which
introduce additional safety concern due to potential turning delays and risks. The
intersection design features a mix of 6- and 3-meter lane widths, with narrower
lanes potentially contributing to reduce capacity and maneuvering difficulties.
Overall, the intersection appears to be operating under capacity strain, particularly
during peak hours, and would benefit from traffic signal installation or improved
traffic safety management to enhance efficiency and risks.

The Level of Service in the Intersection

The Flow Rate Ratio and Control Delay were used to determine the Level
of Service (LOS) for each stream at the intersection. Based on the analysis, stream
3 and 6 exhibit a Level of Service F, indicating forced or breakdown flow. These
streams are part of Phase A and B, which are considered as a major road
connecting National Highway to Cebu-North Coastal Road. Phase B, which is part
of the major road was identified as a critical lane, followed closely by Phase A.
These Phases represent the major traffic routes. Phase C, associated with
Harisson Street (a minor road), showed a moderate traffic flow with stream 7 and
8 having LOS C and B, respectively. Stream 10 and 12 in Phase D, part of East
 47

Binabag (a minor road), also demonstrated better performance with a LOS of C

and B. Given the LOS result, especially for the critical and major lanes, it is
recommended that the intersection of East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road
be signalized to improve traffic flow and reduce potential vehicular conflicts.

5.2 Conclusion
The intersection of East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal Road revealed a
notable geometric and functional deficiencies, such as inconsistent lane widths
ranging from 3 to 6 meters and a total of twelve stream movements that contribute
to chaotic vehicle interactions and poor maneuverability. These physical
constraints, combined with recorded traffic volumes peaking at 2,742 vehicle per
hour, have lead to severe operational inefficiencies. The Level of Service (LOS)
analysis, based on Highway Capacity Manual, identified stream 3 and 6 to be
considered the most congested approach having a LOS F, with control delays of
87.462 and 107.017 seconds, respectively, along with flow ratios significantly
exceeding 1.0, indicating oversaturated conditions and forced flow. Supporting this
assessment, the application of the Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) Warrants confirmed that both warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume)
and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were satisfied, reinforcing the necessity for
signalization at the intersection. To address these issues and ultimately respond
to the research problem of improving traffic flow and safety at a highly congested
unsignalized intersection, a signal timing plan was developed using Webster's
Formula. The final computed signal timing allocates optimized green, amber, and
red intervals as follows: Phase A (National Highway) with 50s green, 5s amber,
and 125s red; Phase B (Cebu-North Coastal Road) with 55s green, 5s amber, and
120s red; Phase C (Francis Burton Harrison Ave.) with 25s green, 5s amber, 150s
red; Phase D (East Binabag) 30s green, 5s amber, and 145s red. These timings
were calibrated to balance traffic distribution, reduce delays and enhance
intersection safety and effectivity, addressing the core objectives of the study and
providing a structured solution to the problem.
 48

5.3 Recommendation
Based on the evaluations and findings related to the intersection, the
installation of a signalized control system is strongly recommended to optimize
flow distribution, reduce congestion, and enhance intersection efficiency. This
study primarily focused on vehicular movement, with data collected through
manual counting over an 8-hour observation period across three consecutive days.
Due to these limitations, pedestrian movements and the influence of adjacent
intersections were not thoroughly analyzed. To provide a more comprehensive
assessment of intersection dynamics, academic institutions and future researchers
should integrate pedestrian behavior in traffic studies, ensuring a complete
understanding of traffic interactions. Furthermore, traditional traffic control
strategies may not fully address congestion challenges, so utilizing advanced
simulation software to evaluate various scenarios and parameters, including both
vehicle and pedestrian traffic, will help cross reference outcomes and boost the
precision and relevance of the results. Performing comparative studies on
traditional versus adaptive signal timing systems will yield greater insights into their
long-term effects on traffic efficiency and safety. Exploring these aspects will
contribute to smarter, more sustainable urban mobility in Cebu City, ensuring
efficient traffic flow and improved safety for road users.
 REFERENCES

[1] “THE ROADMAP STUDY FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

IN METRO CEBU FINAL REPORT SUPPORTING REPORT 1:
DATABASE FORMATION,” 2015. Available:
[Link]
[2] S. Shukri, “Traffic Volume Count,” [Link], Available:
[Link]
[3] S. M. Sabbir, “Traffic Volume in Dhaka City at Selected Priority
Junctions,” Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research),
Mar. 2022, doi: [Link]
[4] S. S. S. M. Qadri, M. A. Gökçe, and E. Öner, “State-of-art review of traffic
signal control methods: challenges and opportunities,” European Transport
Research Review, vol. 12, no. 1, Oct. 2020, doi:
[Link]
[5] Dagimwork Asele Manuka, “Performance Evaluation of Unsignalized
Intersection and Anticipated Alternative Solutions for Designated Corridors
in Wolaita Sodo Town,” The Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 55–65, Oct. 2023, Available:
[Link]
ation_of_Unsignalized_Intersection_and_Anticipated_Alternative_Solution
s_for_Designated_Corridors_in_Wolaita_Sodo_Town.
[6] W. Saeed, M. S. Saleh, M. N. Gull, H. Raza, R. Saeed, and T. Shehzadi,
“Geometric features and traffic dynamic analysis on 4-leg
intersections,” International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171–188, Jun. 2024, doi:
[Link]
[7] T. Mathew, “Capacity and Level of Service LOS,” civil iitb, Sep. 27, 2023.
[Link]
[8] S. Go, J. Vallente, and A. Abuzo, “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facility along
Six Signalized Intersections in Cagayan de Oro City,” 12th Eastern Asia
 50

Society for Transportation Studies Conference 2017, Nov. 2017, Available:

[Link]
strian_Facility_along_Six_Signalized_Intersections_in_Cagayan_de_Oro_
City
[9] S. Javaid, A. Sufian, S. Pervaiz, and M. Tanveer, “Smart traffic
management system using Internet of Things,” 2018 20th International
Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2018, doi:
[Link]
[10] M. Eom and B.-I. Kim, “The traffic signal control problem for intersections:
a review,” European Transport Research Review, vol. 12, no. 1, Sep. 2020,
doi: [Link]
[11] Q.-S. Wu, X. B. Li, M. B. Hu, and R. Jiang, “Study of traffic flow at an
unsignalized T-shaped intersection by cellular automata model,” The
European Physical Journal B, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 265–269, Nov. 2005, doi:
[Link]
[12] J. Zhang and L. Zhang, “Evaluation of X-shaped Intersection
Reconstruction Scheme in Small and Medium-sized Cities,” Academic
Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 143–146, Mar. 2023,
doi: [Link]
[13] A. Paul, A. Atoo, and A. E. Zava, “Traffic Signal Design and Performance
Assessment of 4-Leg Intersections Using Webster’s Model: A Case of ‘SRS’
and ‘B-Division’ Intersections in Makurdi Town,” Aug. 01, 2018.
[Link]
gn_and_Performance_Assessment_of_4-
Leg_Intersections_Using_Webster
[14] A. Sharma, L. Vanajakshi, V. Girish, and M. S. Harshitha, “Impact of Signal
Timing Information on Safety and Efficiency of Signalized
Intersections,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 138, no. 4, pp.
467–478, Apr. 2012, doi: [Link]
5436.0000343.
 51

