Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS
February 2006
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................2
Overview of Study Area ................................................................................................2
Objectives of Traffic Study............................................................................................3
Scope of Work ...............................................................................................................3
Methodology ..................................................................................................................3
Organization of Report ..................................................................................................4
2.0
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
Operational Analysis....................................................................................................14
6.0
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................15
List of Tables
Table A-1(a) : 1st Day 24 hour Traffic Volume count at Jamrud Station
Table A-1 (b) : 2nd Day 24-hour Traffic Volume count at Jamrud Station
Table A-1 (c) : 3rd Day 24-Hour Traffic Volume Count at Jamrud Station
Table A-2(a) : 1st Day 24 hour Traffic Volume count at Gulsher Village Station
Table A-2 (b) : 2nd Day 24-hour Traffic Volume count at Gulsher Village Station
Table A-2 (c) : 3rd Day 24-Hour Traffic Volume Count at Gulsher Village Station
Table A-3(a) : 1st Day 24 hour Traffic Volume count at Mechani Station
Table A-3 (b) : 2nd Day 24-hour Traffic Volume count at Mechani Station
Table A-3 (c) : 3rd Day 24-Hour Traffic Volume Count at Mechani Station
Table A-4: Three Day Average Traffic Volume at all Three Stations
Table A-5 : Estimation of DDHV for Operational Analysis ( K Factor Approach)
Table A-6: Average daily traffic volume for Case 1 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Table A-7: Average daily traffic volume for Case 2 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Table A-8 : Average daily traffic volume for Case 3 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Table A-9 (a): Peak hour volume for case 1
Table A-9 (b): Peak hour volume for case 2
Table A-9 (c): Peak hour volume for case 3
Table A-10(a): Operational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Anticipated Volume Case 1
Table A-10(b): Operational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Anticipated Volume Case 2
Table A-10(c): Operational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Anticipated Volume Case 3
Table A-11(a): Operational Analysis at Gulsher section for Anticipated Volume Case 1
Table A-11(b): Operational Analysis at Gulsher section for Anticipated Volume Case 2
Table A-11(c): Operational Analysis at Gulsher section for Anticipated Volume Case 3
Table A-12(a): Operational Analysis at Mechani post for Anticipated Volume Case 1
Table A-12(b): Operational Analysis at Mechani post for Anticipated Volume Case 2
Table A-12(c): Operational Analysis at Mechani post for Anticipated Volume Case 3
List of Figures
Figure A-1: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 1 at Jamrud Station
Figure A-2: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 2 at Jamrud Station
Figure A-3: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 3 at Jamrud Station
Figure A-4: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 1 at GulSher Village
Figure A-5: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 2 at GulSher Village
Figure A-6: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 3 at GulSher Village
Figure A-7: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 1 at Mechani Station
Figure A-8: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 2 at Mechani Station
Figure A-9: Average Daily Traffic Volume according mode for Case 3 at Mechani Station
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
National Highway Authority (NHA) has been taken another initiative by proposing
development of expressway between Peshawar and Torkham. It is anticipated that with the
development of trade relationship of Pakistan with Afghanistan and other Central Asian
countries, which in turn results boost up of trade related traffic. Therefore, it is the need of the
time that an expressway should be built in between such points of Afghan Border that
connects major potential points within the country. This will offer smooth traffic operational
condition to generated trade traffic movements. This report presents traffic study carried out
for development of the proposed expressway between Peshawar and Torkham.
Keeping in view the importance of the proposed project, traffic study methodology was
devised. Classified traffic volume counts for 24 hrs of a day were observed on continuous
time scale of three days at three main locations of existing roadway between Peshawar and
Torkham. These points were chosen with such logic that the traffic at these points will help
analyzing anticipated traffic on proposed expressway. The traffic study was limited to
provide estimation of anticipated traffic and operational analysis under such circumstances.
In this traffic study, three cases are defined to estimate anticipated traffic on proposed
expressway by giving importance to three criteria such as operational condition, estimation of
financial benefit and pavement design procedure.
In first case it was assumed that all the traffic which is actually run on existing road will
diverge towards proposed expressway, this assumption seems to be logical in a way that the
proposed expressway will attract equal amount of traffic volume as running on existing way
irrespective of that from where it is diverged. This case gives an ideal scenario to analyze
operational condition of proposed expressway. The second case assumed that all heavy
vehicles will diverge and only 30% of local categories traffic volume that serves local
passenger movement will use this expressway. In this case traffic volume anticipated on
proposed expressway is low and therefore this case seems to be an ideal case for estimating
expected benefits. The third case considers the impact of generated traffic due to progressing
trade relationship of Pakistan with Afghanistan and other central Asian countries. In which, it
was assumed that 10% of more heavy traffic as compared to case two will be attracted at the
time of opening of proposed expressway, In this way, case three seems to be an ideal case for
pavement design of this expressway.
This traffic report also comprises presentation of operational analysis of all of the above three
cases, the level of service was obtained on yearly basis up to 20 years life span by forecasting
future year traffic at suitable growth rate. The necessary input required for performing
operational analysis was determined from detailed analysis of traffic volume data at all
collected points.
Page 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
National Highway Authority (NHA) has planned to construct an expressway from
Peshawar to Torkham (a town near Afghanistan border). Peshawar-Torkham
expressway will serve as a major highway for vehicular movements from Peshawar to
Torkham thereafter will lead to central Asian countries through Afghanistan.
This expressway will provide high level of service to large amount of heavy vehicles
running through Pak Afghan border.
