Roundabouts Guide

CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Publication No.
FHWA-RD-00-067
FHWA Project Manager:
Joe Bared
[email protected]
202-493-3314
http://www.tfhrc.gov
Roundabouts
An Informational
Guide
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Queensland University of Technology
Ruhr-University Bochum
University of Florida
University of Idaho
Pennsylvania State University
Hurst-Rosche Engineers
Eppell Olsen & Partners
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
CONTENTS
Foreword
Roundabouts are a form of intersection control in common use throughout the world. Until recently, many
transportation professionals and agencies in the United States have been hesitant to recommend and
install roundabouts, however, due to a lack of objective nationwide guidelines on planning, performance,
and design of roundabouts. Prior to the development of this guide, transportation professionals who were
interested in roundabouts had to rely on foreign roundabout design guides, consultants with roundabout
experience, or in some States, statewide roundabout design guides. To facilitate safe, optimal operation
and designs that are both consistent at a national level and consequential for driver expectation and
safety, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed this informational guide on roundabouts.
The information supplied in this document, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, is based on established
international and U.S. practices and is supplemented by recent research. The guide is comprehensive in
recognition of the diverse needs of transportation professionals and the public for introductory material
through design detail, as well as the wide range of potential applications of roundabout intersections.
Roundabout operation and safety performance are particularly sensitive to geometric design elements.
Uncertainty regarding evaluation procedures can result in over-design and less safety. The design prob-
lem is essentially one of determining a design that will accommodate the traffic demand while minimizing
some combination of delay, crashes, and cost to all users, including motor vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists. Evaluation procedures are suggested, or information is provided, to quantify and cost how well
a design achieves each of these aims.
Since there is no absolutely optimum design, this guide is not intended as an inflexible rule book, but
rather attempts to explain some principles of good design and indicate potential tradeoffs. In this respect,
the design space consists of performance evaluation models and design principles such as those pro-
vided in this guide, combined with the expert heuristic knowledge of a designer. Adherence to these
principles still does not ensure good design, which remains the responsibility of the designer.
Michael F. Trentacoste
Director, Office of Safety Research and Development
NOTICE
This publication is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest
of information exchange. The publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any
trade or manufacturers names that appear herein are included solely because they are considered essen-
tial to the object of the publication.
CONTENTS
V Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
List of Exhibits viii
Photo Credits xiv
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1.1 Scope of Guide 2
1.2 Organization of Guide 3
1.3 Defining Physical Features 5
1.4 Key Dimensions 5
1.5 Distinguishing Roundabouts from Other Circular Intersections 8
1.6 Roundabout Categories 12
1.7 References 20
Chapter 2 - Policy Considerations 21
2.1 Characteristics 23
2.2 Multimodal Considerations 32
2.3 Costs Associated with Roundabouts 36
2.4 Legal Considerations 37
2.5 Public Involvement 40
2.6 Education 43
2.7 References 48
Chapter 3 - Planning 49
3.1 Planning Steps 51
3.2 Considerations of Context 53
3.3 Number of Entry Lanes 55
3.4 Selection Categories 58
3.5 Comparing Operational Performance of Alternative
Intersection Types 64
3.6 Space Requirements 69
Table of Contents
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration VI
3.7 Economic Evaluation 70
3.8 References 76
Chapter 4 - Operation 79
4.1 Traffic Operation at Roundabouts 82
4.2 Data Requirements 83
4.3 Capacity 86
4.4 Performance Analysis 91
4.5 Computer Software for Roundabouts 96
4.6 References 98
Chapter 5 - Safety 101
5.1 Introduction 103
5.2 Conflicts 104
5.3 Crash Statistics 111
5.4 Crash Prediction Models 122
5.5 References 125
Chapter 6 - Geometric Design 127
6.1 Introduction 130
6.2 General Design Principles 132
6.3 Geometric Elements 145
6.4 Double-Lane Roundabouts 172
6.5 Rural Roundabouts 176
6.6 Mini-Roundabouts 179
6.7 References 181
CONTENTS
VII Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
Chapter 7 - Traffic Design and Landscaping 183
7.1 Signing 185
7.2 Pavement Markings 197
7.3 Illumination 202
7.4 Work Zone Traffic Control 205
7.5 Landscaping 207
7.6 References 209
Chapter 8 - System Considerations 211
8.1 Traffic Signals at Roundabouts 213
8.2 At-Grade Rail Crossings 215
8.3 Closely Spaced Roundabouts 217
8.4 Roundabout Interchanges 219
8.5 Roundabouts in an Arterial Network 223
8.6 Microscopic Simulation 227
8.7 References 229
Glossary 231
Bibliography 240
Appendix A: Operations Analysis Formulas 251
Appendix B: Example Roundabout Designs 257
Appendix C: MUTCD Recommendations 265
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration VIII
List of Exhibits
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Exhibit 1-1. Drawing of key roundabout features. 6
Exhibit 1-2. Description of key roundabout features. 6
Exhibit 1-3. Drawing of key roundabout dimensions. 7
Exhibit 1-4. Description of key roundabout dimensions. 7
Exhibit 1-5. Comparison of roundabouts with traffic circles. 8
Exhibit 1-6. Common design elements at roundabouts. 10
Exhibit 1-7. Basic design characteristics for each of the six
roundabout categories. 13
Exhibit 1-8. Typical mini-roundabout. 14
Exhibit 1-9. Typical urban compact. 15
Exhibit 1-10. Typical urban single-lane roundabout. 16
Exhibit 1-11. Typical urban double-lane roundabout. 17
Exhibit 1-12. Typical rural single-lane roundabout. 18
Exhibit 1-13. Typical rural double-lane roundabout 19
Chapter 2 - Policy Considerations
Exhibit 2-1. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S.
intersections converted to roundabouts. 23
Exhibit 2-2. Pedestrians chances of death if hit by a motor vehicle. 25
Exhibit 2-3. Comparisons of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for
intersections with four single-lane approaches. 26
Exhibit 2-4. Fastest vehicle path through a double-lane roundabout. 27
Exhibit 2-5. Examples of aesthetic treatments. 31
Exhibit 2-6. Examples of informational brochures. 42
Exhibit 2-7. Driving straight through a roundabout. 45
Exhibit 2-8. Turning left at a roundabout. 46
Chapter 3 - Planning
Exhibit 3-1. Maximum daily service volumes for a
four-leg roundabout. 57
Exhibit 3-2. Planning-level maximum daily service volumes for
mini-roundabouts. 57
CONTENTS
IX Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
Exhibit 3-3. Example of community enhancement roundabout. 59
Exhibit 3-4. Example of traffic calming roundabouts. 60
Exhibit 3-5. Comparison of predicted rural roundabout injury crashes
with rural TWSC intersections. 61
Exhibit 3-6. Comparisons of predicted injury crashes for single-lane
and double-lane roundabouts with rural or urban signalized
intersections. 61
Exhibit 3-7. Average delay per vehicle at the MUTCD peak hour
signal warrant threshold. 63
Exhibit 3-8. Comparison of TWSC and single-lane roundabout capacity. 65
Exhibit 3-9. Sample hourly distribution of traffic. 66
Exhibit 3-10. Annual savings in delay of single-lane roundabout versus
AWSC, 50 percent of volume on the major street. 67
Exhibit 3-12. Delay savings for roundabouts vs. signal, 50 percent
volume on major street. 69
Exhibit 3-13. Delay savings for roundabouts vs. signal, 65 percent
Exhibit 3-14. Assumptions for spatial comparison of roundabouts
and comparable conventional intersections. 70
Exhibit 3-15. Area comparison: Urban compact roundabout vs.
comparable signalized intersection. 71
Exhibit 3-16. Area comparison: Urban single-lane roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-17. Area comparison: Urban double-lane roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-18. Area comparison: Urban flared roundabouts vs.
Exhibit 3-19. Estimated costs for crashes of varying levels
of severity. 74
Chapter 4 - Operation
Exhibit 4-1. Conversion factors for passenger car equivalents (pce). 84
Exhibit 4-2. Traffic flow parameters. 85
Exhibit 4-3. Approach capacity of a single-lane roundabout. 87
Exhibit 4-4. Approach capacity of a double-lane roundabout. 88
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration X
Exhibit 4-5. Capacity reduction factors for short lanes. 89
Exhibit 4-6. Capacity comparison of single-lane and
double-lane roundabouts. 89
Exhibit 4-7. Capacity reduction factor M for a single-lane
roundabout assuming pedestrian priority. 90
Exhibit 4-8. Capacity reduction factor M for a double-lane
roundabout assuming pedestrian priority. 91
Exhibit 4-9. Control delay as a function of capacity and
circulating flow. 93
Exhibit 4-10. 95th-percentile queue length estimation. 95
Exhibit 4-11. Summary of roundabout software products for
operational analysis. 97
Chapter 5 - Safety
Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for T Intersections with
single-lane approaches. 105
Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections
with single-lane approaches. 106
Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107
Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108
Exhibit 5-5. Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at signalized intersections. 109
Exhibit 5-6. Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109
Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections. 110
Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111
Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S.
intersections converted to roundabouts. 112
Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash reductions in various countries. 112
Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at
roundabouts. 113
Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114
Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115
Exhibit 5-14. Accident percentage per type of user urban
roundabouts in 15 towns in western France. 116
Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and
signalized intersections. 117
Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of accidents by
mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts. 117
CONTENTS
XI Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
Exhibit 5-17. British crash rates (crashes per million trips) for
bicyclists and motorcyclists at roundabouts and
signalized intersections. 120
Exhibit 5-18. A comparison of crashes between signalized and
roundabout intersections in 1998 in 15 French towns. 120
Chapter 6 - Geometric Design
Exhibit 6-1. Basic geometric elements of a roundabout. 131
Exhibit 6-2. Roundabout design process. 131
Exhibit 6-3. Sample theoretical speed profile (urban compact
roundabout). 133
Exhibit 6-4. Recommended maximum entry design speeds. 133
Exhibit 6-5. Fastest vehicle path through single-lane roundabout. 134
Exhibit 6-6. Fastest vehicle path through double-lane roundabout. 135
Exhibit 6-7. Example of critical right-turn movement. 135
Exhibit 6-8. Side friction factors at various speeds (metric units). 137
Exhibit 6-9. Side friction factors at various speeds (U.S.
customary units). 137
Exhibit 6-10. Speed-radius relationship (metric units). 138
Exhibit 6-11. Speed-radius relationship (U.S. customary units). 138
Exhibit 6-12. Vehicle path radii. 139
Exhibit 6.13. Approximated R
4
values and corresponding R
1
values (metric units). 141
Exhibit 6-14. Approximated R
4
1
values (U.S. customary units). 141
Exhibit 6-15. Through-movement swept path of WB-15 (WB-50)
vehicle. 143
Exhibit 6-16. Left-turn and right-turn swept paths of WB-15
(WB-50) vehicle. 143
Exhibit 6-17. Key dimensions of nonmotorized design users. 144
Exhibit 6-18. Radial alignment of entries. 145
Exhibit 6-19. Recommended inscribed circle diameter ranges. 146
Exhibit 6-20. Approach widening by adding full lane. 148
Exhibit 6-21. Approach widening by entry flaring. 148
Exhibit 6-22. Minimum circulatory lane widths for two-lane
roundabouts. 150
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration XII
Exhibit 6-23. Example of central island with a traversable apron. 151
Exhibit 6.24. Single-lane roundabout entry design. 153
Exhibit 6-25. Single-lane roundabout exit design. 154
Exhibit 6-26. Minimum splitter island dimensions. 157
Exhibit 6-27. Minimum splinter island nose radii and offsets. 158
Exhibit 6-28. Design values for stopping sight distance. 159
Exhibit 6-29. Approach sight distance. 160
Exhibit 6-30. Sight distance on circulatory roadway. 160
Exhibit 6-31. Sign distance to crosswalk on exit. 161
Exhibit 6-32. Intersection sight distance. 162
Exhibit 6-33. Computed length of conflicting leg of
intersection sight triangle. 163
Exhibit 6-34. Sample plan view. 164
Exhibit 6-35. Sample approach profile. 165
Exhibit 6-36. Sample central island profile. 165
Exhibit 6-37. Typical circulatory roadway section. 166
Exhibit 6-38. Typical section with a truck apron. 166
Exhibit 6-39. Provisions for bicycles. 168
Exhibit 6-40. Sidewalk treatments. 169
Exhibit 6-41. Example of right-turn bypass lane. 170
Exhibit 6-42. Configuration of right-turn bypass lane with
acceleration lane. 171
yield at exit leg. 172
Exhibit 6-44. Sketched natural paths through a double-lane
roundabout. 173
Exhibit 6-45. Path overlap at a double-lane roundabout. 174
Exhibit 6-46. One method of entry design to avoid path overlap
at double-lane roundabouts. 175
Exhibit 6-47. Alternate method of entry design to avoid path
|overlap at double-lane roundabouts. 175
Exhibit 6-48. Extended splitter island treatment. 178
Exhibit 6-49. Use of successive curves on high-speed
approaches. 179
Exhibit 6-50. Example of mini-roundabout. 180
CONTENTS
XIII Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
Chapter 7 - Traffic Design and Landscaping
Exhibit 7-1. YIELD sign (R1-2). 186
Exhibit 7-2. ONE WAY sign (R6-1R). 186
Exhibit 7-3. KEEP RIGHT sign (R4-7). 186
Exhibit 7-4. Lane-use control signing for roundabouts with double-
lane entries. 188
Exhibit 7-5. Lane-use control signing for roundabouts with heavy
turning traffic. 188
Exhibit 7-6. Circular Intersection sign (W2-6). 189
Exhibit 7-7. Advisory speed plate (W13-1). 189
Exhibit 7-8. Roundabout Ahead Sign. 189
Exhibit 7-9. YIELD AHEAD sign (W3-2a). 189
Exhibit 7-10. Large Arrow sign (W1-6). 190
Exhibit 7-11. Chevron plate (W1-8a. 190
Exhibit 7-12. Pedestrian Crossing sign (W11-2a). 190
Exhibit 7-13. Examples of advance destination guide signs. 191
Exhibit 7-14. Exit guide sign (D1-1). 192
Exhibit 7-15. Sample signing plan for an urban roundabout. 193
Exhibit 7-16. Sample signing plan for a rural roundabout. 194
Exhibit 7-17. Examples of speed reduction treatments. 195
Exhibit 7-18. Sample signing plan for a mini-roundabout. 196
Exhibit 7-19. Examples of yield lines. 198
Exhibit 7-20. Approach pavement markings. 199
Exhibit 7-21. Sample pavement marking plan for a mini-roundabout. 201
Exhibit 7-22. Illumination of a roundabout. 202
Exhibit 7-23. Recommended street illumination levels. 204
Exhibit 7-24. Landscaping of the central island. 208
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration XIV
Chapter 8 - System Considerations
Exhibit 8-1. Rail crossing treatments at roundabouts. 216
Exhibit 8-2. Methods for accommodating a rail crossing adjacent
to a roundabout. 217
Exhibit 8.3. Example of closely spaced offset T-intersections with
roundabouts. 218
Exhibit 8-4. Through bypass lanes at staggered T-intersections. 218
Exhibit 8-5. Two-bridge roundabout interchange. 219
Exhibit 8-6. Example of two-bridge roundabout interchanges. 220
Exhibit 8-7. Examples of one-bridge roundabout interchanges with
circular central islands. 221
Exhibit 8.8. One-bridge roundabout interchange with raindrop-
shaped central islands. 222
Exhibit 8-9. Roundabouts in an arterial network. 223
Exhibit 8-10. Wide nodes and narrow roads. 226
Exhibit 8-11. Summary of simulation models for roundabout
analysis. 228
Photo Credits
Barry Crown: Exhibits 8-6, 8-7
Ken Courage: Exhibit 1-5 (g, Portland)
Lee Rodegerdts: Exhibits 1-5 (all except g, Portland), 1-6 (all except Fort Pierce), 2-
4 (all except Fort Pierce), 3-3, 3-4, 6-23, 6-42, 7-10 (all), 7-11 (all), 7-14 (all), 7-16 (all),
7-22, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, C-3 (a, di, kn)
Paul Ryus: Exhibits 1-6 (Fort Pierce), 2-4 (Fort Pierce), C-3 (b, c, j)
CONTENTS
1 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 1: Introduction
Introduction
1.1 Scope of the Guide 2
1.2 Organization of the Guide 3
1.3 Defining Physical Features 5
1.4 Key Dimensions 5
1.5 Distinguishing Roundabouts from Other Circular Intersections 8
1.6 Roundabout Categories 12
1.6.1 Comparison of roundabout categories 13
1.6.2 Mini-roundabouts 14
1.6.3 Urban compact roundabouts 15
1.6.4 Urban single-lane roundabouts 16
1.6.5 Urban double-lane roundabouts 17
1.6.6 Rural single-lane roundabouts 18
1.6.7 Rural double-lane roundabouts 19
1.7 References 20
Exhibit 1-1. Drawing of key roundabout features. 6
Exhibit 1-2. Description of key roundabout features. 6
Exhibit 1-3. Drawing of key roundabout dimensions. 7
Exhibit 1-4. Description of key roundabout dimensions. 7
Exhibit 1-5. Comparison of roundabouts with traffic circles. 8
Exhibit 1-6. Common design elements at roundabouts. 10
Exhibit 1-7. Basic design characteristics for each of the six roundabout
categories. 13
Exhibit 1-8. Typical mini-roundabout. 14
Exhibit 1-9. Typical urban compact roundabout. 15
Exhibit 1-10. Typical urban single-lane roundabout. 16
Exhibit 1-11. Typical urban double-lane roundabout. 17
Exhibit 1-12. Typical rural single-lane roundabout. 18
Exhibit 1-13. Typical rural double-lane roundabout. 19
1
CONTENTS
Federal Highway Administration 2
Traffic circles have been part of the transportation system in the United States
since 1905, when the Columbus Circle designed by William Phelps Eno opened in
New York City. Subsequently, many large circles or rotaries were built in the United
States. The prevailing designs enabled high-speed merging and weaving of ve-
hicles. Priority was given to entering vehicles, facilitating high-speed entries. High
crash experience and congestion in the circles led to rotaries falling out of favor in
America after the mid-1950s. Internationally, the experience with traffic circles
was equally negative, with many countries experiencing circles that locked up as
traffic volumes increased.
The modern roundabout was developed in the United Kingdom to rectify problems
associated with these traffic circles. In 1966, the United Kingdom adopted a man-
datory give-way rule at all circular intersections, which required entering traffic
to give way, or yield, to circulating traffic. This rule prevented circular intersections
from locking up, by not allowing vehicles to enter the intersection until there were
sufficient gaps in circulating traffic. In addition, smaller circular intersections were
proposed that required adequate horizontal curvature of vehicle paths to achieve
slower entry and circulating speeds.
These changes improved the safety characteristics of the circular intersections by
reducing the number and particularly the severity of collisions. Thus, the resultant
modern roundabout is significantly different from the older style traffic circle both
in how it operates and in how it is designed. The modern roundabout represents a
substantial improvement, in terms of operations and safety, when compared with
older rotaries and traffic circles (1, 2, 3). Therefore, many countries have adopted
them as a common intersection form and some have developed extensive design
guides and methods to evaluate the operational performance of modern round-
abouts.
1.1 Scope of the Guide
This guide provides information and guidance on roundabouts, resulting in designs
that are suitable for a variety of typical conditions in the United States. The scope
of this guide is to provide general information, planning techniques, evaluation pro-
cedures for assessing operational and safety performance, and design guidelines
for roundabouts.
This guide has been developed with the input from transportation practitioners and
researchers from around the world. In many cases, items from national and inter-
national practice and research indicate considerable consensus, and these items
have been included in this guide. However, other items have generated consider-
able differences of opinion (e.g., methods of estimating capacity), and some prac-
tices vary considerably from country to country (e.g., marking of the circulatory
roadway in multilane roundabouts). Where international consensus is not appar-
ent, a reasoned approach is presented that the authors believe is currently most
appropriate for the United States. As more roundabouts are built, the opportunity
to conduct research to refineor develop bettermethods will enable future edi-
tions of this guide to improve.
Circular intersections
were first introduced
in the U.S. in 1905.
The modern roundabout was
developed in the United
Kingdom in the 1960s.
Modern roundabouts
provide substantially better
operational and safety
characteristics than
older traffic circles
and rotaries.
International consensus has
not been achieved on some
aspects of roundabout design.
Chapter 1
Introduction
CONTENTS
Despite the comprehensive nature of this document, it cannot discuss every issue
related to roundabouts. In particular, it does not represent the following
topics:
Nonmountable traffic calming circles. These are small traffic circles with raised
central islands. They are typically used on local streets for speed and volume
control. They are typically not designed to accommodate large vehicles, and
often left-turning traffic is required to turn left in front of the circle. Mini-round-
abouts, which are presented, may be an appropriate substitute.
Specific legal or policy requirements and language. The legal information that is
provided in this guide is intended only to make the reader aware of potential
issues. The reader is encouraged to consult with an attorney on specific legal
issues before adopting any of the recommendations contained herein. Simi-
larly, regarding policy information, the guide refers to or encompasses appli-
cable policies, such as those of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (4). It does not, however, establish any new
policies.
Roundabouts with more than two entry lanes on an approach. While acknowl-
edging the existence and potential of such large roundabouts, the guide does
not provide specific guidance on the analysis or design of such roundabouts.
However, the design principles contained in this document are also applicable
to larger roundabouts. The relative safety advantages of roundabout intersec-
tions diminish at high traffic flows, particularly with regard to pedestrians and
bicyclists. The advantages of larger roundabouts are their higher capacities that
may make them attractive alternatives at sites with high traffic volumes. More
intricate design is required to ensure adequate operational and safety perfor-
mance. Therefore, expert operations and design advice should be sought and
roundabout analysis software should be utilized in such circumstances. As us-
ers and designers in the United States become more familiar with roundabouts,
this experience may then be extended to such applications.
1.2 Organization of the Guide
This guide has been structured to address the needs of a variety of readers includ-
ing the general public, policy-makers, transportation planners, operations and safety
analysts, conceptual and detailed designers. This chapter distinguishes roundabouts
from other traffic circles and defines the types of roundabouts addressed in the
remainder of the guide. The remaining chapters in this guide generally increase in
the level of detail provided.
Chapter 2Policy Considerations: This chapter provides a broad overview of the
performance characteristics of roundabouts. The costs associated with roundabouts
versus other forms of intersections, legal issues, and public involvement techniques
are discussed.
Chapter 3Planning: This chapter discusses general guidelines for identifying
appropriate intersection control options, given daily traffic volumes, and procedures
for evaluating the feasibility of a roundabout at a given location. Chapters 2 and 3
provide sufficient detail to enable a transportation planner to decide under which
circumstances roundabouts are likely to be appropriate, and how they compare to
alternatives at a specific location.
Topics not discussed in this guide.
CONTENTS
Chapter 4Operational Analysis: Methods are presented for analyzing the op-
erational performance of each category of roundabout in terms of capacity, delay,
and queuing.
Chapter 5Safety: This chapter discusses the expected safety performance of
roundabouts.
Chapter 6Geometric Design: Specific geometric design principles for round-
abouts are presented. The chapter then discusses each design element in detail,
along with appropriate parameters to use for each type of roundabout.
Chapter 7Traffic Design and Landscaping: This chapter discusses a number of
traffic design aspects once the basic geometric design has been established. These
include signs, pavement markings, and illumination. In addition, the chapter pro-
vides discussion on traffic maintenance during construction and landscaping.
Chapter 8System Considerations: This chapter discusses specific issues and
treatments that may arise from the systems context of a roundabout. The material
may be of interest to transportation planners as well as operations and design
engineers. Signal control at roundabouts is discussed. The chapter then considers
the issue of rail crossings through the roundabout or in close proximity. Round-
abouts in series with other roundabouts are discussed, including those at freeway
interchanges and those in signalized arterial networks. Finally, the chapter pre-
sents simulation models as supplementary operational tools capable of evaluating
roundabout performance within an overall roadway system.
Appendices: Three appendices are provided to expand upon topics in certain chap-
ters. Appendix A provides information on the capacity models in Chapter 4. Appen-
dix B provides design templates for each of the categories of roundabout described
in Chapter 1, assuming four perpendicular legs. Appendix C provides information
on the alternative signing and pavement marking in Chapter 7.
Several typographical devices have been used to enhance the readability of the
guide. Margin notes, such as the note next to this paragraph, highlight important
points or identify cross-references to other chapters of the guide. References have
been listed at the end of each chapter and have been indicated in the text using
numbers in parentheses, such as: (3). New terms are presented in italics and are
defined in the glossary at the end of the document.
Margin notes have been
used to highlight important
points.
CONTENTS
1.3 Defining Physical Features
A roundabout is a type of circular intersection, but not all circular intersections can
be classified as roundabouts. In fact, there are at least three distinct types of circu-
lar intersections:
Rotaries are old-style circular intersections common to the United States prior
to the 1960s. Rotaries are characterized by a large diameter, often in excess of
100 m (300 ft). This large diameter typically results in travel speeds within the
circulatory roadway that exceed 50 km/h (30 mph). They typically provide little or
no horizontal deflection of the paths of through traffic and may even operate
according to the traditional yield-to-the-right rule, i.e., circulating traffic yields
to entering traffic.
Neighborhood traffic circles are typically built at the intersections of local streets
for reasons of traffic calming and/or aesthetics. The intersection approaches
may be uncontrolled or stop-controlled. They do not typically include raised
channelization to guide the approaching driver onto the circulatory roadway. At
some traffic circles, left-turning movements are allowed to occur to the left of
(clockwise around) the central island, potentially conflicting with other circulat-
ing traffic.
Roundabouts are circular intersections with specific design and traffic control
features. These features include yield control of all entering traffic, channelized
approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure that travel speeds
on the circulatory roadway are typically less than 50 km/h (30 mph). Thus, round-
abouts are a subset of a wide range of circular intersection forms.
To more clearly identify the defining characteristics of a roundabout, consistent
definitions for each of the key features, dimensions, and terms are used through-
out this guide. Exhibit 1-1 is a drawing of a typical roundabout, annotated to iden-
tify the key features. Exhibit 1-2 provides a description of each of the key features.
1.4 Key Dimensions
For operational analysis and design purposes, it is useful to define a number of key
dimensions. Exhibit 1-3 shows a number of key dimensions that are described in
Exhibit 1-4. Note that these exhibits do not present all of the dimensions needed in
the detailed analysis and design of roundabouts; these will be presented and de-
fined in later chapters as needed.
Types of circular intersections.
Key roundabout features include:
Yield control of entering traffic
Channelized approaches
Appropriate geometric curvature to
slow speeds
CONTENTS
Exhibit 1-1. Drawing of key
roundabout features.
Exhibit 1-2. Description of key
roundabout features.
Feature Description
Central island The central island is the raised area in the center of a roundabout around which
traffic circulates.
Splitter island A splitter island is a raised or painted area on an approach used to separate entering
from exiting traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and provide storage space for
pedestrians crossing the road in two stages.
Circulatory roadway The circulatory roadway is the curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counter-
clockwise fashion around the central island
Apron If required on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking of large
vehicles, an apron is the mountable portion of the central island adjacent to the
circulatory roadway.
Yield line A yield line is a pavement marking used to mark the point of entry from an ap-
proach into the circulatory roadway and is generally marked along the inscribed
circle. Entering vehicles must yield to any circulating traffic coming from the left
before crossing this line into the circulatory roadway.
Accessible pedestrian crossings Accessible pedestrian crossings should be provided at all roundabouts. The cross-
ing location is set back from the yield line, and the splitter island is cut to allow
pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, and bicycles to pass through.
Bicycle treatments Bicycle treatments at roundabouts provide bicyclists the option of traveling through
the roundabout either as a vehicle or as a pedestrian, depending on the bicyclists
level of comfort.
Landscaping buffer Landscaping buffers are provided at most roundabouts to separate vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and to encourage pedestrians to cross only at the designated
crossing locations. Landscaping buffers can also significantly improve the aesthet-
ics of the intersection.
Splitter islands have multiple
roles. They:
Separate entering and
exiting traffic
Deflect and slow
entering traffic
Provide a pedestrian
refuge
CONTENTS
Exhibit 1-3. Drawing of key
roundabout dimensions.
Exhibit 1-4. Description of
key roundabout dimensions.
Dimension Description
Inscribed circle diameter The inscribed circle diameter is the basic parameter used to define the size of a round-
about. It is measured between the outer edges of the circulatory roadway.
Circulatory roadway width The circulatory roadway width defines the roadway width for vehicle circulation around the
central island. It is measured as the width between the outer edge of this roadway and the
central island. It does not include the width of any mountable apron, which is defined to be
part of the central island.
Approach width The approach width is the width of the roadway used by approaching traffic upstream of
any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The approach width is typically no
more than half of the total width of the roadway.
Departure width The departure width is the width of the roadway used by departing traffic downstream of
any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The departure width is typically less
than or equal to half of the total width of the roadway.
Entry width The entry width defines the width of the entry where it meets the inscribed circle. It is
measured perpendicularly from the right edge of the entry to the intersection point of the
left edge line and the inscribed circle.
Exit width The exit width defines the width of the exit where it meets the inscribed circle. It is mea-
sured perpendicularly from the right edge of the exit to the intersection point of the left
edge line and the inscribed circle.
Entry radius The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the entry.
Exit radius The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the exit.
CONTENTS
1.5 Distinguishing Roundabouts from
Other Circular Intersections
Since the purpose of this guide is to assist in the planning, design, and perfor-
mance evaluation of roundabouts, not other circular intersections, it is important to
be able to distinguish between them. Since these distinctions may not always be
obvious, the negative aspects of rotaries or neighborhood traffic circles (hereafter
referred to as traffic circles) may be mistaken by the public for a roundabout.
Therefore, the ability to carefully distinguish roundabouts from traffic circles is im-
portant in terms of public understanding.
How then does one distinguish a roundabout from other forms of circular intersec-
tion? Exhibit 1-5 identifies some of the major characteristics of roundabouts and
contrasts them with other traffic circles. Note that some of the traffic circles shown
have many of the features associated with roundabouts but are deficient in one or
more critical areas. Note also that these characteristics apply to yield-controlled
roundabouts; signalized roundabouts are a special case discussed in Chapter 8.
Exhibit 1-5. Comparison of
roundabouts with traffic
circles.
Roundabouts Traffic Circles
(a) Traffic control
Yield control is used on all entries. The
circulatory roadway has no control.
Santa Barbara, CA
Some traffic circles use stop control, or
no control, on one or more entries.
Hagerstown, MD
(b) Priority to circulating vehicles
Circulating vehicles have the right-of-
way. Santa Barbara, CA
Some traffic circles require circulating
traffi c to yi el d to enteri ng traffi c.
Sarasota, FL
Circular intersections that do not
conform to the characteristics of
modern roundabouts are called
traffic circles in this guide.
Roundabouts must have
all of the characteristics
listed in the left column.
Chapter 8 discusses signalization
at roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 1-5. (continued).
Comparison of roundabouts
with traffic circles.
(c) Pedestrian access
Pedestrian access is allowed only across
the legs of the roundabout, behind the
yield line. Santa Barbara, CA
Some traffic circles allow pedestrian ac-
cess to the central island. Sarasota, FL
(d) Parking
No parking is allowed within the circula-
tory roadway or at the entries. Avon, CO
(e) Direction of circulation
All vehicles circulate counter-clockwise
and pass to the right of the central is-
land. Naples, FL
Some traffic circles allow parking within
the circulatory roadway. Sarasota, FL
Roundabouts Traffic Circles
Some neighborhood traffic circles allow
left-turning vehicles to pass to the left
of the central island. Portland, OR
All traffic circulates counter-clockwise
around a roundabouts central island.
CONTENTS
In addition to the design elements identified in Exhibit 1-5, roundabouts often in-
clude one or more additional design elements intended to enhance the safety and/
or capacity of the intersection. However, their absence does not necessarily pre-
clude an intersection from operating as a roundabout. These additional elements
are identified in Exhibit 1-6.
Characteristic Description
(a) Adequate
speed reduction
Good roundabout design requires entering vehicles to nego-
tiate a small enough radius to slow speeds to no greater than
50 km/h (30 mph). Once within the circulatory roadway, ve-
hicles paths are further deflected by the central island. West
Boca Raton, FL
Some roundabouts allow high-speed entries for major move-
ments. This increases the risk for more severe collisions for
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Bradenton Beach, FL
Roundabouts may have these
additional design features.
Exhibit 1-6. Common
design elements at
roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Good roundabout design makes accommodation for the ap-
propriate design vehicle. For small roundabouts, this may re-
quire the use of an apron. Lothian, MD
Characteristic Description Exhibit 1-6 (continued).
Common design elements
at roundabouts.
(b) Design
vehicle
Some roundabouts are too small to accommodate large ve-
hicles that periodically approach the intersection. Naples, FL
Flare on an entry to a roundabout is the widening of an ap-
proach to multiple lanes to provide additional capacity and
storage at the yield line. Long Beach, CA
(c) Entry flare
Aprons can be used in small
roundabouts to accommodate
the occasional large vehicle that
may use the intersection.
CONTENTS
(d) Splitter
island
Characteristic Description
All except mini-roundabouts have raised splitter islands. These
are designed to separate traffic moving in opposite directions,
deflect entering traffic, and to provide opportunities for pedes-
trians to cross in two stages. Mini-roundabouts may have split-
ter islands defined only by pavement markings. Tavares, FL
(e) Pedestrian
crossing loca-
tions
Pedestrian crossings are located at least one vehicle length
upstream of the yield point. Fort Pierce, FL
Exhibit 1-6 (continued).
Common design elements at
roundabouts.
1.6 Roundabout Categories
For the purposes of this guide, roundabouts have been categorized according to size
and environment to facilitate discussion of specific performance or design issues.
There are six basic categories based on environment, number of lanes, and size:
Mini-roundabouts
Urban compact roundabouts
Urban single-lane roundabouts
Urban double-lane roundabouts
Rural single-lane roundabouts
Rural double-lane roundabouts
Multilane roundabouts with more than two approach lanes are possible, but they
are not covered explicitly by this guide, although many of the design principles con-
tained in this guide would still apply. For example, the guide provides guidance on the
This guide uses six basic
roundabout categories.
Multilane roundabouts with
more than two approach
lanes are possible, but not
explicitly covered in this guide.
CONTENTS
design of flaring approaches from one to two lanes. Although not explicitly discussed,
this guidance could be extended to the design of larger roundabout entries.
Note that separate categories have not been explicitly identified for suburban envi-
ronments. Suburban settings may combine higher approach speeds common in
rural areas with multimodal activity that is more similar to urban settings. There-
fore, they should generally be designed as urban roundabouts, but with the high-
speed approach treatments recommended for rural roundabouts.
In most cases, designers should anticipate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and large vehicles. Whenever a raised splitter island is provided, there should also
be an at-grade pedestrian refuge. In this case, the pedestrian crossing facilitates
two separate moves: curb-to-island and island-to-curb. The exit crossing will typi-
cally require more vigilance from the pedestrian and motorist than the entry cross-
ing. Further, it is recommended that all urban crosswalks be marked. Under all
urban design categories, special attention should be given to assist pedestrian
users who are visually impaired or blind, through design elements. For example,
these users typically attempt to maintain their approach alignment to continue
across a street in the crosswalk, since the crosswalk is often a direct extension of
the sidewalk. A roundabout requires deviation from that alignment, and attention
needs to be given to providing appropriate informational cues to pedestrians re-
garding the location of the sidewalk and the crosswalk, even at mini-roundabouts.
For example, appropriate landscaping is one method of providing some informa-
tion. Another is to align the crosswalk ramps perpendicular to the pedestrians line
of travel through the pedestrian refuge.
1.6.1 Comparison of roundabout categories
Exhibit 1-7 summarizes and compares some fundamental design and operational
elements for each of the six roundabout categories developed for this guide. The
following sections provide a qualitative discussion of each category.
Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural
Design Element Roundabout Compact Single-Lane Double-Lane Single-Lane Double-Lane
Recommended 25 km/h 25 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h
maximum entry (15 mph) (15 mph) (20 mph) (25 mph) (25 mph) (30 mph)
design speed
Maximum number 1 1 1 2 1 2
of entering lanes
per approach
Typical inscribed 13 m to 25 m 25 to 30 m 30 to 40 m 45 to 55 m 35 to 40 m 55 to 60 m
circle diameter
1
(45 ft to 80 ft) (80 to 100 ft) (100 to 130 ft) (150 to 180 ft) (115 to 130 ft) (180 to 200 ft)
Splitter island Raised if Raised, with Raised, with Raised, with Raised and Raised and
treatment possible, crosswalk cut crosswalk cut crosswalk cut extended, with extended, with
crosswalk crosswalk cut crosswalk cut
cut if raised
Typical daily service 10,000 15,000 20,000 Refer to 20,000 Refer to
volumes on 4-leg Chapter 4 Chapter 4
roundabout (veh/day) procedures procedures
1. Assumes 90-degree entries and no more than four legs.
Suburban roundabouts incorporate
elements of both urban and rural
roundabouts.
Roundabout design should generally
accommodate pedestrian, bicycle,
and large vehicle use.
Exhibit 1-7. Basic design
characteristics for each of the six
roundabout categories.
CONTENTS
1.6.2 Mini-roundabouts
Mini-roundabouts are small roundabouts used in low-speed urban environments,
with average operating speeds of 60km/h (35mph) or less. Exhibit 1-8 provides an
example of a typical mini-roundabout. They can be useful in low-speed urban envi-
ronments in cases where conventional roundabout design is precluded by right-of-
way constraints. In retrofit applications, mini-roundabouts are relatively inexpen-
sive because they typically require minimal additional pavement at the intersecting
roads-for example, minor widening at the corner curbs. They are mostly recom-
mended when there is insufficient right-of-way for an urban compact roundabout.
Because they are small, mini-roundabouts are perceived as pedestrian-friendly with
short crossing distances and very low vehicle speeds on approaches and exits. The
mini-roundabout is designed to accommodate passenger cars without requiring
them to drive over the central island. To maintain its perceived compactness and
low speed characteristics, the yield lines are positioned just outside of the swept
path of the largest expected vehicle. However, the central island is mountable, and
larger vehicles may cross over the central island, but not to the left of it. Speed
control around the mountable central island should be provided in the design by
requiring horizontal deflection. Capacity for this type of roundabout is expected to
be similar to that of the compact urban roundabout. The recommended design of
these roundabouts is based on the German method, with some influence from the
United Kingdom.
Exhibit 1-8. Typical
mini-roundabout.
Mini-roundabouts can be useful
in low-speed urban
environments with right-of-way
constraints.
CONTENTS
1.6.3 Urban compact roundabouts
Like mini-roundabouts, urban compact roundabouts are intended to be pedestrian-
and bicyclist-friendly because their perpendicular approach legs require very low
vehicle speeds to make a distinct right turn into and out of the circulatory roadway.
All legs have single-lane entries. However, the urban compact treatment meets all
the design requirements of effective roundabouts. The principal objective of this
design is to enable pedestrians to have safe and effective use of the intersection.
Capacity should not be a critical issue for this type of roundabout to be considered.
The geometric design includes raised splitter islands that incorporate at-grade pe-
destrian storage areas, and a nonmountable central island. There is usually an apron
surrounding the nonmountable part of the compact central island to accommodate
large vehicles. The recommended design of these roundabouts is similar to those
in Germany and other northern European countries. Exhibit 1-9 provides an ex-
ample of a typical urban compact roundabout.
Exhibit 1-9. Typical urban
compact roundabout.
Urban compact roundabouts are
intended to be pedestrian-friendly;
capacity should not be a critical issue
when considering this type.
CONTENTS
1.6.4 Urban single-lane roundabouts
This type of roundabout is characterized as having a single lane entry at all legs and
one circulatory lane. Exhibit 1-10 provides an example of a typical urban single-lane
roundabout. They are distinguished from urban compact roundabouts by their larger
inscribed circle diameters and more tangential entries and exits, resulting in higher
capacities. Their design allows slightly higher speeds at the entry, on the circula-
tory roadway, and at the exit. Notwithstanding the larger inscribed circle diameters
than compact roundabouts, the speed ranges recommended in this guide are some-
what lower than those used in other countries, in order to enhance safety for bi-
cycles and pedestrians. The roundabout design is focused on achieving consistent
entering and circulating vehicle speeds. The geometric design includes raised split-
ter islands, a nonmountable central island, and preferably, no apron. The design of
these roundabouts is similar to those in Australia, France, and the United Kingdom.
single-lane roundabout.
Urban single-lane roundabouts have
slightly higher speeds and capacities
than urban compact roundabouts.
The design focuses on consistent
entering and exiting speeds.
CONTENTS
1.6.5 Urban double-lane roundabouts
Urban double-lane roundabouts include all roundabouts in urban areas that have at
least one entry with two lanes. They include roundabouts with entries on one or
more approaches that flare from one to two lanes. These require wider circulatory
roadways to accommodate more than one vehicle traveling side by side. Exhibit 1-
11 provides an example of a typical urban multilane roundabout. The speeds at the
entry, on the circulatory roadway, and at the exit are similar to those for the urban
single-lane roundabouts. Again, it is important that the vehicular speeds be consis-
tent throughout the roundabout. The geometric design will include raised splitter
islands, no truck apron, a nonmountable central island, and appropriate horizontal
deflection.
Alternate routes may be provided for bicyclists who choose to bypass the round-
about. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways must be clearly delineated with sidewalk
construction and landscaping to direct users to the appropriate crossing locations
and alignment. Urban double-lane roundabouts located in areas with high pedes-
trian or bicycle volumes may have special design recommendations such as those
provided in Chapters 6 and 7. The design of these roundabouts is based on the
methods used in the United Kingdom, with influences from Australia and France.
double-lane roundabout.
The urban double-lane roundabout
category includes roundabouts with
one or more entries that flare from
one to two lanes.
See Chapters 6 and 7 for special
design considerations for
pedestrians and bicycles.
CONTENTS
1.6.6 Rural single-lane roundabouts
Rural single-lane roundabouts generally have high average approach speeds in the
range of 80 to 100 km/h (50 to 60 mph). They require supplementary geometric and
traffic control device treatments on approaches to encourage drivers to slow to an
appropriate speed before entering the roundabout. Rural roundabouts may have
larger diameters than urban roundabouts to allow slightly higher speeds at the
entries, on the circulatory roadway, and at the exits. This is possible if few pedestri-
ans are expected at these intersections, currently and in future. There is preferably
no apron because their larger diameters should accommodate larger vehicles.
Supplemental geometric design elements include extended and raised splitter is-
lands, a nonmountable central island, and adequate horizontal deflection. The de-
sign of these roundabouts is based primarily on the methods used by Australia,
France, and the United Kingdom. Exhibit 1-12 provides an example of a typical rural
Rural roundabouts that may one day become part of an urbanized area should be
designed as urban roundabouts, with slower speeds and pedestrian treatments.
However, in the interim, they should be designed with supplementary approach
and entry features to achieve safe speed reduction.
Exhibit 1-12. Typical rural
Because of their higher