[15] D. Mukherjee and S. Mitra, “A comparative study of safe and unsafe

signalized intersections from the view point of pedestrian behavior and
perception,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 132, p. 105218, Nov.
2019, doi: [Link]
[16] Y. Du, A. Kouvelas, W. ShangGuan, and M. A. Makridis, “Dynamic capacity
estimation of mixed traffic flows with application in adaptive traffic signal
control,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 606, p.
128065, Nov. 2022, doi: [Link]
[17] J. N. HASAN and N. A. HUSSEIN, “TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND
OPTIMIZATION AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: A REVIEW
STUDY,” Journal of University of Duhok, Jun. 06, 2022.
[Link]
2/publication/362973054_Traffic_Assessment_And_Optimization_at_Sign
alized_Intersections_A_Review_Study/links/6448160dd749e4340e384abd
/Traffic-Assessment-And-Optimization-at-Signalized-Intersections-A-
[Link].
[18] Amistad, Franklyn T. “Assessing the Need for Traffic Signalization from
the Perspective of Local Government Units,” [Link], 2017.
[Link]
need-for-traffic-signalization-from-the-perspective-of-local-government-
units.
[19] W. Ma, L. Wan, C. Yu, L. Zou, and J. Zheng, “Multi-objective optimization
of traffic signals based on vehicle trajectory data at isolated
intersections,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
vol. 120, p. 102821, Nov. 2020, doi:
[Link]
[20] H. Jia, Y. Lin, Q. Luo, Y. Li, and M. Hua, “Multi-objective optimization of
urban road intersection signal timing based on particle swarm optimization
algorithm,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, p.
168781401984249-168781401984249, Apr. 2019, doi:
[Link]
 52

[21] Y. Ye, J. Guo, and L. Yan, “A Mixed Decision Strategy for Freight an0d
Passenger Transportation in Metro Systems,” Computational Intelligence
and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, pp. 1–22, Jan. 2021, doi:
[Link]
[22] P. Devadhas Sujakumari and P. Dassan, “Generative Adversarial
Networks (GAN) and HDFS-Based Realtime Traffic Forecasting System
Using CCTV Surveillance,” Symmetry, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 779, Mar. 2023, doi:
[Link]
[23] L. K. Nwobodo, “Intelligent Traffic Control, Gathering and Monitoring Traffic
Data Using CCTV Images,” Contemporary research analysis journal., vol.
02, no. 01, Jan. 2025, doi: [Link]
[24] A. Glushkov, V. Shepelev, A. Vorobyev, V. Mavrin, A. Marusin, and S.
Evtykov, “Analysis of the intersection throughput at changes in the traffic
flow structure,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 57, pp. 192–199,
Jan. 2021, doi: [Link]
[25] R. Baid and Dr. R. Sigua, “EVALUATION OF DELAY ON UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS,” [Link],2018.
[Link]
[26] “Signal Warrants Warrents for Signalization,” [Link], 2019.
[Link]
gineeringBranch/BMTE/calcTrafficSignals/signalsTutorial/warrantsSignaliz
ation/Pages/[Link]
[27] A. H. Hameed and D. A. Al-Mamany, “IJTPE Journal Evaluating the Peak
Hour Factor of Intersection,” Jan. 01, 2023.
[Link]
uating_the_Peak_Hour_Factor_of_Intersection.
[28] A. Vajeeran and G. D. Silva, “Identification of Effective Intersection Control
Strategies During Peak Hours,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 48,
pp. 687–697, 2020, doi: [Link]
[29] P. Bindzar, D. Marasova, Jaroslaw Brodny, M. Tutak, R. Ulewicz, and A.
Sliva, “Modelling the impact of intersection design configurations on traffic
 53

flow during peak hour in smart cities: A case study on urban roads in
Slovakia,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 83072–83090, Jan. 2024, doi:
[Link]
[30] H. M. Nair and G. Raju, “Design of traffic signal at Puthuppally junction
using webster method,” AIP conference proceedings, vol. 3059, pp.
030020–030020, Jan. 2024, doi: [Link]
[31] H. Zhang et al., “Traffic Light Optimization Based on Modified Webster
Function,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2021, p. e3328202,
Aug. 2021, doi: [Link]
[32] M. E. M. Ali, A. Durdu, S. A. Celtek, and S. S. Gultekin, “Fuzzy Logic and
Webster’s Optimal Cycle Based Decentralized Coordinated Adaptive Traffic
Control Method,” Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 57–64,
Aug. 2020, doi: [Link]
[33] D. D. A. Wijaya, Y. F. Luckyarno, S. S. Utami, and R. Prasetyo, “Analysis
of Vehicle Waiting Time Efficiency Using Webster Method and Newton’s
Divided Difference: Case Study at Mirota Kampus Intersection, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia,” IEEE Xplore, Dec. 01, 2019.
[Link]
[34] E. R. Babbie, The Practice of Social Research. Cengage AU, 2020.
Available:
[Link]
[Link]?id=KrGeygEACAAJ&redir_esc=y.
[35] “Traffic Signal Timing Manual: Chapter 5 - Office of
Operations,” [Link].
[Link]
[36] P. Agrawal, P. Kumari, and Dr. M. Dutta, “Designing Traffic Signal at an
Unsignalized Intersection,” International Journal of Scientific Research in
Science and Technology (IJSRST), Volume 8 Isse 3, pp.90-107, May-June
2021. doi: [Link]
 54

[37] Budi Hartanto Susilo and Yanto Solihin, “Modification of Saturation Flow
Formula by Width of Road Approach,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 16, pp. 620–629,
[Link]
 55

APPENDIX A
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
 56

APPENDIX B
VEHICULAR VOLUME COUNT SURVEY FORM
Sample Tally Sheet
Location: East Binabag and Cebu-North Coastal
Road Intersection
Date: Weather:
Surveyor:
Region: VII Stream:
District:
Day of the week:

Time

Motorcycle Trucks Busses Private Cars Tricycle

7:00-8:00 AM
8:00-9:00 AM
9:00-10:00 AM
10:00-11:00 AM
1:00-2:00 PM
2:00-3:00 PM
3:00-4:00 PM
4:00-5:00 PM
 57

APPENDIX C
COMPLETE TALLY OF PCU/HR. / STREAM (WITH CATEGORIES)
Stream 1
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 21 34 7 3 65 54
8:00-9:00 - 24 20 6 4 54 52
9:00-10:00 - 20 19 5 2 46 41
10:00-11:00 - 26 26 6 3 61 54
1:00-2:00 - 28 15 5 12 60 77
2:00-3:00 - 18 17 3 5 43 45
3:00-4:00 - 14 21 4 2 41 35
4:00-5:00 - 23 26 6 6 61 60
Total 431 418