Because of the on going development in trade relationship of Pakistan with
Afghanistan and other Central Asian Countries, it is required that a good quality road
be constructed that would provide an efficient operation of vehicles which are
expected to generate due to growing multi trade activities among them.
Thus, Peshawar-Torkham expressway will be a contributing factor to Pakistans
economic growth, its trade and transport for many years.
1.1
Torkham Border
Chaman Border
Haji Gulam Khan (HGK) Border
Page 2
1.2
1.3
Scope of Work
The work related to this traffic study has been limited to understand the existing road
network along with traffic pattern. In addition to this, classified traffic volume counts
are collected at different junctions of existing road network in order to anticipate the
traffic volume on proposed expressway. This data will also help analyzing the
operational conditions through capacity analysis procedure of the proposed
expressway during its life span.
1.4
Methodology
To Carryout this traffic study in accordance with the objectives setout above the
following methodology was adopted which is presented in descriptive form as well as
in framework form for clear understanding. Figure 2 depicts various steps involved in
methodology of this traffic study in the form of flow chart called as conceptual
framework of traffic study. The steps involve in the methodology of carrying out this
traffic study are as follows:
Existing Scenario; this step is primarily based on study of existing road network
through available maps, this provide an understanding of whole situation of travel
network along with the identification of points (location) which are of prime
importance in the travel network. Furthermore, this gives an idea about potential
locations which are able to generate considerable traffic volume especially heavy
vehicles.
Page 3
Data Collection; this step involve identification of type of data needed to analyze the
traffic condition along with the methodology for its collection. The collected data will
then be analyzed according to standard procedure to obtain the anticipated traffic
volume on proposed expressway and to carryout operational analysis accordingly.
Traffic Data Analysis; this step involves rigorous analysis of collected data through
which existing traffic operations are compared with proposed expressway traffic
conditions. This is the vital stage of traffic study as it provide complete picture with
respect to traffic pattern. Traffic data analysis comprises of three stages namely,
i)
ii)
iii)
1.5
Traffic Report Preparation; this step involves the presentation of collected data and its
analysis results in accordance with standard procedure.
Organization of Report
This report is organized in a functional layout spread over 6 main sections. The
section 1 is an introductory section which provides the overall project perspective and
also gives idea about this traffic study i.e. its objectives and methodology. Section 2
describes the type of survey involves in collecting required data and its collection
methodology. Section 3 depicts the primary data analysis such as estimation of
anticipated traffic volume on proposed expressway and further estimation of DDHV
for operation analysis. Traffic forecasting has been discussed in section 4 and section
5 describes the operational analysis procedure along with year-wise level of service
determination at 3 points of proposed express way. Section 6 discusses the conclusion
drawn for this traffic study and is followed by the annexure to the report.
Page 4
Background
Data Collection
Traffic Surveys
Data Analysis
Anticipation of Traffic
Traffic Volume Analysis
Conclusion
Operational Analysis
Report Writing
Page 5
2.0
2.1
2.1
Jamrud Station
Gulsher Village
Mechani Station
Mini
Bus
Bus /
Coasters
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
Trucks
2axle
3axle
4-axle
(Coupled)
Trailers
4axle
5axle
6-axle
Page 6
LOCATION MAP
SHODANI
FIG No.03
3.0
3.1
3.2
Station Name
At Jamrud Station
8752
5415
At Mechani Post
3336
Page 7
Table 2 presents the average of daily traffic volume counted for three days. In
addition to this it can be seemed from the table that at Jamrud station the ADT is
higher from others two and further at Gul Sher village which is lie in between Jamrud
and Mechani the ADT is lower than jamrud and higher than Mechani post. This can
be explained with the statement that the traffic volume is diverged before reaching at
Gul Sher from Jamrud and same was happened in between Gulsher and Mechani. The
above statement can be more understandable with the geographic location of these
stations marked on the map. The daily variation of volume at these three stations is
shown from Figure 4.
Traffic flow variation w ith tim e of day
800
700
600
Gul sher
500
Mechani
400
Jamrud
300
200
100
3.3
Tim e of Day
Operational Analysis
Economic and Financial Feasibility
Establishment of Pavement Design Criteria
Page 8
1st Case:
In the first case it is assumed that all the traffic volume will be shifted to propose
expressway this means the anticipated traffic volume (vehicles per day) will remain same
as mentioned in table 2. It is worthwhile to discuss the justification why it is considered
that the whole traffic volume will be shifted towards new expressway, however; in
general it is not realistic approach. The subject matter behind this assumption that
proposed expressway alignment is such that it will passes through many new heavy
populated local localities where existing road doesnt provide any service i.e. Ganj Garhi,
Wauch Gagrai, Labba and Shodanai. Because of that it is assumed that proposed
expressway will generate equal amount of local passenger travel modes (Wagons,
Minibuses and Buses) in order to serve the movements of identified localities.
Furthermore, the geometric conditions, which are speed, pavement conditions and
provision of medians, of expressway is such that it will definitely attract that much
amount of traffic volume whose origin or destination in either direction is Peshawar and
Torkham. This case may serve as critical case, as operational analysis results obtained
from this case are acceptable then it means that proposed alignment and geometric
parameters of expressway is such that it should satisfy the second case.