approach speeds, rural
single-lane roundabouts
require supplementary geometric
and traffic control device
treatments on the approaches.
Rural roundabouts that may
become part of an urbanized
area should include urban
roundabout design features.
CONTENTS
1.6.7 Rural double-lane roundabouts
Rural double-lane roundabouts have speed characteristics similar to rural single-
lane roundabouts with average approach speeds in the range of 80 to 100 km/h (50
to 60 mph). They differ in having two entry lanes, or entries flared from one to two
lanes, on one or more approaches. Consequently, many of the characteristics and
design features of rural double-lane roundabouts mirror those of their urban coun-
terparts. The main design differences are designs with higher entry speeds and
larger diameters, and recommended supplementary approach treatments. The
design of these roundabouts is based on the methods used by the United King-
dom, Australia, and France. Exhibit 1-13 provides an example of a typical rural double-
lane roundabout. Rural roundabouts that may one day become part of an urbanized
area should be designed for slower speeds, with design details that fully accom-
modate pedestrians and bicyclists. However, in the interim they should be de-
signed with approach and entry features to achieve safe speed reduction.
Exhibit 1-13. Typical rural
Rural double-lane roundabouts
have higher entry speeds and
larger diameters than their
urban counterparts.
CONTENTS
1.7 References
1. Brown, M. TRL State of the Art ReviewThe Design of Roundabouts. London:
HMSO, 1995.
2. Todd, K. A history of roundabouts in Britain. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 45,
No. 1, January 1991.
3. Jacquemart, G. Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Prac-
tice in the United States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Wash-
ington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1998.
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C.:
AASHTO, 1994.
CONTENTS
21 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 2: Policy Considerations
Policy Considerations
2.1 Characteristics 23
2.1.1 Safety 23
2.1.2 Vehicle delay and queue storage 28
2.1.3 Delay of major movements 28
2.1.4 Signal progression 29
2.1.5 Environmental factors 29
2.1.6 Spatial requirements 29
2.1.7 Operation and maintenance costs 30
2.1.8 Traffic calming 30
2.1.9 Aesthetics 30
2.1.10 Design for older drivers 31
2.2 Multimodal Considerations 32
2.2.1 Pedestrians 32
2.2.2 Bicycles 34
2.2.3 Large vehicles 34
2.2.4 Transit 35
2.2.5 Emergency vehicles 35
2.2.6 Rail crossings 35
2.3 Costs Associated with Roundabouts 36
2.4 Legal Considerations 37
2.4.1 Definition of intersection 37
2.4.2 Right-of-way between vehicles 38
2.4.3 Required lane position at intersections 38
2.4.4 Priority within the circulatory roadway 38
2.4.5 Pedestrian accessibility 39
2.4.6 Parking 40
2
CONTENTS
2.5 Public Involvement 40
2.5.1 Public meetings 41
2.5.2 Informational brochures 41
2.5.3 Informational videos 43
2.5.4 Media announcements 43
2.6 Education 43
2.6.1 Driver education 43
2.6.2 Bicyclist education 47
2.6.3 Pedestrian education 47
2.7 References 48
Exhibit 2-1. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 23
U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts.
Exhibit 2-2. Pedestrians chances of death if hit by a motor vehicle. 25
Exhibit 2-3. Comparisons of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for 26
intersections with four single-lane approaches.
Exhibit 2-4. Fastest vehicle path through a double-lane roundabout. 27
Exhibit 2-5. Examples of aesthetic treatments. 31
Exhibit 2-6. Examples of informational brochures. 42
Exhibit 2-7. Driving straight through a roundabout. 45
Exhibit 2-8. Turning left at a roundabout. 46
CONTENTS
Roundabouts have unique characteristics that warrant consideration by developers
and managers of the road system. This chapter provides a general overview of the
characteristics of roundabouts and policy considerations pertaining to them. The
information may be useful to policy makers and the general public. The reader is
encouraged to refer to later chapters on the specifics associated with planning,
operation, safety, and design of roundabouts.
2.1 Characteristics
The previous chapter described the physical features of a roundabout. This section
describes performance characteristics that need to be considered, either at a policy
level when introducing roundabouts into a region or at specific locations where a
roundabout is one of the alternatives being considered.
2.1.1 Safety
This section provides an overview of the safety performance of roundabouts and
then discusses the general characteristics that lead to this performance. It does
not attempt to discuss all of the issues related to safety; the reader is encouraged
to refer to Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion.
Roundabouts are generally safer than other forms of intersection in terms of ag-
gregate crash statistics for low and medium traffic capacity conditions (1). Injury
crash rates for motor vehicle occupants are generally lower, although the propor-
tion of single-vehicle crashes is typically higher. However, bicyclists and pedestri-
ans are involved in a relatively higher proportion of injury accidents than they are at
other intersections (2).
Exhibit 2-1 presents comparisons of before and after aggregate crash frequencies
(average annual crashes per roundabout) involving users of eleven roundabouts
constructed in the United States (3). The decrease in severe injury crashes is note-
worthy. However, the before situation at these intersections required mitigation
for safety. Therefore, some other feasible alternatives may also be expected to
have resulted in a reduction in the crash frequencies. This study yielded insufficient
data to draw conclusions regarding the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Type of Before roundabout Roundabout Percent change
roundabout Sites Total Inj.
3
PDO
4
Total Inj. PDO Total Inj. PDO
Single-Lane
1
8 4.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 0.5 1.6 -51% -73% -32%
Multilane
2
3 21.5 5.8 15.7 15.3 4.0 11.3 -29% -31% -10%
Total 11 9.3 3.0 6.0 5.9 1.5 4.2 -37% -51% -29%
Notes:
1. Mostly single-lane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter of 30 to 35 m (100 to 115 ft).
2. Multilane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter greater than 50 m (165 ft).
3. Inj. = Injury crashes.
4. PDO = Property Damage Only crashes.
Source: (3)
Roundabouts have been
demonstrated to be generally safer
for motor vehicles and pedestrians
than other forms of at-grade
intersections.
Exhibit 2-1. Average annual
crash frequencies at 11 U.S.
intersections converted to
roundabouts.
Chapter 2
Policy Considerations
CONTENTS
Good roundabout design places a high priority on speed reduction and speed con-
sistency. Such designs require that vehicles negotiate the roundabout through a
series of turning maneuvers at low speeds, generally less than 30 km/h (20 mph).
Speed consistency refers to the design objective of slowing vehicles in stages
down to the desired negotiating speed to be consistent with the expectations of
drivers. Speed control is provided by geometric features, not only by traffic control
devices or by the impedance of other traffic. Because of this, speed reduction can
be achieved at all times of day. If achieved by good design, then in principle, lower
vehicle speeds should provide the following safety benefits:
Reduce crash severity for pedestrians and bicyclists, including older pedestri-
ans, children, and impaired persons;
Provide more time for entering drivers to judge, adjust speed for, and enter a
gap in circulating traffic;
Allow safer merges into circulating traffic;
Provide more time for all users to detect and correct for their mistakes or mis-
takes of others;
Make collisions less frequent and less severe; and
Make the intersection safer for novice users.
For example, Exhibit 2-2 shows that a pedestrian is about three times more likely
to die when struck at 50 km/h (30 mph) than at 32 km/h (20 mph), across a range of
only 18 km/h (10 mph) difference in speed (4). Typical commuter bicyclist speeds
are in the range of 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 15 mph). Therefore, the difference in design
speed is critical to all users who are not within the protective body of a motorized
vehicle. The minor additional delay or inconvenience to drivers of lower-speed round-
about designs (as compared to higher-speed roundabout designs) is a tradeoff for
the substantial safety benefit to pedestrians and bicyclists. Older drivers may ben-
efit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may
all users). It should be clarified that there has been no specific research performed
on older drivers, older pedestrians, and older bicyclists at roundabouts. It should
also be noted that visually impaired pedestrians are not provided the audible cues
from vehicle streams that are available at a signal controlled intersection. For ex-
ample, at roundabout exits, it may be difficult to discern the sound of vehicles
which will continue to circulate from those exiting the roundabout. Therefore, infor-
mation needs to be provided to these users through various appropriate design
features to assist them in safely locating and navigating the crossings at round-
abouts.
Furthermore, the operational efficiency (capacity) of roundabouts is probably greater
at lower circulating speed, because of these two phenomena:
The faster the circulating traffic, the larger the gaps that entering traffic will
comfortably accept. This translates to fewer acceptable gaps and therefore more
instances of entering vehicles stopping at the yield line.
Entering traffic, which is first stopped at the yield line, requires even larger gaps
in the circulating traffic in order to accelerate and merge with the circulating
traffic. The faster the circulating traffic, the larger this gap must be. This trans-
lates into even fewer acceptable gaps and therefore longer delays for entering
traffic.
Good roundabout designs
encourage speed reduction
and speed consistency.
Potential safety benefits of low
vehicle speeds.
Visually impaired pedestrians
are not provided with audible
cues from vehicle streams.
Lower circulating speeds can
provide greater capacity.
CONTENTS
2.1.1.1 Single-lane roundabouts
The safety characteristics of single-lane and multilane roundabouts are somewhat
different and are discussed separately. Single-lane roundabouts are the simplest
form of roundabout and thus are a good starting point for discussing the safety
characteristics of roundabouts relative to other forms of intersections.
The frequency of crashes at an intersection is related to the number of conflict
points at an intersection, as well as the magnitude of conflicting flows at each
conflict point. A conflict point is a location where the paths of two vehicles, or a
vehicle and a bicycle or pedestrian diverge, merge, or cross each other. For ex-
ample, Exhibit 2-3 presents a diagram of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for a tradi-
tional four-leg intersection and a four-leg roundabout intersection of two-lane roads.
The number of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for four-leg intersections drops from
thirty-two to eight with roundabouts, a 75 percent decrease. Fewer conflict points
means fewer opportunities for collisions. These are not the only conflict points at
roundabouts or traditional intersections, but are illustrative of the differences be-
tween intersection types. Chapter 5 contains a more detailed comparison of con-
flicts at more complex intersections and for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The severity of a collision is determined largely by the speed of impact and the
angle of impact. The higher the speed, the more severe the collision. The higher the
angle of impact, the more severe the collision. Roundabouts reduce in severity or
eliminate many severe conflicts that are present in traditional intersections.
Exhibit 2-2. Pedestrians
chances of death if hit by a
motor vehicle.
Source: United Kingdom (4)
Roundabouts bring the simplicity of
a T intersection to intersections
with more than three legs.
A four-leg intersection has 75 percent
fewer conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians and other vehicles,
compared to a conventional four-leg
intersection.
See Chapter 5 for a comparison of
intersection conflicts.
CONTENTS
As Exhibit 2-3 shows, a roundabout eliminates vehicle-vehicle crossing conflicts by
converting all movements to right turns. Separate turn lanes and traffic control
(stop signs or signalization) can often reduce but not eliminate the number of crossing
conflicts at a traditional intersection by separating conflicts in space and/or time.
However, the most severe crashes at signalized intersections occur when there is
a violation of the traffic control device designed to separate conflicts by time (e.g.,
a right-angle collision due to a motorist running a red light, or vehicle-pedestrian
collisions). The ability of roundabouts to reduce conflicts through physical, geomet-
ric features has been demonstrated to be more effective than the reliance on driver
obedience to traffic control devices. At intersections with more than four legs, a
roundabout or pair of roundabouts may sometimes be the most practical alterna-
tive to minimize the number of conflicts.
Drivers approaching a single-lane roundabout have five basic decisions regarding
other users. First, drivers must be mindful of any bicyclists merging into motor
vehicle traffic from the right side of the road or a bicycle lane or shoulder. Then they
must yield to any pedestrians crossing at the entry. Third, they must choose an
acceptable gap in which to enter the roundabout. Then they must choose the cor-
rect exit, and finally, they must yield to any pedestrians crossing the exit lane.
By contrast, a driver making a left turn from the minor leg of a two-way stop-
controlled intersection has to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists, and judge gaps in
both of the major street through movements from both directions, as well as the
major street left and right turns and opposing minor through and right turns.
Signalized intersections have simplified the decision-making process for drivers,
especially at locations where protected left-turn phasing is provided, by separating
conflicts in time and space. However, the rules and driver decisions for negotiating
signalized intersections are still quite complex when all the possible signal phasing
schemes are accounted for. For signals with permitted left-turn phasing, the driver
Exhibit 2-3. Comparisons of
vehicle-vehicle conflict points for
intersections with four single-lane
approaches.
g r
r
r
Roundabouts eliminate crossing
conflicts by converting all movements
to right turns.
Types of intersection
conflicts.
CONTENTS
must be cognizant of the opposing traffic including pedestrians, and the signal
indication (to ensure a legal maneuver). At roundabouts, once at the yield line, the
entering driver can focus attention entirely on the circulating traffic stream approach-
ing from the left. A driver behind the entering driver can focus entirely on crossing
pedestrians.
2.1.1.2 Double-lane roundabouts
As discussed in Chapter 1, double-lane roundabouts are those with at least one
entry that has two lanes. In general, double-lane roundabouts have some of the
same safety characteristics for vehicle occupants as their less complicated single-
lane counterparts. However, due to the presence of multiple entry lanes and the
accompanying need to provide wider circulatory and exit roadways, double-lane
roundabouts have complications that result in poorer safety characteristics, par-
ticularly for bicyclists and pedestrians, than single-lane roundabouts serving simi-
lar traffic demands. This makes it important to use the minimum number of entry,
circulating, and exit lanes, subject to capacity considerations.
Due to their typically larger size compared to single-lane roundabouts, double-lane
roundabouts often cannot achieve the same levels of speed reduction as their single-
lane counterparts. Wider entering, circulating, and exiting roadways enable a ve-
hicle to select a path that crosses multiple lanes, as shown in Exhibit 2-4. Because
of the higher-speed geometry, single-vehicle accidents can be more severe. How-
ever, design of double-lane roundabouts according to the procedures in Chapter 6,
especially the approach and entry, can substantially reduce the speeds of entering
vehicles and consequently reduce the severity of conflicts. Even so, speed control
cannot occur to the extent possible with single-lane roundabouts.
Pedestrians crossing double-lane roundabouts are exposed for a longer time and
to faster vehicles. They can also be obscured from, or not see, approaching ve-
hicles in adjacent lanes if vehicles in the nearest lane yield to them. Children, wheel-
Exhibit 2-4. Fastest vehicle
path through a double-lane
roundabout.
Increasing the number of lanes
increases the number of conflict
points.
The design of double-lane
roundabouts to control the
speed of the fastest vehicle path
is covered in Chapter 6.
CONTENTS
chair users, and visually impaired pedestrians face particular risks. Bicycles
are also more exposed to severe conflicts when choosing to circulate with
motor vehicles.
Driver decisions are more complex at double-lane roundabouts. The requirement
to yield to pedestrians still applies. The primary additional decisions are the choices
of the proper lane for entering, lateral position for circulating, and proper lane for
exiting the roundabout. Lane choice on approaching a double-lane roundabout is no
different from approaching a signalized intersection: to turn left, stay left; to turn
right, stay right. However, the decisions for circulating within and especially exiting
a double-lane roundabout are unique.
Double-lane roundabouts with legs aligned at approximately 90-degree angles al-
low motorists to determine the appropriate lane choice for their path through the
roundabout in a relatively easy manner. Double-lane roundabouts with more than
four legs and/or with legs aligned at angles significantly different from 90 degrees
make driver decisions more complicated. This occurs because it can be difficult on
some legs to determine which movements are left, through, and right. For this rea-
son, it is desirable that multilane roundabouts be limited to a maximum of four legs,
with legs aligned at approximately 90-degree angles. If this is not possible, special
advance guide signs showing appropriate lane choice should be considered.
When double-lane roundabouts are first introduced to an area, there is a need for
adequate user education. Recommendations for user education material specifi-
cally related to this issue are presented later in this chapter.
2.1.2 Vehicle delay and queue storage
When operating within their capacity, roundabout intersections typically operate
with lower vehicle delays than other intersection forms and control types. With a
roundabout, it is unnecessary for traffic to come to a complete stop when no con-
flicts present themselves, or else deceleration will avoid a conflict. When there are
queues on one or more approaches, traffic within the queues usually continues to
move, and this is typically more tolerable to drivers than a stopped or standing
queue. The performance of roundabouts during off-peak periods is particularly good
in contrast to other intersection forms, typically with very low average delays.
2.1.3 Delay of major movements
Roundabouts tend to treat all movements at an intersection equally. Each approach
is required to yield to circulating traffic, regardless of whether the approach is a
local street or major arterial. In other words, all movements are given equal priority.
This may result in more delay to the major movements than might otherwise be
desired. This problem is most acute at the intersection of high-volume major streets
with low- to medium-volume minor streets (e.g., major arterial streets with minor
collectors or local streets). Therefore, the overall street classification system and
hierarchy should be considered before selecting a roundabout (or stop-controlled)
intersection. This limitation should be specifically considered on emergency re-
sponse routes in comparison with other intersection types and control. The delays
depend on the volume of turning movements and should be analyzed individually
for each approach, according to the procedures in Chapter 4.
Double-lane roundabouts can be
confusing without proper engineer-
ing and user education.
Consider guide signs for roundabouts
with skewed approaches or
more than four legs.
Sections 2.5 and 2.6 cover user
education topics.
Techniques for estimating delay
are given in Chapter 4.
Since all intersection
movements at a roundabout
have equal priority, major street
movements may be delayed
more than desired.
CONTENTS
2.1.4 Signal progression
It is common practice to coordinate traffic signals on arterial roads to minimize
stops and delay to through traffic on the major road. By requiring coordinated pla-
toons to yield to traffic in the circulatory roadway, the introduction of a roundabout
into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange platoons of traffic if
other conflicting flows are significant, thereby reducing progressive movement. To
minimize overall system delay, it may be beneficial to divide the signal system into
subsystems separated by the roundabout, assigning each subsystem its own cycle.
The traffic performance of the combination roundabout-signal system should be
tested in advance with signal systems and roundabout analysis tools. In some
cases, total delay, stops, and queues will be reduced by the roundabout. The num-
ber of available gaps for midblock unsignalized intersections and driveways may
also be reduced by the introduction of roundabouts, although this may be offset by
the reduced speeds near roundabouts. In addition, roundabouts can enable safe
and quick U-turns that can substitute for more difficult midblock left turns, espe-
cially where there is no left turn lane.
2.1.5 Environmental factors
Roundabouts may provide environmental benefits if they reduce vehicle delay and
the number and duration of stops compared with an alternative. Even when there
are heavy volumes, vehicles continue to advance slowly in moving queues rather
than coming to a complete stop. This may reduce noise and air quality impacts and
fuel consumption significantly by reducing the number of acceleration/decelera-
tion cycles and the time spent idling.
In general, if stop or yield control is insufficient, traffic through roundabouts gener-
ates less pollution and consumes less fuel than traffic at fixed-time signalized inter-
sections. However, vehicle-actuated signals typically cause less delay, less fuel
consumption, and less emissions than roundabouts as long as traffic volumes are
low. During busy hours, vehicle-actuated signals tend to operate like fixed-time
signals, and the percentage of cars that must stop becomes high (5).
2.1.6 Spatial requirements
Roundabouts usually require more space for the circular roadway and central is-
land than the rectangular space inside traditional intersections. Therefore, round-
abouts often have a significant right-of-way impact on the corner properties at the
intersection, especially when compared with other forms of unsignalized intersec-
tion. The dimensions of a traditional intersection are typically comparable to the
envelope formed by the approaching roadways. However, to the extent that a com-
parable roundabout would outperform a signal in terms of reduced delay and thus
shorter queues, it will require less queue storage space on the approach legs. If a
signalized intersection requires long or multiple turn lanes to provide sufficient
capacity or storage, a roundabout with similar capacity may require less space on
the approaches. As a result, roundabouts may reduce the need for additional right-
of-way on the links between intersections, at the expense of additional right-of-
way requirements at the intersections themselves (refer to Chapters 3 and 8). The
right-of-way savings between intersections may make it feasible to accommodate
parking, wider sidewalks, planter strips, wider outside lanes, and/or bicycle lanes
in order to better accommodate pedestrians and/or bicyclists. Another space-sav-
ing strategy is the use of flared approach lanes to provide additional capacity at the
CONTENTS
intersection while maintaining the benefit of reduced spatial requirements upstream
and downstream of an intersection.
At interchange ramp terminals, paired roundabouts have been used to reduce the
number of lanes in freeway over- and underpasses. In compact urban areas, there
are typically signalized intersections at both ends of overpass bridges, necessitat-
ing two additional overpass lanes to provide capacity and storage at the signalized
intersections.
2.1.7 Operation and maintenance costs
Compared to signalized intersections, a roundabout does not have signal equip-
ment that requires constant power, periodic light bulb and detection maintenance,
and regular signal timing updates. Roundabouts, however, can have higher land-
scape maintenance costs, depending on the degree of landscaping provided on
the central island, splitter islands, and perimeter. Illumination costs for roundabouts
and signalized intersections are similar. Drivers sometimes face a confusing situa-
tion when they approach a signalized intersection during a power failure, but such
failures have minimal temporary effect on roundabouts or any other unsignalized
intersections, other than the possible loss of illumination. The service life of a round-
about is significantly longer, approximately 25 years, compared with 10 years for a
typical signal (6).
2.1.8 Traffic calming
Series of roundabouts can have secondary, traffic calming effects on streets by
reducing vehicle speeds. As discussed previously, speed reduction at roundabouts
is caused by geometry rather than by traffic control devices or traffic volume. Con-
sequently, speed reduction can be realized at all times of day and on streets of any
traffic volume. It is difficult to speed through an appropriately designed roundabout
with raised channelization that forces vehicles to physically change direction. In
this way, roundabouts can complement other traffic calming measures.
Roundabouts have also been used successfully at the interface between rural and
urban areas where speed limits change. In these applications, the traffic calming
effects of roundabouts force drivers to slow and reinforce the notion of a signifi-
cant change in the driving environment.
2.1.9 Aesthetics
Roundabouts offer the opportunity to provide attractive entries or centerpieces to
communities. However, hard objects in the central island directly facing the entries
are a safety hazard. The portions of the central island and, to a lesser degree, the
splitter islands that are not subject to sight-distance requirements offer opportuni-
ties for aesthetic landscaping. Pavement textures can be varied on the aprons as
well. Exhibit 2-5 presents examples of the aesthetic treatments that have been
applied to roundabouts. They can also be used in tourist or shopping areas to facili-
tate safe U-turns and to demarcate commercial uses from residential areas. They
have been justified as a spur to economic development, conveying to developers
that the area is favorable for investment in redevelopment. Some are exhibited as
a signature feature on community postcards, advertisements, and travelogues.
By reducing speeds,
roundabouts complement
other traffic calming
measures.
Landscaping issues are
discussed in detail in
Chapter 7.
CONTENTS
2.1.10 Design for older drivers
In the United States, there is a trend toward an aging population, as well as indi-
viduals, continuing to drive until an older age. This trend has implications for all
roadway design, including roundabout design, ranging from operations through
geometric and sign design. In this regard, designers should consult available docu-
ments such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Older Driver Highway
Design Handbook (7):
The single greatest concern in accommodating older road users, both drivers
and pedestrians, is the ability of these persons to safely maneuver through
intersections.
Driving situations involving complex speed-distance judgments under time con-
straints are more problematic for older drivers and pedestrians than for their
younger counterparts.
Older drivers are much more likely to be involved in crashes where the drivers
were driving too fast for the curve or, more significantly, were surprised by the
curved alignment.
Many studies have shown that loss-of-control crashes result from an inability to
maintain lateral position through the curve because of excessive speed, with
inadequate deceleration in the approach zone. These problems in turn stem
from a combination of factors, including poor anticipation of vehicle control re-
quirements, induced by the drivers prior speed, and inadequate perception of
the demands of the curve.
Older drivers have difficulties in allocating attention to the most relevant as-
pects of novel driving situations.
Older drivers generally need more time than average drivers to react to events.
Exhibit 2-5. Examples
of aesthetic treatments.
(a) West Boca Raton, FL (b) Santa Barbara, CA
(c) Fort Pierce, FL (d) Vail, CO
CONTENTS
While the Handbook is not specific to roundabouts, and since no age-related re-
search has been conducted with U.S. roundabouts to date, these findings may
apply to older persons encountering roundabouts, as well. The excerpts above all
imply that lower, more conservative design speeds are appropriate. Roundabouts
designed for low, consistent speeds cater to the preferences of older drivers: slower
speeds; time to make decisions, act, and react; uncomplicated situations to inter-
pret; simple decision-making; a reduced need to look over ones shoulder; a re-
duced need to judge closing speeds of fast traffic accurately; and a reduced need
to judge gaps in fast traffic accurately. For example, two-way stop-controlled inter-
sections may be appropriate for replacement with a roundabout when a crash
analysis indicates that age-related collisions are prevalent.
2.2 Multimodal Considerations
As with any intersection design, each transportation mode present requires care-
ful consideration. This section presents some of the general issues associated
with each mode; additional detail on mode-specific safety and design issues is
provided in subsequent chapters.
2.2.1 Pedestrians
Pedestrians are accommodated by crossings around the perimeter of the round-
about. By providing space to pause on the splitter island, pedestrians can consider
one direction of conflicting traffic at a time, which simplifies the task of crossing
the street. The roundabout should be designed to discourage pedestrians from
crossing to the central island, e.g., with landscape buffers on the corners. Pedes-
trian crossings are set back from the yield line by one or more vehicle lengths to:
Shorten the crossing distance compared to locations adjacent to the inscribed
circle;
Separate vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflict points; and
Allow the second entering driver to devote full attention to crossing pedestrians
while waiting for the driver ahead to enter the circulatory roadway.
If sidewalks on the intersecting roads are adjacent to the curbs, this setback may
require the sidewalks to deviate from a straight path. This is not the case if side-
walks are separated from the curbs by a generous landscape buffer.
Most intersections are two-way stop-controlled, or uncontrolled. Compared to two-
way stop-controlled intersections, roundabouts may make it easier and safer for
pedestrians to cross the major street. At both roundabouts and two-way stop-
controlled intersections, pedestrians have to judge gaps in the major (uncontrolled)
stream of traffic. By reducing stopping distance, the low vehicular speeds through
a roundabout generally reduce the frequency and severity of incidents involving
pedestrians. In addition, when crossing an exit lane on the minor road, the sight
angle is smaller than when watching for left-turning vehicles at a conventional inter-
section.
The comparison between roundabouts and all-way stop-controlled intersections is
less clear. All-way stop control is virtually nonexistent in foreign countries that have
Pedestrian crossings should be set
back from the yield line by one or
more vehicle lengths.
CONTENTS
roundabouts, and so there is little international experience with which to compare.
All-way stop-controlled intersections may be preferred by pedestrians with visual
impairment because vehicles are required to stop before they enter the intersec-
tion. However, crossing the exit leg of an all-way stop-controlled intersection can
be intimidating for a pedestrian since traffic may be turning onto the exit from
multiple directions. Roundabouts, on the other hand, allow pedestrians to cross
one direction of traffic at a time; however, traffic may be moving (albeit at a slow
speed), thus making it more challenging to judge gaps, especially for visually im-
paired users, children, and the elderly.
The biggest difference may be that all-way stop-controlled intersections, like two-
way stops, do not provide positive geometric features to slow vehicles and instead
rely entirely on the authority of the traffic control device. The roundabout geometry
physically slows and deflects vehicles, reducing the likelihood of a high-speed col-
lision due to a traffic control device violation.
Signalized intersections offer positive guidance to pedestrians by providing visual
and occasionally audible pedestrian signal indications. In this respect, the decision
process for pedestrians requires less judgment at signalized intersections than at
roundabouts, particularly for visually impaired and elderly pedestrians. However,
pedestrians are still vulnerable at signalized intersections to right-turn and left-turn
movements unprotected by a green arrow. In addition, high-speed collisions are
still possible if a vehicle runs through a red indication. In this respect, the round-
about provides a speed-constrained environment for through traffic. At two-way
and all-way stop intersections, right-turning motorists often look only to the left in
order to check for vehicular conflicts, endangering or inconveniencing pedestrians
crossing from the right or on the right. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that
many of these drivers do not come to a complete stop if they do not perceive any
conflicts. With crosswalks located back from the circulatory roadway, roundabouts
place pedestrians in a more visible location.
The two populations at opposite ends of the age continuumchildren and the
elderlyand people with disabilities are particularly at risk at intersections. Chil-
dren (owing to their lack of traffic experience, impulsiveness, and small size) and
the elderly (owing to their age-related physical limitations) present challenges to
the designer. In recognition of pedestrians with disabilities, intersections must com-
ply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated accessibility standards
discussed in Section 2.4.5 and Chapter 5.
Elderly pedestrians, children, and the disabled find it more difficult to cross unpro-
tected road crossings. These types of pedestrians generally prefer larger gaps in
the traffic stream, and walk at slower speeds than other pedestrians. Multilane
roadways entering and exiting double-lane roundabouts require additional skills to
cross, since pedestrians need assurance that they have been seen by drivers in
each lane they are crossing.
When crossing a roundabout, there are several areas of difficulty for the blind and
or visually impaired pedestrian. It is expected that a visually impaired pedestrian
with good travel skills must be able to arrive at an unfamiliar intersection and cross
it with pre-existing skills and without special, intersection-specific training. Round-
abouts pose problems at several points of the crossing experience, from the per-
spective of information access.
When crossing a roundabout, there
are several areas of difficulty for the
blind and or visually impaired
pedestrian.
CONTENTS
Unless these issues are addressed by a design, the intersection is inaccessible
and may not be permissible under the ADA. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 provide specific
suggestions to assist in providing the above information. However, more research
is required to develop the information jurisdictions need to determine where round-
abouts may be appropriate and what design features may be appropriate for the
disabled, such as audible signalized crossings. Until specific standards are adopted,
engineers and jurisdictions must rely on existing related research and professional
judgment to design pedestrian features so that they are usable by pedestrians with
disabilities.
2.2.2 Bicycles
Roundabouts may not provide safety benefits to bicyclists (1). Nevertheless, the
recommended roundabout designs discourage erratic or undesirable driver behav-
ior. They slow drivers to speeds more compatible with bicycle speeds, while reduc-
ing high-speed conflicts and simplifying turn movements for bicyclists. Typical com-
muter bicyclist speeds are around 25 km/h (15 mph), so entering a roundabout
designed for circulating traffic to flow at similar speeds should be safer compared
with larger and faster roundabout designs. Bicyclists require particular attention in
two-lane roundabout design, especially in areas with moderate to heavy bicycle
traffic.
As with pedestrians, one of the difficulties in accommodating bicyclists is their
wide range of skills and comfort levels in mixed traffic. On single-lane roundabouts,
bicyclists have the option of either mixing with traffic or using the roundabout like
a pedestrian. The former option will likely be reasonably comfortable for experi-
enced cyclists; however, less-experienced cyclists (including children) may have
difficulty and discomfort mixing with vehicles and are more safely accommodated
as pedestrians.
The complexity of vehicle interactions within a roundabout leaves a cyclist vulner-
able, and for this reason, bike lanes within the circulatory roadway should never be
used. On double-lane roundabouts, a bicycle path separate and distinct from the
circulatory roadway is preferable, such as a shared bicycle-pedestrian path of suf-
ficient width and appropriately marked to accommodate both types of users around
the perimeter of the roundabout. While this will likely be more comfortable for the
casual cyclist, the experienced commuter cyclist will be significantly slowed down
by having to cross as a pedestrian at each approach crossing and may choose to
continue to traverse a double-lane roundabout as a vehicle. It may sometimes be
possible to provide cyclists with an alternative route along another street or path
that avoids the roundabout, which should be considered as part of overall network
planning. The provision of alternative routes should not be used to justify compro-
mising the safety of bicycle traffic through the roundabout because experienced
cyclists and those with immediately adjacent destinations will use it.
2.2.3 Large vehicles
Roundabouts should always be designed for the largest vehicle that can be reason-
ably anticipated (the design vehicle). For single-lane roundabouts, this may re-
quire the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the central island to
provide the additional width needed for tracking the trailer wheels. At double-lane
roundabouts, large vehicles may track across the whole width of the circulatory
roadway to negotiate the roundabout. In some cases, roundabouts have been
Bike lanes through
roundabouts should
never be used.
Design roundabouts to
accommodate the largest
vehicle that can reasonably
be expected.
CONTENTS
designed with aprons or gated roadways through the central island to accommo-
date oversized trucks, emergency vehicles, or trains.
2.2.4 Transit
Transit considerations at a roundabout are similar to those at a conventional inter-
section. If the roundabout has been designed using the appropriate design vehicle,
a bus should have no physical difficulty negotiating the intersection. To minimize
passenger discomfort, if the roundabout is on a bus route, it is preferable that
scheduled buses are not required to use a truck apron if present. Bus stops should
be located carefully to minimize the probability of vehicle queues spilling back into
the circulatory roadway. This typically means that bus stops located on the far side
of the intersection need to have pullouts or be further downstream than the splitter
island. Pedestrian access routes to transit should be designed for safety, comfort,
and convenience. If demand is significant, such as near a station or terminus, pe-
destrian crossing capacity should be accounted for.
Roundabouts may provide opportunities for giving transit (including rail) and emer-
gency vehicles priority as can be done at signalized intersections. This may be
provided using geometry, or signals. For example, these could include an exclusive
right-turn bypass lane or signals holding entering traffic while the transit vehicle
enters its own right-of-way or mixed traffic. The roundabout can be supplemented
by signals activated by a transit, emergency, or rail vehicle. Chapters 6, 7, and 8
provide more detail on transit treatments.
2.2.5 Emergency vehicles
The passage of large emergency vehicles through a roundabout is the same as for
other large vehicles and may require use of a mountable apron. On emergency
response routes, the delay for the relevant movements at a planned roundabout
should be compared with alternative intersection types and control. Just as they
are required to do at conventional intersections, drivers should be educated not to
enter a roundabout when an emergency vehicle is approaching on another leg.
Once having entered, they should clear out of the circulatory roadway if possible,
facilitating queue clearance in front of the emergency vehicle.
Roundabouts provide emergency vehicles the benefit of lower vehicle speeds,
which may make roundabouts safer for them to negotiate than signalized cross-
ings. Unlike at signalized intersections, emergency vehicle drivers are not faced
with through vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection and hitting them at
high speed.
2.2.6 Rail crossings
Rail crossings through or near a roundabout may involve many of the same design
challenges as at other intersections and should be avoided if better alternatives
exist. In retrofit, the rail track may be designed to pass through the central island,
or across one of the legs. Queues spilling back from a rail blockage into the round-
about can fill the circulatory roadway and temporarily prevent movement on any
approach. However, to the extent that a roundabout approach capacity exceeds
that of a signal at the same location, queues will dissipate faster. Therefore, a case-
specific capacity and safety analysis is recommended. Section 8.2 addresses the
design of at-grade rail crossings.
Public transit buses should not be
forced to use a truck apron to
negotiate a roundabout.
See Section 8.2 for information on
designing roundabouts located near
at-grade rail crossings.
Chapters 6-8 provide more
detail on transit treatments.
CONTENTS
2.3 Costs Associated with Roundabouts
Many factors influence the amount of economic investment justified for any type
of intersection. Costs associated with roundabouts include construction costs,
engineering and design fees, land acquisition, and maintenance costs. Benefits
may include reduced crash rates and severity, reduced delay, stops, fuel consump-
tion, and emissions. Benefit-cost analysis is discussed further in Chapter 3.
When comparing costs, it is often difficult to separate the actual intersection costs
from an overall improvement project. Accordingly, the reported costs of installing
roundabouts have been shown to vary significantly from site to site. A roundabout
may cost more or less than a traffic signal, depending on the amount of new pave-
ment area and the extent of other roadway work required. At some existing
unsignalized intersections, a traffic signal can be installed without significant modi-
fications to the pavement area or curbs. In these instances, a roundabout is likely
to be more costly to install than a traffic signal, as the roundabout can rarely be
constructed without significant pavement and curb modifications.
However, at new sites, and at signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches to provide additional turn lanes, a roundabout can be a compa-
rable or less expensive alternative. While roundabouts typically require more pave-
ment area at the intersection, they may require less pavement width on the up-
stream approaches and downstream exits if multiple turn lanes associated with a
signalized intersection can be avoided. The cost savings of reduced approach road-
way widths is particularly advantageous at interchange ramp terminals and other
intersections adjacent to grade separations where wider roads may result in larger
bridge structures. In most cases, except potentially for a mini-roundabout, a round-
about is more expensive to construct than the two-way or all-way stop-controlled
intersection alternatives.
Recent roundabout projects in the United States have shown a wide range in re-
ported construction costs. Assuming 1998 U.S. Dollars in the following examples,
costs ranged from $10,000 for a retrofit application of an existing traffic circle to
$500,000 for a new roundabout at the junction of two State highways. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 264 (3) reports that
the average construction cost of 14 U.S. roundabouts, none being part of an inter-
change, was approximately $250,000. This amount includes all construction ele-
ments, but does not include land acquisition.
Higher costs are typically incurred when a substantial amount of realignment, grad-
ing, or drainage work is required. The cost of maintaining traffic during construction
tends to be relatively high for retrofitting roundabouts. This expense is due mainly
to the measures required to maintain existing traffic flow through the intersection
while rebuilding it in stages. Other factors contributing to high roundabout costs
are large amounts of landscaping in the central and splitter islands, extensive sign-
ing and lighting, and the provision of curbs on all outside pavement edges.
Operating and maintenance costs of roundabouts are somewhat higher than for
other unsignalized intersections, but less than those for signalized intersections. In
addition, traffic signals consume electricity and require periodic service (e.g., bulb
replacement, detector replacement, and periodic signal retiming). Operating costs
for a roundabout are generally limited to the cost of illumination (similar to signalized
alternatives, but typically more than is required for other unsignalized intersections).
Roundabouts may require more
pavement area at the intersection,
compared to a traffic signal, but
less on the approaches and exits.
The cost of maintaining traffic during
construction of a roundabout retrofit
can be relatively high.
CONTENTS
Maintenance includes regular restriping and repaving as necessary, as well as snow
removal and storage in cold climates (these costs are also incurred by conventional
intersections). Landscaping may require regular maintenance as well, including
such things as pruning, mowing, and irrigation system maintenance. To the extent
that roundabouts reduce crashes compared with conventional intersections, they
will reduce the number and severity of incidents that disrupt traffic flow and that
may require emergency service.
2.4 Legal Considerations
The legal environment in which roundabouts operate is an important area for juris-
dictions to consider when developing a roundabout program or set of guidelines.
The rules of the road that govern the operation of motor vehicles in a given State
can have a significant influence on the way a roundabout operates and on how
legal issues such as crashes involving roundabouts are handled. Local jurisdictions
that are interested in developing a roundabout program need to be aware of the
governing State regulations in effect. The following sections discuss several of the
important legal issues that should be considered. These have been based on the
provisions of the 1992 Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) (8), which has been adopted to
varying degrees by each State, as well as the rules of the road, and commentaries
thereof, from the United Kingdom (9) and Australia (10, 11). Note that the informa-
tion in the following sections does not constitute specific legal opinion; each juris-
diction should consult with its attorneys on specific legal issues.
2.4.1 Definition of intersection
The central legal issue around which all other issues are derived is the fundamental
relationship between a roundabout and the legal definition of an intersection. A
roundabout could be legally defined one of two ways:
As a single intersection; or
As a series of T-intersections.
The UVC does not provide clear guidance on the appropriate definition of an inter-
section with respect to roundabouts. The UVC generally defines an intersection
as the area bounded by the projection of the boundary lines of the approaching
roadways (UVC 1-132a). It also specifies that where a highway includes two road-
ways 9.1 m (30 ft) or more apart, each crossing shall be regarded as a separate
intersection (UVC 1-132b). This may imply that most circular intersections should