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 32 27 8 5 72 69
8:00-9:00 - 24 18 6 5 53 54
9:00-10:00 - 19 28 6 4 57 51
10:00-11:00 - 27 26 6 3 62 55
1:00-2:00 - 19 16 5 8 48 56
2:00-3:00 - 15 10 3 7 35 44
3:00-4:00 - 21 33 4 12 70 78
4:00-5:00 - 26 27 5 9 67 72
Total 464 479

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 23 30 8 3 64 55
8:00-9:00 - 25 22 6 5 58 57
9:00-10:00 - 22 19 4 3 48 45
10:00-11:00 - 27 26 6 2 61 52
1:00-2:00 - 28 15 5 9 57 68
2:00-3:00 - 18 17 3 3 41 39
3:00-4:00 - 24 21 2 12 59 73
4:00-5:00 - 24 26 4 18 72 95
Total 460 484
 58

Stream 2
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 17 69 5 6 97 75
8:00-9:00 - 16 64 4 7 91 73
9:00-10:00 - 15 56 3 5 79 61
10:00-11:00 - 14 51 2 6 73 60
1:00-2:00 - 16 52 2 5 75 59
2:00-3:00 - 18 65 2 6 91 71
3:00-4:00 - 18 59 3 7 87 72
4:00-5:00 - 21 78 4 8 111 88
Total 704 559

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 19 78 5 7 109 84
8:00-9:00 - 23 64 5 8 100 84
9:00-10:00 - 13 50 5 5 73 58
10:00-11:00 - 20 46 1 6 73 62
1:00-2:00 - 19 52 2 5 78 62
2:00-3:00 - 16 44 1 5 66 54
3:00-4:00 - 14 57 3 7 81 67
4:00-5:00 - 20 61 5 6 92 74
Total 672 545

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 21 93 5 4 123 85
8:00-9:00 - 12 81 8 8 109 85
9:00-10:00 - 17 88 7 8 120 92
10:00-11:00 - 16 76 4 2 98 64
1:00-2:00 - 17 56 4 3 80 58
2:00-3:00 - 11 84 2 3 100 64
3:00-4:00 - 14 93 8 6 121 87
4:00-5:00 - 17 101 8 6 132 94
Total 883 629
 59

Stream 3
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 8 246 536 5 90 885 813
8:00-9:00 3 204 519 4 67 797 678
9:00-10:00 5 211 401 3 44 664 562
10:00-11:00 3 198 393 2 81 677 649
1:00-2:00 1 266 352 4 73 696 668
2:00-3:00 3 250 385 2 95 735 739
3:00-4:00 4 279 428 4 129 844 896
4:00-5:00 5 298 571 9 142 1025 1034
Total 6323 6039

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 7 218 498 3 82 808 737
8:00-9:00 3 191 475 2 63 734 629
9:00-10:00 5 195 368 4 41 613 521
10:00-11:00 2 187 356 2 73 620 592
1:00-2:00 1 248 318 1 66 634 609
2:00-3:00 3 229 341 3 79 655 649
3:00-4:00 4 260 386 2 121 773 830
4:00-5:00 5 283 532 6 136 962 978
Total 5799 5545

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 3 229 510 1 88 831 758
8:00-9:00 2 199 492 3 63 759 643
9:00-10:00 1 203 379 4 47 634 541
10:00-11:00 4 192 368 2 76 642 618
1:00-2:00 1 257 331 5 69 663 638
2:00-3:00 2 241 360 2 83 688 678
3:00-4:00 1 290 412 1 94 798 782
4:00-5:00 3 283 548 3 139 976 986
Total 5991 5644
 60

Stream 4
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 15 119 22 4 160 109
8:00-9:00 - 21 138 25 8 192 139
9:00-10:00 - 26 97 15 3 141 99
10:00-11:00 - 17 111 11 7 146 105
1:00-2:00 - 33 79 27 5 144 115
2:00-3:00 - 29 126 31 6 192 141
3:00-4:00 - 14 103 14 2 133 86
4:00-5:00 - 31 114 21 1 167 112
Total 1275 906

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 13 134 28 7 182 129
8:00-9:00 - 28 101 12 5 146 106
9:00-10:00 - 33 145 19 8 205 149
10:00-11:00 - 24 197 25 3 249 144
1:00-2:00 - 17 213 19 11 260 176
2:00-3:00 - 20 97 14 9 140 110
3:00-4:00 - 14 122 13 6 155 106
4:00-5:00 - 19 156 23 4 202 132
Total 1539 1052

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 12 99 30 5 146 107
8:00-9:00 - 22 123 12 2 159 102
9:00-10:00 - 14 87 9 4 114 79
10:00-11:00 - 19 104 28 2 153 105
1:00-2:00 - 26 116 19 1 162 106
2:00-3:00 - 18 71 13 2 104 73
3:00-4:00 - 28 65 2 6 101 81
4:00-5:00 - 30 112 5 3 150 100
Total 1089 753
 61

Stream 5
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 4 9 1 3 17 19
8:00-9:00 - 5 42 3 4 54 41
9:00-10:00 - 2 33 5 6 46 42
10:00-11:00 - 8 30 4 2 44 33
1:00-2:00 - 6 28 3 3 40 32
2:00-3:00 - 13 47 1 3 64 47
3:00-4:00 - 9 31 9 1 50 37
4:00-5:00 - 21 24 6 4 55 51
Total 370 302

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 5 15 4 4 28 29
8:00-9:00 - 6 47 3 6 62 51
9:00-10:00 - 9 50 7 3 69 50
10:00-11:00 - 11 34 3 2 50 37
1:00-2:00 - 4 38 5 2 49 34
2:00-3:00 - 7 29 4 4 44 38
3:00-4:00 - 5 19 2 1 27 20
4:00-5:00 - 8 23 1 5 37 36
Total 366 295

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 6 15 9 4 34 35
8:00-9:00 - 8 41 3 5 57 47
9:00-10:00 - 4 21 1 2 28 22
10:00-11:00 - 9 55 4 6 74 59
1:00-2:00 - 14 38 5 4 61 50
2:00-3:00 - 7 19 5 3 34 31
3:00-4:00 - 13 23 3 2 41 34
4:00-5:00 - 11 35 7 5 58 51
Total 387 329
 62

Stream 6
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 4 284 1002 12 55 1357 974
8:00-9:00 3 315 212 5 111 646 768
9:00-10:00 2 266 175 8 84 535 620
10:00-11:00 4 301 145 2 69 521 595
1:00-2:00 2 348 199 4 91 644 731
2:00-3:00 5 196 219 3 72 495 540
3:00-4:00 3 214 273 8 33 531 467
4:00-5:00 6 199 889 4 29 1127 753
Total 5856 5448

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 5 332 924 6 67 1334 1016
8:00-9:00 3 399 157 12 121 692 862
9:00-10:00 2 421 216 7 78 724 776
10:00-11:00 2 362 192 7 99 662 768
1:00-2:00 3 413 389 5 112 922 958
2:00-3:00 6 258 261 8 59 592 592
3:00-4:00 4 317 234 3 45 603 584
4:00-5:00 3 294 889 5 80 1271 993
Total 6800 6549