2nd Case:
In this case it is assumed that only 30% of traffic volume related to modes i.e. Cars, vans,
Pickups, Buses and Minibuses will be used the proposed expressway, all other modes
which are classified as heavy vehicles assumed to be used the proposed expressway. The
reason behind this assumption is that these travel modes are mostly used for passenger
movements from localities near existing roads. This case is simpler in its appearance but
it will be best suitable case for toll analysis or in other words to estimate expected
benefits from the project. Thus this case will help analyzing economic and financial
feasibility of the project as in this case the traffic volume assumed is lower than other
cases so the benefits estimated from this anticipated traffic volume will also come lower
than other cases. In this way this case will guides the economic and financial viability
about the proposed expressway. The estimation of anticipated traffic in this case can be
summarized as follows
Table 3:
Station Name
At Jamrud Station
3708
2532
At Mechani Post
1587
Page 9
3rd Case:
This case is the extension of 2nd case as it is assumed in this case that additional 10% of
the traffic will be attracted to use the proposed expressway and to remain on the safer side
this additional 10% of traffic volume is assumed for heavy vehicle categories in equal
proportion. This case relates with the background that how much will be the attracted
traffic volume on the proposed expressway keeping in view the international trade related
traffic volume. In Pakistan, NHA have developed a series of good road network in such a
fashion that it is connected by all potential traffic generator points such that significant
harbours and dry ports (i.e. Gawadar, Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Islamabad).
Keeping in view the availability of good road network and smooth traffic operation with
no security hazards in Pakistan one can assumed that with the development of trade
relationship with Afghanistan and Central Asian countries the proposed expressway will
certainly attract good amount of traffic volume. In addition to this, as Pakistan possess
comparatively better security conditions than Afghanistan the transport stakeholders will
prefer shorter travel route in Afghanistan to enter in Pakistan and if it is the case,
according to geographical location of Central Asian countries, Afghanistan and Torkahm
Border of Pakistan, this whole amount of traffic volume will be attracted towards
Peshawar-Torkham expressway and then go onward at any destination in Pakistan or
across Pakistan. Furthermore, this expressway along with the connection of IslamabadLahore motorway provides an economically viable route for goods movements from
Central Asian countries and India or vice versa.
This means the provision of proposed expressway will definitely attract or generate more
traffic volume especially in heavy vehicle categories. The above discussion provides solid
reason for developing 3rd case for anticipated traffic volume. Additionally, this case may
serves as critical or in other words best suitable for determining axle load for pavement
designing. The estimation of traffic volume anticipated for this case is presented in
Table-4.
Table 4:
Station Name
At Jamrud Station
3880
2661
At Mechani Post
1671
Page 10
3.4
Travel
Modes
Car/Jeeps/
Suzuki
Pickups &
Vans
PCE
Factor
1.0
Trucks
Trailers
Bus
Mini
Bus /
Coasters
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2axle
3axle
4-axle
(Coupled)
4axle
5axle
6axle
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
As the 15 minute interval traffic volume count is not available, the maximum flow
rate i.e. maximum hourly volume is taken as Peak hour volume and this quantity is
used for further calculations for determining the Design hourly volume (DHV). The
percentage factor k has been estimated in relation to daily volume and peak hour
volume. These factors later were used to convert ADT into DHV for further analysis.
The peak hour traffic volume is along with time of day is presented in Table 6 at all
three traffic volume counting stations.
Table 6:
Station Name
Hour of Day
At Jamrud Station
At Gul Sher Village
At Mechani Post
9:00 to 10:00 AM
10:00 to 11:00 AM
10:00 to 11:00 AM
Traffic Volume
(Vehicles / Hour)
709
511
356
Table 6 shows that the occurrence of peak hour in relation with traffic volume is
considerably earlier at Jamrud Station in comparison with other two stations. The
possible reason may be the distance of other two stations with Jamrud. This means
that peak hour traffic that passes through Jamrud station was reaching at other two
stations in one hour time frame. If the volume count of 15 minutes interval is
available then other reason for this variation in peak hour timings may be searched
out. The design hourly volume for the entire analysis period has been estimated i.e.
forecasted and the results of the same are presented in Annexure.
C:\Documents and Settings\bhanji\Desktop\For Email\Traffic Report.doc
Page 11
4.0
TRAFFIC FORECAST
Forecasting of traffic or in other terms projection of traffic volume trend in future
years is required for determination of operational condition of proposed expressway
for upcoming years. This forecasting mainly depends on growth rate of traffic which
in turn depends on socio-economic conditions prevailing in study area. The indicators
which are generally used to determine the growth rate are number of registered
vehicles, historic traffic data, and vehicle ownership and in case of this expressway,
trade relationship i.e. sales record of import and export between two countries plays
vital role in estimating growth rate. Fuel and tyres consumption record may serves as
good indicators for estimation of growth rates. The following paragraphs discuss the
methodology adopted for forecasting of traffic volume for operational analysis.
4.1
4.2
Vehicles
Motor
cycles
Cars
Mini Bus/
Coasters
Buses
Trucks
5.42
7.02
8.15
5.76
6.74
It is clearly visible from the table 7 that the growth rate for heavy vehicles is around
7%, as in this case of proposed expressway between Peshawar and Torkham heavy
traffic is mostly expected to use this facility, so for convenient in analysis linear
growth rate of 7% is assumed for all vehicles categories and for whole analysis period
as well. The damping factors here are not considered because it is expected that in
future the traffic volume will serve by this road may be higher due to inter trade
relationship of Pakistan with Afghanistan and other central Asian countries.
C:\Documents and Settings\bhanji\Desktop\For Email\Traffic Report.doc
Page 12
4.3
Page 13
5.0
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The capacity analysis of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a
moving stream of vehicles in a most diligent way. There are basically two procedures
adopted for capacity analysis which are as follows
1)
2)
Operational Analysis
Design Analysis
Operational Analysis
Operational analysis was carried out for three cases of anticipated traffic volume
condition for proposed expressway on the basis of the procedures outlined in the
Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board USA.
