LESSON 6.5 — Transportation Planning Basics (Part A Level)
A. Standard Map
| Topic | Governing Source | Exam Focus |
|---|---|---|
| A — Planning vs. Traffic Engineering | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| B — NUTP 2006: The Policy Backbone | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| C — The Four-Step Travel Demand Model | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| D — PCU vs. ECS: The Critical Distinction | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| E — Level of Service | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| F — Road Hierarchy | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
| G — Mass Transit: Mode Comparison | NBC 2016 / CPHEEO / URDPFI / IRC | MCQ, NAT, code recall |
B. Why It’s Used
Transportation planning provides the analytical framework for forecasting travel demand, designing road networks, and evaluating modal split targets at city scale. GATE AR tests the four-step travel demand model (sequence), PCU values (URDPFI 2014), Level of Service (LOS) grades (A–F), and NUTP 2006 policy provisions as MCQ and NAT questions. PCU vs ECS is a high-frequency exam trap — they measure fundamentally different things and their values differ.
C. Mechanism in Words
- These two disciplines are frequently conflated in exam answers. The distinction is not cosmetic — it determines which tools, time horizons, and policy instruments apply. | Basis | Transportation Planning | Traffic Engineering | |—|—|—| | Scope | Strategic: determines what TYPE of infrastructure is needed and WHERE | Operational: determines GEOMETRY and CONTROL of existing infrastructure to maximise safety and throughput | | Time horizon | 20–30 years (aligned with Master Plan and Regional Plan cycles) | 1–5 years (signal retiming, intersection redesign, lane management) | | Primary questions | Where should the metro line go? What modal split should the city target in 2041? How much road capacity will be needed? | What signal timing reduces delay at this intersection? Where should turning lanes be added? What lane configuration best handles today’s peak demand? | | Primary method | Demand modelling (four-step model, gravity model, logit model) | Capacity-LOS analysis, signal design, geometric design | | Primary output | Transport Master Plan; Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) | Traffic Impact Assessment; signal timing plan; geometric design | | Governing document (India) | National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) 2006 | IRC codes (IRC 86, 93, 106); MoRTH Specifications | > GATE MCQ trigger phrase: “20-year transport forecast” or “modal split target for 2041” → Transportation Planning. “Signal cycle optimisation for today’s peak” or “turning lane addition at a junction” → Traffic Engineering.
D. Core Concept Explanations
D1. A — Planning vs. Traffic Engineering
These two disciplines are frequently conflated in exam answers. The distinction is not cosmetic — it determines which tools, time horizons, and policy instruments apply.
| Basis | Transportation Planning | Traffic Engineering |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Strategic: determines what TYPE of infrastructure is needed and WHERE | Operational: determines GEOMETRY and CONTROL of existing infrastructure to maximise safety and throughput |
| Time horizon | 20–30 years (aligned with Master Plan and Regional Plan cycles) | 1–5 years (signal retiming, intersection redesign, lane management) |
| Primary questions | Where should the metro line go? What modal split should the city target in 2041? How much road capacity will be needed? | What signal timing reduces delay at this intersection? Where should turning lanes be added? What lane configuration best handles today’s peak demand? |
| Primary method | Demand modelling (four-step model, gravity model, logit model) | Capacity-LOS analysis, signal design, geometric design |
| Primary output | Transport Master Plan; Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) | Traffic Impact Assessment; signal timing plan; geometric design |
| Governing document (India) | National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) 2006 | IRC codes (IRC 86, 93, 106); MoRTH Specifications |
GATE MCQ trigger phrase: “20-year transport forecast” or “modal split target for 2041” → Transportation Planning. “Signal cycle optimisation for today’s peak” or “turning lane addition at a junction” → Traffic Engineering.
D2. B — NUTP 2006: The Policy Backbone
National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP), 2006 — Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India
NUTP 2006 is the primary national policy document governing urban transport in India. Every subsequent CMP, metro project DPR, BRT proposal, and NMT design guideline references NUTP 2006 as its policy authority.
Core principle: “Move people, not vehicles.”
This single sentence inverts the traditional road-engineering paradigm. Instead of maximising vehicle throughput on roads, NUTP 2006 directs planning toward maximising the number of people moved per unit of road space — which prioritises mass transit, walking, and cycling over private vehicles.