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 6 259 834 18 56 1173 880
8:00-9:00 4 335 222 9 92 662 743
9:00-10:00 5 423 534 9 115 1086 1059
10:00-11:00 4 389 167 7 47 614 633
1:00-2:00 3 347 378 3 33 764 647
2:00-3:00 5 322 125 5 29 486 492
3:00-4:00 5 500 331 5 61 902 869
4:00-5:00 7 471 901 9 85 1473 1207
Total 7160 6530
 63

Stream 7
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 22 22 7 4 55 52
8:00-9:00 - 23 3 8 7 41 54
9:00-10:00 - 21 21 3 2 47 41
10:00-11:00 - 25 27 8 4 64 59
1:00-2:00 - 20 15 1 4 40 41
2:00-3:00 - 15 5 3 2 25 27
3:00-4:00 - 10 10 2 1 23 20
4:00-5:00 - 25 14 8 8 55 64
Total 350 358

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 25 30 8 3 66 57
8:00-9:00 - 20 10 3 5 38 43
9:00-10:00 - 19 28 5 2 54 44
10:00-11:00 - 25 32 10 4 71 63
1:00-2:00 - 12 20 11 4 47 45
2:00-3:00 - 18 8 4 2 32 32
3:00-4:00 - 20 5 6 3 34 38
4:00-5:00 - 32 18 8 8 66 73
Total 408 395

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 30 45 11 3 89 73
8:00-9:00 - 23 15 2 3 43 42
9:00-10:00 - 23 20 15 4 62 60
10:00-11:00 - 25 35 4 5 69 62
1:00-2:00 - 15 24 8 2 49 41
2:00-3:00 - 14 11 7 3 35 36
3:00-4:00 - 25 6 3 4 38 43
4:00-5:00 - 40 23 5 5 73 72
Total 458 429
 64

Stream 8
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 20 98 14 5 137 98
8:00-9:00 - 24 56 10 5 95 77
9:00-10:00 - 30 65 16 3 114 88
10:00-11:00 - 30 115 12 7 164 121
1:00-2:00 - 20 85 11 5 121 89
2:00-3:00 - 28 60 12 3 103 79
3:00-4:00 - 25 75 10 6 116 91
4:00-5:00 - 32 98 21 4 155 114
Total 1005 757

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 28 89 11 8 136 108
8:00-9:00 - 27 63 15 3 108 83
9:00-10:00 - 26 72 11 5 114 88
10:00-11:00 - 29 110 12 3 154 105
1:00-2:00 - 22 98 10 5 135 96
2:00-3:00 - 29 50 10 8 97 88
3:00-4:00 - 32 55 12 5 104 87
4:00-5:00 - 45 102 28 3 178 133
Total 1026 788

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 40 103 13 11 167 138
8:00-9:00 - 28 80 18 4 130 98
9:00-10:00 - 29 60 12 7 108 92
10:00-11:00 - 32 106 13 3 154 107
1:00-2:00 - 20 68 9 6 103 81
2:00-3:00 - 27 40 8 3 78 64
3:00-4:00 - 24 21 2 2 49 43
4:00-5:00 - 50 115 30 4 199 150
Total 988 773
 65

Stream 9
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 13 15 12 2 42 39
8:00-9:00 - 7 12 16 1 36 32
9:00-10:00 - 14 40 18 3 75 61
10:00-11:00 - 13 48 28 5 94 80
1:00-2:00 - 12 20 24 5 61 61
2:00-3:00 - 10 13 15 3 41 41
3:00-4:00 - 5 15 10 4 34 35
4:00-5:00 - 15 24 19 1 59 49
Total 442 398

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 8 22 18 5 53 52
8:00-9:00 - 7 24 13 1 45 35
9:00-10:00 - 7 23 18 1 49 40
10:00-11:00 - 19 53 22 2 96 74
1:00-2:00 - 15 38 28 4 85 74
2:00-3:00 - 5 25 11 3 44 38
3:00-4:00 - 10 23 14 2 49 42
4:00-5:00 - 18 35 20 4 77 68
Total 498 423

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 15 30 24 3 72 63
8:00-9:00 - 11 11 15 2 39 38
9:00-10:00 - 4 45 20 4 73 59
10:00-11:00 - 15 39 26 1 81 64
1:00-2:00 - 19 20 30 1 70 62
2:00-3:00 - 3 24 8 3 38 32
3:00-4:00 - 7 15 10 2 34 31
4:00-5:00 - 23 49 30 5 107 93
Total 514 442
 66

Stream 10
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 15 78 5 7 105 80
8:00-9:00 - 20 65 4 15 104 102
9:00-10:00 - 19 35 3 5 62 55
10:00-11:00 - 11 58 2 9 80 69
1:00-2:00 - 21 50 7 5 83 68
2:00-3:00 - 18 48 5 5 76 62
3:00-4:00 - 14 52 3 6 75 61
4:00-5:00 - 19 56 6 7 88 74
Total 673 571

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 16 75 6 8 105 84
8:00-9:00 - 19 70 6 9 104 87
9:00-10:00 - 16 54 2 6 78 63
10:00-11:00 - 14 50 3 7 74 63
1:00-2:00 - 18 58 4 6 86 69
2:00-3:00 - 19 47 4 4 74 59
3:00-4:00 - 15 53 2 7 77 65
4:00-5:00 - 21 58 5 7 91 76
Total 689 566

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 14 85 6 4 109 75
8:00-9:00 - 15 88 5 7 115 85
9:00-10:00 - 13 91 4 6 114 81
10:00-11:00 - 12 89 6 5 112 78
1:00-2:00 - 9 87 6 3 105 68
2:00-3:00 - 16 94 4 6 120 85
3:00-4:00 - 17 79 5 5 106 77
4:00-5:00 - 15 89 7 5 116 82
Total 897 631
 67

Stream 11
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 13 104 9 3 129 83
8:00-9:00 - 14 85 6 5 110 78
9:00-10:00 - 17 88 11 6 122 90
10:00-11:00 - 13 88 5 4 110 74
1:00-2:00 - 4 89 5 6 104 72
2:00-3:00 - 7 87 7 6 107 76
3:00-4:00 - 11 84 6 4 105 71
4:00-5:00 - 15 97 9 5 126 88
Total 913 632

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 15 94 6 5 120 83
8:00-9:00 - 16 92 8 6 122 88
9:00-10:00 - 13 86 6 4 109 74
10:00-11:00 - 13 89 5 5 112 78
1:00-2:00 - 8 92 8 4 112 74
2:00-3:00 - 12 88 4 5 109 75
3:00-4:00 - 8 89 6 6 109 77
4:00-5:00 - 17 95 4 4 120 81
Total 913 630