be regarded as a series of T-intersections. This distinction has ramifications in the
interpretation of the other elements identified in this section.
This guide recommends that a roundabout be specifically defined as a single inter-
section, regardless of the size of the roundabout. This intersection should be de-
fined as the area bounded by the limits of the pedestrian crossing areas around the
perimeter of a single central island. Closely spaced roundabouts with multiple cen-
tral islands should be defined as separate intersections, as each roundabout is
typically designed to operate independently.
It is recommended that roundabouts
be defined as a single intersection:
the area bounded by the limits of the
pedestrian crossing areas.
CONTENTS
2.4.2 Right-of-way between vehicles
The UVC specifies that when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from
different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the
left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right (UVC 11-401). This runs
contrary to the default operation of a roundabout, which assigns the right-of-way to
the vehicle on the left and any vehicle in front. This requires the use of yield signs
and yield lines at all approaches to a roundabout to clearly define right-of-way.
This guide recommends that right-of-way at a roundabout be legally defined such
that an entering vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the left (France
passed such a law in 1984). This definition does not change the recommendation
for appropriately placed yield signs and yield lines.
2.4.3 Required lane position at intersections
At a typical intersection with multilane approaches, vehicles are required by the
UVC to use the right-most lane to turn right and the left-most lane to turn left,
unless specifically signed or marked lanes allow otherwise (e.g., double left-turn
lanes) (UVC 11-601). Because multilane roundabouts can be used at intersections
with more than four legs, the concept of left turns and right turns becomes
more difficult to legally define. The following language (10) is recommended:
Unless official traffic control devices indicate otherwise, drivers must make lane
choices according to the following rules:
If a driver intends to exit the roundabout less than halfway around it, the right
lane must be used.
If a driver intends to exit the roundabout more than halfway around it, the left
lane must be used.
The Australian Traffic Act (10) gives no guidance for straight through movements
(movements leaving the roundabout exactly halfway), and the general Australian
practice is to allow drivers to use either lane unless signed or marked otherwise.
On multilane roundabouts where the intersecting roadways are not at 90-degree
angles or there are more than four legs to the roundabout, special consideration
should be given to assisting driver understanding through advance diagrammatic
guide signs or lane markings on approaches showing the appropriate lane choices.
2.4.4 Priority within the circulatory roadway
For multilane roundabouts, the issue of priority within the circulatory roadway is
important. Any vehicle on the inner track on the circulatory roadway (e.g., a vehicle
making a left turn) will ultimately cross the outer track of the circulatory roadway to
exit. This may cause conflicts with other vehicles in the circulatory roadway.
Consistent with its lack of treatment of roundabouts, the UVC does not provide
clear guidance on priority within the circulatory roadway of a roundabout. In gen-
eral, the UVC provides that all overtaking should take place on the left (UVC 11-
303). However, the UVC also specifies the following with respect to passing on the
right (UVC 11-304a):
Because of yield-to-the-right laws,
yield signs and lines must be used on
roundabout entries to assign right-of-
way to the circulatory roadway.
Recommended lane assignments:
Exit less than halfway, use the right
lane. Exit more than halfway, use the
left lane. Exit exactly halfway, use
either lane.
CONTENTS
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only
under the following conditions.
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or
more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the
overtaking vehicle.
A case could be made that this provision applies to conditions within a circulatory
roadway of a multilane roundabout. Under the definition of a roundabout as a single
intersection, a vehicle making a left turn could be overtaken on the right, even
though the completion of the left turn requires exiting on the right.
International rules of the road vary considerably on this point. The United Kingdom,
for example, requires drivers to watch out for traffic crossing in front of you on the
roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit. Show them
consideration. (9, 125) This is generally interpreted as meaning that a vehicle at
the front of a bunch of vehicles within the circulatory roadway has the right-of-way,
regardless of the track it is on, and following vehicles on any track must yield to the
front vehicle as it exits. Australia, on the other hand, does not have a similar state-
ment in its legal codes, and this was one of the factors that led Australians to favor
striping of the circulatory roadway in recent years. Further research and legal ex-
ploration need to be performed to determine the effect of this legal interpretation
on driver behavior and the safety and operation of multilane roundabouts.
For clarity, this guide makes the following recommendations:
Overtaking within the circulatory roadway should be prohibited.
Exiting vehicles should be given priority over circulating vehicles, provided that
the exiting vehicle is in front of the circulating vehicle.
2.4.5 Pedestrian accessibility
The legal definition of a roundabout as one intersection or a series of intersections
also has implications for pedestrians, particularly with respect to marked and un-
marked crosswalks. A portion of the UVC definition of a crosswalk is as follows:
. . . and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, that part of a
roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk
at right angles to the centerline (UVC 1-112(a)). Under the definition of a round-
about as a series of T-intersections, this portion of the definition could be inter-
preted to mean that there are unmarked crosswalks between the perimeter and
the central island at every approach. The recommended definition of a roundabout
as a single intersection simplifies this issue, for the marked or unmarked cross-
walks around the perimeter as defined are sufficient and complete.
In all States, drivers are required to either yield or stop for pedestrians in a cross-
walk (however, this requirement is often violated, and therefore it is prudent for
pedestrians not to assume that this is the case). In addition, the provisions of the
ADA also apply to roundabouts in all respects, including the design of sidewalks,
crosswalks, and ramps. Under the ADA, accessible information is required to make
the existing public right-of-way an accessible program provided by State and local
governments (28 CFR 35.150). Any facility or part of a facility that is newly con-
structed by a State or local government must be designed and constructed so that
Recommendations: No overtaking
within the circulatory roadway, and
exiting vehicles in front of other
circulating vehicles have priority
when exiting.
CONTENTS
it is readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities (28 CFR 35.151(a)).
Alterations to existing facilities must include modifications to make altered areas
accessible to individuals with disabilities (28 CFR 735.151 (b)).
Current guidelines do not specifically address ways to make roundabouts acces-
sible. Nonetheless, these provisions mean providing information about safely cross-
ing streets in an accessible format, including at roundabouts. At a minimum, de-
sign information should provide for:
Locating the crosswalk;
Determining the direction of the crosswalk;
Determining a safe crossing time; and
Locating the splitter island refuge.
2.4.6 Parking
Many States prohibit parking within a specified distance of an intersection; others
allow parking right up to the crosswalk. The degree to which these laws are in
place will govern the need to provide supplemental signs and/or curb markings
showing parking restrictions. To provide the necessary sight distances for safe
crossings to occur, this guide recommends that parking be restricted immediately
upstream of the pedestrian crosswalks.
The legal need to mark parking restrictions within the circulatory roadway may be
dependent on the definition of a roundabout as a single intersection or as a series
of T-intersections. Using the recommended definition of a roundabout as a single
intersection, the circulatory roadway would be completely contained within the
intersection, and the UVC currently prohibits parking within an intersection (UVC
11-1003).
2.5 Public Involvement
Public acceptance of roundabouts has often been found to be one of the biggest
challenges facing a jurisdiction that is planning to install its first roundabout. With-
out the benefit of explanation or first-hand experience and observation, the public
is likely to incorrectly associate roundabouts with older, nonconforming traffic circles
that they have either experienced or heard about. Equally likely, without adequate
education, the public (and agencies alike) will often have a natural hesitation or
resistance against changes in their driving behavior and driving environment.
In such a situation, a proposal to install a roundabout may initially experience a
negative public reaction. However, the history of the first few roundabouts installed
in the United States also indicates that public attitude toward roundabouts im-
proves significantly after construction. A recent survey conducted of jurisdictions
across the United States (3) reported a significant negative public attitude toward
roundabouts prior to construction (68 percent of the responses were negative or
very negative), but a positive attitude after construction (73 percent of the responses
were positive or very positive).
A recent survey found negative
public attitudes towards roundabouts
before construction, but positive
attitudes following construction.
CONTENTS
A wide variety of techniques have been used successfully in the United States to
inform and educate the public about new roundabouts. Some of these include
public meetings, informational brochures and videos, and announcements in the
newspaper or on television and radio. A public involvement process should be
initiated as soon as practical, preferably early in the planning stages of a project
while other intersection forms are also being considered.
2.5.1 Public meetings
Public meetings can be a good forum for bringing the public into the design pro-
cess. This allows early identification of potential problems and helps to gain overall
acceptance throughout the process. Public input may be useful at various stages
in the planning process: data collection, problem definition, generation of design
alternatives, selection of preferred alternatives, detailed design, go/no-go decision,
construction/opening, and landscape maintenance. Many jurisdictions require or
recommend public meetings with the affected neighborhood or businesses prior
to approval of the project by elected officials. Even if such meetings are not re-
quired, they can be helpful in easing concerns about a new form of intersection for
a community.
2.5.2 Informational brochures
A number of agencies, including the Maryland State Highway Administration and
the City of Montpelier, Vermont, have used informational brochures to educate the
public about roundabouts in their communities. Brochures have also been pre-
pared for specific projects. Exhibit 2-6 shows examples from the brochures pre-
pared for the I-70/Vail Road roundabouts in Vail, Colorado, and the Towson Round-
about in Towson, Maryland. These brochures include drawings or photographic simu-
lations of the proposed roundabout. The brochures also typically include general
information on roundabouts (what roundabouts are, where they can be found, and
the types of benefits that can be expected). Sometimes they also include instruc-
tions on how to use the roundabout as a motorist, bicyclist, and pedestrian. The
Towson brochure included additional information on the business association in
the area, the streetscape policy of the county, and information on the construction
phases of the roundabout.
Public meetings, videos and
brochures, and media
announcements are some of
the ways to educate the public
about new roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 2-6. Examples of informational brochures.
(a) Vail, CO
(b) Towson, MD
CONTENTS
2.5.3 Informational videos
A number of agencies and consulting firms have prepared videos to inform the
public about roundabouts. These videos are typically 10 to 15 minutes in length and
include footage of existing roundabouts and narration about their operational and
safety characteristics. These videos have been successfully used at public meet-
ings as an effective means of introducing the public to roundabouts.
2.5.4 Media announcements
Given the new nature of a roundabout in many communities, the local media (news-
paper, radio, and television) is likely to become involved. Such interest often occurs
early in the process, and then again upon the opening of the roundabout. Radio
reading services, telephone information services, and publications intended pri-
marily for individuals with disabilities should be used to communicate with per-
sons who are visually impaired when a roundabout is proposed and when it opens.
2.6 Education
One of the important issues facing a State considering the implementation of round-
abouts is the need to provide adequate driver, cyclist, and pedestrian education. To
clarify the following tips and instructions, user education should begin by using
simple exhibits such as those in Chapter 1 to familiarize them with the basic physi-
cal features of a roundabout intersection. Users should also familiarize themselves
with the instructions for all other modes so that they understand the expectations
of each other. The following sections provide instructional material and model lan-
guage for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians that can be adapted to drivers manuals.
These have been adapted from similar rules of the road and drivers manuals used
for roundabouts in the United Kingdom (9), Australia (10), and the State of Victoria,
Australia (11).
2.6.1 Driver education
2.6.1.1 Approaching the roundabout
On approaching a roundabout, decide as early as possible which exit you need to
take and get into the correct lane (refer to the section below on Turning at round-
abouts). Reduce your speed. Bicyclists are vehicles and need to share the lane at
intersections. Therefore, allow bicycles to enter the roadway from any bicycle lane.
The law gives pedestrians the right-of-way in a crosswalk. Yield to pedestrians
waiting to cross or crossing on the approach. Watch out for and be particularly
considerate of people with disabilities, children, and elderly pedestrians. Always
keep to the right of the splitter island (either painted or raised) on the approach to
the roundabout.
2.6.1.2 Entering the roundabout
Upon reaching the roundabout yield line, yield to traffic circulating from the left
unless signs or pavement markings indicate otherwise. Do not enter the round-
about beside a vehicle already circulating within the roundabout, as a vehicle near
the central island may be exiting at the next exit. Watch out for traffic already on the
roundabout, especially cyclists and motorcyclists. Do not enter a roundabout when
an emergency vehicle is approaching on another leg; allow queues to clear in front
of the emergency vehicle.
The following sample instructions
assume that readers have already
seen introductory material on
roundabouts, such as the brochures
depicted in the previous section.
CONTENTS
2.6.1.3 Within the roundabout
Within a roundabout, do not stop except to avoid a collision; you have the right-of-
way over entering traffic. Always keep to the right of the central island and travel in
a counterclockwise direction.
Where the circulatory roadway is wide enough to allow two or more vehicles to
travel side-by-side, do not overtake adjacent vehicles who are slightly ahead of
yours as they may wish to exit next. Watch out for traffic crossing in front of you
on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit. Do not
change lanes within the roundabout except to exit.
When an emergency vehicle is approaching, in order to provide it a clear path to
turn through the roundabout, proceed past the splitter island of your exit before
pulling over.
2.6.1.4 Exiting the roundabout
Maintain a slow speed upon exiting the roundabout. Always indicate your exit us-
ing your right-turn signal. For multilane roundabouts, watch for vehicles to your
right, including bicycles that may cross your path while exiting, and ascertain if
they intend to yield for you to exit. Watch for and yield to pedestrians waiting to
cross, or crossing the exit leg. Watch out for and be particularly considerate of
people with disabilities, children, and elderly pedestrians. Do not accelerate until
you are beyond the pedestrian crossing point on the exit.
2.6.1.5 Turning at roundabouts
Unless signs or pavement markings indicate otherwise:
When turning right or exiting at the first exit around the roundabout, use the
following procedure:
Turn on your right-turn signal on the approach.
If there are multiple approach lanes, use only the right-hand lane.
Keep to the outside of the circulatory roadway within the roundabout and
continue to use your right-turn signal through your exit.
When there are multiple exit lanes use the right-hand lane.
When going straight ahead (i.e., exiting halfway around the roundabout), use
the following procedure (see Exhibit 2-7):
Do not use any turn signals on approach.
If there are two approach lanes, you may use either the left or right-hand
approach lanes.
When on the circulatory roadway, turn on your right-turn signal once you
have passed the exit before the one you want and continue to use your right-
turn signal through your exit.
Maintain your inside (left) or outside (right) track throughout the roundabout if
the circulatory roadway is wide. This means that if you entered using the inner
(left) lane, circulate using the inside track of the circulatory roadway and exit
from here by crossing the outside track. Likewise, if you entered using the
outer (right) lane, circulate using the outside track of the circulatory roadway
and exit directly from here. Do not change lanes within the roundabout ex-
cept when crossing the outer circulatory track in the act of exiting.
CONTENTS
When exiting the circulatory roadway from the inside track, watch out on the
outside track for leading or adjacent vehicles that continue to circulate around
the roundabout.
When exiting the circulatory roadway from the outside track, yield to leading
or adjacent vehicles that are exiting into the same lane.
When turning left or making a U-turn (i.e., exiting more than halfway around
the roundabout), use the following procedure (see Exhibit 2-8):
Turn on your left turn signal.
If there are multiple approach lanes, use only the left-hand lane.
Keep to the inner (left) side of the circulatory roadway (nearest the central
island).
Continue to use your left-turn signal until you have passed the exit before the
one you want, and then use your right-turn signal through your exit.
When exiting from a multilane roundabout from the inside part of the circula-
tory roadway, use only the inner lane on the exit (the lane nearest the splitter
island). Watch out on the outside part of the circulatory roadway for leading or
adjacent vehicles that continue to circulate around the roundabout.
Exhibit 2-7. Driving straight
through a roundabout.
Source: The Highway Code (UK) (9), converted to right-hand drive
CONTENTS
When in doubt about lane choice (especially for roundabouts with legs at angles
other than 90), use the following general rules to determine which lane
you should be in (unless signs or pavement markings indicate otherwise):
If you intend to exit the roundabout less than halfway around it, use the right
lane.
If you intend to exit the roundabout more than halfway around it, use the left
lane.
2.6.1.6 Motorcyclists and bicyclists
Watch out for motorcyclists and bicyclists. Give them plenty of room and show
due consideration. Bicyclists may enter the approach roadway from a bicycle lane.
Bicyclists will often keep to the right on the roundabout; they may also indicate left
to show they are continuing around the roundabout. It is best to treat bicyclists as
other vehicles and not pass them while on the circulatory roadway. Motorcyclists
should not ride across the mountable truck apron next to the central island, if present.
2.6.1.7 Large vehicles
When car drivers approach a roundabout, do not overtake large vehicles. Large
vehicles (for example, trucks and buses) may have to swing wide on the approach
or within the roundabout. Watch for their turn signals and give them plenty of room,
especially since they may obscure other conflicting users.
Exhibit 2-8. Turning
left at a roundabout.
Source: The Highway Code (UK) (9), converted to right-hand drive
CONTENTS
To negotiate a roundabout, drivers of large vehicles may need to use the full width
of the roadway, including mountable aprons if provided. They should be careful of
all other users of the roundabouts and, prior to entering the roundabout, satisfy
themselves that other users are aware of them and will yield to them.
2.6.2 Bicyclist education
Bicyclists should likewise be educated about the operating characteristics of round-
abouts. Well-designed, low-speed, single-lane roundabouts should not present much
difficulty to bicyclists. They should enter these roundabouts just as they enter a
stop sign or signal controlled intersection without auxiliary lanes (the bike lane
terminates on the approach to these intersections, too). On the approach to the
entry, a bicyclist should claim the lane. Right-turning cyclists should keep to the
right side of the entry lane; others should be near the center of the lane.
Cyclists have three options upon approaching a roundabout:
Travel on the circulatory roadway of the roundabout like motorists. When using
a double-lane roundabout as a vehicle, obey all rules of the road for vehicles
using roundabouts. However, you may feel safer approaching in the right-hand
lane and keeping to the right in the roundabout (rather like making two through
movements to turn left at a signalized intersection). If you do keep to the right,
take extra care when crossing exits and signal left to show you are not leaving.
Watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout. Watch
out for large vehicles on the roundabout, as they need more space to maneuver.
It may be safer to wait until they have cleared the roundabout. Or,
If you are unsure about using the roundabout, dismount and exit the approach
lane before the splitter island on the approach, and move to the sidewalk. Once
on the sidewalk, walk your bicycle like a pedestrian. Or,
Some roundabouts may have a ramp that leads to a widened sidewalk or a
shared bicycle-pedestrian path that runs around the perimeter of the round-
about. If a ramp access is provided prior to the pedestrian crossing, you may
choose to ramp up to curb level and traverse the sidewalk or path while acting
courteously to pedestrians. A ramp may also be provided on the exit legs of a
roundabout to reenter the roadway, after verifying that it is safe to do so.
2.6.3 Pedestrian education
Pedestrians have the right-of-way within crosswalks at a roundabout; however,
pedestrians must not suddenly leave a curb or other safe waiting place and walk
into the path of a vehicle if it is so close that it is an immediate hazard. This can be
problematic if the design is such that a disabled pedestrian cannot accurately de-
termine the gap. Specific education beyond these general instructions should be
provided for disabled pedestrians to use any information provided for them.
Do not cross the circulatory roadway to the central island. Walk around the
perimeter of the roundabout.
Use the crosswalks on the legs of the roundabout. If there is no crosswalk marked
on a leg of the roundabout, cross the leg about one vehicle-length away (7.5 m [25
ft]) from the circulatory roadway of the roundabout. Locate the wheelchair ramps
in the curbs. These are built in line with a grade-level opening in the median island.
This opening is for pedestrians to wait before crossing the next roadway.
CONTENTS
Roundabouts are typically designed to enable pedestrians to cross one direc-
tion of traffic at a time. Look and listen for approaching traffic. Choose a safe
time to cross from the curb ramp to the median opening (note that although you
have the right-of-way, if approaching vehicles are present, it is prudent to first
satisfy yourself that conflicting vehicles have recognized your presence and
right to cross, through visual or audible cues such as vehicle deceleration or
driver communication). If a vehicle slows for you to cross at a two-lane round-
about, be sure that conflicting vehicles in adjacent lanes have done likewise
before accepting the crossing opportunity.
Most roundabouts provide a raised median island halfway across the roadway;
wait in the opening provided and choose a safe time to cross traffic approaching
from the other direction.
2.7 References
1. Brown, M. TRL State of the Art ReviewThe Design of Roundabouts. Lon-
don: HMSO, 1995.
2. Alphand, F., U. Noelle, and B. Guichet. Roundabouts and Road Safety: State
of the Art in France. In Intersections without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag,
Germany (W. Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 107125.
3. Jacquemart, G. Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Prac-
tice in the United States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1998.
4. Department of Transport (United Kingdom). Killing Speed and Saving Lives.
As reported in Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Bicycle and Pe-
destrian Plan, 1995.
5. Garder, P. The Modern Roundabouts: The Sensible Alternative for Maine. Maine
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning, Research and Community
Services, Transportation Research Division, 1998.
6. Niederhauser, M.E., B.A. Collins, and E.J. Myers. The Use of Roundabouts:
Comparison with Alternate Design Solution. Compendium of Technical Pa-
pers, 67th Annual Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers. August 1997.
7. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Older Driver Highway Design Hand-
book. Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-135. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, January
1998.
8. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO). Uni-
form Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. Evanston, Illinois: NCUTLO,
1992.
9. Department of Transport (United Kingdom). The Highway Code. Department
of Transport and the Central Office of Information for Her Majestys Stationery
Office, 1996.
10. Australia. Traffic Act, Part 6A, 1962.
11. VicRoads. Victorian Traffic Handbook, Fourth Edition. Melbourne, Australia:
Roads Corporation, 1998.
CONTENTS
Planning
3.1 Planning Steps 51
3.2 Considerations of Context 53
3.2.1 Decision environments 53
3.2.2 Site-specific conditions 54
3.3 Number of Entry Lanes 55
3.3.1 Single-and double-lane roundabouts 56
3.3.2 M ini-roundabouts 56
3.4 Selection Categories 58
3.4.1 Community enhancement 58
3.4.2 Traffic calming 58
3.4.3 Safety improvement 59
3.4.4 O perational improvement 62
3.4.5 Special situations 63
3.5 Comparing O perational Performance of Alternative
I ntersection Types 64
3.5.1 Two-way stop-control alternative 64
3.5.2 All-way stop-control alternative 65
3.5.3 Signal control alternative 67
3.6 Space Requirements 69
3.7 Economic Evaluation 70
3.7.1 M ethodology 73
3.7.2 Estimating benefits 73
3.7.3 Estimation of costs 75
3.8 References 76
3
CONTENTS
Exhibit 3-1. M aximum daily service volumes for a four-leg roundabout. 57
Exhibit 3-2. Planning-level maximum daily service volumes for
mini-roundabouts. 57
Exhibit 3-3. Example of community enhancement roundabout. 59
Exhibit 3-4. Example of traffic calming roundabouts. 60
Exhibit 3-5. Comparison of predicted rural roundabout injury crashes
with rural TWSC intersections. 61
Exhibit 3-6. M odel comparison of predicted injury crashes for
single-lane and double-lane roundabouts with rural or
urban signalized intersections. 61
Exhibit 3-7. Average delay per vehicle at the M UTCD peak hour
signal warrant threshold (excluding geometric delay). 63
Exhibit 3-8. Comparison of TWSC and single-lane roundabout capacity. 65
Exhibit 3-9. Sample hourly distribution of traffic. 66
Exhibit 3-10. Annual savings in delay of single-lane roundabout
versus AWSC, 50 percent of volume on the major street. 67
Exhibit 3-12. Delay savings for roundabout vs. signal, 50 percent
Exhibit 3-13. Delay savings for roundabout vs. signal, 65 percent
Exhibit 3-14. Assumptions for spatial comparison of roundabouts
and comparable conventional intersections. 70
Exhibit 3-15. Area comparison: Urban compact roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-16. Area comparison: Urban single-lane roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-17. Area comparison: Urban double-lane roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-18. Area comparison: Urban flared roundabout vs.
Exhibit 3-19. Estimated costs for crashes of varying levels of severity. 74
CONTENTS
51 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 3: Planning
Chapter 1 presented a range of roundabout categories, and suggested typical daily
service volume thresholds below which four-leg roundabouts may be expected to
operate, without requiring a detailed capacity analysis. Chapter 2 introduced round-
about performance characteristics, including comparisons with other intersection
forms and control, which will be expanded upon in this chapter. This chapter covers
the next steps that lead up to the decision to construct a roundabout with an ap-
proximate configuration at a specific location, preceding the detailed analysis and
design of a roundabout. By confirming that there is good reason to believe that
roundabout construction is feasible and that a roundabout offers a sensible method
of accommodating the traffic demand, these planning activities make unnecessary
the expenditure of effort required in subsequent chapters.
Planning for roundabouts begins with specifying a preliminary configuration. The
configuration is specified in terms of the minimum number of lanes required on
each approach and, thus, which roundabout category is the most appropriate basis
for design: urban or rural, single-lane or double-lane roundabout. Given sufficient
space, roundabouts can be designed to accommodate high traffic volumes. There
are many additional levels of detail required in the design and analysis of a
high-capacity, multi-lane roundabout that are beyond the scope of a planning level
procedure. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the more common questions that
can be answered using reasonable assumptions and approximations.
Feasibility analysis requires an approximation of some of the design parameters
and operational characteristics. Some changes in these approximations may be
necessary as the design evolves. A more detailed methodology for performing the
operational evaluation and geometric design tasks is presented later in Chapters 4
and 6 of this guide, respectively.
3.1 Planning Steps
The following steps may be followed when deciding whether to implement a round-
about at an intersection:
Step 1: Consider the context. What are there regional policy constraints that
must be addressed? Are there site-specific and community impact reasons why
a roundabout of any particular size would not be a good choice? (Section 3.2)
Step 2: Determine a preliminary lane configuration and roundabout category
based on capacity requirements (Section 3.3). Exhibit 3-1 will be useful for mak-
ing a basic decision on the required number of lanes. I f Exhibit 3-1 indicates that
more than one lane is required on any approach, refer to Chapters 4 and 6 for
the more detailed analysis and design procedures. O therwise, proceed with
the planning procedure.
Step 3: I dentify the selection category (Section 3.4). This establishes why a
roundabout may be the preferred choice and determines the need for specific
information.
Some of the assumptions and
approximations used in planning may
change as the design evolves, but are
sufficient at this stage to answer
many common questions.
Planning determines whether a
roundabout is even feasible, before
expending the effort required in
subsequent steps.
Chapter 3
Planning
CONTENTS
Step 4: Perform the analysis appropriate to the selection category. I f the selec-
tion is to be based on operational performance, use the appropriate compari-
sons with alternative intersections (Section 3.5).
Step 5: Determine the space requirements. Refer to Section 3.6 and Appendix
B for the right-of-way widths required to accommodate the inscribed circle di-
ameter. Determine the space feasibility. I s there enough right-of-way to build it?
This is a potential rejection point. There is no operational reason to reject a
roundabout because of the need for additional right-of-way; however, right-of-way
acquisition introduces administrative complications that many agencies would
prefer to avoid.
Step 6: I f additional space must be acquired or alternative intersection forms
are viable, an economic evaluation may be useful (Section 3.7).
The results of the steps above should be documented to some extent. The level of
detail in the documentation will vary among agencies and will generally be influ-
enced by the size and complexity of the roundabout. A roundabout selection study
report may include the following elements:
I t may identify the selection category that specifies why a roundabout is the
logical choice at this intersection;
I t may identify current or projected traffic control or safety problems at the inter-
section if the roundabout is proposed as a solution to these problems;
I t may propose a configuration, in terms of number of lanes on each approach;
I t may demonstrate that the proposed configuration can be implemented feasi-
bly and that it will provide adequate capacity on all approaches; and
I t may identify all potential complicating factors, assess their relevance to the
location, and identify any mitigation efforts that might be required.
Agencies that require a more complete or formal rationale may also include the
following additional considerations:
I t may demonstrate institutional and community support indicating that key in-
stitutions (e.g., police, fire department, schools, etc.) and key community lead-
ers have been consulted;
I t may give detailed performance comparisons of the roundabout with alterna-
tive control modes;
I t may include an economic analysis, indicating that a roundabout compares
favorably with alternative control modes from a benefit-cost perspective; and
I t may include detailed appendices containing traffic volume data, signal, or
all-way stop control (AWSC) warrant analysis, etc.
None of these elements should be construed as an absolute requirement for docu-
mentation. The above list is presented as a guide to agencies who choose to pre-
pare a roundabout study report.
Suggested contents of a
roundabout selection
study report.
CONTENTS
3.2 Considerations of Context
3.2.1 Decision environments
There are three somewhat different policy environments in which a decision may
be made to construct a roundabout at a specific location. While the same basic
analysis tools and concepts apply to all of the environments, the relative impor-
tance of the various aspects and observations may differ, as may prior constraints
that are imposed at higher policy levels.
A new roadway system: Fewer constraints are generally imposed if the location
under consideration is not a part of an existing roadway system. Right-of-way is
usually easier to acquire or commit. O ther intersection forms also offer viable alter-
natives to roundabouts. There are generally no field observations of site-specific
problems that must be addressed. This situation is more likely to be faced by devel-
opers than by public agencies.
The first roundabout in an area: The first roundabout in any geographic area
requires an implementing agency to perform due diligence on roundabouts regard-
ing their operational and design aspects, community impacts, user needs, and
public acceptability. O n the other hand, a successfully implemented roundabout,
especially one that solves a perceived problem, could be an important factor in
gaining support for future roundabouts at locations that could take advantage of
the potential benefits that roundabouts may offer. Some important considerations
for this decision environment include:
Effort should be directed toward gaining community and institutional support
for the selection of a site for the first roundabout in an area. Public acceptance
for roundabouts, like any new roadway facility, require agency staff to under-
stand the potential issues and communicate these effectively with the impacted
community;
An extensive justification effort may be necessary to gain the required support;
A cautious and conservative approach may be appropriate; careful consider-
ation should be given to conditions that suggest that the benefits of a round-
about might not be fully realized. Collecting data on current users of the facility
can provide important insights regarding potential issues and design needs;
A single-lane roundabout in the near-term is more easily understood by most
drivers and therefore may have a higher probability of acceptance by the motor-
ing public;
The choice of design and analysis procedures could set a precedent for future
roundabout implementation; therefore, the full range of design and analysis
alternatives should be explored in consultation with other operating agencies in
the region; and
After the roundabout is constructed, evaluating its operation and the public re-
sponse could provide documentation to support future installations.
Retrofit to an existing intersection in an area where roundabouts have already gained
acceptance: This environment is one in which a solution to a site-specific problem
is being sought. Because drivers are familiar with roundabout operation, a less
intensive process may suffice. Double-lane roundabouts could be considered, and
the regional design and evaluation procedures should have already been agreed
Will the roundabout be...
Part of a new roadway?
The first in an area?
A retrofit of an existing
intersection?
The first roundabout in an area
requires greater education and
justification efforts. Single-lane
roundabouts will be more easily
understood initially than
multilane roundabouts.
CONTENTS
upon. The basic objectives of the selection process in this case are to demonstrate
the community impacts and that a roundabout will function properly during the
peak period within the capacity limits imposed by the space available; and to de-
cide whether one is the preferred alternative. I f the required configuration involves
additional right-of-way, a more detailed analysis will probably be necessary, using
the methodology described in Chapter 4.
M any agencies that are contemplating the construction of their first roundabout
are naturally reluctant to introduce complications, such as double-lane, yield-
controlled junctions, which are not used elsewhere in their jurisdiction. I t is also a
common desire to avoid intersection designs that require additional right-of-way,
because of the effort and expense involved in right-of-way acquisition. I mportant
questions to be addressed in the planning phase are therefore:
Will a minimally configured roundabout (i.e., single-lane entrances and circula-
tory roadway) provide adequate capacity and performance for all users, or will
additional lanes be required on some legs or at some future time?
Can the roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it be
necessary to acquire additional space beyond the property lines?
Can a single-lane roundabout be upgraded in the future to accommodate growth?
I f not, a roundabout alternative may require that more rigorous analysis and design
be conducted before a decision is made.
3.2.2 Site-specific conditions
Some condi ti ons may preclude a roundabout at a speci fi c locati on. Certai n
site-related factors may significantly influence the design and require a more de-
tailed investigation of some aspects of the design or operation. A number of these
factors (many of which are valid for any intersection type) are listed below:
Physical or geometric complications that make it impossible or uneconomical to
construct a roundabout. These could include right-of-way limitations, utility con-
flicts, drainage problems, etc.
Proximity of generators of significant traffic that might have difficulty negotiat-
ing the roundabout, such as high volumes of oversized trucks.
Proximity of other traffic control devices that would require preemption, such as
railroad tracks, drawbridges, etc.
Proximity of bottlenecks that would routinely back up traffic into the roundabout,
such as over-capacity signals, freeway entrance ramps, etc. The successful op-
eration of a roundabout depends on unimpeded flow on the circulatory road-
way. I f traffic on the circulatory roadway comes to a halt, momentary intersec-
tion gridlock can occur. I n comparison, other control types may continue to serve
some movements under these circumstances.
Problems of grades or unfavorable topography that may limit visibility or compli-
cate construction.
I ntersections of a major arterial and a minor arterial or local road where an unac-
ceptable delay to the major road could be created. Roundabouts delay and de-
flect all traffic entering the intersection and could introduce excessive delay or
speed inconsistencies to flow on the major arterial.
Site-specific factors that may
significantly influence a
roundabout's design.
CONTENTS
Heavy pedestrian or bicycle movements in conflict with high traffic volumes.
(These conflicts pose a problem for all types of traffic control. There is very little
experience on this topic in the U.S., mostly due to a lack of existing roundabout
sites with heavy intermodal conflicts).
I ntersections located on arterial streets within a coordinated signal network. I n
these situations, the level of service on the arterial might be better with a signal-
ized intersection incorporated into the system. Chapter 8 deals with system
considerations for roundabouts.
The existence of one or more of these conditions does not necessarily preclude
the installation of a roundabout. Roundabouts have, in fact, been built at locations
that exhibit nearly all of the conditions listed above. Such factors may be resolved
in several ways:
They may be determined to be insignificant at the specific site;
They may be resolved by operational modeling or specific design features that
indicate that no significant problems will be created;
They may be resolved through coordination with and support from other agen-
cies, such as the local fire department; and
I n some cases, specific mitigation actions may be required.
All complicating factors should be resolved prior to the choice of a roundabout as
the preferred intersection alternative.
The effect of a particular factor will often depend on the degree to which round-
abouts have been implemented in the region. Some conditions would not be ex-
pected to pose problems in areas where roundabouts are an established form of
control that is accepted by the public. O n the other hand, some conditions, such as
heavy pedestrian volumes, might suggest that the installation of a roundabout be
deferred until this control mode has demonstrated regional acceptance. M ost agen-
cies have an understandable reluctance to introduce complications at their first
roundabout.
3.3 Number of Entry Lanes
A basic question that needs to be answered is how many entry lanes a roundabout
would require to serve the traffic demand. The capacity of a roundabout is clearly a
critical parameter and one that should be checked at the outset of any feasibility
study. Chapter 4 offers a detailed capacity computation procedure, mostly based
on experiences in other countries. Some assumptions and approximations have
been necessary in this chapter to produce a planning-level approach for deciding
whether or not capacity is sufficient.
Since this is the first of several planning procedures to be suggested in this chap-
ter, some discussion of the assumptions and approximations is appropriate. First,
traffic volumes are generally represented for planning purposes in terms of Aver-
age Daily Traffic (ADT), or Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). Traffic operational
analyses must be carried out at the design hour level. This requires an assumption
of a K factor and a D factor to indicate, respectively, the proportion of the AADT
CONTENTS
assigned to the design hour, and the proportion of the two-way traffic that is as-
signed to the peak direction. All of the planning-level procedures offered in this
chapter were based on reasonably typical assumed values for K of 0.1 and D of
0.58.
There are two site-specific parameters that must be taken into account in all com-
putations. The first is the proportion of traffic on the major street. For roundabout
planning purposes, this value was assumed to lie between 0.5 and 0.67. All analy-
ses assumed a four-leg intersection. The proportion of left turns must also be con-
sidered, since left turns affect all traffic control modes adversely. For the purposes
of this chapter, a reasonably typical range of left turns were examined. Right turns
were assumed to be 10 percent in all cases. Right turns are included in approach
volumes and require capacity, but are not included in the circulating volumes down-
stream because they exit before the next entrance.
The capacity evaluation is based on values of entering and circulating traffic vol-
umes as described in Chapter 4. The AADT that can be accommodated is conser-
vatively estimated as a function of the proportion of left turns, for cross-street
volume proportions of 50 percent and 67 percent. For acceptable roundabout op-
eration, many sources advise that the volume-to-capacity ratio on any leg of a
roundabout not exceed 0.85 (1, 2). This assumption was used in deriving the AADT
maximum service volume relationship.
3.3.1 Single- and double-lane roundabouts
The resulting maximum service volumes are presented in Exhibit 3-1 for a range of
left turns from 0 to 40 percent of the total volume. This range exceeds the normal
expectation for left turn proportions. This procedure is offered as a simple, conser-
vative method for estimating roundabout lane requirements. I f the 24-hour vol-
umes fall below the volumes indicated in Exhibit 3-1, a roundabout should have no
operational problems at any time of the day. I t is suggested that a reasonable
approximation of lane requirements for a three-leg roundabout may be obtained
using 75 percent of the service volumes shown on Exhibit 3-1.
I f the volumes exceed the threshold suggested in Exhibit 3-1, a single-lane or
double-lane roundabout may still function quite well, but a closer look at the actual
turning movement volumes during the design hour is required. The procedures for
such analysis are presented in Chapter 4.
3.3.2 Mini-roundabouts
M ini-roundabouts are distinguished from traditional roundabouts primarily by their
smaller size and more compact geometry. They are typically designed for negotia-
tion speeds of 25 km/h (15 mph). I nscribed circle diameters generally vary from 13
m to 25 m (45 ft to 80 ft). M ini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in
mind, as opposed to capacity. Peak-period capacity is seldom an issue, and most
mini-roundabouts operate on residential or collector streets at demand levels well
below their capacity. I t is important, however, to be able to assess the capacity of
any proposed intersection design to ensure that the intersection would function
properly if constructed.
At very small roundabouts, it is reasonable to assume that each quadrant of the
circulatory roadway can accommodate only one vehicle at a time. I n other words,
The volume-to-capacity ratio
of any roundabout leg is
recommended not to
exceed 0.85.
CONTENTS
a vehicle may not enter the circulatory roadway unless the quadrant on both sides
of the approach is empty. Given a set of demand volumes for each of the 12 stan-
dard movements at a four-leg roundabout, it is possible to simulate the roundabout
to estimate the maximum service volumes and delay for each approach. By mak-
ing assumptions about the proportion of left turns and the proportion of cross street
traffic, a general estimate of the total entry maximum service volumes of the round-
about can be made, and is provided in Exhibit 3-2. AADT maximum service vol-
umes are represented based on an assumed K value of 0.10. Note that these
volumes range from slightly more than 12, 000 to slightly less than 16, 000 vehicles
per day. The maximum throughput is achieved with an equal proportion of vehicles
on the major and minor roads, and with low proportions of left turns.
Exhibit 3-1. Maximum daily
service volumes for a
four-leg roundabout.
Exhibit 3-2. Planning-level
maximum daily service volumes
for mini-roundabouts.
For three-leg roundabouts, use
75 percent of the maximum
AADT volumes shown.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Left Turn Percentage
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
A
D
T