NUTP 2006 — Key Directives:
| Directive | Implication |
|---|---|
| Transport planning must precede land-use planning | CMPs must be prepared before Master Plan revisions; transport capacity determines permissible land-use intensity |
| Compact, mixed-use cities | Urban form must minimise trip lengths; sprawl is a transport failure |
| Corridor-based growth | Urban development should concentrate along transit corridors (buses, metro, BRT) to support public transport viability |
| Multi-modal integration | Seamless transfer between modes (metro → bus → NMT); no mode operates in isolation |
| Public transport priority | Bus lanes, signal priority, dedicated ROW for mass transit before private vehicle capacity expansion |
| NMT accommodation | Walking and cycling must be designed for as legitimate modes, not afterthoughts |
| Environmental assessment | Transport projects must assess and mitigate air quality, noise, and carbon impacts |
TOD cross-reference: NUTP 2006’s corridor-based compact city approach is the policy foundation for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). For the 800 m catchment radius, NMT placemaking, and TOD zoning depth, refer to the dedicated TOD section in Ch. 8.
D3. C — The Four-Step Travel Demand Model
The four-step model is the standard analytical framework used by all Indian metropolitan planning bodies (MMRDA, BMRCL, CMDA, etc.) to forecast future travel demand. It is the most frequently tested framework in GATE Architecture planning sections (tested 2023, 2021, 2017, 2009).
Mnemonic: GDMA — Generation → Distribution → Modal split → Assignment
D3.1. Full Four-Step Description
| Step | Name | Question Answered | Primary Method | Key Formula | GATE History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trip Generation | How many trips originate from and end in each traffic analysis zone? | Regression analysis; cross-classification; rate-based methods | Trip rate × zonal activity (households, employment, floor area) | 2021, 2024 |
| 2 | Trip Distribution | Where do these trips go? → produces Origin-Destination (O-D) matrix | Gravity Model (most common); Growth Factor methods | T_ij = P_i × (A_j × F_ij × K_ij) / Σ(A_k × F_ik × K_ik) | 2017, 2009 |
| 3 | Modal Split | Which mode does each trip use? (car, bus, metro, cycle, walk) | Logit Model (utility-based); diversion curves | P_i = e^(U_i) / Σe^(U_j) | 2025, 2006 |
| 4 | Traffic Assignment | Which route does each trip take through the network? | All-or-Nothing; User Equilibrium (Wardrop’s Principle) | Wardrop: no driver can reduce travel time by unilaterally switching routes | 2023, 2021 |
D3.2. Step-by-Step Mechanism Explained
Step 1 — Trip Generation: The number of trips produced by and attracted to a zone is estimated from land use characteristics. Typical Indian urban rates: 0.8–1.3 trips/person/day depending on city size and income level. Note: pedestrian and bicycle trips are typically excluded from four-step models — a known limitation of the standard framework.
Step 2 — Trip Distribution (Gravity Model): Modelled on Newton’s law of gravity — trips between two zones are directly proportional to their “attractiveness” (size, employment, facilities) and inversely proportional to the “friction” between them (travel time, cost, distance). The friction factor F_ij embeds the impedance function — higher friction = fewer trips between the pair.
Step 3 — Modal Split (Logit Model): The probability of choosing mode i depends on the utility U_i of that mode relative to all available modes. Utility is a composite function of: travel time (in-vehicle + access + wait), out-of-pocket cost, comfort, reliability, and frequency. Better utility → higher probability of choosing that mode.
Step 4 — Traffic Assignment: Wardrop’s First Principle (User Equilibrium): at equilibrium, no traveller can improve their travel time by unilaterally changing routes. Solved iteratively using the Frank-Wolfe algorithm. The All-or-Nothing assignment assigns all trips on a pair to the shortest path — simpler but unrealistic for congested networks.