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 14 85 6 4 109 75
8:00-9:00 - 15 88 5 7 115 85
9:00-10:00 - 13 91 4 6 114 81
10:00-11:00 - 12 89 6 5 112 78
1:00-2:00 - 9 87 6 3 105 68
2:00-3:00 - 16 94 4 6 120 85
3:00-4:00 - 17 79 5 5 106 78
4:00-5:00 - 15 89 7 5 116 82
Total 897 632
 68

Stream 12
Tuesday – April 1, 2025
Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 12 48 17 6 83 71
8:00-9:00 - 11 63 9 3 86 61
9:00-10:00 - 9 47 12 1 69 48
10:00-11:00 - 13 55 9 2 79 56
1:00-2:00 - 8 42 8 5 63 52
2:00-3:00 - 9 57 8 1 75 49
3:00-4:00 - 17 68 11 3 99 71
4:00-5:00 - 24 78 21 2 125 90
Total 679 498

Wednesday – April 2, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 8 41 17 3 69 55
8:00-9:00 - 10 50 28 1 89 66
9:00-10:00 - 6 38 21 1 66 49
10:00-11:00 - 7 45 13 6 71 61
1:00-2:00 - 8 37 26 2 73 59
2:00-3:00 - 9 49 12 4 74 58
3:00-4:00 - 11 56 15 2 84 60
4:00-5:00 - 15 75 17 2 109 76
Total 635 484

Thursday – April 3, 2025

Time Buses Private Motorcycle Tricycle Trucks Veh/hr PCU
Cars Conv.
7:00-8:00 - 12 38 10 4 64 53
8:00-9:00 - 10 45 12 2 69 51
9:00-10:00 - 9 35 7 3 54 43
10:00-11:00 - 7 40 8 2 57 41
1:00-2:00 - 10 34 9 5 58 51
2:00-3:00 - 8 44 12 1 65 45
3:00-4:00 - 14 50 9 2 75 54
4:00-5:00 - 22 68 12 3 105 77
Total 547 415
 69

APPENDIX D
TALLY SHEET (Vehicular per Hour)
Hourly Traffic
Stream 1
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 65 72 64 67
8:00-9:00 54 53 58 55
9:00-10:00 46 57 48 51
10:00-11:00 61 62 61 62
1:00-2:00 60 48 57 55
2:00-3:00 43 35 41 40
3:00-4:00 41 70 59 57
4:00-5:00 61 67 72 67
AHT 57

Stream 2
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 97 109 123 110
8:00-9:00 91 100 109 100
9:00-10:00 79 73 120 91
10:00-11:00 73 73 98 82
1:00-2:00 75 78 80 78
2:00-3:00 91 66 100 86
3:00-4:00 87 81 121 97
4:00-5:00 111 92 132 112
AHT 95

Stream 3
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 885 808 831 842
8:00-9:00 797 734 759 764
9:00-10:00 664 613 634 637
10:00-11:00 677 620 642 647
1:00-2:00 696 634 663 665
2:00-3:00 735 655 688 693
3:00-4:00 844 773 798 805
4:00-5:00 1025 962 976 988
AHT 756
 70

Stream 4
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 160 182 146 163
8:00-9:00 192 146 159 166
9:00-10:00 141 205 114 154
10:00-11:00 146 249 153 183
1:00-2:00 144 260 162 189
2:00-3:00 192 140 104 146
3:00-4:00 133 155 101 130
4:00-5:00 167 202 150 173
AHT 163

Stream 5
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 17 28 34 27
8:00-9:00 54 62 57 58
9:00-10:00 46 69 28 48
10:00-11:00 44 50 74 56
1:00-2:00 40 49 61 50
2:00-3:00 64 44 34 48
3:00-4:00 50 27 41 40
4:00-5:00 55 37 58 50
AHT 48

Stream 6
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 1357 1334 1173 1288
8:00-9:00 646 692 662 667
9:00-10:00 535 724 1086 782
10:00-11:00 521 662 614 599
1:00-2:00 644 922 764 777
2:00-3:00 495 592 486 525
3:00-4:00 531 603 902 679
4:00-5:00 1127 1271 1473 1291
AHT 826
 71

Stream 7
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 55 66 89 70
8:00-9:00 41 38 43 41
9:00-10:00 47 54 62 55
10:00-11:00 64 71 69 68
1:00-2:00 40 47 49 46
2:00-3:00 25 32 35 31
3:00-4:00 23 34 38 32
4:00-5:00 55 66 73 65
AHT 51

Stream 8
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 137 136 167 147
8:00-9:00 95 108 130 111
9:00-10:00 114 114 108 112
10:00-11:00 164 154 154 158
1:00-2:00 121 135 103 120
2:00-3:00 103 97 78 93
3:00-4:00 116 104 49 90
4:00-5:00 155 178 199 178
AHT 127

Stream 9
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 42 53 72 56
8:00-9:00 36 45 39 40
9:00-10:00 75 49 73 66
10:00-11:00 94 96 81 91
1:00-2:00 61 85 70 72
2:00-3:00 41 44 38 41
3:00-4:00 34 49 34 39
4:00-5:00 59 77 107 81
AHT 61
 72

Stream 10
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 105 105 109 107
8:00-9:00 104 104 115 108
9:00-10:00 62 78 114 85
10:00-11:00 80 74 112 89
1:00-2:00 83 86 105 92
2:00-3:00 76 74 120 90
3:00-4:00 75 77 106 86
4:00-5:00 88 91 116 99
AHT 95

Stream 11
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 129 120 109 120
8:00-9:00 110 122 115 116
9:00-10:00 122 109 114 115
10:00-11:00 110 112 112 112
1:00-2:00 104 112 105 107
2:00-3:00 107 109 120 112
3:00-4:00 105 109 106 107
4:00-5:00 126 120 116 121
AHT 114

Stream 12
Time Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Average Hourly
Traffic Volume
7:00-8:00 83 69 64 72
8:00-9:00 86 89 69 82
9:00-10:00 69 66 54 63
10:00-11:00 79 71 57 69
1:00-2:00 63 73 58 65
2:00-3:00 75 74 65 72
3:00-4:00 99 84 75 86
4:00-5:00 125 109 105 113
AHT 78
 73

APPENDIX E
AVERAGE TRAFFIC
Average Daily traffic (Vehicle per Day)
Stream Route Tue Wed Thu ADT
1 National Highway to Gov. Francis 431 464 460 452
Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion
2 National Highway to East Binabag 704 672 883 753
Road
3 National Highway to Cebu-North 6323 5799 5991 6038
Coastal Road
4 Cebu-North Coastal Road to Gov. 1275 1539 1089 1301
Francis Burton Harisson Ave.
Consolacion
5 Cebu-North Coastal Road to East 370 366 387 375
Binabag Road
6 Cebu-North Coastal Road to National 5856 6800 7160 6606
Highway
7 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 350 408 458 406
Consolacion to National Road
8 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 1055 1026 988 1023
Consolacion to Cebu-North Coastal
Road
9 Gov. Francis Burton Harisson Ave. 442 498 514 485
Consolacion to East Binabag Road
10 East Binabag Road to National 673 689 897 753
Highway
11 East Binabag Road to Cebu-North 913 913 897 908
Coastal Road
12 East Binabag Road to Gov. Francis 679 645 547 624
Burton Harisson Ave. Consolacion