(
K
=
0
.
1
0
)
1 Lane (50% Minor) 1 Lane (33% Minor) 2 Lanes (50% Minor) 2 Lanes (33% Minor)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
10% 30% 50%
Percent Left Turns
A
A
D
T

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
)
25% Cross Traffic 50% Cross Traffic
CONTENTS
3.4 Selection Categories
There are many locations at which a roundabout could be selected as the preferred
traffic control mode. There are several reasons why this is so, and each reason
creates a separate selection category. Each selection category, in turn, requires
different information to demonstrate the desirability of a roundabout. The principal
selection categories will be discussed in this section, along with their information
requirements.
A wide range of roundabout policies and evaluation practices exists among operat-
ing agencies within the U.S. For example, the Florida Department of Transportation
requires a formal justification report to document the selection of a roundabout
as the most appropriate traffic control mode at any intersection on their State high-
way system. O n the other hand, private developers may require no formal rational-
ization of any kind. I t is interesting to note that the M aryland Department of Trans-
portation requires consideration of a roundabout as an alternative at all intersec-
tions proposed for signalization.
I t is reasonable that the decision to install a roundabout should require approxi-
mately the same level of effort as the alternative control mode. I n other words, if a
roundabout is proposed as an alternative to a traffic signal, then the analysis effort
should be approximately the same as that required for a signal. I f the alternative is
stop sign control, then the requirements could be relaxed.
The following situations present an opportunity to demonstrate the desirability of
installing a roundabout at a specific location.
3.4.1 Community enhancement
Roundabouts have been proposed as a part of a community enhancement project
and not as a solution to capacity problems. Such projects are often located in com-
mercial and civic districts, as a gateway treatment to convey a change of environ-
ment and to encourage traffic to slow down. Traffic volumes are typically well be-
low the thresholds shown in Exhibit 3-1; otherwise, one of the more operationally
oriented selection categories would normally be more appropriate.
Roundabouts proposed for community enhancement require minimal analysis as a
traffic control device. The main focus of the planning procedure should be to dem-
onstrate that they would not introduce traffic problems that do not exist currently.
Particular attention should be given to any complications that would imply either
operational or safety problems. The urban compact category may be the most
appropriate roundabout for such applications. Exhibit 3-3 provides an example of a
roundabout installed primarily for community enhancement.
3.4.2 Traffic calming
The decision to install a roundabout for traffic calming purposes should be sup-
ported by a demonstrated need for traffic calming along the intersecting roadways.
M ost of the roundabouts in this category will be located on local roads. Examples
of conditions that might suggest a need for traffic calming include:
Documented observations of speeding, high traffic volumes, or careless driving
activities;
The planning focus for
community enhancement
roundabouts should be to
demonstrate that they will not
create traffic problems that do
not now exist.
Conditions that traffic calming
roundabouts may address.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 3-3. Example of
community enhancement
roundabout.
Naples, FL
I nadequate space for roadside activities, or a need to provide slower, safer con-
ditions for non-automobile users; or
New construction (road opening, traffic signal, new road, etc.) which would po-
tentially increase the volumes of cut-through traffic.
Capacity should be an issue when roundabouts are installed for traffic calming
purposes only because traffic volumes on local streets will usually be well below
the level that would create congestion. I f this is not the case, another primary
selection category would probably be more suitable. The urban mini-roundabout or
urban compact roundabout are most appropriate for traffic calming purposes. Ex-
hibit 3-4 provides an example of roundabouts installed primarily for traffic calming.
3.4.3 Safety improvement
The decision to install a roundabout as a safety improvement should be based on a
demonstrated safety problem of the type susceptible to correction by a round-
about. A review of crash reports and the type of accidents occurring is essential.
Examples of safety problems include:
High rates of crashes involving conflicts that would tend to be resolved by a
roundabout (right angle, head-on, left/through, U-turns, etc.);
High crash severity that could be reduced by the slower speeds associated with
roundabouts;
Safety issues that roundabouts
may help correct.
CONTENTS
Site visibility problems that reduce the effectiveness of stop sign control (in this
case, landscaping of the roundabout needs to be carefully considered); and
I nadequate separation of movements, especially on single-lane approaches.
Chapter 5 should be consulted for a more detailed analysis of the safety character-
istics of roundabouts. There are currently a small number of roundabouts and there-
fore a relatively small crash record data base in the U.S. Therefore, it has not been
possible to develop a national crash model for this intersection type. Roundabout
crash prediction models have been developed for the United Kingdom (3). Crash
models for conventional intersections in the United States are available (4, 5). Al-
though crash data reporting may not be consistent between the U.K. and the U.S.,
comparison is plausible. The two sets of models have a key common measure of
effectiveness in terms of injury and fatal crash frequency.
Therefore, for illustrative purposes, Exhibit 3-5 provides the results of injury crash
prediction models for various ADT volumes of roundabouts versus rural TWSC in-
tersections (6). The comparison shown is for a single-lane approach, four-leg round-
about with single-lane entries, and good geometric design. For the TWSC rural
intersection model, the selected variables include rolling terrain, the main road as
major collector, and a design speed of 80 km/h (50 mph). Rural roundabouts may
experience approximately 66 percent fewer injury crashes than rural TWSC inter-
sections for 10, 000 entering ADT, and approximately 64 percent fewer crashes for
20, 000 ADT. At urban roundabouts, the reduction will probably be smaller.
Also for illustration, Exhibit 3-6 provides the results of injury crash prediction mod-
els for various average daily traffic volumes at roundabouts versus rural and urban
signalized intersections (6). The selected variables of the crash model for signalized
(urban/suburban) intersections include multiphase fully-actuated signal, with a speed
of 80 km/h (50 mph) on the major road. The 20, 000 entering ADT is applied to
single-lane roundabout approaches with four-legs. The 40, 000 ADT is applied to
double-lane roundabout approaches without flaring of the roundabout entries. I n
comparison to signalized intersections, roundabouts may experience approximately
Exhibit 3-4. Example of traffic
calming roundabouts.
Naples, FL
CONTENTS
33 percent fewer injury crashes in urban and suburban areas and 56 percent fewer
crashes in rural areas for 20, 000 entering ADT. For 40, 000 entering ADT, this reduc-
tion may only be about 15 percent in urban areas. Therefore, it is likely that round-
about safety may be comparable to signalized intersections at higher ADT (greater
than 50, 000).
These model comparisons are an estimation of mean crash frequency or average
safety performance from a random sample of four-leg intersections from different
countries and should be supplemented by engineering judgment and attention to
safe design for all road users.
predicted roundabout injury
crashes with rural TWSC
intersections.
Source: (6)
predicted injury crashes for
single-lane and double-lane
roundabouts with rural or urban
signalized intersections.
Source: (6)
Roundabouts have fewer annual
injury crashes than rural two-way
stop-controlled intersections, and
the total number of crashes at
roundabouts is relatively
insensitive to minor street
demand volumes.
Roundabouts have fewer injury
accidents per year than signalized
intersections, particularly in rural
areas. At volumes greater than
50,000 ADT, urban roundabout
safety may be comparable to that
of urban signalized intersections.
0.0
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.0
2.50
3.0
3.50
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
ADT Minor/ADT
I
n
j
u
r
y