D3.3. O-D Survey Methods (7 types)
The Origin-Destination survey collects the data that feeds Step 2. Seven recognised methods:
| Method | How It Works |
|---|---|
| Roadside Interview | Drivers/passengers stopped at cordon points; origins and destinations recorded directly |
| Home Interview | Households surveyed at home; all trips by all members recorded |
| Licence-Plate Match | Plates recorded at entry and exit points; matched to determine through-trips |
| Return Post Card | Card given to driver at cordon; mailed back with O-D information |
| Tag-on-Card (RFID/transit card) | Smart card transaction data used to derive O-D patterns on transit systems |
| Parking Survey | Origin/destination of parked vehicles recorded at off-street facilities |
| Work Spot Interview | Employees at major workplaces surveyed about home location and travel mode |
D4. D — PCU vs. ECS: The Critical Distinction
This is one of the highest-frequency GATE trap pairs. The two metrics are never interchangeable — they measure different phenomena for different purposes.
D4.1. Definitions
PCU — Passenger Car Unit (URDPFI 2014):
– Measures the dynamic traffic flow impact of a vehicle on road capacity
– Quantifies how much a vehicle impedes traffic flow relative to a standard passenger car
– Used for: road capacity analysis, signal design, V/C ratio calculation, LOS determination
– The PCU of a vehicle accounts for its speed, size, manoeuvrability, and the impedance it creates in a moving stream
ECS — Equivalent Car Space (URDPFI 2014):
– Measures the static parking space occupied by a vehicle relative to a standard car
– Quantifies the physical ground area required for a parked vehicle
– Used for: parking demand calculation, parking facility sizing, development control requirements
D4.2. PCU Values (URDPFI 2014)
| Vehicle Type | PCU |
|---|---|
| Passenger car, auto, tempo, jeep, van | 1.0 |
| Truck, bus, tractor-trailer | 3.0 |
| Motorcycle, scooter, bicycle | 0.5 |
| Cycle-rickshaw | 1.5 |
| Horse-drawn vehicle | 4.0 |
| Bullock cart | 5.0 |
| Hand cart | 6.0 |
D4.3. ECS Values (URDPFI 2014)
| Vehicle Type | ECS |
|---|---|
| Car / taxi | 1.00 |
| Two-wheeler | 0.25 |
| Auto-rickshaw | 0.50 |
| Bicycle | 0.10 |
| Rickshaw | 0.80 |
| Truck / bus | 2.50 |
| Emergency vehicle | 2.50 |
D4.4. The Core Distinction in One Table
| Attribute | PCU | ECS |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | Traffic flow impact (moving) | Parking space (stationary) |
| Application | Road capacity, V/C ratio, signal design | Parking demand, parking area calculation |
| Two-wheeler value | 0.5 | 0.25 |
| Truck value | 3.0 | 2.50 |
| Bullock cart | 5.0 | Not applicable (not parked) |
Exam trap: A question asks for the PCU of a truck. Answer: 3.0. If it asks for the ECS of a truck: 2.50. The values are different because they measure different things. A truck moving in traffic impedes flow equivalent to 3 cars; parked, it occupies 2.5 car spaces.
D5. E — Level of Service (LOS)
D5.1. LOS Framework (IRC 106 / HCM)
LOS grades traffic conditions from A (best) to F (worst) using the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio as the primary indicator. IRC 106 adopted this from the Highway Capacity Manual framework.
| LOS Grade | V/C Ratio | Traffic Condition | Speed (approx.) | Indian Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | < 0.35 | Free flow; full driver comfort and manoeuvrability | ≥ 50 km/h | New expressways off-peak; airport access roads |
| B | 0.35 – 0.54 | Reasonably free flow; minor restrictions | 45–50 km/h | Well-designed arterials off-peak |
| C | 0.54 – 0.77 | Stable flow with some restriction; acceptable | 35–45 km/h | IRC design target for new roads |
| D | 0.77 – 0.93 | Approaching unstable; noticeable delay | 25–35 km/h | Typical Indian arterial peak hour |
| E | 0.93 – 1.00 | Unstable; at or near capacity; stop-and-go | 15–25 km/h | Peak hour in million-plus cities |
| F | > 1.00 | Breakdown; queue grows indefinitely; gridlock | < 15 km/h | CBD peak hour; near railway crossings |
Design standards:
– IRC target for new road design: LOS C
– Plan for capacity upgrade when LOS reaches D
– LOS F = traffic breakdown; queue cannot clear within a signal cycle or study period
Fundamental traffic flow equation:
$$q = k times v$$
Where q = flow (veh/hr), k = density (veh/km), v = space mean speed (km/h)
D6. F — Road Hierarchy
D6.1. Six-Level Hierarchy (URDPFI 2014)
Urban roads perform two competing functions: mobility (moving vehicles efficiently over distance) and access (connecting directly to properties). Each level of the hierarchy balances these functions differently.