Observed Time Gap

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
qm 2.4 3.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.7 4.5 3.2 3.6 4.3

Observed Saturation Headway

Stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
t4 40 50 30 45 50 28 46 60 50 60 55 40
t10 345 240 70 125 410 88 370 180 362 230 220 220
 74

Average Hourly Traffic (Vehicle per Hour)

Stream Bus Private Motorcycle Tricycle Truck AHT
Car
1 - 23 23 6 5 57
2 - 17 68 5 7 95
3 4 236 428 4 86 756
4 - 23 119 19 6 163
5 - 9 31 4 4 48
6 5 333 412 8 72 826
7 - 24 19 7 4 51
8 - 30 79 14 5 127
9 - 13 29 19 3 61
10 - 17 68 5 7 95
11 - 13 90 7 6 114
12 - 11 51 14 3 78

Average Hourly Traffic (Passenger Car Unit per Hour)

Stream Bus Private Motorcycle Tricycle Truck AHT
Car
1 - 23 12 6 15 80
2 - 17 31 5 21 101
3 12 236 214 4 258 1157
4 - 23 60 19 18 126
5 - 9 16 4 12 57
6 15 333 206 8 216 1137
7 - 24 10 7 12 72
8 - 30 40 14 15 109
9 - 13 15 19 9 67
10 - 17 34 5 21 102
11 - 13 45 7 18 97
12 - 11 26 14 9 65
 75

APPENDIX F
COMPUTATIONS

A. Average Daily Traffic

𝑛
1
𝐴𝐷𝑇 = ∑ 𝑉𝑂𝐿𝑖
𝑛
𝑖=1

Step 1: Add all the vehicles for each day (Tuesday-Thursday) per Stream found
in Appendix E.
Step 2: Divide the total sum of vehicles to the number of days observed.
Step 3: Do the same for every Stream.
431+464+460
Stream 1 = = 452 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
704+672+883
Stream 2 = = 753 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
6323+5799+5991
Stream 3 = = 6038 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
1275+1539+1089
Stream 4 = = 1301 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
370+366+387
Stream 5 = = 375 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
5856+6800+7160
Stream 6 = = 6606 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
350+408+458
Stream 7 = = 406 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
1055+1026+998
Stream 8 = = 1023 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
442+498+514
Stream 9 = = 485 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
673+689+897
Stream 10 = = 753 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
913+913+897
Stream 11 = = 908 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3
679+645+547
Stream 12 = = 624 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
3

B. Flow Rate or Volume (Average Hourly Traffic)

Step 1: Add all the vehicles for each hour of the observation time per Stream.
Step 2: Divide the total number of vehicles by the total number of hours
observed.
Step 3: Do the same for every Stream.
 76

𝑁
𝐴𝐻𝑇 = ∑
𝑇
67+55+51+62+55+40+57+67
Stream 1 = = 57 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
101+100+91+82+78+86+97+112
Stream 2 = = 95 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
842+764+637+647+665+693+805+988
Stream 3 = = 756 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
163+166+154+183+189+146+130+173
Stream 4 = = 163 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
27+58+48+56+50+48+40+50+
Stream 5 = = 48 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
1288+667+782+599+777+525+679+1291
Stream 6 = = 826 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
70+41+55+68+46+31+32+65
Stream 7 = = 51 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
147+111+112+158+120+93+90+178
Stream 8 = = 127 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
56+40+66+91+72+41+39+81
Stream 9 = = 61 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
107+108+85+89+92+90+86+99
Stream 10 = = 95 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
120+116+115+112+107+112+107+121
Stream 11 = = 114 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8
72+82+63+69+65+72+86+113
Stream 12 = = 78 𝑣𝑒ℎ/ℎ𝑟
8

C. PCU Volume
Step 1: Multiply the type of vehicles to PCU Factor according to classification per
stream
Step 2: Add all converted PCU
Step 3: Do the same for every Stream.
Stream 1 = 0(3) + 23(1) + 12(0.5) + 6(1) + 15(3) = 80 PCU/hr
Stream 2 = 0(3) + 17(1) + 31(0.5) + 5(1) + 21(3) = 101 PCU/hr
Stream 3 = 12(3) + 236(1) + 214(0.5) + 4(1) + 258(3) = 1157 PCU/hr
Stream 4 = 0(3) + 23(1) + 60(0.5) + 19(1) + 18(3) = 126 PCU/hr
Stream 5 = 0(3) + 9(1) + 16(0.5) + 4(1) + 12(3) = 57 PCU/hr
Stream 6 = 15(3) + 333(1) + 206(0.5) + 8(1) + 216(3) = 1137 PCU/hr
Stream 7 = 0(3) + 17(1) + 10(0.5) + 7(1) + 12(3) = 72 PCU/hr
Stream 8 = 0(3) + 30(1) + 40(0.5) + 14(1) + 15(3) = 109 PCU/hr
 77

Stream 9 = 0(3) + 13(1) + 34(0.5) + 19(1) + 9(3) = 67 PCU/hr

Stream 10 = 0(3) + 17(1) + 34(0.5) + 5(1) + 21(3) = 102 PCU/hr
Stream 11 = 0(3) + 13(1) + 45(0.5) + 7(1) + 18(3) = 97 PCU/hr
Stream 12 = 0(3) + 11(1) + 26(0.5) + 14(1) + 9(3) = 65 PCU/hr

D. Saturation Flow Rate

3600 (𝑡10 − 𝑡4 )
𝑆= ; ℎ=
ℎ 6
Step 1: Using thee formula for Saturation Flow Rate use the indicated minimum
saturation headway for t10 and t4 for each stream.
Step 2: Substitute each designated saturation headway for each stream.
Step 3: Do the same with each stream.
3600
Stream 1 = 345 − 40 = 70.82
6
3600
Stream 2 = 240 − 50 = 113.68
6
3600
Stream 3 = 70 − 30 = 540
6
3600
Stream 4 = 125 − 45 = 270
6
3600
Stream 5 = 510 − 50 = 60
6
3600
Stream 6 = 88 − 28 = 360
6
3600
Stream 7 = 370 − 46 = 66.67
6
3600
Stream 8 = 180 − 60 = 180
6
3600
Stream 9 = 362 − 50 = 69.23
6
 78

3600
Stream 10 = 230 − 60 = 127.06
6
3600
Stream 11 = 220 − 55 = 130.91
6
3600
Stream 12 = 220 − 40 = 120
6

E. Expected Capacity in an Approach

3600
𝐶=
𝑞𝑚 + 𝑇
Step 1. Determine the follow-up time (T), using standardized value T = 2 s
Step 2. Obtain qm, average time gap between vehicles to successfully cross the
intersection trough observation.
Step 3. Substitute each designated qm for each stream.
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 1 = 2.4+2 = 818. 18 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 2 = 3.6+2 = 642.86 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 3 = 2.7+2 = 765. 95 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 4 = 2.9+2 = 734. 69 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 5 = 2.8+2 = 750 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 6 = 2.4+2 = 818.18 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 7 = 2.7+2 = 765. 95 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 8 = 3.7+2 = 631.58 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 9 = 4.5+2 = 533.85 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 10 = 3.2+2 = 692.31 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 11 = 3.6+2 = 642.85 ℎ𝑟
3600 𝑣𝑒ℎ
Stream 12 = 4.3+2 = 571. 43 ℎ𝑟
 79