A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
/
Y
e
a
r
TWSC (10,000 ADT) TWSC (20,000 ADT) Roundabout (10,000 ADT) Roundabout (20,000 ADT)
0.0
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.0
2.50
3.0
3.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Rural Intersection (20,000 ADT)
Roundabout (20,000 ADT) Roundabout (40,000 ADT)
Urban Intersection (20,000 ADT) Urban Intersection (40,000 ADT)
I
n
j
u
r
y

A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
/
Y
e
a
r
CONTENTS
3.4.4 Operational improvement
A roundabout may be considered as a logical choice if its estimated performance is
better than alternative control modes, usually either stop or signal control. The
performance evaluation models presented in the next chapter provide a sound
basis for comparison, but their application may require more effort and resources
than an agency is prepared to devote in the planning stage. To simplify the selec-
tion process, the following assumptions are proposed for a planning-level compari-
son of control modes:
1. A roundabout will always provide a higher capacity and lower delays than AWSC
operating with the same traffic volumes and right-of-way limitations.
2. A roundabout is unlikely to offer better performance in terms of lower overall
delays than TWSC at intersections with minor movements (including cross street
entry and major street left turns) that are not experiencing, nor predicted to
experience, operational problems under TWSC.
3. A single-lane roundabout may be assumed to operate within its capacity at any
intersection that does not exceed the peak-hour volume warrant for signals.
4. A roundabout that operates within its capacity will generally produce lower de-
lays than a signalized intersection operating with the same traffic volumes and
right-of-way limitations.
The above assumptions are documented in the literature (7) or explained by the
analyses in Section 3.5. Collectively, they provide a good starting point for further
analysis using procedures in Chapter 4. Although a roundabout may be the optimal
control type from a vehicular operation standpoint, the relative performance of this
control alternative for other modes should also be taken into consideration, as
explained in Chapter 4.
3.4.4.1 Roundabout performance at flow thresholds for peak hour signal
warrants
There are no warrants for roundabouts included in the M anual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (M UTCD) (8), and it may be that roundabouts are not amenable to
a warranting procedure. I n other words, each roundabout should be justified on its
own merits as the most appropriate intersection treatment alternative. I t is, how-
ever, useful to consider the case in which the traffic volumes just meet the M UTCD
warrant thresholds for traffic signals. For purposes of this discussion, the M UTCD
peak hour warrant will be applied with a peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.9. Thus, the
evaluation will reflect the performance in the heaviest 15 minutes of the peak hour.
Roundabout delays were compared with the corresponding values for TWSC, AWSC,
and signals. A single-lane roundabout was assumed because the capacity of a
single lane roundabout was adequate for all cases at the M UTCD volume warrant
thresholds. SI DRA analysis software was used to estimate the delay for the vari-
ous control alternatives because SI DRA was the only program readily available at
the time this guide was developed that modeled all of the control alternatives (9).
The M UTCD warrant thresholds are given in terms of the heaviest minor street
volume and sum of the major street volumes. I ndividual movement volumes may
be obtained from the thresholds by assuming a directional factor, D, and left turn
proportions. A D factor of 0.58 was applied to this example. Left turns on all
approaches were assumed to be 10 to 50 percent of the total approach volume. I n
General delay and capacity
comparisons between round-
abouts and other forms of
intersection control.
CONTENTS
determining the M UTCD threshold volumes, two lanes were assumed on the ma-
jor street and one lane on the minor street.
Based on these assumptions, the average delays per vehicle for signals and round-
abouts are presented in Exhibit 3-7. These values represent the approach delay as
perceived by the motorist. They do not include the geometric delay incurred within
the roundabout. I t is clear from this figure that roundabout control delays are sub-
stantially lower than signal delays, but in neither case are the delays excessive.
Similar comparisons are not presented for TWSC, because the capacity for minor
street vehicles entering the major street was exceeded in all cases at the signal
Roundabout approach delay is
relatively insensitive to total
major street volume, but is
sensitive to the left-turn
percentage.
warrant thresholds. AWSC was found to be feasible only under a limited range of
conditions: a maximum of 20 percent left turns can be accommodated when the
major street volume is low and only 10 percent can be accommodated when
the major street volume is high. Note that the minor street volume decreases
as the major street volume increases at the signal warrant threshold.
This analysis of alternative intersection performance at the M UTCD peak hour vol-
ume signal warrant thresholds indicates that the single-lane roundabout is very
competitive with all other forms of intersection control.
3.4.5 Special situations
I t is important that the selection process not discourage the construction of a round-
about at any location where a roundabout would be a logical choice. Some flexibil-
ity must be built into the process by recognizing that the selection categories above
are not all-inclusive. There may still be other situations that suggest that a round-
about would be a sensible control choice. M any of these situations are associated
with unusual alignment or geometry where other solutions are intractable.
Exhibit 3-7. Average delay per
vehicle at the MUTCD peak hour
signal warrant threshold (exclud-
ing geometric delay).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Total Major Street Volume (veh/h)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
l
a
y

(
s
/
v
e
h
)
Signal (10% left turns) Signal (50% left turns)
Roundabout (10% left turns) Roundabout (50% left turns)
CONTENTS
3.5 Comparing Operational Performance of Alternative Inter-
section Types
If a roundabout is being considered for operational reasons, then it may be compared
with other feasible intersection control alternatives such as TWSC, AWSC, or sig-
nal control. This section provides approximate comparisons suitable for planning.
3.5.1 Two-way stop-control alternative
The majority of intersections in the U.S. operate under TWSC, and most of those
intersections operate with minimal delay. The installation of a roundabout at a TWSC
intersection that is operating satisfactorily will be difficult to justify on the basis of
performance improvement alone, and one of the previously described selection
categories is likely to be more appropriate.
The two most common problems at TWSC intersections are congestion on the
minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity, and queues that form on
the major street because of inadequate capacity for left turning vehicles yielding to
opposing traffic. Roundabouts may offer an effective solution to traffic problems at
TWSC intersections with heavy left turns from the major route because they pro-
vide more favorable treatment to left turns than other control modes. T intersec-
tions are especially good candidates in this category because they tend to have
higher left turning volumes.
O n the other hand, the problems experienced by low-volume cross street traffic at
TWSC intersections with heavy through volumes on the major street are very dif-
ficult to solve by any traffic control measure. Roundabouts are generally not the
solution to this type of problem because they create a significant impediment to
the major movements. This situation is typical of a residential street intersection
with a major arterial. The solution in most cases is to encourage the residential
traffic to enter the arterial at a collector road with an intersection designed to ac-
commodate higher entering volumes. The proportion of traffic on the major street
is an important consideration in the comparison of a roundabout with a conven-
tional four-leg intersection operating under TWSC. High proportions of minor street
traffic tend to favor roundabouts, while low proportions favor TWSC.
An example of this may be seen in Exhibit 3-8, which shows the AADT capacity for
planning purposes as a function of the proportion of traffic on the major street. The
assumptions in this exhibit are the same as those that have been described previ-
ously in Section 3.3. Constant proportions of 10 percent right turns (which were
ignored in roundabout analysis) and 20 percent left turns were used for all move-
ments. As expected, the roundabout offers a much higher capacity at lower propor-
tions of major street traffic. When the major and minor street volumes are equal,
the roundabout capacity is approximately double that of the TWSC intersection. I t
is interesting to note that the two capacity values converge at the point where the
minor street proportion becomes negligible. This effect confirms the expectation
that a roundabout will have approximately the same capacity as a stop-controlled
intersection when there is no cross street traffic.
Roundabouts may offer an
effective solution at TWSC
intersections with heavy left turns
from the major street.
Roundabouts work better
when the proportion of minor
street traffic is higher.
CONTENTS
3.5.2 All-way stop-control alternative
When cross street traffic volumes are heavy enough to meet the M UTCD warrants
for AWSC control, roundabouts become an especially attractive solution because
of their higher capacities and lower delays. The selection of a roundabout as an
alternative to AWSC should emphasize cost and safety considerations, because
roundabouts always offer better performance for vehicles than AWSC, given the
same traffic conditions. Roundabouts that are proposed as alternatives to stop
control would typically have single-lane approaches.
A substantial part of the benefit of a roundabout compared to an all-way stop inter-
section is obtained during the off-peak periods, because the restrictive stop con-
trol applies for the entire day. The M UTCD does not permit stop control on a part-time
basis. The extent of the benefit will depend on the amount of traffic at the intersec-
tion and on the proportion of left turns. Left turns degrade the operation of all traffic
control modes, but they have a smaller effect on roundabouts than on stop signs or
signals.
The planning level analysis that began earlier in this chapter may be extended to
estimate the benefits of a roundabout compared to AWSC. Retaining the previous
assumptions about the directional and temporal distribution factors for traffic vol-
umes (i.e., K= 0.1, D= 0.58), it is possible to analyze both control modes throughout
an entire 24-hour day. O nly one additional set of assumptions is required. I t is
necessary to construct an assumed hourly distribution of traffic throughout the day
that conforms to these two factors.
A reasonably typical sample distribution for this purpose is illustrated in Exhibit 3-9,
which would generally represent inbound traffic to employment centers, because
of the larger peak in the AM period, accompanied by smaller peaks in the noontime
and PM periods. Daytime off-peak periods have 4 percent of the AADT per hour,
and late-night off-peak periods (midnight to 6 AM ) have 1 percent.
A substantial part of the delay-
reduction benefit of roundabouts,
compared to AWSC intersections,
comes during off-peak periods.
Exhibit 3-8. Comparison of TWSC
and single-lane roundabout capacity.
Roundabout capacity decreases
as the proportion of minor
street entering traffic decreases.
Roundabouts and TWSC
intersections have about the
same capacity when the minor
street proportion is less than
10 percent.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Major Street Traffic Proportion
A
A
D
T

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
TWS Roundabout
CONTENTS
The outbound direction may be added as a mirror image of the inbound direction,
keeping the volumes the same as the inbound during the off-peak periods and
applying the D factor of 0.58 during the AM and PM peaks. This distribution was
used in the estimation of the benefits of a roundabout compared to the AWSC
mode. I t was also used later for comparison with traffic signal operations. For pur-
poses of estimating annual delay savings, a total of 250 days per year is assumed.
This provides a conservative estimate by eliminating weekends and holidays.
The comparisons were performed using traffic operations models that are described
in Chapter 4 of this guide. The SI DRA model was used to analyze both the round-
about and AWSC operation, because SI DRA was the only model readily available at
the time this guide was developed that treated both of these types of control.
SI DRA provides an option to either include or omit the geometric delay experi-
enced within the intersection. The geometric delay was included for purposes of
estimating annual benefits. I t was excluded in Section 3. 4. 4. 1 that dealt with
driver-perceived approach delay.
The results of this comparison are presented in Exhibit 3-10 and Exhibit 3-11 in
terms of potential annual savings in delay of a single-lane roundabout over an AWSC
intersection with one lane on all approaches, as a function of the proportion of left
turning traffic for single-lane approaches for volume distributions of 50 percent and
65 percent on the major street, respectively. Each exhibit has lines representing 10
percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent left turn proportions.
Note that the potential annual benefit is in the range of 5, 000 to 50, 000 vehicle-hours
per year. The benefit increases substantially with increasing AADT and left turn
proportions. The comparison terminates in each case when the capacity of the
AWSC operation is exceeded. No comparisons were made beyond 18, 000 AADT,
because AWSC operation is not practical beyond that level.
Exhibit 3-9. Sample hourly
distribution of traffic.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
5
:
0
0
7
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
Time Ending
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

A
A
D
T
CONTENTS
3.5.3 Signal control alternative
When traffic volumes are heavy enough to warrant signalization, the selection pro-
cess becomes somewhat more rigorous. The usual basis for selection here is that
a roundabout will provide better operational performance than a signal in terms of
stops, delay, fuel consumption, and pollution emissions. For planning purposes,
this may generally be assumed to be the case provided that the roundabout is
operating within its capacity. The task then becomes to assess whether any round-
about configuration can be made to work satisfactorily. I f not, then a signal or
grade separation are remaining alternatives. As in the case of stop control, inter-
sections with heavy left turns are especially good roundabout candidates.
The delay-reduction benefit of
roundabouts, compared to AWSC,
increases as left-turn volumes, major
street proportion, and AADT increase.
Exhibit 3-10. Annual savings in
delay of single-lane roundabout
versus AWSC, 50 percent of volume
on the major street.
Exhibit 3-11. Annual savings in
delay of single-lane roundabout
versus AWSC, 65 percent of volume
on the major street.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
AADT
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
l
a
y

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
v
e
h
-
h
/
y
r
)
10% left turns 25% left turns 33% left turns

0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
AADT
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
l
a
y

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
v
e
h
-
h
/
y
r
)
CONTENTS
The graphical approximation presented earlier for capacity estimation should be
useful at this stage. The results should be considered purely as a planning level
estimate, and it must be recognized that this estimate will probably change during
the design phase. Users of this guide should also consult the most recent version
of the Highway Capacity M anual (HCM ) (10) as more U.S. data and consensus on
modeling U.S. roundabout performance evolves.
As in the case of AWSC operations, some of the most important benefits of a
roundabout compared to a traffic signal will accrue during the off-peak periods. The
comparison of delay savings discussed previously has therefore been extended to
deal with traffic signals as well as stop signs. The same temporal distribution of
traffic volumes used for the roundabout-AWSC comparison was assumed.
The signal timing design was prepared for each of the conditions to accommodate
traffic in the heaviest peak period. The traffic actuated controller was allowed to
respond to fluctuations in demand during the rest of the day using its own logic.
This strategy is consistent with common traffic engineering practice. All approaches
were considered to be isolated and free of the influence of coordinated systems.
Left turn protection was provided for the whole day for all approaches with a vol-
ume cross-product (i.e., the product of the left turn and opposing traffic volumes)
of 60, 000 or greater during the peak period. When left turn protection was pro-
vided, the left turns were also allowed to proceed on the solid green indication (i.e.,
protected-plus-permitted operation).
The results of this comparison are presented in Exhibit 3-12 for 50 percent major
street traffic and Exhibit 3-13 for 65 percent major street traffic. Both cases include
AADT values up to 34, 000 vehicles per day. Single-lane approaches were used for
both signals and roundabouts with AADTs below 25, 000 vehicles per day. Two-lane
approaches were assumed beyond that point. All signalized approaches were as-
sumed to have left turn bays.
Benefits may continue to accrue beyond the 34, 000 AADT level but the design
parameters for both the signal and the roundabout are much more difficult to gen-
eralize for planning level analyses. When AADTs exceed 34, 000 vehicles per day,
performance evaluation should be carried out using the more detailed procedures
presented in Chapter 4 of this guide.
The selection of a roundabout as an alternative to signal control will be much sim-
pler if a single-lane roundabout is estimated to have adequate capacity. I f, on the
other hand, it is determined that one or more legs will require more than one entry
lane, some preliminary design work beyond the normal planning level will generally
be required to develop the roundabout configuration and determine the space re-
quirements.
CONTENTS
3.6 Space Requirements
Roundabouts that are designed to accommodate vehicles larger than passenger
cars or small trucks typically require more space than conventional intersections.
However, this may be more than offset by the space saved compared with turning
lane requirements at alternative intersection forms. The key indicator of the re-
quired space is the inscribed circle diameter. A detailed design is required to deter-
mine the space requirements at a specific site, especially if more than one lane is
needed to accommodate the entering and circulating traffic. This is, however, an-
other case in which the use of assumptions and approximations can produce
When volumes are evenly split
between major and minor
approaches, the delay savings
of roundabouts versus signals
are especially notable on
two-lane approaches with
high left turn proportions.
When the major street approaches
dominate, roundabout delay is lower
than signal delay, particularly at the
upper volume limit for single-lane
approaches and when there is a
high proportion of left turns.
Exhibit 3-12. Delay savings for
roundabout vs. signal, 50 percent
volume on major street.
Exhibit 3-13. Delay savings for
roundabout vs. signal, 65 percent
volume on major street.
The design templates in Appendix B
may be used to determine initial
space requirements for the appropri-
ate roundabout category.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
10,000 13,000 16,000 19,000 22,000 25,000 28,000 31,000 34,000
AADT
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
l
a
y

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
v
e
h
-
h
/
y
r
)
TWO-LANE APPROACH
SINGLE-LANE APPROACH
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
10,000 13,000 16,000 19,000 22,000 25,000 28,000 31,000 34,000
AADT
A
n
n
u
a
l

D
e
l
a
y

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
v
e
h
-
h
/
y
r
)
TWO-LANE APPROACH
SINGLE-LANE APPROACH
CONTENTS
preliminary values that are adequate for planning purposes. For initial space re-
quirements, the design templates in Appendix B for the most appropriate of the six
roundabout categories for the specific site may be consulted.
O ne important question is whether or not the proposed roundabout will fit within
the existing property lines, or whether additional right-of-way will be required. Four
examples have been created to demonstrate the spatial effects of comparable
intersection types, and the assumptions are summarized in Exhibit 3-14. Note that
there are many combinations of turning volumes that would affect the actual lane
configurations and design storage lengths. Therefore, these examples should not
be used out of context.
As can be seen in Exhibit 3-15 through Exhibit 3-18, roundabouts typically require
more area at the junction than conventional intersections. However, as capacity
needs increase the size of the roundabout and comparable conventional (signal-
ized) intersection, the increase in space requirements are increasingly offset by a
reduction in space requirements on the approaches. This is because the widening
or flaring required for a roundabout can be accomplished in a shorter distance than
is typically required to develop left turn lanes and transition tapers at conventional
intersections.
As can be seen in Exhibit 3-18, flared roundabouts offer the most potential for
reducing spatial requirements on the approaches as compared to conventional in-
tersections. This effect of providing capacity at the intersections while reducing
lane requirements between intersections, known as wide nodes and narrow roads,
is discussed further in Chapter 8.
3.7 Economic Evaluation
Economic evaluation is an important part of any public works planning process. For
roundabout applications, economic evaluation becomes important when compar-
Although roundabouts typically
require more area at the junction
compared to conventional
intersections, they may not need as
much area on the approaches.
Exhibit 3-14. Assumptions for
spatial comparison of
roundabouts and comparable
conventional intersections.
Roundabout Type Conventional Intersection
Main Street Side Street Main Street Side Street
Category Approach Lanes Approach Lanes Approach Lanes Approach Lanes
Urban compact 1 1 1 1
Urban single-lane 1 1 1 + LT pocket 1
Urban double-lane 2 1 2 + LT pocket 1 + LT pocket
Urban double-lane 1 flared to 2 1 2 + LT pocket 1 + LT pocket
with flaring
Note: LT = left turn
CONTENTS
Exhibit 3-15. Area comparison:
Urban compact roundabout
vs. comparable signalized
intersection.
Urban single-lane roundabout
intersection.
CONTENTS
Urban flared roundabouts in
particular illustrate the wide
nodes, narrow roads concept
discussed further in Chapter 8.
Urban double-lane roundabout
intersection.
Urban flared roundabout vs.
comparable signalized
intersection.
CONTENTS
ing roundabouts against other forms of intersections and traffic control, such as
comparing a roundabout with a signalized intersection.
The most appropriate method for evaluating public works projects of this type is
usually the benefit-cost analysis method. The following sections discuss this method
as it typically applies to roundabout evaluation, although it can be generalized for
most transportation projects.
3.7.1 Methodology
The benefit-cost method is elaborated on in detail in a number of standard refer-
ences, including the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook (11) and various Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and Transportation O fficials (AASHTO ) publica-
tions (12, 13). The basic premise of this method of evaluation is to compare the
incremental benefit between two alternatives to the incremental costs between
the same alternatives. Assuming Alternatives A and B, the equation for calculating
the incremental benefit-cost ratio of Alternative B relative to Alternative A is given
in Equation 3-1.
(3-1)
Benefit-cost analysis typically takes two forms. For assessing the viability of a
number of alternatives, each alternative is compared individually with a no-build
alternative. I f the analysis for Alternative A relative to the no-build alternative indi-
cates a benefit-cost ratio exceeding 1.0, Alternative A has benefits that exceed its
costs and is thus a viable project.
For ranking alternatives, the incremental benefit-cost ratio analysis is used to com-
pare the relative benefits and costs between alternatives. Projects should not be
ranked based on their benefit-cost ratio relative to the no-build alternative. After
eliminating any alternatives that are not viable as compared to the no-build alterna-
tive, alternatives are compared in a pair-wise fashion to establish the priority be-
tween projects.
Since many of the input parameters may be estimated, a rigorous analysis should
consider varying the parameter values of key assumptions to verify that the rec-
ommended alternative is robust, even under slightly varying assumptions, and under
what circumstances it may no longer be preferred.
3.7.2 Estimating benefits
Benefits for a public works project are generally comprised of three elements:
safety benefits, operational benefits, and environmental benefits. Each benefit is
typically quantified on an annualized basis and so is readily usable in a benefit-cost
analysis. The following sections discuss these in more detail.
Rank alternatives based on
their incremental benefit-cost
ratio, not on their ratio relative
to the no-build alternative.
Benefits consist of:
Safety benefits
Operational benefits
Environmental benefits
B/C
B A
=
Benefits
B
Benefits
A
Costs
B
Costs
A
CONTENTS
3.7.2.1 Safety benefits
Safety benefits are defined as the assumed savings to the public due to a reduc-
tion in crashes within the project area. The general procedure for determining safety
benefits is as follows:
Q uantify the existing safety history in the study area in terms of a crash rate for
each level of severity (fatal, injury, property damage). This rate, expressed in
terms of crashes per million entering vehicles, is computed by dividing the num-
ber of crashes of a given severity that occurred during the before period by
the number of vehicles that entered the intersection during the same period.
This results in a before crash rate for each level of severity.
Estimate the change in crashes of each level of severity that can be reasonably
expected due to the proposed improvements. As documented elsewhere in
this guide, roundabouts tend to have proportionately greater reductions in fatal
and injury crashes than property damage crashes.
Determine a new expected crash rate (an after crash rate) by multiplying the
before crash rates by the expected reductions. I t is best to use local data to
determine appropriate crash reduction factors due to geometric or traffic con-
trol changes, as well as the assumed costs of various severity levels of crashes.
Estimate the number of after crashes of each level of severity for the life of
the project by multiplying the after crash rate by the expected number of
entering vehicles over the life of the project.
Estimate a safety benefit by multiplying the expected number of after crashes
of each level of severity by the average cost of each crash and then annualizing
the result. The values in Exhibit 3-19 can provide a starting point, although local
data should be used where available.
Exhibit 3-19. Estimated costs
for crashes of varying levels of
severity.
Crash Severity Economic Cost (1997 dollars)
Death (per death) $980, 000
I njury (per injury) $34, 100
Property Damage O nly (per crash) $6, 400
Source: National Safety Council (14)
3.7.2.2 Operational benefits
The operational benefits of a project may be quantified in terms of the overall
reduction in person-hours of delay to the public. Delay has a cost to the public in
terms of lost productivity, and thus a value of time can typically be assigned to
changes in estimated delay to quantify benefits associated with delay reduction.
The calculation of annual person-hours of delay can be performed with varying
levels of detail, depending on the availability of data. For example, the vehicle-hours
of delay may be computed as follows. The results should be converted to
person-hours of delay using appropriate vehicle-occupancy factors (including tran-
sit), then adding pedestrian delay if significant.
Quantify operational benefits
in terms of vehicle-hours
of delay.
CONTENTS
Estimate the delay per vehicle for each hour of the day. I f turning move-
ments are available for multiple hours, this estimate can be computed di-
rectly. I f only the peak hour is available, the delay for an off-peak hour can be
approximated by proportioning the peak hour turning movements by total
entering vehicles.
Determine the daily vehicle-hours of delay by multiplying the estimated de-
lay per vehicle for a given hour by the total entering vehicles during that hour
and then aggregating the results over the entire day. I f data is available,
these calculations can be separated by day of week or by weekday, Satur-
day, and Sunday.
Determine annual vehicle-hours of delay by multiplying the daily vehicle-hours
of delay by 365. I f separate values have been calculated by day of week, first
determine the weekday vehicle-hours of delay and then multiply by 52.1
(365 divided by 7). I t may be appropriate to use fewer than 365 days per year
because the operational benefits will not usually apply equally on all days.
3.7.2.3 Environmental benefits
The environmental benefits of a project are most readily quantified in terms of
reduced fuel consumption and improved air quality. O f these, reductions in fuel
consumption and the benefits associated with those reductions are typically
the simplest to determine.
O ne way to determine fuel consumption is to use the same procedure for esti-
mating delay, as described previously. Fuel consumption is an output of several
of the models in use today, although the user is cautioned to ensure that the
model is appropriately calibrated for current U.S. conditions. Alternatively, one
can estimate fuel consumption by using the estimate of annual vehicle-hours of
delay and then multiplying that by an assumed fuel consumption rate during
idling, expressed as liters per hour (gallons per hour) of idling. The resulting
estimate can then be converted to a cost by assuming an average cost of fuel,
expressed in dollars per liter (dollars per gallon).
3.7.3 Estimation of costs
Costs for a public works project are generally comprised of two elements: capi-
talized construction costs and operations and maintenance (O & M ) costs. Al-
though O & M costs are typically determined on an annualized basis, construc-
tion costs are typically a near-term activity that must be annualized. The follow-
ing sections discuss these in more detail.
3.7.3.1 Construction costs
Construction costs for each alternative should be calculated using normal pre-
liminary engineering cost estimating techniques. These costs should include
the costs of any necessary earthwork, paving, bridges and retaining walls, sign-
ing and striping, illumination, and signalization.
CONTENTS
To convert construction costs into an annualized value for use in the benefit-cost
analysis, a capital recovery factor (CRF) should be used, shown in Equation 3-2.
This converts a present value cost into an annualized cost over a period of n years
using an assumed discount rate of i percent.
(3-2)
where: i = discount rate
n = number of periods (years)
3.7.3.2 Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
O peration and maintenance costs vary significantly between roundabouts and other
forms of intersection control beyond the basic elements. Common elements in-
clude signing and pavement marking maintenance and power for illumination, if
provided.
Roundabouts typically have a slightly higher illumination power and maintenance
costs compared to signalized or sign-controlled intersections due to a larger num-
ber of illumination poles. Roundabouts have slightly higher signing and pavement
marking maintenance costs due to a higher number of signs and pavement mark-
ings. Roundabouts also introduce additional cost associated with the maintenance
of any landscaping in and around the roundabout.
Signalized intersections have considerable additional cost associated with power
for the traffic signal and maintenance costs such as bulb replacement, detection
maintenance, etc. Power costs vary considerably from region to region and over
time and should be verified locally. For general purposes, an annual cost of $3, 000
for providing power to a signalized intersection is a reasonable approximation.
3.8 Ref erences
1. Austroads. Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 6 Roundabouts. Sydney,
Australia: Austroads, 1993.
2. Brilon, W., N. Wu, and L. Bondzio. Unsignalized I ntersections in Germany A
State of the Art 1997. I n Proceedings of the Third I nternational Symposium on
I ntersections without Traffic Signals (ed: M . Kyte), Portland, O regon, U.S.A. Uni-
versity of I daho, 1997.
3. M aycock, G., and R.D. Hall. Crashes at four-arm roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory
Report LR 1120. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research Labora-
tory, 1984.
4. Vogt, A. Crash M odels for Rural I ntersections: 4-Lane by 2-Lane Stop-Controlled
and 2-Lane by 2-Lane Signalized. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, 1999.
5. Bauer, K.M ., and D.W. Harwood. Statistical M odels of At-Grade I ntersection
Crashes. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-094. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, 1999.
Signalized intersections also have
O&M costs for:
Signal power
Bulb replacement
Detection maintenance
Roundabout O&M costs are
typically slightly higher than
signalized intersections for:
Illumination
Signing
Pavement marking
Landscaping
CRF