The tables in the annexure present operational conditions of proposed expressway on
yearly basis. For Jamrud traffic volume operational analysis has been performed using
design speed equals to 50 mph (80 kmh) and for Gulsher and Mechani post traffic
volume design speed was taken as 32 mph (50 kmh). Certain logical assumptions
were also made while performing operational analysis; these assumptions are
discussed as follows
1.
It is assumed that 90% of vehicle drivers are commuters i.e. only 10% of traffic
volume was assumed for recreational population.
2.
The Directional factor was assumed to be 0.60 in peak hour traffic conditions
The summarized results of the operational analysis are presented in annexure. The
most critical case about anticipated traffic volume condition has come out to be the
first case in which at Jamrud section the level of service condition will reach at level
E at fourth last year of its 20 years of life span. However, for other stations level
service will not fall from level D.
Page 14
6.0
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of this traffic study the following is concluded:
The proposed geometric design parameters i.e. design speed and number of
lanes found to sufficient for the proposed expressway in respect of Level of
service criteria.
The one of the major advantage of the proposed expressway is that it will
carry the load of heavy traffic and resulting in good operational conditions of
the existing road link between Peshawar and Torkham. This will facilitate both
as heavy vehicle traffic and Passenger movement traffic onwards Peshawar.
The 1st case comes out to be more critical in terms of operational analysis, 2nd
case provide an useful estimate of benefits for financial analysis and the 3rd
case proved to be the critical case in pavement designing circumstances.
Page 15
TABLES
TABLE A-1(a)
Road Length:
Weather:
Bus
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
15
44
60
41
41
70
74
47
43
37
21
19
13
12
11
10
9
7
5
4
9
11
11
16
630
170
108
123
97
120
102
90
111
123
108
50
48
33
24
27
16
13
12
9
9
24
36
24
84
1558
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trucks
48 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
32
14
26
2
1
8
1
7
13
8
10
7
23
15
13
13
11
7
6
5
15
23
17
27
304
15
11
19
4
4
1
4
6
7
3
1
2
5
9
8
6
3
2
1
1
11
27
5
15
169
6
17
21
26
24
28
26
30
24
17
15
22
21
18
19
17
14
10
8
10
19
20
16
25
452
0
9
9
8
30
15
7
9
0
0
0
9
10
9
8
8
7
5
4
3
5
5
7
8
175
2
5
17
19
16
40
12
8
2
2
0
13
15
14
13
12
10
7
6
4
9
10
10
13
259
2
26
15
22
12
15
15
6
8
5
6
12
12
6
6
5
4
3
2
5
12
13
4
8
224
482
579
703
633
622
582
601
596
619
598
357
309
235
174
115
93
82
52
40
42
113
167
119
276
8186
Jamrud Station
(14th February 2005)
Trailer 658
(8%)
Trucks 925
(11%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups 1558
(19%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups
& Vans 4416
(54%)
Bus 630
(8%)
Bus
240
358
355
326
353
270
289
306
385
235
253
166
106
65
10
6
10
0
0
1
10
22
23
76
3862
15
63
56
57
59
55
42
33
46
58
31
21
14
11
11
10
9
6
5
4
8
10
11
16
649
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups
170
142
128
108
98
74
115
89
103
101
87
47
31
23
25
15
12
11
8
9
22
34
23
79
1555
TABLE A-1(b)
Road Length:
Weather:
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
32
21
20
15
12
15
6
4
4
13
9
7
1
14
13
13
10
7
5
5
14
22
16
26
303
15
12
13
10
5
10
5
10
4
6
5
1
2
8
7
5
3
2
1
1
10
26
5
14
180
6
32
20
15
16
24
11
9
4
14
12
7
5
17
18
16
14
9
7
9
18
19
15
24
341
0
13
22
24
23
22
10
9
19
15
9
11
4
9
8
8
7
5
4
3
5
5
7
8
247
10
14
15
11
7
21
14
16
10
13
6
0
3
13
13
12
9
7
5
4
9
10
9
13
242
20
28
20
17
17
23
16
6
12
10
12
5
0
6
6
5
4
3
2
5
11
12
4
7
251
508
683
649
583
590
514
508
482
587
465
424
265
166
166
109
88
77
49
38
39
107
158
113
262
7631
Jamrud Station
(15th February 2005)
Trailer, 740
(10%)
Trucks, 825
(11%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1555
(20%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 3862
(50%)
Bus, 649
(9%)
Bus
360
438
413
362
390
325
367
447
387
330
221
126
93
71
11
6
11
0
0
1
11
24
25
84
4502
23
70
49
59
75
43
71
75
54
69
58
44
19
12
12
11
10
7
5
4
9
11
12
17
818
Mini Bus/
Tractor/
Coaster/ Flying
Tractor
Coach/ Toyota
Trolley
Pickups
255
0
121
0
104
0
118
0
122
0
75
0
125
0
146
0
152
0
140
0
88
0
61
0
30
0
26
0
28
0
16
0
14
0
12
0
9
0
10
0
25
0
37
0
25
0
88
0
1826
0
TABLE A-1(c)
Road Length:
Weather:
Trucks
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
48
7
5
9
10
10
13
16
13
19
14
7
7
15
14
14
11
7
6
5
16
24
18
29
337
23
9
6
3
4
5
7
8
7
0
0
3
4
9
8
6
4
2
1
1
12
28
6
15
170
9
43
22
29
21
12
27
18
16
13
14
11
12
19
20
18
15
10
8
10
19
20
17
26
431
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
0
29
20
31
24
15
25
22
56
18
12
9
6
9
8
8
7
5
4
3
5
5
7
8
339
15
28
13
27
17
15
20
22
21
14
14
6
6
14
14
13
10
7
6
4
9
11
10
14
331
30
48
36
86
22
28
19
19
22
10
12
10
9
7
6
5
4
3
3
5
13
14
4
8
423
Total
Traffic Per
Hour
762
793
668
724
685
528
674
773
728
613
433
277
186
183
121
98
86
54
42
44
118
175
124
290
9178
Jamrud Station
(16th February 2005)