F. Volume – Saturation Flow Rate Ratio

𝑉
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑆
Step 1: Divide the corresponding vehicular volume to its corresponding
Saturation Flow Rate.
Step 2: Do the same per Stream.
57
Stream 1 = = 0.805
70.82
94
Stream 2 = = 0.827
113.68
754
Stream 3 = = 1.396
540
162
Stream 4 = = 0.6
270
47
Stream 5 = = 0.783
60
825
Stream 6 = = 2.291
360
50
Stream 7 = = 0.75
66.67
125
Stream 8 = = 0.694
180
59
Stream 9 = = 0.852
69.23
94
Stream 10 = = 0.739
127.06
113
Stream 11 = = 0.863
130.91
77
Stream 12 = = 0.641
120

G. Control Time Delay

3600 𝑣
3600 𝑣 √ 𝑣
2 ∗𝑐
𝑑= + 900𝑇 [ − 1 + ( − 1) + 𝑐 ]+5
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐 450𝑇
 80

Step 1: Determine the Time (T) for each stream by dividing the volume per
stream by its corresponding capacity.
Step 2: Substitute the calculated T values into the given formula.
Step 3: Repeat the same process for all traffic streams.
Stream 1

2 3600 57
3600 57 57 (818.18) 818.18
d=( ) + 900(0.0697) − 1 + √( − 1) +
818.18 818.18 818.18 450(0.0697)
[ ]
+ 5 = 9.729 sec
Stream 2

2
3600 94
3600 94 94 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.1462) [ − 1 + √( − 1) + 642.86 642.86 ]
642.86 642.86 642.86 450(0.1462)

+ 5 = 11.555 sec
Stream 3

2 3600 754
3600 754 754 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.9844) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 765.96 765.96
765.96 765.96 765.96 450(0.9844)
[ ]
+ 5 = 87.46 sec
Stream 4

2
3600 162
3600 162 162 (734.69) 734.69
d=( ) + 900(0.2205) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + ]
734.69 734.69 734.69 450(0.2205)

+ 5 = 11.28 sec
Stream 5
3600 47
3600 47 47 2 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.0627) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 750 750 ] + 5
750 750 750 450(0.0627)

= 10.12 sec
Stream 6
 81

2 3600 825
3600 825 825 (818.18) 818.18
d=( ) + 900(1.0083) − 1 + √( − 1) +
818.18 818.18 818.18 450(1.0083)
[ ]
+ 5 = 107.017 sec
Stream 7

2 3600 50
3600 50 50 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.0653) − 1 + √( − 1) + 765.96 765.96
765.96 765.96 765.96 450(0.0653)
[ ]
+ 5 = 10.027
Stream 8

2 3600 125
3600 125 125 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.1979) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 631.58 631.58
631.58 631.58 631.58 450(0.1979)
[ ]
+ 5 = 12.1 sec
Stream 9

2 3600 59
3600 59 59 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.1065) √
−1+ ( − 1) + 553.85 553.85
553.85 553.85 553.85 450(0.1065)
[ ]
+ 5 = 12.271 sec
Stream 10

2
3600 94
3600 94 94 (692.31) 692.31
𝑑=( ) + 900(0.1358) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + ]
692.31 692.31 692.31 450(0.1358)

+ 5 = 11.014 𝑠𝑒𝑐
Stream 11

2
3600 113
3600 113 113 (642.86) 642.86
d=( ) + 900(0.1758) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + ]
642.86 642.86 642.86 450(0.1758)

+ 5 = 11.789 sec
 82

Stream 12
3600 77
3600 77 77 2 ( )
d=( ) + 900(0.1347) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 571.43 571.43 ]
571.43 571.43 571.43 450(0.1347)

+ 5 = 12.277 sec

H. Calculation for Signal Warrants.

Step 1: Determine the stream for each bound.
Step 2: Calculate the total vehicle per hour on each bound.
Step 3: Repeat and solve using the same process for the specified hour.

Phase: Eastbound (Stream 2, 5 & 9)

7:00-8:00AM = 110 + 27 + 56 = 193
8:00-9:00AM = 100 + 58 + 40 = 198
9:00-10:00AM = 91 + 48 + 66 = 205
10:00-11:00AM = 82 + 56 + 91 = 229
1:00-2:00PM = 78 + 50 + 72 = 200
2:00-3:00PM = 86 + 48 + 41 = 175
3:00-4:00PM = 97 + 40 + 39 = 176
4:00-5:00PM = 112 + 50 + 81 = 243

Phase: Westbound (Stream 1, 4 & 12)

7:00-8:00AM = 67 + 163 + 72 = 302
8:00-9:00AM = 55 + 166 + 82 = 303
9:00-10:00AM = 51 + 154 + 63 = 268
10:00-11:00AM = 62 + 183 + 69 = 314
1:00-2:00PM = 55 + 189 + 65 = 309
2:00-3:00PM = 40 + 146 + 72 = 258
3:00-4:00PM = 57 + 130 + 86 = 273
4:00-5:00PM = 67 + 173 + 113 = 353
 83

Phase: Northbound (Stream 3, 8 & 11)

7:00-8:00AM = 842 + 147 + 120 = 1109
8:00-9:00AM = 764 + 111 + 116 = 991
9:00-10:00AM = 637 + 112 + 115 = 864
10:00-11:00AM = 647 + 158 + 112 = 917
1:00-2:00PM = 665 + 120 + 107 = 892
2:00-3:00PM = 693 + 93 + 112 = 898
3:00-4:00PM = 805 + 90 + 107 = 1002
4:00-5:00PM = 988 + 178 + 121 = 1287

Phase: Southbound (Stream 6, 7 & 10)

7:00-8:00AM = 1288 + 70 + 107 = 1465
8:00-9:00AM = 667 + 41 + 108 = 816
9:00-10:00AM = 782 + 55 + 85 = 922
10:00-11:00AM = 599 + 68 + 89 = 756
1:00-2:00PM = 777 + 46 + 92 = 915
2:00-3:00PM = 525 + 31 + 90 = 646
3:00-4:00PM = 679 + 32 + 86 = 797
4:00-5:00PM = 1291 + 65 + 99 = 1455

I. Modified Critical Flow Ratio

𝑣
𝑐𝑓𝑟 =
𝑠
Step 1: Solve the Modified Saturation Flow Rate by multiplying 600
by lane width.
Step 2: Divide the total going out by the saturation flow rate per phase.
Step 3: Add all corresponding Y value per phase to get the total Critical Flow
Ratio.
For Road 1 & 2:
Modified Saturation Flow Rate = 600𝑊𝑒
= 600(6) = 3600 veh/hr
 84