=
i ( 1 + i )
n
i ( 1 + i )
n
1
CONTENTS
6. Bared, J.G., and K. Kennedy. Safety I mpacts of Roundabouts, Chapter 28,
The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, I nstitute of Transportation
Engineers, 2000.
7. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Roundabout Guide. Florida De-
partment of Transportation, M arch 1996.
8. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). M anual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, 1988.
9. Akelik, R., and M . Besley. SI DRA 5 User Guide. M elbourne, Australia: Austra-
lian Road Research Board, January 1999.
10. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity M anual. Special Report 209.
Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
July 1999 (draft).
11. I nstitute of Transportation Engineers. Transportation Planning Handbook (J.
Edwards, Jr., ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1992.
12. American Association of State Highway O fficials (AASHO ). A Policy on Design
of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets. Washington, D.C.: AASHO , 1973.
13. American Association of State Highway & Transportation O fficials (AASHTO ).
A M anual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus Transit I mprovements.
Washington, D.C.: AASHTO , 1977.
14. National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1998 Edition.
CONTENTS
Operation 4
4.1 Traffic O peration at Roundabouts 82
4.1.1 Driver behavior and geometric elements 82
4.1.2 Concept of roundabout capacity 83
4.2 Data Requirements 83
4.3 Capacity 86
4.3.1 Single-lane roundabout capacity 86
4.3.2 Double-lane roundabout capacity 88
4.3.3 Capacity effect of short lanes at flared entries 88
4.3.4 Comparison of single-lane and double-lane roundabouts 89
4.3.5 Pedestrian effects on entry capacity 90
4.3.6 Exit capacity 91
4.4 Performance Analysis 91
4.4.1 Degree of saturation 92
4.4.2 Delay 92
4.4.3 Q ueue length 94
4.4.4 Field observations 96
4.5 Computer Software for Roundabouts 96
4.6 References 98
Exhibit 4-1. Conversion factors for passenger car equivalents (pce). 84
Exhibit 4-2. Traffic flow parameters. 85
Exhibit 4-3. Approach capacity of a single-lane roundabout. 87
Exhibit 4-4. Approach capacity of a double-lane roundabout. 88
CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-5. Capacity reduction factors for short lanes. 89
Exhibit 4-6. Capacity comparison of single-lane and double-lane roundabouts. 89
Exhibit 4-7. Capacity reduction factor M for a single-lane roundabout assuming
pedestrian priority. 90
Exhibit 4-8. Capacity reduction factor M for a double-lane roundabout assuming
pedestrian priority. 91
Exhibit 4-9. Control delay as a function of capacity and entering flow. 93
Exhibit 4-10. 95th-percentile queue length estimation. 95
Exhibit 4-11. Summary of roundabout software products for operational analysis. 97
CONTENTS
81 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 4: Operation
Roundabouts produce both control
delay and geometric delay.
This chapter presents methods for analyzing the operation of an existing or planned
roundabout. The methods allow a transportation analyst to assess the operational
performance of a facility, given information about the usage of the facility and its
geometric design elements. An operational analysis produces two kinds of esti-
mates: (1) the capacity of a facility, i.e., the ability of the facility to accommodate
various streams of users, and (2) the level of performance, often measured in terms
of one or more measures of effectiveness, such as delay and queues.
The Highway Capacity M anual (1) (HCM ) defines the capacity of a facility as the
maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to
traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period
under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. While capacity is a spe-
cific measure that can be defined and estimated, level of service (LO S) is a qualita-
tive measure that characterizes operational conditions within a traffic stream and
their perception by motorists and passengers. To quantify level of service, the
HCM defines specific measures of effectiveness for each highway facility type.
Control delay is the measure of effectiveness that is used to define level of service
at intersections, as perceived by users. I n addition to control delay, all intersections
cause some drivers to also incur geometric delays when making turns. A systems
analysis of a roadway network may include geometric delay because of the slower
vehicle paths required for turning through intersections. An example speed profile
is shown in Chapter 6 to demonstrate the speed reduction that results from geo-
metric delay at a roundabout.
While an operational analysis can be used to evaluate the performance of an exist-
ing roundabout during a base or future year, its more common function in the U.S.
may be to evaluate new roundabout designs.
This chapter:
Describes traffic operations at roundabouts;
Lists the data required to evaluate the performance of a roundabout;
Presents a method to estimate the capacity of five of the six basic round-
about configurations presented in this guide;
Describes the measures of effectiveness used to determine the performance
of a roundabout and a method to estimate these measures; and
Briefly describes the computer software packages available to implement the
capacity and performance analysis procedures.
Appendix A provides background information on the various capacity relationships.
Chapter 4
Operation
CONTENTS
4.1 Traff ic Operation at Roundabouts
4.1.1 Driver behavior and geometric elements
A roundabout brings together conflicting traffic streams, allows the streams to
safely merge and traverse the roundabout, and exit the streams to their desired
directions. The geometric elements of the roundabout provide guidance to drivers
approaching, entering, and traveling through a roundabout.
Drivers approaching a roundabout must slow to a speed that will allow them to
safely interact with other users of the roundabout, and to negotiate the round-
about. The width of the approach roadway, the curvature of the roadway, and the
volume of traffic present on the approach govern this speed. As drivers approach
the yield line, they must check for conflicting vehicles already on the circulating
roadway and determine when it is safe and prudent to enter the circulating stream.
The widths of the approach roadway and entry determine the number of vehicle
streams that may form side by side at the yield line and govern the rate at which
vehicles may enter the circulating roadway. The size of the inscribed circle affects
the radius of the drivers path, which in turn determines the speed at which drivers
travel on the roundabout. The width of the circulatory roadway determines the
number of vehicles that may travel side by side on the roundabout.
The British (2), French (3), and German (4) analytical procedures are based on em-
pirical relationships that directly relate capacity to both traffic characteristics and
roundabout geometry. The British empirical relationships reveal that small sublane
changes in the geometric parameters produce significant changes in capacity.
For instance, if some approaches are flared or have additional short lanes, these
provide considerably more capacity for two reasons. First, wider entries require
wider circulatory roadway widths. This provides for more opportunities for the cir-
culatory traffic to bunch together, thus increasing the number of acceptable oppor-
tunities to enter, thereby increasing capacity. Second, the typical size of groups of
drivers entering into acceptable opportunities in the circulatory traffic is quite small,
so short lanes can be very effective in increasing group sizes, because the short
lane is frequently able to be filled.
The British (2) use the inscribed circle diameter, the entry width, the approach
(road) half width, the entry radius, and the sharpness of the flare to define the
performance of a roundabout. The sharpness of the flare, S, is a measure of the
rate at which the extra width is developed in the entry flare. Large values of S
correspond to short, severe flares, and small values of S correspond to long, gradual
flares (5).
The results of the extensive empirical British research indicate that approach half
width, entry width, average effective flare length and entry angle have the most
significant effect on entry capacity. Roundabouts fit into two general classes: those
with a small inscribed circle diameter of less than 50 m (165 ft.) and those with a
diameter above 50 m. The British relationships provide a means of including both of
these roundabout types. The inscribed circle diameter has a relatively small effect
for inscribed diameters of 50 m (165 ft) or less. The entry radius has little effect on
capacity provided that it is 20 m (65 ft) or more. The use of perpendicular entries (70
Approach speed is governed by:
Approach roadway width
Roadway curvature
Approach volume
Geometric elements that affect
entry capacity include:
Approach half width
Entry width
Entry angle
Average effective flare
length
CONTENTS
degrees or more) and small entry radii (less than 15 m [50 ft]) will reduce capacity.
The presence of the geometric parameters in the British and French models allow
designers to manipulate elements of their design to determine both their opera-
tional and safety effects. German research has not been able to find the same
influence of geometry, although this may be due to the relatively narrow range of
geometries in Germany (4).
Thus, the geometric elements of a roundabout, together with the volume of traffic
desiring to use a roundabout at a given time, may determine the efficiency with
which a roundabout operates.
4.1.2 Concept of roundabout capacity
The capacity of each entry to a roundabout is the maximum rate at which vehicles
can reasonably be expected to enter the roundabout from an approach during a
given time period under prevailing traffic and roadway (geometric) conditions. An
operational analysis considers a precise set of geometric conditions and traffic flow
rates defined for a 15-minute analysis period for each roundabout entry. While con-
sideration of Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes (AADT) across all approaches is
useful for planning purposes as provided in Exhibit 1-13 and Chapter 3, analysis of
this shorter time period is critical to assessing the level of performance of the
roundabout and its individual components.
The capacity of the entire roundabout is not considered, as it depends on many
terms. However, Exhibit 1-13 provides threshold average daily traffic volumes for
the various categories of roundabouts, assuming four legs. Below these thresh-
olds, a four-legged roundabout with roadways intersecting perpendicularly should
have adequate capacity (provided the traffic volumes are reasonably balanced and
the geometry does not deviate substantially from those shown on the design tem-
plates in Exhibits 1-7 through 1-12). The focus in this chapter on the roundabout
entry is similar to the operational analysis methods used for other forms of
unsignalized intersections and for signalized intersections. I n each case, the capac-
ity of the entry or approach is computed as a function of traffic on the other (con-
flicting) approaches, the interaction of these traffic streams, and the intersection
geometry.
For a properly designed roundabout, the yield line is the relevant point for capacity
analysis. The approach capacity is the capacity provided at the yield line. This is
determined by a number of geometric parameters in addition to the entry width.
O n multilane roundabouts it is important to balance the use of each lane, because
otherwise some lanes may be overloaded while others are underused. Poorly de-
signed exits may influence driver behavior and cause lane imbalance and conges-
tion at the opposite leg.
4.2 Data Requirements
The analysis method described in this chapter requires the specification of traffic
volumes for each approach to the roundabout, including the flow rate for each di-
rectional movement. Volumes are typically expressed in passenger car vehicles per
hour (vph), for a specified 15-minute analysis period. To convert other vehicle types
to passenger car equivalents (pce), use the conversion factors given in Exhibit 4-1.
Perpendicular entries and small
entry radii reduce capacity;
inscribed circle diameters of 50
m (165 ft) or less have little
effect on capacity.
Roundabout capacity defined.
Operational analyses consider
15-minute volumes, as opposed
to the daily volumes used in
planning analyses.
The approach capacity is the
capacity provided at the yield
line.
Different size vehicles have
different capacity impacts;
passenger cars are used as the
basis for comparison.
CONTENTS
Car 1.0
Single-unit truck or bus 1.5
Truck with trailer 2.0
Bicycle or motorcycle 0.5
Source: (6), (7)
Passenger Car
Vehicle Type Equivalent (pce)
Exhibit 4-1. Conversion factors
for passenger car equivalents
(pce).
Traffic volume data for an urban roundabout should be collected for each directional
movement for at least the morning and evening peak periods, since the various
movements, and thus approach and circulating volumes, may peak at different times.
At rural roundabouts, the analyst should check the requirements of the agency
with the jurisdiction of the site. The reader is referred to the M anual of Transporta-
tion Engineering Studies (8) for a complete discussion of traffic volume data collec-
tion methods. Typically, intersection volume counts are made at the intersection
stop bar, with an observer noting the number of cars that pass that point over a
specified time period. However, particularly with respect to cases in which de-
mand exceeds capacity (when queues do not dissipate within the analysis period),
it is important to note that the stop bar counts reflect only the volume that is
served, not the demand volume. I n this case, care must be taken to collect data
upstream of the end of a queue so that true demand volumes are available for
analysis.
The relationship between the standard origin-to-destination turning movements at
an intersection and the circulating and entry flows at a roundabout is important, yet
is often complicated to compute, particularly if an intersection has more than four
approaches. For conventional intersctions, traffic flow data are accumulated by di-
rectional turning movement, such as for the northbound left turn. For roundabouts,
however, the data of interest for each approach are the entry flow and the circulat-
ing flow. Entry flow is simply the sum of the through, left, and right turn move-
ments on an approach. Circulating flow is the sum of the vehicles from different
movements passing in front of the adjacent uptstream splitter island. At existing
roundabouts, these flows can simply be measured in the field. Right turns are
included in approach volumes and require capacity, but are not included in the
circulating volumes downstream because they exit before the next entrance.
For proposed or planned four-legged roundabouts, Equations 4-1 through 4-4 can
be applied to determine conflicting (circulating) flow rates, as shown graphically in
Exhibit 4-2.
V
EB, circ
= V
WB, LT
+ V
SB, LT
+ V
SB, TH
+ V
NB, U-turn
+ V
WB, U-turn
+ V
SB, U-turn
(4-1)
V
WB, circ
= V
EB, LT
+ V
NB, LT
+ V
NB, TH
+ V
SB, U-turn
+ V
EB, U-turn
+ V
NB, U-turn
(4-2)
V
NB, circ
= V
EB, LT
+ V
EB, TH
+ V
SB, LT
+ V
WB, U-turn
+ V
SB, U-turn
+ V
EB, U-turn
(4-3)
V
SB, circ
= V
WB, LT
+ V
WB, TH
+ V
NB, LT
+ V
EB, U-turn
+ V
NB, U-turn
+ V
WB, U-turn
(4-4)
Determining circulating
volumes as a function of
turning movement volumes.
Entry flow and circulating flow
for each approach are the
volumes of interest for
roundabout capacity analysis,
rather than turning
movement volumes.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-2. Traffic flow
parameters.
While this method is mathematically correct, it is somewhat sensitive to errors and
inconsistencies in the input data. I t is important that the counts at all of the loca-
tions in the roundabout be made simultaneously. I nconsistencies in the data from
counts taken on different days can produce meaningless results, including nega-
tive volumes. At a minimum, the sum of the entering and exiting volumes should
be checked and adjustments should be made if necessary to ensure that the same
amount of traffic enters and leaves the roundabout.
For existing roundabouts, when approach, right-turn, circulating, and exit flows are
counted, directional turning movements can be computed as shown in the follow-
ing example. Equation 4-5 shows the through movement flow rate for the east-
bound approach as a function of the entry flow rate for that approach, the exit flow
rate for the opposing approach, the right turn flow rate for the subject approach,
the right turn flow rate for the approach on the right, and the circulating flow rate
for the approach on the right. O ther through movement flow rates can be esti-
mated using a similar relationship.
V
EB, TH
= V
EB, entry
+ V
WB, exit
-V
EB, RT
- V
NB, RT
-V
NB, circ
(4-5)
The left turn flow rate for an approach is a function of the entry flow rate, the
through flow rate, and the right turn flow rate for that same approach, as shown in
Equation 4-6. Again, other movements flows are estimated using similar equa-
tions.
V
EB, LT
= V
EB, entry
-V
EB, TH
-V
EB, RT
(4-6)
NORTH
WB,RT
WB,TH
WB,L T
WB,U
S
B
,
R
T
N
B
,
R
T
S
B
,
T
H
N
B
,
T
H
S
B
,
L
T
N
B
,
L
T
S
B
,
U
N
B
,
U
EB,RT
EB,TH
EB,L T
EB,U
S
B
C
I
R
C
E
B
C
I
R
C
N
B
C
I
R
C
W
B
C
I
R
C
CONTENTS
4.3 Capacity
The maximum flow rate that can be accommodated at a roundabout entry de-
pends on two factors: the circulating flow on the roundabout that conflicts with the
entry flow, and the geometric elements of the roundabout.
When the circulating flow is low, drivers at the entry are able to enter the round-
about without significant delay. The larger gaps in the circulating flow are more
useful to the entering drivers and more than one vehicle may enter each gap. As
the circulating flow increases, the size of the gaps in the circulating flow decrease,
and the rate at which vehicles can enter also decreases. Note that when comput-
ing the capacity of a particular leg, the actual circulating flow to use may be less
than demand flows, if the entry capacity of one leg contributing to the circulating
flow is less than demand on that leg.
The geometric elements of the roundabout also affect the rate of entry flow. The
most important geometric element is the width of the entry and circulatory road-
ways, or the number of lanes at the entry and on the roundabout. Two entry lanes
permit nearly twice the rate of entry flow as does one lane. Wider circulatory road-
ways allow vehicles to travel alongside, or follow, each other in tighter bunches and
so provide longer gaps between bunches of vehicles. The flare length also affects
the capacity. The inscribed circle diameter and the entry angle have minor effects
on capacity.
As at other forms of unsignalized intersection, when traffic flows on an approach
exceed approximately 85 percent of capacity, delays and queue lengths vary sig-
nificantly about their mean values (with standard deviations of similar magnitude
as the means). For this reason, the analysis procedures in some countries (Austra-
lia, Germany, and the United Kingdom), and this guide, recommend that round-
abouts be designed to operate at no more than 85 percent of their estimated ca-
pacity.
As performance data become available for roundabouts designed according to the
procedures in this guide in the United States, they will provide a basis for develop-
ment of operational performance procedures specifically calibrated for U.S. condi-
tions. Therefore, analysts should consult future editions of the Highway Capacity
M anual.
Roundabouts should be
designed to operate at no more
than 85 percent of their
estimated capacity. Beyond this
threshold, delays and queues
vary significantly from their
mean values.
4.3.1 Single-lane roundabout capacity
Exhibit 4-3 shows the expected capacity for a single-lane roundabout for both the
urban compact and urban/rural single-lane designs. The exhibit shows the variation
of maximum entry flow as a function of the circulating flow on the roundabout. The
calculation of the circulating flow was described previously. The capacity forecast
shown in the chart is valid for single-lane roundabouts with inscribed circle diam-
eters of 25 m to 55 m (80 ft to 180 ft). The capacity forecast is based on simplified
British regression relationships in Appendix A, which may also be derived with a
gap-acceptance model by incorporating limited priority behavior.
Roundabout approach capacity
is dependent on the conflicting
circulating flow and the
roundabouts geometric
elements.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-3. Approach capacity
of a single-lane roundabout.
The slope of the upper line
changes because circulating
flow downstream from a
roundabout entry should not
exceed 1,800 veh/h.
Note that in any case, the flow rate downstream of the merge point (between the
entry and the next exit) should not be allowed to exceed 1, 800 veh/h. Exceeding
this threshold may indicate the need for a double-lane entry.
The urban compact design is expected to have a reduced capacity, but has signifi-
cant benefits of reduced vehicle speeds through the roundabout (per the German
equations in Appendix A). This increases safety for pedestrians and bicyclists com-
pared with the larger single lane roundabouts. M ini-roundabout capacities may be
approximated using the daily maximum service volumes provided for them in Chap-
ter 3, but in any case should not exceed the capacity of the urban compact design.
Circulating flow should not
exceed 1,800 veh/h at any
point in a single-lane
roundabout. Exit flows
exceeding 1,200 veh/h may
indicate the need for a
double-lane exit.
0
800 w

(
v
e
h
/
h
)
CONTENTS
4.3.2 Double-lane roundabout capacity
Exhibit 4-4 shows the expected capacity of a double-lane roundabout that is based
on the design templates for the urban/rural double-lane roundabouts. The capacity
forecast shown in the chart is valid for double-lane roundabouts with inscribed
circle diameters of 40 m to 60 m (130 ft to 200 ft). The capacity forecast is based on
simplified British regression relationships in Appendix A, which may also be de-
rived with a gap-acceptance model by incorporating limited priority behavior. Larger
inscribed diameter roundabouts are expected to have slightly higher capacities at
moderate to high circulating flows.
Exhibit 4-4. Approach
capacity of a double-lane
roundabout.
4.3.3 Capacity effect of short lanes at flared entries
By flaring an approach, short lanes may be added at the entry to improve the perfor-
mance. I f an additional short lane is used, it is assumed that the circulatory road
width is also increased accordingly. The capacity of the entry is based on the as-
sumption that all entry lanes will be effectively used. The capacity is given by the
product of the appropriate factor in Exhibit 4-5 and the capacity of a two-lane round-
about in Exhibit 4-4. Refer to Appendix A for a derivation of these factors (9).
When flared approaches are
used, the circulatory road width
must be widened.
See Appendix A for further
information on the effects of short
lanes at flared entries.
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600
Circulatory Flow (veh/h)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

E
n
t
r
y

F
l
o
w

(
v
e
h
/
h
)
CONTENTS
4.3.4 Comparison of single-lane and double-lane roundabouts
Exhibit 4-6 shows a comparison of the expected capacity for both the single-lane
and double-lane roundabouts. Again, it is evident that the number of lanes, or the
size of the entry and circulating roadways, has a significant effect on the entry
capacity.
Exhibit 4-5. Capacity reduction
factors for short lanes.
The use of short lanes can
nearly double approach
capacity, without requiring a
two-lane roadway prior to the
roundabout.
Exhibit 4-6. Capacity
comparison of single-lane and
double-lane roundabouts.
0 * 0.500
1 0.707
2 0.794
4 0.871
6 0.906
8 0.926
10 0.939
Number of vehicle spaces in
the short lane, n
f
Fac tor (applied to double-lane
approach capacity)
Source (10)
* Used for the case of a single lane entry to a double-lane roundabout.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-7. Capacity reduction
factor M for a single-lane
roundabout assuming
pedestrian priority.
4.3.5 Pedestrian effects on entry capacity
Pedestrians crossing at a marked crosswalk that gives them priority over entering
motor vehicles can have a significant effect on the entry capacity. I n such cases, if
the pedestrian crossing volume and circulating volume are known, the vehicular
capacity should be factored (multiply by M ) according to the relationship shown in
Exhibit 4-7 or Exhibit 4-8 for single-lane and double-lane roundabouts, respectively.
Note that the pedestrian impedance decreases as the conflicting vehicle flow in-
creases. The Highway Capacity M anual (1) provides additional guidance on the ca-
pacity of pedestrian crossings and should be consulted if the capacity of the cross-
walk itself is an issue.
The effects of conflicting
pedestrians on approach
capacity decrease as conflicting
vehicular volumes increase, as
entering vehicles become more
likely to have to stop regardless
of whether pedestrians are
present.
Source: (10)
CONTENTS
4.3.6 Exit capacity
An exit flow on a single lane of more than 1, 400 veh/h, even under good operating
conditions for vehicles (i.e., tangential alignment, and no pedestrians and bicyclists)
is difficult to achieve. Under normal urban conditions, the exit lane capacity is in the
range of 1, 200 to 1, 300 veh/h. Therefore, exit flows exceeding 1, 200 veh/h may
indicate the need for a double-lane exit (11).
4.4 Performance Analysis
Three performance measures are typically used to estimate the performance of a
given roundabout design: degree of saturation, delay, and queue length. Each mea-
sure provides a unique perspective on the quality of service at which a roundabout
will perform under a given set of traffic and geometric conditions. Whenever pos-
sible, the analyst should estimate as many of these parameters as possible to
obtain the broadest possible evaluation of the performance of a given roundabout
design. I n all cases, a capacity estimate must be obtained for an entry to the round-
about before a specific performance measure can be computed.
Exhibit 4-8. Capacity
reduction factor M for a
double-lane roundabout
assuming pedestrian priority.
Source: (10)
Key performance measures for
roundabouts:
Degree of saturation
Delay
Queue length
CONTENTS
4.4.1 Degree of saturation
Degree of saturation is the ratio of the demand at the roundabout entry to the
capacity of the entry. I t provides a direct assessment of the sufficiency of a given
design. While there are no absolute standards for degree of saturation, the Austra-
lian design procedure suggests that the degree of saturation for an entry lane should
be less than 0.85 for satisfactory operation. When the degree of saturation ex-
ceeds this range, the operation of the roundabout will likely deteriorate rapidly,
particularly over short periods of time. Q ueues may form and delay begins to in-
crease exponentially.
4.4.2 Delay
Delay is a standard parameter used to measure the performance of an intersec-
tion. The Highway Capacity M anual (1) identifies delay as the primary measure of
effectiveness for both signalized and unsignalized intersections, with level of ser-
vice determined from the delay estimate. Currently, however, the Highway Capac-
ity M anual only includes control delay, the delay attributable to the control device.
Control delay is the time that a driver spends queuing and then waiting for an
acceptable gap in the circulating flow while at the front of the queue. The formula
for computing this delay is given in Equation 4-7 (12, based on 13; see also 14).
Exhibit 4-9 shows how control delay at an entry varies with entry capacity and
circulating flow. Each curve for control delay ends at a volume-to-capacity ratio of
1.0, with the curve projected beyond that point as a dashed line.
(4-7)
where: d = average control delay, sec/veh;
v
x
= flow rate for movement x, veh/h;
c
mx
= capacity of movement x, veh/h; and
T = analysis time period, h (T = 0.25 for a 15-minute period).
CONTENTS
Note that as volumes approach capacity, control delay increases exponentially,
with small changes in volume having large effects on delay. An accurate analysis of
delay under conditions near or over saturation requires consideration of the follow-
ing factors:
The effect of residual queues. Roundabout entries operating near or over capac-
ity can generate significant residual queues that must be accounted for be-
tween consecutive time periods. The method presented above does not ac-
count for these residual queues. These factors are accounted for in the delay
formulae developed by Kimber and Hollis (15); however, these formulae are
difficult to use manually.
The metering effect of upstream oversaturated entries. When an upstream en-
try is operating over capacity, the circulating volume in front of a downstream
entry is less than the true demand. As a result, the capacity of the downstream
entry is higher than what would be predicted from analyzing actual demand.
For most design applications where target degrees of saturation are no more than
0.85, the procedures presented in this section are sufficient. I n cases where it is
desired to more accurately estimate performance in conditions near or over capac-
ity, the use of software that accounts for the above factors is recommended.
Geometric delay is the additional time that a single vehicle with no conflicting
flows spends slowing down to the negotiation speed, proceeding through the in-
tersection, and accelerating back to normal operating speed. Geometric delay may
Exhibit 4-9. Control delay as a
function of capacity and
entering flow.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Entering flow (veh/h)
D
e
l
a
y