Trailer, 1093
(12%)
Trucks, 938
(10%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1826
(20%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 4502
(49%)
Bus, 818
(9%)
Bus
12
18
16
15
5
23
18
15
13
12
17
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
6
181
Mini Bus/
Coaster/
Flying
Coach/
157
182
172
152
52
160
172
170
168
150
108
33
16
9
13
2
1
3
2
4
15
27
12
70
1850
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
TABLE - A-2(a)
Road Length:
Weather:
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
30
24
16
23
3
26
27
32
26
23
15
11
9
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
8
16
7
16
320
52
27
21
9
5
23
15
15
12
21
20
7
7
7
6
4
2
1
0
0
10
26
4
13
307
15
17
18
6
4
11
8
6
5
7
10
1
2
1
4
2
1
0
0
4
9
10
3
10
154
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
7
9
4
0
7
1
2
4
0
7
3
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
68
7
17
25
14
1
24
1
2
5
5
19
1
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
9
10
0
3
154
447
448
429
346
115
410
462
482
372
335
279
115
83
34
39
17
15
4
2
13
65
119
52
200
4883
Trucks, 781
(16%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 3
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1850
(38%)
Trailer, 223
(5%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 1845
(37%)
Bus, 181
(4%)
11-Jan-05
Time
From - To
8:00 - 9:00 A.M.
9:00 - 10:00 A.M.
10:00 - 11:00 A.M
11:00 - 12:00 Noo
12:00 - 1:00 P.M.
1:00 - 2:00 P.M.
2:00 - 3:00 P.M.
3:00 - 4:00 P.M.
4:00 - 5:00 P.M.
5:00 - 6:00 P.M.
6:00 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 - 8:00 P.M.
8:00 - 9:00 P.M.
9:00 - 10:00 P.M.
10:00 - 11:00 P.M
11:00 - 12:00 Mid
12:00 - 1:00 A.M.
1:00 - 2:00 A.M
2:00 - 3:00 A.M.
3:00 - 4:00 A.M.
4:00 - 5:00 A.M.
5:00 - 6:00 A.M.
6:00 - 7:00 A.M.
7:00 - 8:00 A.M.
Total
Day
TABLE - A-2(b)
Tuesday
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups
& Vans
Bus
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
179
165
195
172
166
160
171
173
151
130
99
68
48
22
15
9
12
1
0
3
12
18
30
70
2069
17
19
22
22
17
17
15
14
14
13
15
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
4
10
212
168
194
181
132
183
145
152
143
140
133
83
40
21
6
10
4
2
2
4
5
13
29
39
126
1955
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
Weather:
Trailer
Trucks
Sunny Day
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
32
34
26
22
37
29
52
21
30
19
17
9
10
3
3
2
0
0
0
2
7
18
21
20
414
60
33
21
31
19
20
30
16
9
30
23
10
8
4
7
6
2
0
0
1
8
26
9
38
411
21
26
24
20
8
4
14
4
6
3
8
2
0
2
5
3
1
0
0
0
6
15
4
8
184
0
4
3
2
0
0
1
4
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
21
16
10
17
6
3
5
2
5
4
2
11
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
3
6
103
18
26
39
19
21
4
5
6
8
8
14
4
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
20
22
16
245
511
512
529
426
454
384
442
386
364
338
273
138
93
40
45
24
17
3
4
11
55
139
134
295
5617
Trucks, 1009
(18%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 3,
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1955
(35%)
Trailer, 369
(7%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 2069
(36%)
Bus, 212
(4%)
Bus
183
151
200
158
136
145
170
190
140
117
75
60
38
25
12
5
16
0
0
2
8
22
27
68
1948
20
17
24
19
16
22
14
15
19
15
17
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
9
12
235
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups
161
198
202
161
172
139
151
140
162
143
93
43
34
8
12
3
0
4
1
6
16
29
97
85
2060
TABLE - A-2(c)
Road Length:
Weather:
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
33
37
29
25
36
27
52
28
26
25
19
13
7
4
5
6
2
0
1
0
7
15
23
16
436
57
35
26
34
14
27
24
15
10
29
18
6
9
11
7
2
1
0
0
0
16
27
24
48
440
19
25
23
18
17
13
11
7
7
5
2
12
3
3
5
2
0
0
0
5
12
9
5
9
212
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
22
18
11
22
7
4
8
3
6
6
1
0
3
9
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
9
3
126
20
26
49
17
23
11
9
8
12
16
6
8
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
7
11
13
7
9
261
Total
Traffic Per
Hour
517
503
575
439
419
392
434
413
382
352
230
154
103
63
43
18
19
4
2
22
79
124
206
252
5745
Trailer, 409
(7%)
Trucks, 1088
(19%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 1948
(34%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 5
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 2060
(36%)
Bus, 235
(4%)
TABLE - A-3(a)
Road Length:
Weather:
Bus
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
1
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
148
157
176
130
147
119
125
94
90
50
45
22
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
46
93
1457
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
9
13
7
16
2
10
8
8
5
15
20
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
127
35
40
29
32
14
10
9
17
23
10
43
12
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
13
30
325
11
15
2
9
3
1
10
4
5
8
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
83
1
3
9
2
4
0
7
1
2
2
4
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
10
4
6
6
1
1
4
2
1
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
45
15
18
20
31
12
15
2
3
10
4
2