| Level | Road Type | Primary Function | Design Speed (km/h) | ROW (m) | Access Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Expressway | Through mobility; longest trips; highest speed | 80 | 50–60 | None (full access control) |
| 2 | Arterial | City-wide mobility; major traffic volumes | 50 | 50–80 | Restricted; no direct property access |
| 3 | Sub-Arterial | Inter-district mobility; feeds arterials | 50 | 30–50 | Limited; primarily at intersections |
| 4 | Distributor / Collector | Balance of mobility and access; feeds local streets to arterials | 30 | 12–30 | Some direct property access |
| 5 | Local Street | Neighbourhood access; through traffic discouraged | 10–20 | 12–20 | Frequent; traffic calming required |
| 6 | Access Street | Property access only; trip origin/destination points | 15 | 6–15 | Direct property connections |
Key principle: The higher the mobility function, the lower the access density. Mixing access and mobility on the same road (the most common failure in Indian city design) destroys both functions.
D6.2. Lane Width Standards
| Road Type | Car Lane | Bus Lane | Minimum Carriageway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expressway | 3.0–3.5 m | 3.5 m (segregated) | 6 lanes divided |
| Arterial | 3.0–3.5 m | 3.5 m (segregated) | 6 lanes divided |
| Sub-arterial | 3.0–3.5 m | 3.5 m | 4 lanes divided |
| Distributor | 3.0–3.5 m | Mixed | Max 4 lanes |
| Local / Access | 2.75–3.0 m | Not applicable | 1–2 lanes undivided |
National Highway ROW: 45 m normal; range 30–60 m depending on terrain (GATE 2024, 2017, 2005)
Single lane carriageway: 3.75 m (IRC standard — the most tested single road width in GATE)
D7. G — Mass Transit: Mode Comparison
D7.1. Technology Comparison (MoUD / IUT Reference Data)
| Parameter | Conventional Bus | BRT | LRT / Tram | Monorail | Metro Rail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity (PHPDT) | 2,000–8,000 | 8,000–25,000 | 10,000–30,000 | 5,000–10,000 | 40,000–75,000 |
| Right of Way | Shared mixed traffic | Dedicated segregated bus lane | Partially/fully segregated | Elevated guideway (straddle beam) | Fully grade-separated |
| Station spacing | 200–400 m | 400–800 m | 500–1,200 m | 500–1,000 m | 800–2,000 m |
| Capital cost/km | Very low | ₹50–150 crore | ₹150–300 crore | ₹150–250 crore | ₹250–600 crore (elevated); ₹500–1,200 crore (underground) |
| City population threshold | Any | 5–20 lakh | 5–20 lakh | 5–15 lakh | > 20 lakh |
| Corridor demand trigger | — | — | — | — | > 15,000 PHPDT (MoUD) |
| Indian examples | All cities | Ahmedabad Janmarg; Indore iBus | Kolkata Tram (heritage) | Mumbai Monorail (2014) | Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kochi, Jaipur |
PHPDT = Peak Hour Peak Direction Trips — passengers in the peak direction during the peak hour. The correct metric for sizing transit corridors.
D7.2. Key System Facts
BRT — Ahmedabad Janmarg (India’s benchmark BRT):
– Median alignment (bus lane at road centre, not kerb side)
– Level boarding (platform flush with bus floor → faster dwell time)
– RFID-based signal priority at intersections
– JNNURM funded; CEPT University designed
– Global pioneer: Curitiba, Brazil; World’s largest BRT: Bogota TransMilenio
Metro Rail — DMRC:
– Established 1995 under Companies Act
– Phase I (Red, Yellow, Blue lines): Broad gauge 1,676 mm (Indian Railways compatibility)
– Phase II and all subsequent phases: Standard gauge 1,435 mm
– 286+ km operational (2024)
– Last-mile connectivity critical: feeder buses, NMT, e-rickshaws, cycle sharing
Decision logic:
– Below 25,000 PHPDT → BRT appropriate
– 25,000–40,000 PHPDT → Decision zone (city-specific: ROW, finances, growth projections)
– Above 40,000 PHPDT → Metro necessary
D7.3. NMT — Non-Motorised Transport
NMT modes (walking, cycling, cycle-rickshaw) produce zero emissions, cause zero congestion, and support the NUTP “move people” principle.