For Road 3 & 4:

Modified Saturation Flow Rate = 600𝑊𝑒
= 600(3) = 1800 veh/hr
908
cfr 1 = = 0.252
3600
1037
cfr 2 = = 0.288
3600
239
cfr 3 = = 0.133
1800
287
cfr 4 = = 0.159
1800
Total (cfr) = 0.252 + 0.288 + 0.133 + 0.159
= 0. 832
J. Amber Seconds
𝑉 𝑊+𝐿
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑡𝑟 + +
2∗𝑑 𝑉
Step 1: Substitute the values for tr, V, d, W and L.
8.33 6+5
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1 + + 8.33 = 3.361 sec 𝑠𝑎𝑦 4 𝑠𝑒𝑐
2∗4

Step 2: Then, compute the Movement time. Multiply the amber time by its
multiplier, 0.5.
Movement time = 0.5*Amber time
= 0.5(4) = 2 sec
Step 3: Thirdly, compute the Total Lost Time per phase by adding the
start-up time and the movement time.
Total Lost Time (per phase) = start up time + movement time
= 2+2 = 4 sec
Step 4: Then, to Compute the Total Lost Time, multiply the Total Lost
Time per phase by the number of phases.
Total Lost Time = 4(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒)
= 4(4) = 16 sec

K. Optimum Cycle Length using Webster’s Formula

1.5𝐿 + 5
𝐶𝑜 =
1−𝑌
 85

Step 1: Substitute the Y value form Critical Flow Ratio solved to the original
formula for Optimum Cycle Length.
1.5(16) + 5
𝐶𝑜 = = 172.619 𝑠𝑎𝑦 175 𝑠𝑒𝑐
1 − 0.832
Step 2: Lastly, to solve for the Total Green time subtract the product of amber
time and the number of phases to the approximate Optimum Cycle Length.
Total Green Time = 175 − 4(4) = 159 sec
L. Calculation of Green Time and Red Time for Different Phases
Step1: To solve the green time per phase, multiply the Total Green Time to the
quotient of Y value per phase and the total Critical Flow Ratio.
Green Time:
0.252
Phase 1 = (159) = 48.16 𝑠𝑎𝑦 50 𝑠𝑒𝑐
0.832
0.288
Phase 2 = 0.832 (159) = 55. 04 𝑠𝑎𝑦 55 𝑠𝑒𝑐
0.133
Phase 3 = 0.832 (159) = 25.42 𝑠𝑎𝑦 25 𝑠𝑒𝑐
0.159
Phase 4 = 0.832 (159) = 30.39 𝑠𝑎𝑦 30 𝑠𝑒𝑐

Step 2: Then, in solving for the red time per phase, subtract the sum of green
time per phase and the amber time to the Optimum Cycle Length.
Red Time:
Phase 1 = 175 – (49 + 4) = 122 say 125 sec
Phase 2 = 175 – (55 + 4) = 116 say 120 sec
Phase 3 = 175 – (26 + 4) = 145 say 150 sec
Phase 4 = 175 – (31 + 4) = 140 say 145 sec
 86

APPENDIX G
DOCUMENTATION
 87

APPENDIX H
TIMETABLE OF ACTIVITIES
 88

APPENDIX I
RESEARCH BUDGET
BUDGET
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Php)
Food 2000
Honorarium (Panelists) 3000
Honorarium (Adviser) 3000
Manuscript Printing 3000
Total Cost 11000
 89

APPENDIX J
TURNITIN RESULT
 90

APPENDIX K
CURRICULUM VITAE

MARK RYAN B. ESPENILLA,

Brgy. Pating, Masbate City
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Brgy. Pating, Masbate City
Present Address : 1st Street, Duljo Fatima, Cebu city
Date of Birth : October 28,2002
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2021—Present)
Senior High School : Masbate Comprehensive High School
Masbate City, 5400 Masbate
(2019—2021)
Junior High School : Masbate Comprehensive High School
Masbate City, 5400 Masbate
(2015—2019)
Elementary : Jose Zurbito Sr. Elementary School
Masbate City, 5400 Masbate
(2009—2015)
 91

JUNESSE E. FERNANDEZ
Pugalo, Alcoy, Cebu
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Pugalo, Alcoy, Cebu
Present Address : Quiot Pardo, Cebu City
Date of Birth : August 17, 2001
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2021—Present)
Senior High School : University of Cebu-Lapu Lapu and Mandaue Campus
A. C. Cortes Ave, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu
(2018—2020)
Junior High School : Alcoy National High School
Poblacion, Alcoy, Cebu
(2017—2018)
Dalaguete National High School
Poblacion, Dalaguete Cebu
(2015—2016)
Elementary : Pasol—Pugalo Elementary School
Pugalo, Alcoy, Cebu
(2008—2015)
 92

TOM GERARD G. FRANCISCO

Paterno St., Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Paterno St., Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental
Present Address : 3rd St., Duljo Fatima, Cebu City
Date of Birth : June 1, 2002
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2023—Present)
Negros Oriental State University
Bajumpandan Rd, Dumaguete, Negros Oriental
(2020—2023)
Senior High School : Guihulngan National Highschool Poblacion
Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental
(2018—2020)
Junior High School : Guihulngan National Highschool Poblacion
Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental
(2014—2018)
Elementary : Guihulngan South Central School
Guihulngan City, Negros Oriental
(2008—2014)
 93

MICHAEL RENZ E. GEQUILLO

Puntod Alaska Mambaling Cebu City
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Puntod Alaska Mambaling Cebu City
Present Address : Puntod Alaska Mambaling Cebu City
Date of Birth : July 08, 2002
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2021—Present)
Senior High School : Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School
Macopa St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2019—2021)
Junior High School : Don Vicente Rama Memorial National High School
Macopa St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2015—2019)
Elementary : Alaska Elementary School
Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2009—2015)
 94

KIMBERLY M. ROSALES
Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
Present Address : Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
Date of Birth : January 24, 2001
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2021—Present)
Senior High School : University of Cebu—Lapu Lapu and Mandaue Campus
A. C. Cortes Ave, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu
(2017—2019)
Junior High School : Tayud National High School
Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
(2013—2017)
Elementary : Tayud Elementary School
Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu
(2007—2013)
 95

AYESSA L. SABALLA
Camp IV Talisay City Cebu
[Link]@[Link]

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Camp IV Talisay City Cebu
Present Address : Camp IV Talisay City Cebu
Date of Birth : August 4, 2001
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology - University
Natalio B. Bacalso Ave, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
(2021—Present)
Senior High School : Sister of Mary School Girlstown Inc.
JP Rizal St., Poblacion Talisay City Cebu
(2018—2020)
Junior High School : Sister of Mary School Girlstown Inc.
JP Rizal St., Poblacion Talisay City Cebu
(2014—2018)
Elementary : Lagtang Elementary School
Lagtang Talisay City Cebu
(2008—2014)