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12
158
307
344
361
306
274
253
226
200
232
147
170
62
24
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
103
176
3203
Mechani Post
(10th January 2005)
Trucks, 535
(17%)
Trailer, 244
(8%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 954
(30%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
(0%)
Bus, 9
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1457
(45%)
TABLE - A-3(b)
Road Length:
Weather:
Bus
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
3
1
2
3
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
163
150
146
170
126
148
103
79
80
42
39
17
19
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
33
86
1407
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
11
7
16
14
4
12
5
4
8
10
14
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
120
32
38
26
44
18
6
27
11
29
15
36
7
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
20
41
358
9
9
4
22
3
1
6
2
4
9
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
78
4
1
6
7
1
2
3
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
33
7
6
2
9
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
43
18
25
19
41
16
9
10
2
7
4
1
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
13
199
326
313
346
409
249
298
214
166
221
135
127
53
26
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
95
205
3201
Mechani Post
(11th January 2005)
Trucks, 556
(17%)
Trailer, 275
(9%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 3
(0%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 946
(30%)
Bus, 14
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1407
(44%)
Bus
82
102
98
78
78
76
88
91
80
43
35
27
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
56
48
987
2
0
2
0
0
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups
165
186
179
146
139
162
153
150
140
70
47
29
6
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
36
95
1710
TABLE - A-3(c)
Road Length:
Weather:
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Trucks
22 KM
Sunny Day
Trailer
2-axle
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
Total Traffic
Per Hour
7
10
5
14
12
8
11
13
23
7
17
9
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
6
153
43
47
26
7
12
21
14
22
28
24
42
18
9
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
29
357
15
19
0
3
6
2
6
9
13
6
20
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
109
0
1
15
4
4
5
12
2
1
2
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
7
2
11
8
11
2
2
3
2
2
5
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
67
12
22
25
12
14
10
0
3
7
5
23
10
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
151
334
389
361
272
276
287
288
298
297
160
193
101
28
13
4
3
0
0
0
0
2
7
107
184
3604
Mechani Post
(12th January 2005)
Trucks, 619
(17%)
Trailer, 271
(8%)
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 6
(0%)
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups &
Vans, 987
(27%)
Bus, 11
(0%)
Mini Bus/
Coaster/ Flying
Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1710
(48%)
Time
From - To
Jamrud
Gul sher
Mekhani
700
492
322
709
488
349
687
511
356
658
404
329
648
329
266
554
395
279
608
446
243
633
427
221
661
373
250
573
342
147
413
261
163
284
136
72
196
93
26
138
46
13
124
42
102
20
89
17
55
44
46
15
118
66
179
127
203
131
102
331
249
188
Total
8752
5415
3336
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8752
5415
3336
Jamrud
Gul sher
Mekhani
Table A-5
Station Name
D Factor
Hour of Day
ADT
PHV
K Factor
DDHV
At Jamrud Station
60%
9:00 to 10:00 AM
8752
709
8%
425
60%
10:00 to 11:00 AM
5415
511
9%
307
At Mechani Post
60%
10:00 to 11:00 AM
3336
356
11%
214
Table A-6 - Average daily traffic volume for case 1 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Station
Volume
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
699
1646
4260
1748
3293
1954
209
1954
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans
Bus
4260
Trucks
Trailer
Total Daily
Traffic
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
315
173
408
254
277
299
8752
944
519
1428
888
1109
1347
15536
1955
390
386
183
15
99
220
5415
523
3910
1170
1158
642
51
396
990
10802
962
11
1525
133
347
90
42
52
169
3336
962
28
3049
400
1040
315
148
207
762
6921
Jamrud Post
PCE
Volume
PCE
Gul Sher
Village
Volume
Mechani Post
PCE
Table A-7 - Average daily traffic volume for case 2 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Station
Volume
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
210
494
1278
524
988
586
63
586
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans
Bus
1278
Trucks
Trailer
Total Daily
Traffic
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
315
173
408
254
277
299
3708
944
519
1428
888
1109
1347
9026
587
390
386
183
15
99
220
2532
157
1173
1170
1158
642
51
396
990
6331
289
457
133
347
90
42
52
169
1587
289
915
400
1040
315
148
207
762
4093
Jamrud Post
PCE
Volume
PCE
Gul Sher
Village
Volume
Mechani Post
PCE
Table A-8 - Average daily traffic volume for case 3 according to modes and their PCE estimation
Station
Volume
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
210
494
1278
