[sustran] PCU equivalents in India
Prof S L Dhingra
dhingra at civil.iitb.ernet.in
Sun Jan 18 00:07:34 JST 1998
To: hameedab at rmoc.on.ca
Cc: Prof S L Dhingra <dhingra at gemini.civil.iitb.ernet.in>
Subject: Capacity Standards in India!!
Dear Professor,
Your mail to WIN was forwarded to us for a response. Although
the response is delayed, I hope you have not lost interest in
it. I am giving the information you wanted, and please feel free
if you have any querry on the materail given below. There is no
highway capacity manual in India; but there are some tentative
guidelines provided by Indian Roads Congress based on various
studies carried out within India. These details and their basis
is given below.
Yours sincerely
P. K. Sikdar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR RURAL ROADS
=====================================================================
1. under normal circumstances LOS B is considered adequate for design
of rural highways where volume of traffic will be 0.5 times the
capacity and this is taken as the 'Design Serrvice Volume'.
2. under exceptional circumstances LOS C is allowed for design where
'Design Service Volume' for LOS C is taken 40% higher than those for
LOS B.
3. Recommended design service volume for two lane roads are given as
follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrain Curvature Design Sevice Volume
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain Low (0-50) 15,000
High(>51) 12,500
Rolling Low(0-100) 11,000
High(>101) 10,000
Hilly Low(0-200) 7,000
High(>201) 5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The values recommended above are based on the assumption that the
road has a 7.0m wide carriageway and good earthen shoulders are
available. The capacity figures relate to peak hour traffic in the
range of 8-10% at LOS B.
5. The capacity of two lane road can be increased by providig paved
and surfaced shoulders of at least 1.5m width on either side. Under
these circumstances 15% increase in capacity can be expected.
6. Reduction in capacity due to restriction in shoulder or carriageway
width is siggested as follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity Reduction Factor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Usable Shoulder 3.50m 3.25m 3.00m
width in m Lane Lane Lane
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>1.8 1.00 0.92 0.84
1.2 0.92 0.85 0.77
0.6 0.81 0.75 0.68
0 0.70 0.64 0.58
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Usuable shoulder width refers to well maintained earth/moorum/gravel
shoulder which can safely permit occasional passage of vehicles.
7. The RUCS 1990 developed the speed-flow relationships for 2-lane
roads with and without paved shoulders in plain terrain as given
below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Without Shoulder With Shoulder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New Technology Car V = 85.45 - 0.0170Q V = 87.16 - 0.0076Q
2. Old Technology Car V = 67.96 - 0.0120Q V = 68.39 - 0.0040Q
3. Light Commercial Vehicle V = 65.96 - 0.0130Q V = 70.06 - 0.0064Q
4. Heavy Commercial Vehicle V = 58.96 - 0.0079Q V = 60.35 - 0.0062Q
5. Buses V = 66.79 - 0.0130Q V = 69.74 - 0.0036Q
6. Two Wheeler V = 51.58 - 0.0069Q V = 54.87 - 0.0063Q
-------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Recommended PCU Factors for Various types of Vehicle on Rural Roads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Vehicle Type Passenger Car Equivalency
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Motor Cycle or Scooter (2-Wheeled) 0.50
2. Passenger Car, Pick-up van, Auto rickshaw 1.00
3. Agricultural Tractor, Light Commercial Vehicle 1.50
4. Truck or Bus 3.00
5. Truck-trailer, Agricultural Tractor-trailer 4.50
6. Bicycle 0.50
7. Cycle Rickshaw (Pedel) 2.00
8. Hand Cart 3.00
9. Horse-drawn Vehicle 4.00
10. Bullock Cart 8.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================
FOR URBAN ROADS
9.Urban Roads are classified as Arterials, Sub-atrerials and
Collectors.
Arterials :No frontage access, no standing vehicles, very little
cross traffic
Sub-arterials :Frontage development, side roads, bus stops, no
standing vehicles and waiting restrictions.
Collectors :Free frontage access, parked vehicles, bus stops, no
waiting restrictions.
10. For urban roads, generally LOS C is adopted for design where the
volume of traffic is around 0.7 times the capacity. The recommended
design service volume (corresponding to LOS C) for two lane roads are
as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Carriageway Total Design Service Volume
Arterial Sub-arterial Collector
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Lane (One way) 2400 1900 1400
Two Lane (Two way) 1500 1200 900
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Recommended PCU values for different types of vehicles in urban
roads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Vehicle Type Equaivalency Factor
5% >= 10%*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Motor Cycle or Scooter (2-Wheeled) 0.50 0.75
2. Passenger Car, Pick-up van 1.00 1.00
3. Auto-rickshaw (3-Wheeled) 1.20 2.00
4. Light Commercial Vehicle 1.40 2.00
5. Truck or Bus 2.20 3.70
6. Agricultural Tractor-trailer 4.00 5.00
7. Bicycle 0.40 0.50
8. Cycle Rickshaw (Pedel) 1.50 2.00
9. Horse drawn vehicle 1.50 2.00
10. Hand Cart 2.00 3.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Refers to the proportion of same vehicle in the traffic stream.
***********end of message*******************
* Dr S. L DHINGRA *
* Prof. of TRANSP. SYSTEMS ENGG. (TSE) *
* HEAD, CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT *
* INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY *
* POWAI,BOMBAY-400 076,INDIA *
* VOICE:091-022-5782545 EXTN 7329/7300(Off)*
* 5786530 .. 7348(LAB) *
* 8329(RES) *
* 5767300/01(O)/8329(R) DID *
* 5777001(RES) Private *
* FAX :091-022-5767302/5783480 *
* GRAMS:TECHNOLOGY,BOMBY,INDIA *
* TELEX:011-72313 IITB IN *
* EMAIL:dhingra at gemini.civil.iitb.ernet.in *
********************************************
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Paul Guitink wrote:
> The argument made by Dr Rajeef Saraf for the Delhi case implies that PCU
> equivalents are not based on technical considerations, but also take into
> account the motorized drivers preferences: at low traffic volumes, they will
> probably avoid to use the right lane, but what if traffic volumes are very high
> (congestion) and there is a 'free' right lane? Furthermore, if we accept this
> calculation, PCU equivalents for bicyclists will go up drastically as well: even
> at relatively low volumes of bicyclists in the right lane, faster motorized
> vehicles will avoid this lane: however, if the other lanes are congested and
> non-motorized vehicles in the right lane move faster, the motorized vehicles
> don't have a problem to mix with them.
>
> If this interpretation is accepted, we need to review as well the PCU equivalent
> of buses: in many cities, the right lanes are almost exclusively used by
> (micro)buses loading and unloading at will and thus reducing capacity
> drastically; a PCU equivalent of 10-12 for small buses (up to 20 passengers)
> would seem appropriate in that case in, for example, Accra (Ghana). The same
> argument can be made for taxis, tro-tro's, etc.
>
> However, I agree with Dr Rajeef Saraf and some other participants in this
> discussion that the PCE methodology is questionable.
>
> best regards,
>
> Paul Guitink
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list