(
s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
400 veh/h 800 veh/h 1200 veh/h 1600 veh/h 2000 veh/h 2400 veh/h
Capacity
CONTENTS
be an important consideration in network planning (possibly affecting route travel
times and choices) or when comparing operations of alternative intersection types.
While geometric delay is often negligible for through movements at a signalized or
stop-controlled intersection, it can be more significant for turning movements such
as those through a roundabout. Calculation of geometric delay requires an esti-
mate of the proportion of vehicles that must stop at the yield line, as well as knowl-
edge of the roundabout geometry as it affects vehicle speeds during entry, nego-
tiation, and exit. Procedures for calculating the number of stops and geometric
delay are given in the Australian design guide (16).
4.4.3 Queue length
Q ueue length is important when assessing the adequacy of the geometric design
of the roundabout approaches.
The average queue length (L vehicles) can be calculated by Littles rule, as shown in
Equation 4-8 (17):
L = v

d / 3600 (4-8)
where: v = entry flow, veh/h
d = average delay, seconds/veh
Average queue length is equivalent to the vehicle-hours of delay per hour on an
approach. I t is useful for comparing roundabout performance with other intersec-
tion forms, and other planning procedures that use intersection delay as an input.
For design purposes, Exhibit 4-10 shows how the 95th-percentile queue length
varies with the degree of saturation of an approach (18, 19). The x-axis of the graph
is the degree of saturation, or the ratio of the entry flow to the entry capacity.
I ndividual lines are shown for the product of T and entry capacity. To determine the
95th-percentile queue length during time T, enter the graph at the computed de-
gree of saturation. M ove vertically until the computed curve line is reached. Then
move horizontally to the left to determine the 95th-percentile queue length. Alter-
natively, Equation 4-8 can be used to approximate the 95th-percentile queue. Note
that the graph and equation are only valid where the volume-to-capacity ratio im-
mediately before and immediately after the study period is no greater than 0.85 (in
other words, the residual queues are negligible).
CONTENTS
Exhibit 4-10. 95th-percentile
queue length estimation.
(4-9)
where: Q
95
= 95th percentile queue, veh,
v
x
= flow rate for movement x, veh/h,
c
m, x
= capacity of movement x, veh/h, and
T = analysis time period, h (0.25 for 15-minute period).
Source: (19)
CONTENTS
4.4.4 Field observations
The analyst may evaluate an existing roundabout to determine its performance and
whether changes to its design are needed. M easurements of vehicle delay and
queuing can be made using standard traffic engineering techniques. I n addition,
the analyst can perform a qualitative assessment of the roundabout performance.
The following list indicates conditions for which corrective design measures should
be taken (20). I f the answers to these questions are negative, no corrective actions
need be taken.
Do drivers stop unnecessarily at the yield point?
Do drivers stop unnecessarily within the circulating roadway?
Do any vehicles pass on the wrong side of the central island?
Do queues from an external bottleneck back up into the roundabout from an exit
road?
Does the actual number of entry lanes differ from those intended by the de-
sign?
Do smaller vehicles encroach on the truck apron?
I s there evidence of damage to any of the signs in the roundabout?
I s there any pedestrian activity on the central island?
Do pedestrians and cyclists fail to use the roundabout as intended?
Are there tire marks on any of the curb surfaces to indicate vehicle contact?
I s there any evidence of minor accidents, such as broken glass, pieces of rim,
etc., on the approaches or the circulating roadway?
I s there any gravel or other debris collected in nontraveled areas that could be a
hazard to bicycles or motorcyclists?
Are the vehicle speeds appropriate?
4.5 Computer Software for Roundabouts
While the analytical procedures of different countries are not very complex, they
are repetitive and time consuming, so most of these procedures have been imple-
mented in software. A summary of current (as of 1999) software products and the
analytical procedures that they implement is presented in Exhibit 4-11. The reader is
also advised to consult the latest version of the U.S. Highway Capacity M anual.
While the procedures provided in this chapter are recommended for most applica-
tions covered by this guide, models such as ARCADY, RO DEL, SI DRA, KREI SEL, or
GI RABASE may be consulted to determine the effects of geometric parameters,
particularly for multilane roundabouts outside the realm of this guide, or for fine-
tuning designs to improve performance. Note that many of these models repre-
sent different underlying data or theories and will thus produce different results.
Chapter 8 provides some information on microscopic simulation modeling which
may be useful alternatives analysis in systems context.
Points to consider for a qualitative
assessment of roundabout
performance.
CONTENTS
Name Scope Application and Qualities (1999 versions)
Exhibit 4-11.
Summary of
roundabout
software products
for operational
analysis.
British method (50 percent confidence limits). Capacity, delay, and
queuing. I ncludes projected number of crashes per year. Data were
collected at extensive field studies and from experiments involving
drivers at temporary roundabouts. Empirical relationships were de-
veloped from the data and incorporated into ARCADY. This model
reflects British driving behavior and British roundabout designs. A
prime attribute is that the capacities it predicts have been measured.
British method (user-specified confidence limits). Capacity, delay, and
queuing. I ncludes both an evaluation mode (geometric parameters
specified) and a design mode (performance targets specified). Includes
a crash prediction model. RO DEL uses the British empirical equa-
tions. I t also assists the user in developing an appropriate roundabout
for the traffic conditions.
Australian method, with analytical extensions. Capacity, delay, queue,
fuel, and environmental measures. Also evaluates two-way stop-con-
trolled, all-way stop controlled, and signalized intersections. I t also
gives roundabout capacities from U.S. HCM 1997 and German pro-
cedures. SI DRA is based on gap acceptance processes. I t uses field
data for the gap acceptance parameters to calibrate the model. There
has been limited field evaluation of the results although experience
has shown that the results fit Australian and U.S. single-lane (21) round-
about conditions satisfactorily. An important attribute is that the user
can alter parameters to easily reflect local driving.
U.S. HCM 1997 method. Limited to capacity estimation based on
entering and circulating volume. O ptional gap acceptance parameter
values provide both a liberal and conservative estimate of capacity.
The data used to calibrate the models were recorded in the U.S. The
two curves given reflect the uncertainty from the results. The upper-
bound average capacities are anticipated at most roundabouts. The
lower bound results reflect the operation that might be expected until
roundabouts become more common.
Developed in Germany. O ffers many user-specified options to imple-
ment the full range of procedures found in the literature from U.S.
(including this chapter), Europe, Britain, and Australia. KREI SEL gives
the average capacity from a number of different procedures. I t pro-
vides a means to compare these procedures.
French method. Capacity, delay, and queuing projections based on
regression. Sensitive to geometric parameters. Gives average val-
ues.
All configurations
All configurations
Single-lane
roundabouts
with a limited
range of
volumes
All configurations
and other control
types
All configurations
All configurations
including multiple
roundabout
interactions
ARCADY
RO DEL
SI DRA
HCS-3
KREI SEL
GI RABASE
CONTENTS
4.6 Ref erences
July 1999 (draft).
2. Kimber, R.M . The traffic capacity of roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR
942. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1980.
3. Guichet, B. Roundabouts I n France: Development, Safety, Design, and Ca-
pacity. I n Proceedings of the Third I nternational Symposium on I ntersections
Without Traffic Signals (M . Kyte, ed.), Portland, O regon, U.S.A. University of
I daho, 1997.
4. Brilon, W., N. Wu, and L. Bondzio. Unsignalized I ntersections in Germany
A State of the Art 1997. I n Proceedings of the Third I nternational Symposium
on I ntersections without Traffic Signals (ed: M . Kyte), Portland, O regon, U.S.A.
University of I daho, 1997.
5. O urston & Doctors, I nc. Roundabout Design Guidelines. 1995.
6. Jessen, G.D. Ein Richtlinienvorschlag fr die Behandlung der Leistungsfhigkeit
von Knotenpunkten ohne Signalregelung (A guideline suggested for capacity
calculations for unsignalized intersections). Strassenverkehrstechnik, Nr. 7/8,
1968.
7. Harders, J. Grenz-und Folgezeitlcken als Grundlage fr die Berechnung der
Leistungsfhigkeit von Landstrassen (Critical gaps and follow-up times or ca-
paci ty calculati ons at rural roads) . Schri ftenrei he Strassenbau und
Strassenverkehrstechnik, Vol. 216, 1976.
8. I nstitute of Transportation Engineers. M anual of Transportation Engineering
Studies (H.D. Robertson, J.E. Hummer, and D.C. Nelson, ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
9. Wu, N. Capacity of Shared/Short Lanes at Unsignalized I ntersections. I n
Proceedings of the Third I nternational Symposium on I ntersections without
Traffic Signals (ed: M . Kyte), Portland, O regon, U.S.A. University of I daho,
1997.
10. Brilon, W., B. Stuwe, and O . Drews. Sicherheit und Leistungsfhigkeit von
Kreisverkehrspltzen (Safety and Capacity of Roundabouts). Research Report.
Ruhr-University Bochum, 1993.
11. Brilon, W. Letter to Principal I nvestigator. September 18, 1999.
1994.
13. Akelic, R., and R.J. Troutbeck. I mplementation of the Australian roundabout
analysis method in SI DRA. I n Highway Capacity and Level of Service: Pro-
ceedings of the I nternational Symposium on Highway Capacity (U. Brannolte,
ed.), Karlsruhe, Germany. Rotterdam, Germany: Balkema Publisher, 1991, pp.
1734.
CONTENTS
14. Transportation Research Board. Review of I nternational Practices Used to
Evaluate Unsignalized I ntersections. Transportation Research Circular 468.
April 1997.
15. Kimber, R.M . and E.M . Hollis. Traffic queues and delays at road junctions. TRRL
Laboratory Report LR 909. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, 1979.
17. Little, J.D.C. A Proof of the Q ueueing Formula L = W
.
. O perations Research
9, S. 383387, 1961.
18. Heidemann, D. Q ueue lengths and waiting-time distributions at priority inter-
sections. I n Transportation Research B, Vol 25B, (4) pp. 163174, 1991.
19. Wu, N. An Approximation for the Distribution of Q ueue Lengths at Unsignalized
I ntersections. I n Proceedings of the Second I nternational Symposium on High-
way Capacity (ed. R. Akelik), Sydney, Australia. Australian Road Research Board,
1994.
20. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Roundabout Guide. Florida De-
partment of Transportation, M arch 1996.
21. Flannery, A., L. Elefteriadou, P. Koza, and J. M cFadden. Safety, delay and
capacity of single-lane roundabouts in the United States. I n Transportation
Research Record 1646. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, Na-
tional Research Council, 1998, pp. 6370.
CONTENTS
Saf ety
5
5.1 I ntroduction 103
5.2 Conflicts 104
5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 105
5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts 108
5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts 110
5.3 Crash Statistics 111
5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment 111
5.3.2 Collision types 113
5.3.3 Pedestrians 117
5.3.4 Bicyclists 120
5.4 Crash Prediction M odels 122
5.5 References 125
Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for T I ntersections with single-lane
approaches. 105
Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections with
single-lane approaches. 106
Exhibit 5-3. I mproper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107
Exhibit 5-4. I mproper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108
Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections. 109
Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109
Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two
left-turn options). 110
CONTENTS
Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111
Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections
converted to roundabouts. 112
Exhibit 5-10. M ean crash reductions in various countries. 112
Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. 113
Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114
Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115
Exhibit 5-14. Crash percentage per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns
in western France. 116
Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized
intersections. 117
Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181
converted Dutch roundabouts. 117
Exhibit 5-17. British crash rates (crashes per million trips) for bicyclists and
motorcyclists at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 120
Exhibit 5-18. A comparison of crashes between signalized and roundabout
intersections in 1998 in 15 French towns. 120
CONTENTS
103 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 5: Saf et y
Chapter 5
Saf ety
Roundabouts may improve the safety of intersections by eliminating or altering con-
flict types, by reducing speed differentials at intersections, and by forcing drivers to
decrease speeds as they proceed into and through the intersection. Though round-
about crash records in the United States are limited, the experiences of other coun-
tries can be used to help design roundabouts in this country. Understanding the
sensitivity of geometric element parameters, along with the crash experience, will
assist the designer in optimizing the safety of all vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.
5.1 Introduction
M any studies have found that one of the benefits of roundabout installation is the
improvement in overall safety performance. Several studies in the U.S., Europe, and
Australia have found that roundabouts perform better in terms of safety than other
intersection forms (1, 2, 3, 4). I n particular, single-lane roundabouts have been found
to perform better than two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections in the U.S. (5).
Although the frequency of reported crashes is not always lower at roundabouts, the
reduced injury rates are usually reported (6). Safety is better at small and medium
capacity roundabouts than at large or multilane roundabouts (1, 7). While overall
crash frequencies have been reduced, the crash reductions are most pronounced for
motor vehicles, less pronounced for pedestrians, and equivocal for bicyclists, de-
pending on the study and bicycle design treatments (4, 6, 7). Crash statistics for
various user groups are reported in Section 5.3.
The reasons for the increased safety level at roundabouts are:
Roundabouts have fewer conflict points in comparison to conventional intersec-
tions. The potential for hazardous conflicts, such as right angle and left turn
head-on crashes is eliminated with roundabout use. Single-lane approach round-
abouts produce greater safety benefits than multilane approaches because of
fewer potential conflicts between road users, and because pedestrian crossing
distances are short.
Low absolute speeds associated with roundabouts allow drivers more time to
react to potential conflicts, also helping to improve the safety performance of
roundabouts.
Since most road users travel at similar speeds through roundabouts, i.e., have
low relative speeds, crash severity can be reduced compared to some tradition-
ally controlled intersections.
Pedestrians need only cross one direction of traffic at a time at each approach
as they traverse roundabouts, as compared with unsignalized intersections. The
conflict locations between vehicles and pedestrians are generally not affected
by the presence of a roundabout, although conflicting vehicles come from a
more defined path at roundabouts (and thus pedestrians have fewer places to
check for conflicting vehicles). I n addition, the speeds of motorists entering and
exiting a roundabout are reduced with good design. As with other crossings
Roundabouts may improve
intersection safety by:
Eliminating or altering
conflicts
Decreasing speeds into and
through the intersection
Decreasing speed
differentials
CONTENTS
requiring acceptance of gaps, roundabouts still present visually impaired pe-
destrians with unique challenges, as described in Chapter 2.
For the design of a new roundabout, safety can be optimized not only by relying on
recorded past performance of roundabouts in general, but primarily by applying all
design knowledge proven to impact safety. For optimum roundabout safety and
operational performance the following should be noted:
M inimizing the number of potential conflicts at any geometric feature should
reduce the multiple vehicle crash rate and severity.
M inimizing the potential relative speed between two vehicles at the point of
conflict will minimize the multiple vehicle crash rate and severity (it may also
optimize capacity). To reduce the potential relative speed between vehicles,
either the absolute speeds of both vehicles need to be reduced or the angle
between the vehicle paths needs to be reduced. Commuter bicyclist speeds
can range from 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 15 mph) and designs that constrain the
speeds of motor vehicles to similar values will minimize the relative speeds and
improve safety. Lower absolute speeds will also assist pedestrian safety.
Limiting the maximum change in speed between successive horizontal geo-
metric elements will minimize the single vehicle crash rate and severity.
5.2 Conf licts
The frequency of crashes at an intersection is related to the number of conflict points
at an intersection, as well as the magnitude of conflicting flows at each conflict point.
A conflict point is a location where the paths of two motor vehicles, or a vehicle and
a bicycle or pedestrian queue, diverge, merge, or cross each other.
Besides conflicts with other road users, the central island of a roundabout pre-
sents a particular hazard that may result in over-representation of single-vehicle
crashes that tend to occur during periods of low traffic volumes. At cross intersec-
tions, many such violations may go unrecorded unless a collision with another
vehicle occurs.
The following sections present a variety of conflicts among vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians. Both legal conflicts (queuing at an intersection, merging into a traffic
stream) and conflicts prohibited by law or by traffic control devices (failure to yield
to pedestrians, running a stop sign) have been included for completeness. Even
though traffic control devices can significantly reduce many conflicts, they can not
eliminate them entirely due to violations of those devices. M any of the most seri-
ous crashes are caused by such violations.
As with crash analyses, conflict analyses are more than the simple enumeration of
the number of conflicts. A conflict analysis should account for the following fac-
tors:
Existence of conflict point;
Conflict points occur where one
vehicle path crosses, merges or
diverges with, or queues behind
the path of another vehicle,
pedestrian, or bicycle.
Conflicts can arise from both
legal and illegal maneuvers;
many of the most serious
crashes are caused by failure to
observe traffic control devices.
CONTENTS
Exposure, measured by the product of the two conflicting stream volumes at a
given conflict point;
Severity, based on the relative velocities of the conflicting streams (speed and
angle); and
Vulnerability, based on the ability for a member of each conflicting stream to
survive a crash.
5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts
Exhibit 5-1 presents a diagram of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for a traditional
three-leg ( T ) intersection and a three-leg roundabout. As the figure shows, the
number of vehicle-vehicle conflict points for roundabouts decreases from nine to
six for three-leg intersections. Note that these diagrams do not take into account
the ability to separate conflicts in space (through the use of separate left or right
turning lanes) or time (through the use of traffic control devices such as stop signs
or traffic signals).
Roundabouts bring the
simplicity of a T intersection
to intersections with more than
three legs.
Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict
points for T Intersections
with single-lane approaches.
Exhibit 5-2 presents similar diagrams for a traditional four-leg ( X or cross ) inter-
section and a four-leg roundabout. As the figure shows, the number of vehicle-
vehicle conflict points for roundabouts decreases from 32 to 8 for four-leg intersec-
tions.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict
point comparison for intersec-
tions with single-lane ap-
proaches.
A four-leg single-lane round-
about has 75% fewer vehicle
conflict pointscompared to a
conventional intersection.
Conflicts can be divided into three basic categories, in which the degree of severity
varies, as follows:
Q ueuing conflicts. These conflicts are caused by a vehicle running into the back
of a vehicle queue on an approach. These types of conflicts can occur at the
back of a through-movement queue or where left-turning vehicles are queued
waiting for gaps. These conflicts are typically the least severe of all conflicts
because the collisions involve the most protected parts of the vehicle and the
relative speed difference between vehicles is less than in other conflicts.
M erge and diverge conflicts. These conflicts are caused by the joining or separat-
ing of two traffic streams. The most common types of crashes due to merge
conflicts are sideswipes and rear-end crashes. M erge conflicts can be more se-
vere than diverge conflicts due to the more likely possibility of collisions to the
side of the vehicle, which is typically less protected than the front and rear of the
vehicle.
Crossing conflicts. These conflicts are caused by the intersection of two traffic
streams. These are the most severe of all conflicts and the most likely to involve
injuries or fatalities. Typical crash types are right-angle crashes and head-on crashes.
As Exhibit 5-1 and Exhibit 5-2 show, a roundabout reduces vehicular crossing con-
flicts for both three-and four-leg intersections by converting all movements to right
turns. Again, separate turn lanes and traffic control (stop signs or signalization) can
often reduce but not eliminate the number of crossing conflicts at a traditional
intersection by separating conflicts in space and/or time. However, the most se-
vere crashes at signalized intersections occur when there is a violation of the traf-
fic control device designed to separate conflicts by time (e.g., a right-angle colli-
sion due to running a red light, and vehicle-pedestrian collisions). Therefore, the
ability of single-lane roundabouts to reduce conflicts through physical, geometric
features has been demonstrated to be more effective than the reliance on driver
obedience of traffic control devices.
Crossing conflicts are the most
severe and carry the highest
public cost.
Diverging
Crossing
Merging
CONTENTS
I n general, double-lane roundabouts have some of the same safety performance
characteristics as their simpler single-lane counterparts. However, due to the pres-
ence of additional entry lanes and the accompanying need to provide wider circu-
latory and exit roadways, double lane roundabouts introduce additional conflicts
not present in single-lane roundabouts. This makes it important to use the mini-
mum required number of entry, circulating and exit lanes, subject to capacity con-
siderations. For example, according to United Kingdom roundabout crash models,
for a 10, 000 entering Average Daily Traffic (ADT), flaring the entry width from one to
two lanes is likely to increase injury crashes by 25 percent (8).
The number of vehicular and pedestrian conflicts points in both conventional inter-
sections and roundabouts increases considerably when they have additional ap-
proach lanes. The designer is encouraged to graphically determine conflicts for a
particular location, as this information can raise awareness of design issues and
may be useful in public presentations.
The types of conflicts present in multilane roundabouts that do not exist in single-
lane roundabouts occur when drivers use the incorrect lane or make an improper
turn. These types of conflicts are depicted in Exhibit 5-3 and Exhibit 5-4, respec-
tively. While these types of conflicts can also be present in other intersection forms,
they can be prevalent with drivers who are unfamiliar with roundabout operation.
The conflicts depicted in Exhibit 5-4, in particular, can be created by not providing a
proper design geometry that allows vehicles to travel side-by-side throughout the
entire roundabout (see Chapter 6). Crashes resulting from both types of conflicts
can also be reduced through proper driver education.
Double-lane roundabouts have
some of the same safety
performance characteristics as
single-lane roundabouts, but
introduce additional conflicts.
Incorrect lane use and incorrect
turns are multilane roundabout
conflicts that do not exist in
single-lane roundabouts.
Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use
conflicts in double-lane
roundabouts.
CONTENTS
As with single-lane roundabouts, the most severe vehicular crossing conflicts are
eliminated and replaced by less severe merging conflicts. The additional conflicts
unique to multilane roundabouts are generally low-speed sideswipe conflicts that
typically have low severity. Therefore, although the number of conflict points increases
at multilane roundabouts when compared to a single lane roundabouts, the overall
severity of conflicts is generally less than alternative intersection control.
5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts
Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts can be present at every intersection, even those with
minimal pedestrian volume. The following sections examine pedestrian conflicts at
signalized intersections and at roundabouts.
Signalized intersections offer the opportunity to reduce the likelihood of pedes-
trian-vehicle conflicts through the use of signal phasing that allows only a few
movements to move legally at any given time. Exhibit 5-5 summarizes the typical
pedestrian conflicts present on one approach to a signalized intersection. As the
exhibit shows, a pedestrian crossing at a typical signalized intersection (permitted
or protected-permitted left turns, right turns on red allowed) faces four potential
vehicular conflicts, each coming from a different direction:
Crossing movements on red (typically high-speed, illegal)
Right turns on green (legal)
Left turns on green (legal for protected-permitted or permitted left turn phasing)
Right turns on red (typically legal)
I n terms of exposure, the illegal movements should be accorded a lower weight
than legal conflicts. However, they may be accorded an offsetting higher weight in
terms of severity. For an intersection with four single-lane approaches, this results
in a total of 16 pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn
conflicts in double-lane
roundabouts.
Types of pedestrian crossing
conflicts present at signalized
intersections.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts at signalized intersec-
tions.
Pedestrians at roundabouts, on the other hand, face two conflicting vehicular move-
ments on each approach, as depicted in Exhibit 5-6:
Conflict with entering vehicles; and
Conflict with exiting vehicles.
At conventional and roundabout intersections with multiple approach lanes, an ad-
ditional conflict is added with each additional lane that a pedestrian must cross.
The direction conflicting
vehicles will arrive from is more
predictable for pedestrians at
roundabouts.
Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts at single-lane round-
abouts.
CONTENTS
5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts
Bicycles face similar conflicts as motor vehicles at both signalized intersections
and roundabouts. However, because bicyclists typically ride on the right side of the
road between intersections, they face additional conflicts due to overlapping paths
with motor vehicles. Conflicts unique to bicyclists occur on each approach to con-
ventional four-leg intersections, as depicted in Exhibit 5-7 (showing left turns like
motor vehicles or left turns like pedestrians).
Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts
at conventional intersections
(showing two left-turn options).
At roundabouts, bicycles may be provided the option of traveling as a vehicle or as
a pedestrian. As a result, the conflicts experienced by bicyclists are dependent on
how they choose to negotiate the roundabout, as shown in Exhibit 5-8. When trav-
eling as a vehicle at a single-lane roundabout, an additional conflict occurs at the
point where the bicyclist merges into the traffic stream; the remainder are similar
to those for motor vehicles. At double-lane and larger roundabouts where bicycles
are typically traveling on the outside part of the circulatory roadway, bicyclists face
a potential conflict with exiting vehicles where the bicyclist is continuing to circu-
late around the roundabout. Bicyclists may feel compelled to negotiate the circle
(e.g., by indicating their intentions to drivers with their arms) while avoiding con-
flicts where possible. Bicyclists are less visible and therefore more vulnerable to
the merging and exiting conflicts that happen at double-lane roundabouts.
When traveling as a pedestrian, an additional conflict for bicyclists occurs at the point
where the bicyclist gets onto the sidewalk, at which point the bicyclist continues
around the roundabout like a pedestrian. O n shared bicycle-pedestrian paths or on
sidewalks, if bicyclists continue to ride, additional bicycle-pedestrian conflicts occur
wherever bicycle and pedestrian movements cross (not shown on the exhibit).
Bicycles can be provided with
the option of traveling as either
a vehicle or a pedestrian
through a roundabout.
CONTENTS
5.3 Crash Statistics
This section summarizes the overall safety performance of roundabouts in various
countries (including the U.S.) and then examines the detailed collision types expe-
rienced in France and Q ueensland, Australia. Pedestrian and bicycle crash statis-
tics are discussed separately, including design issues for visually impaired pedes-
trians.
5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment
Exhibit 5-9 shows the crash frequencies (average annual crashes per roundabout)
experienced at eleven intersections in the U.S. that were converted to roundabouts.
As the exhibit shows, both types of roundabouts showed a reduction in both injury
and property-damage crashes after installation of a roundabout. I t should be noted
that due to the small size of the data sample, the only result that is statistically
significant is the injury crash reduction for small and moderate roundabouts.
Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts
at roundabouts (showing two
left-turn options).
Bicycle-pedestrian conflicts can
also occur on shared pathways
adjacent to the roundabout.
CONTENTS
Percent Change
5
Exhibit 5-9. Average annual
crash frequencies at 11 U.S.
intersections converted to
roundabouts.
Notes:
1. M ostly single-lane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter of 30 to 35 m (100 to 115 ft).
2. M ultilane roundabouts with an inscribed circle diameter greater than 50 m (165 ft).
3. I nj. = I njury crashes
4. PDO = Property Damage O nly crashes
5. O nly injury crash reductions for small/moderate roundabouts were statistically significant.
Source: (9)
Compared to results from Australia, France, and the United Kingdom, these crash
frequencies are quite high. Annual crash frequencies in France, Australia, and United
Kingdom of 0.15, 0.6, and 3.31 injury crashes per roundabout, respectively, have
been reported (1, 10). The reader should note that the UK has many high-volume,
I n spite of the higher frequencies, injury crash rates, which account for traffic vol-
ume exposure, are significantly lower at U.S. roundabout sites. I n a recent study of
eight single-lane roundabouts in M aryland and Florida, the injury crash rate was
found to be 0.08 crashes per million entering vehicles (5). By comparison, the
injury crash rate was reported to be 0.045 crashes per million entering vehicles in
France and 0.275 crashes per million entering vehicles in the United Kingdom (1, 10).
Experiences in the United States show a reduction in crashes after building a round-
about of about 37 percent for all crashes and 51 percent for injury crashes. These
values correspond with international studies with much larger sample sizes, as
shown in Exhibit 5-10.
Small/M oderate
1
8 4.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 0.5 1.6 -51% 73% -32%
Large
2
3 21.5 5.8 15.7 15.3 4.0 11.3 -29% -31% -10%
Total 11 9.3 3.0 6.0 5.9 1.5 4.2 -37% -51% -29%
Type of
Roundabout Sites
Before
Roundabout Roundabout
Total Inj. PDO Total Inj. PDO Total Inj.
3
PDO
4
Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash
reductions in various countries.
Country
Mean Reduction (%)
All Crashes
Injury Crashes
Australia 41 -61% 45 -87%
France 57 -78%
Germany 36%
Netherlands 47%
United Kingdom 25 -39%
United States 37% 51%
Source: (2), France: (11)
CONTENTS
Crash Type of Entering- Single
Country Description Roundabout circulating Rear-end Vehicle
The findings of these studies show that injury crashes are reduced more dramati-
cally than crashes involving property damage only. This again is in part due to the
configuration of roundabouts, which eliminates severe crashes such as left turn,
head-on, and right angle collisions. M ost of these studies also show that crash
reduction in rural areas is much higher than in urban areas.
Note that the geometry of many studied sites may not necessarily conform to
good roundabout design. Improved design principles, such as an emphasis on achiev-
ing consistent speeds, may result in better safety performance. I t should also be
noted that these crash reductions are generally for sites where roundabouts were
selected to replace problem intersections. Therefore, they do not necessarily rep-
resent a universal safety comparison with all other intersection types.
Collisions at roundabouts tend to be less severe than at conventional intersec-
tions. M ost crashes reported at roundabouts are a result of drivers failing to yield
on entry, referred to as entering-circulating crashes. I n addition, rear-end collisions
and single vehicle crashes have been reported in many studies. Exhibit 5-11 shows
the percentage of the three main crash types reported in different countries.
Caveats for comparing the
results of crash studies.
1. Percentages do not necessarily sum to 100% because only three major crash categories are shown.
Source: (10)
Exhibit 5-11. Reported
proportions of major crash
types at roundabouts.
Australia All crashes Single and 51% 22% 18%
multilane
France I njury crashes Single and 37% 13% 28%
multilane
Germany All crashes Single lane 30% 28% 17%
Switzerland All crashes Single and 46% 13% 35%
multilane
United Kingdom I njury crashes Single and 20 -71% 7 -25% 8 -30%
multilane
Type of Crash
1
5.3.2 Collision types
I t is instructive for designers to examine details of collision types and location at
roundabouts. Statistics are available for roundabouts designed according to local
practices in France, Q ueensland (Australia), and the United Kingdom. I t should be
noted that the reported frequencies are to some extent related to the specific
design standards and reporting processes used in these countries.
Exhibit 5-12 presents a summary of the percentage of crashes by collision type.
The numbered items in the list correspond to the numbers indicated on the dia-
grams given in Exhibit 5-13 as reported in France. The French data illustrate colli-
sion types for a sample of 202 injury crashes from 179 urban and suburban round-
abouts in France for the period 19841988 (12). For comparison purposes, data
CONTENTS
from Q ueensland, Australia (13) and the United Kingdom (1) have been superim-
posed onto the same classification system.
The results in Exhibit 5-12 are instructive for a number of reasons:
A variety of collision types can take place at roundabouts. A designer should be
aware of these collision types when making decisions about alignment and
location of fixed objects. I t is recommended that these collision types be adopted
as conflict types in the U.S. to conduct traffic conflict analysis and report crashes
at roundabouts.
Although reporting methodologies may vary somewhat, crash experience var-
ies from country to country. This may be due to a combination of differences in
driver behavior, and design features.
1. Failure to yield at entry (entering-circulating) 36.6% 50.8% 71.1%
2. Single-vehicle run off the circulatory roadway 16.3% 10.4% 8.2%
2
3. Single vehicle loss of control at entry 11.4% 5.2%
2
4. Rear-end at entry 7.4% 16.9% 7.0%