524
988
586
63
586
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans
Bus
1278
Trucks
Trailer
Total Daily
Traffic
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
409
225
531
330
360
389
3880
1227
675
1857
1154
1442
1751
10896
587
507
502
238
19
129
286
2661
157
1173
1521
1505
834
67
515
1287
7653
289
457
173
451
117
55
67
220
1671
289
915
520
1352
410
193
269
991
4954
Jamrud Post
PCE
Volume
PCE
Gul Sher
Village
Volume
Mechani Post
PCE
Time
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups
& Vans
Bus
Jamrud Post
380.33
Station
Trucks
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
59.00
123.67
0.00
182.33
20.67
185.00
111.33
1.33
167.00
Trailer
Total Peak
Hour Traffic
DDHV
34.00
685.00
342.50
16.00
37.67
511.00
255.50
6.33
21.33
356.00
178.00
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
14.00
10.67
30.67
17.00
15.67
0.33
23.67
22.67
21.67
1.00
0.33
9.33
27.00
2.00
10.00
Time
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups
& Vans
Bus
Jamrud Post
114.10
Station
Trucks
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
17.70
37.10
0.00
54.70
6.20
55.50
33.40
0.40
50.10
Trailer
Total Peak
Hour Traffic
DDHV
34.00
290.90
145.45
16.00
37.67
239.17
119.58
6.33
21.33
160.00
80.00
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
14.00
10.67
30.67
17.00
15.67
0.10
23.67
22.67
21.67
1.00
0.10
9.33
27.00
2.00
10.00
Time
Cars/Jeeps/
Suzuki Pickups
& Vans
Bus
Jamrud Post
114.1
Station
Trucks
Tractor/
Tractor
Trolley
2-axle
17.7
37.1
54.7
6.2
55.5
33.4
0.4
50.1
Trailer
Total Peak
Hour Traffic
DDHV
44.20
327.50
163.75
20.80
48.97
275.97
137.98
8.23
27.73
182.80
91.40
3-axle
4- axle
(Coupled)
4-axle
5-axle
6- axle
18.20
13.87
39.87
22.10
20.37
0.1
30.77
29.47
28.17
1.30
0.1
12.13
35.10
2.60
13.00
Table A-10 (a) : Opearational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Case 1 anticipated traffic volume
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.412
Years
Commulative years
Volume
Volume / Capacity
LOS
2005
343
0.237
2006
366
0.253
2007
392
0.271
2008
420
0.290
2009
449
0.310
2010
480
0.332
2011
514
0.355
2012
550
0.380
2013
588
0.407
2014
10
630
0.435
2015
11
674
0.466
2016
12
721
0.498
2017
13
771
0.533
2018
14
825
0.571
2019
15
883
0.611
2020
16
945
0.653
2021
17
1011
0.699
2022
18
1082
0.748
2023
19
1158
0.800
2024
20
1239
0.856
2025
21
1325
0.916
2026
22
1418
0.980
2027
23
1517
0.981
2028
24
1624
0.986
* Capacity Analysis has been performed using Table given in Traffic Engineering by McShane
* The shaded line is considered as Opening year of the Proposed project
Table A-10 (b) : Opearational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Case 2 anticipated traffic volume
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.325
Years
Commulative years
Volume
Volume / Capacity
LOS
2005
145
0.127
2006
156
0.136
2007
167
0.146
2008
178
0.156
2009
191
0.167
2010
204
0.179
2011
218
0.191
2012
234
0.205
2013
250
0.219
2014
10
267
0.234
2015
11
286
0.251
2016
12
306
0.268
2017
13
328
0.287
2018
14
351
0.307
2019
15
375
0.328
2020
16
401
0.351
2021
17
429
0.376
2022
18
459
0.402
2023
19
492
0.431
2024
20
526
0.461
2025
21
563
0.493
2026
22
602
0.527
2027
23
644
0.564
2028
24
690
0.604
Table A-10 (c) : Opearational Analysis at Jamrud Section for Case 3 anticipated traffic volume
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv= 0.428
Years
Commulative years
Volume
Volume / Capacity
LOS
2005
164
0.109
2006
175
0.117
2007
187
0.125
2008
201
0.133
2009
215
0.143
2010
230
0.153
2011
246
0.164
2012
263
0.175
2013
281
0.187
2014
10
301
0.200
2015
11
322
0.214
2016
12
345
0.229
2017
13
369
0.245
2018
14
395
0.263
2019
15
422
0.281
2020
16
452
0.301
2021
17
483
0.322
2022
18
517
0.344
2023
19
553
0.368
2024
20
592
0.394
2025
21
634
0.422
2026
22
678
0.451
2027
23
725
0.483
2028
24
776
0.517
Table A-11(a) : Opearational Analysis at Gulsher village Section for Anticipated Volume Case 1
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.38
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
256
0.191
2006
273
0.204
2007
293
0.218
2008
313
0.233
2009
335
0.250
2010
358
0.267
2011
383
0.286
2012
410
0.306
2013
439
0.327
2014
10
470
0.350
2015
11
503
0.375
2016
12
538
0.401
2017
13
575
0.429
2018
14
616
0.459
2019
15
659
0.491
2020
16
705
0.526
2021
17
754
0.563
2022
18
807
0.602
2023
19
864
0.644
2024
20
924
0.689
2025
21
989
0.737
2026
22
1058
0.789
2027
23
1132
0.844
2028
24
1211
0.903
* Capacity Analysis has been performed using Table given in Traffic Engineering by McShane
* The shaded line is considered as Opening year of the Proposed project
Table A-11 (b) : Opearational Analysis at Gulsher village Section for Anticipated Volume Case 2
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv= 0.31
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
120
0.109
2006
128
0.117
2007
137
0.125
2008
146
0.134
2009
157
0.143
2010
168
0.153
2011
179
0.164
2012
192
0.175
2013
205
0.188
2014
10
220
0.201
2015
11
235
0.215
2016
12
252
0.230
2017
13
269
0.246
2018
14
288
0.263
2019
15
308
0.282
2020
16
330
0.301
2021
17
353
0.322
2022
18
378