| Road Type | Cycle Provision |
|---|---|
| Expressway | No cycling (speed differential too high) |
| Arterial / Sub-arterial | Segregated cycle track between carriageway and footpath |
| Distributor | Painted cycle lane |
| Local / Access | Mixed traffic with traffic calming |
Footpath widths (URDPFI 2014):
– Residential: 1.8 m
– Commercial: 2.5 m
– Shopping streets: 3.5–4.5 m
– High-intensity commercial: 4.0 m
E. Worked Numerical(s)
No standalone worked block in source; refer to tables and formulae in Section D.
F. Design Criteria
| Parameter | Value / Standard |
|---|---|
| Four-step model sequence | Trip Generation → Trip Distribution → Modal Split → Trip Assignment |
| PCU — Car / Motorcar | 1.0 (base unit) |
| PCU — Truck / Bus | 3.0 |
| PCU — Motorcycle / Scooter | 0.5 |
| PCU — Bicycle | 0.5 |
| PCU — Auto-rickshaw | 1.2 |
| PCU — Cycle-rickshaw | 2.0 |
| LOS A | Free flow; V/C < 0.35 |
| LOS B | Stable flow; V/C 0.35–0.54 |
| LOS C | Stable flow; some speed restriction; V/C 0.55–0.77 |
| LOS D | Approaching unstable; V/C 0.78–0.90 |
| LOS E | Unstable; V/C 0.91–1.00 |
| LOS F | Forced/breakdown flow; V/C > 1.00 |
| V/C ratio for design | ≤ 0.85 for urban arterials (IRC 106) |
Code Comparisons
| Framework / Code | Scope | Key Provision |
|---|---|---|
| NUTP 2006 | National Urban Transport Policy | Public transport priority; NMT rights; modal shift target; integrated land use–transport |
| IRC 106:1990 | Geometric design of urban roads | LOS A–F; V/C thresholds; lane capacity |
| URDPFI 2015 | PCU and ECS values for planning calculations | Car PCU=1.0; Truck PCU=3.0; Bicycle ECS=0.2 |
| HCM (US) | Highway Capacity Manual (reference) | LOS methodology; capacity analysis |
| BRT Standard | Global quality BRT parameters | Dedicated lanes; off-board fare; level boarding |
G. Application Zones
- City-level transport planning: Four-step model applied in comprehensive mobility plans (CMPs) for Indian cities
- Road design: LOS analysis determines whether additional capacity (lanes, flyovers) is warranted
- Signal design: PCU-based V/C ratios at intersections inform cycle length and green split
- GATE AR exam: MCQ — four-step model sequence; PCU value of a given vehicle type; LOS grade from V/C ratio; NUTP 2006 provisions
H. Common Confusions
See Section L — Exam Traps for high-frequency confusions tested in GATE AR services questions.
