Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, H: Environment & Earth Science, Volume 22 Issue 1

In general, there was an improvement for the intersection performance to the existing condition. In 2030, Travel time cannot be predicted that traffic flow with same 7% growth rate, in which the traffic volume approaching exceeds capacity, LOS F is characterized by stop and go, low comfort and convenience. Table 5: The analysis results of intersection performance for the first alternative № Parameters 2020 2022 2025 2029 2030 1 Level of service (LOS) B B C E F 2 Vehicle delay (sec) 16.06 16.76 20.13 72 89 3 Queue length (m) 10.91 13.43 22.42 125.82 146.3 4 Maximum queue length (m) 66.06 84.81 132.46 231.46 231.5 5 All stops 0.56 0.59 0.74 3.56 4.58 6 All vehicles 5518 6295 7607 9202 9198 7 Emission CO (gram) 7130.6 8225.4 10890.8 32002.5 38512.9 8 Emission NOx (gram) 1387.4 1600.4 2118.9 6226.5 7493.2 9 Emission VOCs (gram) 1652.58 1906.3 2524.1 7416.9 8925.8 10 Fuel consumption (liter) 377.4 435.4 576.5 1694.1 2038.6 c) Second alternative for improving intersection performance The improvement of intersections for the second alternative was carried out by redesigning from roundabout to channelized intersection in same conditions such as traffic volume, number of right and left turn vehicles at intersection, number of lanes, number of pedestrians and traffic signal length. The analysis results of the redesigning intersection performance are shown in Table 6. Based on the results of the second alternative, the LOS was obtained B with a delay of 12.08 seconds/vehicle. It means there was an improvement of the intersection performance results from the second alternative solution. Table 6: The analysis results of intersection performance for the second alternative № Parameters 2020 2022 2025 2026 2027 1 Level of service (LOS) B B D E F 2 Vehicle delay (sec) 12.08 17.04 42.55 75.86 81.1 3 Queue length (m) 6.13 11.18 36.48 61.49 69.66 4 Maximum queue length (m) 80.89 107.28 193.45 257.35 257.42 5 All stops 0.49 0.71 1.81 3.5 3.6 6 All vehicles 5486 6236 7122 7176 7150 7 Emission CO (gram) 6064.1 8263.1 17111.2 28497.6 29399.6 8 Emission NOx (gram) 1179.8 1607.7 3329.3 5544.5 5720.1 9 Emission VOCs(gram) 1405.4 1915.1 3965.7 6604.6 6813.7 10 Fuel consumption (liter) 321 437.3881 905.7452 1508.457 1556.2 d) Comparison of the results Based on the analysis performance parameters of intersection, the firstalternative is the best option for improving intersection performance. It reduced delay, shortened vehicle queue time, reduced queuing volume of vehicles, thereby reduced the traffic congestion as well as increased the LOS at the signalized intersection. The result also showed that the delay was reducing from 21.61 seconds/vehicle to 16.06 seconds/vehicle, vehicle queuing length from 83.35 seconds to 66.06meters, and intersection LOS increased from C to B. It means that the second alternative can reduce the traffic congestion by 25 percent and then improve the intersection performance significantly. Fuel consumption can also decreased by 25 persent. A detailed comparison of the results is shown in Table 7. Table 7: Comparison of results for existing condition and alternatives for 2020 year № Parameters Existing condition 1 st alternative 2 nd alternative Level of service (LOS) C B B Vehicle delay (sec) 21.61 16.06 12.08 Queue length (m) 16.55 10.91 6.13 Maximum queue length (m) 83.35 66.06 80.89 All stops 0.74 0.56 0.49 All vehicles 5509 5518 5486 Emission CO (gram) 7993.22 7130.6 6064.1 © 2022 Global Journals 1 Year 2022 24 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXII Issue ersion I VI ( H ) Assessing the Operational Impacts of Road Intersection using PTV Vissim Microscopic Simulation