0.345
2023
19
404
0.369
2024
20
432
0.395
2025
21
463
0.422
2026
22
495
0.452
2027
23
530
0.484
2028
24
567
0.518
Table A-11 (c) : Opearational Analysis at Gulsher village Section for Anticipated Volume Case 3
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.41
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
138
0.094
2006
148
0.101
2007
158
0.108
2008
169
0.115
2009
181
0.124
2010
194
0.132
2011
207
0.141
2012
222
0.151
2013
237
0.162
2014
10
254
0.173
2015
11
271
0.185
2016
12
290
0.198
2017
13
311
0.212
2018
14
333
0.227
2019
15
356
0.243
2020
16
381
0.260
2021
17
407
0.278
2022
18
436
0.298
2023
19
466
0.318
2024
20
499
0.341
2025
21
534
0.365
2026
22
571
0.390
2027
23
611
0.417
2028
24
654
0.447
Table A-12 (a) : Opearational Analysis at Mechani post forl Anticipated Volume Case 1
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv= 0.401
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
178
0.126
2006
190
0.135
2007
204
0.144
2008
218
0.155
2009
233
0.165
2010
250
0.177
2011
267
0.189
2012
286
0.203
2013
306
0.217
2014
10
327
0.232
2015
11
350
0.248
2016
12
375
0.266
2017
13
401
0.284
2018
14
429
0.304
2019
15
459
0.325
2020
16
491
0.348
2021
17
525
0.373
2022
18
562
0.399
2023
19
602
0.426
2024
20
644
0.456
2025
21
689
0.488
2026
22
737
0.522
2027
23
789
0.559
2028
24
844
0.598
* Capacity Analysis has been performed using Table given in Traffic Engineering by McShane
* The shaded line is considered as Opening year of the Proposed project
Table A-12 (b) : Opearational Analysis at Mechani post forl Anticipated Volume Case 2
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.352
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
80
0.070
2006
86
0.075
2007
92
0.080
2008
98
0.085
2009
105
0.091
2010
112
0.098
2011
120
0.105
2012
128
0.112
2013
137
0.120
2014
10
147
0.128
2015
11
157
0.137
2016
12
168
0.147
2017
13
180
0.157
2018
14
193
0.168
2019
15
206
0.180
2020
16
221
0.192
2021
17
236
0.206
2022
18
253
0.220
2023
19
270
0.235
2024
20
289
0.252
2025
21
310
0.269
2026
22
331
0.288
2027
23
354
0.309
2028
24
379
0.330
Table A-12 (c) : Opearational Analysis at Mechani post forl Anticipated Volume Case 3
C= 1950 veh/hr
fhv=0.452
Years
Commulative years
Volume
V/C Ratio
LOS
2005
91
0.058
2006
98
0.062
2007
105
0.066
2008
112
0.070
2009
120
0.075
2010
128
0.081
2011
137
0.086
2012
147
0.092
2013
157
0.099
2014
10
168
0.106
2015
11
180
0.113
2016
12
192
0.121
2017
13
206
0.130
2018
14
220
0.139
2019
15
236
0.148
2020
16
252
0.159
2021
17
270
0.170
2022
18
289
0.182
2023
19
309
0.194
2024
20
331
0.208
2025
21
354
0.223
2026
22
378
0.238
2027
23
405
0.255
2028
24
433
0.273
FIGURES
Figure A-1: Anticipated Traffic Volume per day at Jamrud Station for Case 1
4- axle (Coupled),
408
4-axle
Trailer, 254
3-axle, 173
5-axle, 277
6- axle, 299
2-axle
Trucks, 315
Tractor
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans,
4260
Figure A-2: Average daily traffic volume for case 2 at Jamrud Station
6- axle, 299
5-axle, 277
4-axle
Trailer, 254
4- axle (Coupled),
408
3-axle, 173
2-axle
Trucks, 315
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 0
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans,
1278
Bus, 210
Mini Bus/ Coaster/
Flying Coach/
Toyota Pickups, 494
Figure A-3: Average daily traffic volume for case 3 at Jamrud Station
6- axle, 389
5-axle, 360
4-axle
Trailer, 330
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans,
1278
4- axle (Coupled),
531
Bus, 210
3-axle, 225
2-axle
Trucks, 409
Figure A-4: Average daily traffic volume for case 1 at GulSher Village
4- axle (Coupled),
183
4-axle
Trailer, 15
5-axle, 99
6- axle, 220
3-axle, 386
2-axle
Trucks, 390
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans,
1954
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
Bus, 209
Figure A-5: Average daily traffic volume for case 2 at GulSher Village
6- axle, 220
5-axle, 99
4-axle
Trailer, 15
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans, 586
4- axle (Coupled),
183
Bus, 63
3-axle, 386
2-axle
Trucks, 390
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
6- axle, 286
5-axle, 129
4-axle
Trailer, 19
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans, 586
4- axle (Coupled),
238
Bus, 63
3-axle, 502
2-axle
Trucks, 507
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
5-axle, 52
6- axle, 169
4- axle (Coupled), 90
3-axle, 347
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans, 962
2-axle
Trucks, 133
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
Bus, 11
Mini Bus/ Coaster/
Flying Coach/ Toyota
Pickups, 1525
Figure A-8: Average daily traffic volume for case 2 at Mechani Station
5-axle, 52
6- axle, 169
4-axle
Trailer, 42
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans, 289
Bus, 13
4- axle (Coupled), 90
3-axle, 347
2-axle
Trucks, 133
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4
Figure A-9: Average daily traffic volume for case 3 at Mechani Station
6- axle, 220
4-axle
5-axle, 67
Trailer, 55
Cars/Jeeps/ Suzuki
Pickups & Vans, 289
- axle (Coupled),
117
Bus, 3
3-axle, 451
2-axle
Trucks, 173
Tractor/ Tractor
Trolley, 4