I. Compare & Contrast
| Parameter | PCU | ECS |
|---|---|---|
| Full form | Passenger Car Unit | Equivalent Car Space |
| Used for | Moving traffic: road capacity, V/C ratio, signal design | Parked vehicles: parking demand, parking area calculation |
| Car value | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Truck value | 3.0 | 2.50 |
| Bicycle value | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| GATE trap | Do NOT use PCU values for parking questions | Do NOT use ECS values for flow/capacity questions |
J. Memory Hooks
- Four-step sequence = GDMA: Generate → Distribute → Modal split → Assign
- PCU Car = 1.0 (the base); PCU Truck = 3× Car; PCU Motorcycle = half Car
- LOS F = Failure (forced/breakdown flow; V/C > 1.0)
- NUTP 2006 = “No Unlimited Traffic — Push public transport”
- V/C > 0.85 = design threshold for urban arterials; above this → capacity improvements needed
- PCU ≠ ECS: one is for moving traffic, the other for parked vehicles
K. Revision Ladder
| Step | What to revise | Exam relevance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Four-step model: Generation → Distribution → Modal Split → Assignment (in order) | GATE MCQ — sequence order most tested |
| 2 | PCU values: Car=1.0, Truck=3.0, Motorcycle=0.5, Auto=1.2, Cycle-rickshaw=2.0 | GATE MCQ/NAT |
| 3 | LOS grades A–F: V/C thresholds; LOS F = breakdown | GATE MCQ |
| 4 | PCU vs ECS distinction: flow vs parking; different numeric values | GATE MCQ — classic exam trap |
| 5 | NUTP 2006: public transport priority; NMT rights; modal shift | GATE MCQ |
| 6 | O-D survey methods: home interview, roadside interview, licence plate, cordon, screen line | GATE MCQ |
L. Exam Traps
Exam anchor: PCU vs ECS, BOD vs COD, wet vs dry riser, and treatment-stage sequence are the highest-frequency trap clusters in this lesson — review Section D tables.
M. Answer-Writing Cues
- State the governing code first (CPHEEO, NBC 2016, URDPFI, IRC).
- For NAT: show formula → substitution → unit → final value with units.
- For sequence MCQs: write the full chain before picking the option.
N. PYQ Integration (2007–2026 verified)
Citations verified against content/pyq/gate-ar/2021–2026 solution markdown. 2007–2020: question papers at content/pyq/gate-ar/PYQ-AR 2007 onwards/.
O. Mini-Check — Lesson 6.5 (5 Questions)
MSQ 1 — Four-Step Model
Which of the following statements about the four-step travel demand model are correct? (Select all that apply)
(A) Step 1 (Trip Generation) estimates the number of trips produced and attracted by each traffic analysis zone.
(B) The Gravity Model is the primary tool used in Step 3 (Modal Split).
(C) Step 4 (Traffic Assignment) determines which routes trips take through the network.
(D) The Logit Model assigns probabilities of mode choice based on relative utility of available modes.
(E) Pedestrian and bicycle trips are fully captured in the standard four-step model.
Answer: A, C, D
Rationale:
– (A) Correct — Step 1 definition.
– (B) Wrong — Gravity Model is used in Step 2 (Trip Distribution); Logit Model is used in Step 3 (Modal Split).
– (C) Correct — Step 4 definition.
– (D) Correct — Logit model definition.
– (E) Wrong — Pedestrian and bicycle trips are typically excluded from standard four-step models; this is a known limitation.
MSQ 2 — PCU vs. ECS
A transport engineer is designing a mixed-use development with 200 cars, 400 two-wheelers, and 50 trucks using the facility. Which of the following statements are correct?
(A) PCU is used to calculate the road capacity consumed by these vehicles in the moving traffic stream.
(B) ECS is used to calculate the parking area required for these vehicles.
(C) The two-wheeler PCU (0.5) and ECS (0.25) are the same value.
(D) A truck has a higher PCU than ECS value.
(E) ECS is the correct measure for sizing the multi-level parking structure serving this development.
Answer: A, B, D, E
Rationale:
– (A) Correct — PCU is for moving traffic capacity.
– (B) Correct — ECS is for parking calculations.
– (C) Wrong — Two-wheeler: PCU = 0.5; ECS = 0.25. Different values.
– (D) Correct — Truck PCU = 3.0; Truck ECS = 2.50; PCU > ECS for trucks.
– (E) Correct — Multi-level parking sizing uses ECS.
MCQ 1 — NUTP 2006
NUTP 2006 prioritises:
(A) Vehicle throughput (B) Moving people, not vehicles (C) Expressways first (D) Free CBD parking
Answer: (B)
MCQ 2 — Level of Service
LOS A represents:
(A) Breakdown (V/C > 1.0) (B) Free flow (V/C < 0.35) (C) IRC design target (D) Full parking occupancy
Answer: (B)
MCQ 3 — Road Hierarchy
Lowest-speed road providing direct property access:
(A) Arterial (B) Sub-arterial (C) Local/access (D) Expressway
Answer: (C)