3
5. Circulating-exiting 5.9% 6.5%
6. Pedestrian on crosswalk 5.9% 3.5%
4
7. Single vehicle loss of control at exit 2.5% 2.6%
2
8. Exiting-entering 2.5%
9. Rear-end in circulatory roadway 0.5% 1.2%
10. Rear-end at exit 1.0% 0.2%
11. Passing a bicycle at entry 1.0%
12. Passing a bicycle at exit 1.0%
13. Weaving in circulatory roadway 2.5% 2.0%
14. Wrong direction in circulatory roadway 1.0%
15. Pedestrian on circulatory roadway 3.5%
4
16. Pedestrian at approach outside crosswalk 1.0%
4
O ther collision types 2.4% 10.2%
O ther sideswipe crashes 1.6%
Notes:
1. Data are for small roundabouts (curbed central islands > 4 m [13 ft] diameter, relatively large ratio of
inscribed circle diameter to central island size)
2. Reported findings do not distinguish among single-vehicle crashes.
3. Reported findings do not distinguish among approaching crashes.
4. Reported findings do not distinguish among pedestrian crashes.
Sources: France (12), Australia (13), United Kingdom (1)
Queensland United
Collision Type France (Australia) Kingdom
1
collision types at roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 5-13. Graphical
depiction of collision types at
roundabouts.
Source (8)
CONTENTS
Three of the predominant types of collision are: (1) failures to yield at entry to
circulating vehicles, (2) single vehicle run-off the circulatory roadway, and (3) single
vehicle run-into the central island. A more recent crash study (14) confirmed a high
proportion of single vehicle crashes: 49 percent in rural areas, versus 21 percent in
urban areas. According to crash models from the United Kingdom, single vehicle
crashes range between 20 and 40 percent depending on traffic and design charac-
teristics of sites. I n the United Kingdom models, separation by urban and rural
areas is not provided.
To reduce the severity of single vehicle crashes, special attention should be ac-
corded to improving visibility and avoiding or removing any hard obstacles on the
central island and splitter islands in both urban and rural environments. A French
study (14) identified a number of major obstacles that caused fatalities and injuries:
trees, guardrail, concrete barriers, fences, walls, piers, sign or light poles, land-
scaping pots or hard decorative objects, and steep cross-slopes on the central
island.
I n rural areas, the benefit of lighting has not yet been quantified. I n France, only 36
percent of the rural sites are lighted. At these sites, 46 percent of all crashes, and
49 percent of single vehicle crashes occur at night (14).
The French study (7) in 15 towns of 202 urban roundabout crashes compared with
all crossroads reported the percentage of crashes by user type, as shown in Ex-
hibit 5-14. The percentage of crashes concerning pedestrians was similar to all
crossroads. However, the percentage of crashes involving bicycles and mopeds
was larger 15.4 percent for urban crossroads overall versus 24.2 percent for round-
abouts, i.e., almost 60 percent more.
Exhibit 5-14. Crash percent-
age per type of user for urban
roundabouts in 15 towns in
western France.
Pedestrians 6.3% 5.6%
Bicycles 3.7% 7.3%
M opeds 11.7% 16.9%
M otor cycles 7.4% 4.8%
Cars 65.7% 61.2%
Utility vehicles 2.0% 0.6%
Heavy goods vehicles 2.0% 3.0%
Bus/coach 0.8% 0.6%
M iscellaneous 0.4% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Source: (7)
User
All Crossroads Roundabouts
CONTENTS
5.3.3 Pedestrians
As was described previously, vehicular injury crashes normally decrease when round-
abouts are installed at an existing intersection. The safety benefits of roundabouts
have been found to generally carry over to pedestrians as well, as shown in British
statistics of Exhibit 5-15. This may be due to the reduced speeds at roundabouts as
compared with the previous intersection forms.
Exhibit 5-15. British crash
rates for pedestrians at
roundabouts and
For pedestrians, the risk of being involved in a severe collision is lower at round-
abouts than at other forms of intersections, due to the slower vehicle speeds.
Likewise, the number of conflict points for pedestrians is lower at roundabouts
than at other intersections, which can lower the frequency of collisions. The splitter
island between entry and exit allows pedestrians to resolve conflicts with entering
and exiting vehicles separately.
A Dutch study of 181 intersections converted to roundabouts (4) found reductions
(percentage) in all pedestrian crashes of 73 percent and in pedestrian injury crashes
of 89 percent. I n this study, all modes shared in the safety benefits to greater
(passenger cars) or lesser extents (bicycles), as shown in Exhibit 5-16.
Exhibit 5-16. Percentage
reduction in the number of
crashes by mode at 181
converted Dutch roundabouts.
M ini-roundabout 0.31
Conventional roundabout 0.45
Flared roundabout 0.33
Signals 0.67
Source: (1, 15)
Pedestrian Crashes
Intersection Type per Million Trips
Passenger car 63% 95%
M oped 34% 63%
Bicycle 8% 30%
Pedestrian 73% 89%
Total 51% 72%
Source: (4)
Mode All Crashes Injury Crashes
CONTENTS
A risk analysis of 59 roundabouts and 124 signalized intersections was carried out
on crash data in Norway between 1985 and 1989. Altogether, 33 crashes involving
personal injury were recorded at the 59 roundabouts. O nly 1 of these crashes
involved a pedestrian, compared with the signalized intersections, where pedestri-
ans were involved in 20 percent of the personal injury crashes (57 of 287 injury
crashes) (16).
Further, there is no quantitative evidence of increased safety for pedestrians at
roundabouts with striped (zebra) crossings, where pedestrians have priority. There-
fore, striped crossings have generally not been used in other countries. However,
in the U.S., it is recommended that all crosswalks be striped except at rural loca-
tions with low pedestrian volumes. Although this is not their intended function,
striped crosswalks may further alert approaching drivers to a change in their appro-
priate speed near the yield point.
Crash data have not been collected to indicate whether a pedestrian has a disabil-
ity, and no studies have focused specifically on the safety of visually impaired pe-
destrians at roundabouts. This is an area requiring further research.
5.3.3.1 Information access for blind or visually impaired pedestrians
Roundabout crossing skills may be difficult for disabled pedestrians to perform
without assistance. For example, audible pedestrian-activated signals may be con-
sidered on an approach, although this treatment is not typical. Any leg of any round-
about could be equipped with a pedestrian-activated signal at the pedestrian cross-
ing, if a balanced design requires providing assistance to pedestrians at that loca-
tion. For example, motorized volume that is too heavy at times to provide a suffi-
cient number of gaps acceptable for pedestrians may warrant a pedestrian signal
equipped with audible devices to assist people with visual disabilities.
When crossing a roundabout, there are several areas of difficulty for pedestrians
who are blind or visually impaired. I t is desirable that a visually impaired pedestrian
with good travel skills should be able to arrive at an unfamiliar intersection and cross
it with pre-existing skills and without special, intersection-specific training. Round-
abouts pose problems at several points of the crossing experience, from the per-
spective of their access to information:
The first task of the visually impaired pedestrian is to locate the crosswalk. This
can be difficult if the roundabout is not properly landscaped and if the curb edge
of the ramp is not marked with a detectable warning surface (see Chapter 6).
The crosswalk direction must also be unambiguous.
Zebra-stripe markings are
recommended at most
roundabouts to indicate
pedestrian crossings.
Safety of visually impaired
pedestrians at roundabouts
requires further research.
Challenges that roundabouts
pose to visually impaired
pedestrians.
Depending upon whether the visually impaired pedestrian is crossing the round-
about in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, they must listen for a safe
gap to cross either the entrance or exit lane(s). The primary problem is the sound
of traffic on the roundabout, which may mask the sound of cars approaching the
CONTENTS
Chapters 6 and 7 provide
suggestions on designing
roundabouts to accommodate
persons with disabilities.
crosswalk. While crossing the exit lane poses the greater hazard to the pedes-
trian who is visually impaired because of the higher speed of the vehicles, cross-
ing the entrance may also pose significant problems. Entering traffic, while slower,
may also be intimidating as it may not be possible to determine by sound alone
whether a vehicle has actually stopped or intends to stop. Sighted pedestrians
often rely upon communication through eye contact in these situations; how-
ever, that is not a useful or reliable technique for the pedestrian who is visually
impaired. Both these problems are further exacerbated at roundabouts with
multilane entrances and exits. I n these roundabouts, a stopped car in the near
lane may mask the sounds of other traffic. I t may also block the view of the
driver in the far lane of the cane or guide dog of a person who is visually im-
paired who begins to cross (this is also a problem for children and people using
wheelchairs on any crossing of a multilane road).
The third task is locating the splitter island pedestrian refuge. I f this refuge is
not ramped, curbed, or equipped with detectable warnings, it is not detectable
by a pedestrian who is visually impaired.
Crossing the remaining half of the crossing (see the second bullet above).
Locating the correct walkway to either continue their path or locate the adjacent
crosswalk to cross the next leg of the roundabout.
Unless these issues are addressed by a design, the intersection is inaccessible
and may not be permissible under the ADA. Chapters 6 and 7 provide specific
suggestions to assist in providing the above information. However, more research
is required to develop the information jurisdictions need to determine where round-
abouts may be appropriate and what design features are required for people with
disabilities. Until specific standards are adopted, engineers and jurisdictions must
rely on existing related research and professional judgment to design pedestrian
features so that they are usable by pedestrians with disabilities.
Possible design remedies for the difficulties faced by pedestrians include tight en-
tries, raised speed tables with detectable warnings, treatments for visually im-
paired pedestrians to locate crosswalks, raised pavement markers with yellow flash-
ing lights to alert drivers of crossing pedestrians, pedestrian crossings with actu-
ated signals set sufficiently upstream of the yield line to minimize the possibility of
exiting vehicle queues spilling back into the circulatory roadway (6). However, the
safety of these treatments at roundabouts has not been tested in the United States.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 5-17. British crash
rates (crashes per million trips)
for bicyclists and motorcyclists
at roundabouts and signalized
intersections.
A French study (7) compared the crashes in 1988 in 15 towns in the west of France
at both signalized intersections and roundabouts, as shown in Exhibit 5-18. The
conclusions from the analysis were:
There were twice as many injury crashes per year at signalized intersections
than at roundabouts;
Two-wheel vehicles were involved in injury crashes more often (+ 77 percent) at
signalized intersections than on roundabouts;
People were more frequently killed and seriously injured per crash (+ 25 per-
cent) on roundabouts than at signalized intersections;
Proportionally, two-wheel vehicle users were more often involved in crashes (16
percent) on roundabouts than at signalized intersections. Furthermore, the con-
sequences of such crashes were more serious.
5.3.4 Bicyclists
As shown in Exhibit 5-17, at British roundabouts bicyclists fare worse in terms of
crashes at roundabouts than at signalized intersections.
M ini-roundabout 3.11 2.37
Conventional roundabout 2.91 2.67
Flared roundabout 7.85 2.37
Signals 1.75 2.40
Source: (1, 15)
Intersection Type Bicyclists Motorcyclists
Exhibit 5-18. A comparison of
crashes between signalized and
roundabout intersections in
1998 in 15 French towns.
Number of crossroads 1, 238 179
Number of personal injuries 794 59
Number of crashes involving 2-wheel vehicles 278 28
Personal injury crashes/year/crossroad 0.64 0.33
2-wheel vehicle crashes/year/crossroad 0.23 0.13
Crashes to 2-wheel vehicles per 100 crashes 35.0 40.7
Serious crashes/year/crossroad 0.14 0.089
Serious crashes to 2-wheel vehicles/year/crossroad 0.06 0.045
Serious crashes/100 crashes 21.9 27.1
Serious crashes to 2-wheel vehicles/100 crashes
to a 2-wheel vehicle 27.0 33.3
Source: (7)
Signalized
Crossroads Roundabouts
CONTENTS
All European countries report that a more careful design is necessary to enhance
bicyclists safety. The type of bicycle crashes depends on the bicycle facilities pro-
vided at the roundabout. I f there are no bicycle facilities, or if there is a bike lane on
the outer area of the circulatory roadway, crashes typically occur between entering
cars and circulating bicyclists as well as between cars heading into an exit and
circulating bicyclists. I mproperly placed signs on the splitter island may also be a
contributing factor.
As a result, most European countries have the following policies:
Avoid bike lanes on the outer edge of the circulatory roadway.
Allow bicyclists to mix with vehicle traffic without any separate facility in the
circulatory roadway when traffic volumes are low, on single lane roundabouts
operating at lower speeds (e.g., up to 8, 000 vehicles per day in the Netherlands
(4)).
I ntroduce separated bicycle facilities outside the circulatory roadway when ve-
hicular and bicycle volumes are high. These separated bicycle facilities cross the
exits and entries at least one car length from the edge of the circulatory road-
way lane, adjacent to the pedestrian crossings. I n some countries, bicyclists
have priority over entering and exiting cars, especially in urban areas (e.g., Ger-
many). O ther countries prefer to give priority to car traffic showing a yield sign
to bicyclists (e.g., Netherlands). The latter solution (i.e., separate bicycle facili-
ties with vehicular traffic priority at the crossing points) is the standard solution
for rural areas in most European countries.
Speed is a fundamental risk factor in the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Typi-
cal bicyclist speeds are in the range of 20 to 25 km/h (12 to 15 mph), and designs
that constrain the speeds of vehicles to similar values will minimize the relative
speeds and thereby improve safety. Design features that slow traffic such as tight-
ening entry curvature and entry width, and radial alignment of the legs of a round-
about, such as with the urban compact design, are considered safe treatments for
bicyclists (17).
I n the Netherlands, a 90 percent decrease in injury crashes was experienced with
separate bicycle paths around roundabouts where bicyclists do not have right-of-
way at the crossings (17).
A bicycle crash prediction model from Sweden has been validated against data for
Swedish, Danish, and Dutch roundabouts (18). The model provides reasonable re-
sults for roundabouts with up to 12, 000 vehicles per day and 4, 000 bicycles per
day. The model tends to over-predict crashes (i.e., is conservative) for roundabouts
carrying more than 12, 000 vehicles per day that are also designed with separate
bicycle paths with crossings on the approach legs. I t is calibrated for crossroad
intersections as well as roundabouts. To obtain the expected cycling crashes per
year at roundabouts, the value derived from the general junction model is factored
by 0.71, implying that bicycle crashes at roundabouts are 71 percent less frequent
than at junctions in general. However, the reader is cautioned when extrapolating
European bicycling experience to the U.S., as drivers in Europe are more accus-
tomed to interacting with bicyclists.
Typical European practice is to
provide separated bicycle
facilities outside the circulatory
roadway when vehicular and
bicycle volumes are high.
CONTENTS
5.4 Crash Prediction Models
Crash prediction models have been developed for signalized intersections in the
U.S., as discussed previously in Chapter 3. However, no crash prediction models
exist yet for U.S. roundabouts and driver behavior. Given the relatively recent intro-
duction of roundabouts to the U.S. and driver unfamiliarity with them, crash predic-
tion models from other countries should be used cautiously. As reported earlier in
Section 5.3, crash statistics vary from country to country, both in terms of magni-
tude and in terms of collision types. Consequently, the application of a crash pre-
diction model from another country may not accurately predict crash frequencies
at U.S. locations. Nonetheless, these crash prediction models from other coun-
tries can be useful in understanding the relative effects of various geometric fea-
tures on the number of crashes that might be expected. The user is thus cautioned
to use these models only for comparative purposes and for obtaining insights into
the refinement of individual geometric elements, not to use them for predicting
absolute numbers of crashes under U.S. conditions.
Crash models relating crash frequency to roundabout characteristics are available
from the United Kingdom. The sample consisted of 84 four-leg roundabouts of all
sizes, small to large and with various number of approach lanes and entry lanes
(flared or parallel entries) (1). Approach speeds were also evenly represented be-
tween 48 to 64 km/h (30 to 40 mph) and 80 to 113 km/h (50 to 70 mph). Crash data
were collected for periods of 4 to 6 years, a total of 1, 427 fatal, serious, and slight
injuries only. The proportion of crashes with one casualty was 83.7 percent, and
those with two casualties was 12.5 percent. The models are based on generalized
linear regression of the exponential form, which assumes a Poisson distribution.
Their goodness of fit is expressed in terms of scaled deviations that are moder-
ately reliable. No additional variables, other than those listed below, could further
improve the models significantly (see also (8)).
The British crash prediction equations (1), for each type of crash are listed in Equa-
tions 5-1 through 5-5. Note that these equations are only valid for roundabouts
with four legs. However, the use of these models for relative comparisons may still
be reasonable.
Entry-Circulating: (5-1)
where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year per roundabout
approach;
Q
e
= entering flow (1, 000s of vehicles/day)
Q
c
= circulating flow (1, 000s of vehicles/day)
C
e
= entry curvature = 1/R
e
e = entry width (m)
v = approach width (m)
R = ratio of inscribed circle diameter/central island diameter
P
m
= proportion of motorcycles (% )
= angle to next leg, measured centerline to centerline (degrees)
Crash prediction models have
not been developed for U.S.
roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Approaching: (5-2)
where: A = personal injury crashes (including fatalities) per year at roundabout
approach or leg;
Q
e
C
e
e
R
e
= entry path radius for the shortest vehicle path (m)
e = entry width (m)
Single Vehicle: (5-3)
approach or leg
Q
e
C
e
e
R
e
= entry path radius for the shortest vehicle path (m)
V = approach width (m)
C
a
= approach curvature = 1/R
a
R
a
= approach radius (m), defined as the radius of a curve between 50 m
(164 ft) and 500 m (1, 640 ft) of the yield line
O ther (Vehicle): (5-4)
approach or leg
Q
ec
= product Q
e
Q
c
Q
e
Q
c
= circulating flow (1, 000s of vehicles/day)
P
m
= proportion of motorcycles
Pedestrian: (5-5)
approach or leg
Q
ep
= product (Q
e
+ Q
ex
). Q
p
Q
e
Q
ex
= exiting flow (1, 000s of vehicles/day)
Q
p
= pedestrian crossing flow (1, 000s of pedestrians/day)
According to the U.K. crash models, the major physical factors that were statisti-
cally significant are entry width, circulatory width, entry path radius, approach cur-
vature, and angle between entries. Some of the effects of these parameters are as
follows:
Entry width: For a total entry flow of 20, 000 vehicles per day, widening an entry
from one lane to two lanes is expected to cause 30 percent more injury crashes.
At 40, 000 vehicles per day, widening an entry from two lanes to three lanes will
cause a 15 percent rise in injury crashes. M oreover, the models could not take
into account the added hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians who will have to
travel longer exposed distances. (8)
CONTENTS
Circulatory width: Widening the circulatory roadway has less impact on crashes
than entry width. Crashes are expected to rise about 5 percent for a widening of
two meters. (8)
Entry path radius: Entry-circulating collision type increases with entry path ra-
dius (for the fastest path), while single vehicle and approach collision types
decrease. For a double-lane approach, an optimum entry path radius is 50 to 70
m (165 to 230 ft). (8)
Approach curvature: Approach curvature is safer when the approach curve is to
the right and less so when the curve is to the left. This implies that a design is
slightly safer when reverse curves are provided to gradually slow drivers before
entry. For a double-lane approach roundabout with entering flow of 50, 000 ve-
hicles per day, changing a straight approach to a right-turning curve of 200 m
(650 ft) radius reduces crash frequency by 5 percent. (8)
Angle between entries: As the angle between entries decreases, the frequency
of crashes increases. For example, an approach with an angle of 60 degrees to
the next leg of the roundabout increases crash frequency by approximately 35
percent over approaches at 90-degree angles. Therefore, the angle between
entries should be maximized to improve safety.
An approach suggested in Australia (13) differs from the British approach in that the
independent variables are based on measures related to driver behavior. For in-
stance, the collision rate for single vehicle crashes was found to be:
(5-6)
and
(5-7)
where: A
sp
= the number of single vehicle crashes per year per leg for vehicle path
segments prior to the yield line.
A
sa
= the number of single vehicle crashes per year per leg for vehicle path
segments after the yield line.
Q = the average annual daily traffic in the direction considered one way
traffic only (veh/d)
L = the length of the drivers path on the horizontal geometric element (m).
S = the 85th-percentile speed on the horizontal geometric element (km/h).
S = the decrease in the 85th-percentile speed at the start on the horizon-
tal geometric element (km/h). This indicates the speed change from
the previous geometric element.
R = the vehicle path radius on the geometric element (m).
These equations demonstrate a direct relationship between the number of crashes,
overall speed magnitudes, and the change in speed between elements. Therefore,
this equation can be used to estimate the relative differences in safety benefits
between various geometric configurations by estimating vehicle speeds through
the various parts of a roundabout.
Maximize angles between
entries.
CONTENTS
5.5 Ref erences
1. M aycock, G., and R.D. Hall. Crashes at four-arm roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory
Report LR 1120. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research Labora-
tory, 1984.
2. Garder, P. The M odern Roundabouts: The Sensible Alternative for M aine. M aine
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning, Research and Community
Services, Transportation Research Division, 1998.
3. Brilon, W. and B. Stuwe. Capacity and Design of Traffic Circles in Germany. I n
Transportation Research Record 1398. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, 1993.
4. Schoon, C.C., and J. van M innen. Accidents on Roundabouts: I I . Second study
into the road hazard presented by roundabouts, particularly with regard to cy-
clists and moped riders. R-93-16. The Netherlands: SWOV I nstitute for Road
Safety Research, 1993.
5. Flannery, A. and T.K. Datta. M odern Roundabouts and Traffic Crash Experience
in the United States. I n Transportation Research Record 1553. Washington, D.C.:
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1996.
6. Brown, M . TRL State of the Art Review The Design of Roundabouts. London:
HM SO , 1995.
7. Alphand, F., U. Noelle, and B. Guichet. Roundabouts and Road Safety: State of
the Art in France. I n I ntersections without Traffic Signals I I , Springer-Verlag,
Germany (W. Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 107125.
8. Bared, J.G., and K. Kennedy. Safety I mpacts of M odern Roundabouts, Chapter
28, The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, I nstitute of Transporta-
tion Engineers, 2000.
9. Jacquemart, G. Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: M odern Roundabout Prac-
tice in the United States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Wash-
ington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1998.
10. Brilon, W. and L. Bondzio. White Paper: Summary of I nternational Statistics on
Roundabout Safety (unpublished), July 1998.
11. Guichet, B. Roundabouts I n France: Development, Safety, Design, and Capac-
ity. I n Proceedings of the Third I nternational Symposium on I ntersections With-
out Traffic Signals (M . Kyte, ed.), Portland, O regon, U.S.A. University of I daho,
1997.
12. Centre d Etude des Transports Urbains (CETUR). Safety of Roundabouts in
Urban and Suburban Areas. Paris, 1992.
13. Arndt, O . Road Design I ncorporating Three Fundamental Safety Parameters.
Technology Transfer Forum 5 and 6, Transport Technology Division, M ain Roads
Department, Q ueensland, Australia, August 1998.
14. SETRA/CETE de l O uest. Safety Concerns on Roundabouts. 1998.
CONTENTS
15. Crown, B. An I ntroduction to Some Basic Principles of U.K. Roundabout De-
sign. Presented at the ITE District 6 Conference on Roundabouts, Loveland,
Colorado, O ctober 1998.
16. Seim, K. Use, Design and Safety of Small Roundabouts in Norway. I n I nter-
sections Without Traffic Signals I I , Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.),
1991, pp.270281.
17. Van M innen, J. Safety of Bicyclists on Roundabouts Deserves Special Atten-
tion. SWOV I nstitute of Road Safety Research in the Netherlands, Research
Activities 5, M arch 1996.
18. Brude, U., and J. Larsson. The Safety of Cyclists at Roundabouts A Compari-
son Between Swedish, Danish and Dutch Results. Swedish National Road and
Transport Research I nstitute (VTI ), Nordic Road & Transport Research No. 1,
1997.
CONTENTS
127 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 6: Geometric Design
Geometric Design 6
6.1 I ntroduction 130
6.1.1 Geometric elements 130
6.1.2 Design process 130
6.2 General Design Principles 132
6.2.1 Speeds through the roundabout 132
6.2.2 Design vehicle 142
6.2.3 Nonmotorized design users 144
6.2.4 Alignment of approaches and entries 144
6.3 Geometric Elements 145
6.3.1 I nscribed circle diameter 145
6.3.2 Entry width 147
6.3.3 Circulatory roadway width 149
6.3.4 Central island 150
6.3.5 Entry curves 152
6.3.6 Exit curves 154
6.3.7 Pedestrian crossing location and treatments 155
6.3.8 Splitter islands 157
6.3.9 Stopping sight distance 159
6.3.10 I ntersection sight distance 161
6.3.11 Vertical considerations 164
6.3.12 Bicycle provisions 167
CONTENTS
6.3.13 Sidewalk treatments 168
6.3.14 Parking considerations and bus stop locations 169
6.3.15 Right-turn bypass lanes 170
6.4 Double-Lane Roundabouts 172
6.4.1 The natural vehicle path 172
6.4.2 Vehicle path overlap 174
6.4.3 Design method to avoid path overlap 174
6.5 Rural Roundabouts 176
6.5.1 Visibility 177
6.5.2 Curbing 177
6.5.3 Splitter islands 177
6.5.4 Approach curves 178
6.6 M ini-Roundabouts 179
6.7 References 181
Exhibit 6-1. Basic geometric elements of a roundabout. 131
Exhibit 6-2. Roundabout design process. 131
Exhibit 6-3. Sample theoretical speed profile (urban compact roundabout). 133
Exhibit 6-4. Recommended maximum entry design speeds. 133
Exhibit 6-5. Fastest vehicle path through single-lane roundabout. 134
Exhibit 6-6. Fastest vehicle path through double-lane roundabout. 135
Exhibit 6-7. Example of critical right-turn movement. 135
Exhibit 6-8. Side friction factors at various speeds (metric units). 137
Exhibit 6-9. Side friction factors at various speeds (U.S. customary units). 137
Exhibit 6-10. Speed-radius relationship (metric units). 138
Exhibit 6-11. Speed-radius relationship (U.S. customary units). 138
Exhibit 6-12. Vehicle path radii. 139
4
1
values
(metric units). 141
4
1
values
(U.S. customary units). 141
Exhibit 6-15. Through-movement swept path of WB-15 (WB-50) vehicle. 143
Exhibit 6-16. Left-turn and right-turn swept paths of WB-15 (WB-50) vehicle. 143
Exhibit 6-17. Key dimensions of nonmotorized design users. 144
Exhibit 6-18. Radial alignment of entries. 145
Exhibit 6-19. Recommended inscribed circle diameter ranges. 146
Exhibit 6-20. Approach widening by adding full lane. 148
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-21. Approach widening by entry flaring. 148
Exhibit 6-22. M inimum circulatory lane widths for two-lane
roundabouts. 150
Exhibit 6-23. Example of central island with a traversable apron. 151
Exhibit 6-24. Single-lane roundabout entry design. 153
Exhibit 6-25. Single-lane roundabout exit design. 154
Exhibit 6-26. M inimum splitter island dimensions. 157
Exhibit 6-27. M inimum splitter island nose radii and offsets. 158
Exhibit 6-28. Design values for stopping sight distances. 159
Exhibit 6-29. Approach sight distance. 160
Exhibit 6-30. Sight distance on circulatory roadway. 160
Exhibit 6-31. Sight distance to crosswalk on exit. 161
Exhibit 6-32. I ntersection sight distance. 162
Exhibit 6-33. Computed length of conflicting leg of intersection
sight triangle. 163
Exhibit 6-34. Sample plan view. 164
Exhibit 6-35. Sample approach profile. 165
Exhibit 6-36. Sample central island profile. 165
Exhibit 6-37. Typical circulatory roadway section. 166
Exhibit 6-38. Typical section with a truck apron. 166
Exhibit 6-39. Possible provisions for bicycles. 168
Exhibit 6-40. Sidewalk treatments. 169
Exhibit 6-41. Example of right-turn bypass lane. 170
acceleration lane. 171
yield at exit leg. 172
Exhibit 6-44. Sketched natural paths through a
double-lane roundabout. 173
Exhibit 6-45. Path overlap at a double-lane roundabout. 174
Exhibit 6-46. O ne method of entry design to avoid path overlap at
double-lane roundabouts. 175
Exhibit 6-47. Alternate method of entry design to avoid path overlap
at double-lane roundabouts. 175
Exhibit 6-48. Extended splitter island treatment. 178
Exhibit 6-49. Use of successive curves on high speed approaches. 179
Exhibit 6-50. Example of mini-roundabout. 180
CONTENTS
6.1 Introduction
Designing the geometry of a roundabout involves choosing between trade-offs of
safety and capacity. Roundabouts operate most safely when their geometry forces
traffic to enter and circulate at slow speeds. Horizontal curvature and narrow pave-
ment widths are used to produce this reduced-speed environment. Conversely,
the capacity of roundabouts is negatively affected by these low-speed design ele-
ments. As the widths and radii of entry and circulatory roadways are reduced, so
also the capacity of the roundabout is reduced. Furthermore, many of the geomet-
ric parameters are governed by the maneuvering requirements of the largest ve-
hicles expected to travel through the intersection. Thus, designing a roundabout is
a process of determining the optimal balance between safety provisions, opera-
tional performance, and large vehicle accommodation.
While the basic form and features of roundabouts are uniform regardless of their
location, many of the design techniques and parameters are different, depending
on the speed environment and desired capacity at individual sites. I n rural environ-
ments where approach speeds are high and bicycle and pedestrian use may be
minimal, the design objectives are significantly different from roundabouts in ur-
ban environments where bicycle and pedestrian safety are a primary concern. Ad-
ditionally, many of the design techniques are substantially different for single-lane
roundabouts than for roundabouts with multiple entry lanes.
This chapter is organized so that the fundamental design principles common among
all roundabout types are presented first. M ore detailed design considerations spe-
cific to multilane roundabouts, rural roundabouts, and mini-roundabouts are given
in subsequent sections of the chapter.
6.1.1 Geometric elements
Exhibit 6-1 provides a review of the basic geometric features and dimensions of a
roundabout. Chapter 1 provided the definitions of these elements.
6.1.2 Design process
The process of designing roundabouts, more so than other forms of intersections,
requires a considerable amount of iteration among geometric layout, operational
analysis, and safety evaluation. As described in Chapters 4 and 5, minor adjust-
ments in geometry can result in significant changes in the safety and/or opera-
tional performance. Thus, the designer often needs to revise and refine the initial
layout attempt to enhance its capacity and safety. I t is rare to produce an optimal
geometric design on the first attempt. Exhibit 6-2 provides a graphical flowchart for
the process of designing and evaluating a roundabout.
Roundabout design
involves trade-offs among
safety, operations,
and accommodating
large vehicles.
Some roundabout features are
uniform, while others vary
depending on the location and
size of the roundabout.
Roundabout design is an
iterative process.
Chapter 6
Geometric Design
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-1. Basic geometric
elements of a roundabout.
Exhibit 6-2. Roundabout design
process.
C
H
A
R
A
C
-
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
G
E
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
A
F
E
T
Y
F
I
N
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
Identify
Roundabout
As Potential
DesignOption
Evaluate
Appropriateness
Preliminary
Capacity
Analysis
Initial
Layout
Detailed
PerformanceAnalysis
Adjustas Necessary
Adjustas Necessary
Adjustas
Necessary
ReviewSafety
of Final
GeometricPlan
Signing,
Striping,Lighting,
Landscaping,and
Construction
Staging
PerformSafetyAudit
of Signing,Striping,
Lighting,and
LandscapePlans
Check
Safety
Parameters
CONTENTS
Because roundabout design is such an iterative process, in which small changes in
geometry can result in substantial changes to operational and safety performance,
it may be advisable to prepare the initial layout drawings at a sketch level of detail.
Although it is easy to get caught into the desire to design each of the individual
components of the geometry such that it complies with the specifications pro-
vided in this chapter, it is much more important that the individual components are
compatible with each other so that the roundabout will meet its overall perfor-
mance objectives. Before the details of the geometry are defined, three funda-
mental elements must be determined in the preliminary design stage:
1. The optimal roundabout size;
2. The optimal position; and
3. The optimal alignment and arrangement of approach legs.
6.2 General Design Principles
This section describes the fundamental design principles common among all cat-
egories of roundabouts. Guidelines for the design of each geometric element are
provided in the following section. Further guidelines specific to double-lane round-
abouts, rural roundabouts, and mini-roundabouts are given in subsequent sections.
Note that double-lane roundabout design is significantly different from single-lane
roundabout design, and many of the techniques used in single-lane roundabout
design do not directly transfer to double-lane design.
6.2.1 Speeds through the roundabout
Because it has profound impacts on safety, achieving appropriate vehicular speeds
through the roundabout is the most critical design objective. A well-designed round-
about reduces the relative speeds between conflicting traffic streams by requiring
vehicles to negotiate the roundabout along a curved path.
6.2.1.1 Speed profiles
Exhibit 6-3 shows the operating speeds of typical vehicles approaching and nego-
tiating a roundabout. Approach speeds of 40, 55, and 70 km/h (25, 35, and 45 mph,
respectively) about 100 m (325 ft) from the center of the roundabout are shown.
Deceleration begins before this time, with circulating drivers operating at approxi-
mately the same speed on the roundabout. The relatively uniform negotiation speed
of all drivers on the roundabout means that drivers are able to more easily choose
their desired paths in a safe and efficient manner.
6.2.1.2 Design speed
I nternational studies have shown that increasing the vehicle path curvature de-
creases the relative speed between entering and circulating vehicles and thus usu-
ally results in decreases in the entering-circulating and exiting-circulating vehicle
crash rates. However, at multilane roundabouts, increasing vehicle path curvature
creates greater side friction between adjacent traffic streams and can result in
more vehicles cutting across lanes and higher potential for sideswipe crashes (2).
Thus, for each roundabout, there exists an optimum design speed to minimize
crashes.
Increasing vehicle path
curvature decreases relative
speeds between entering and
circulating vehicles, but also
increases side friction between
adjacent traffic streams in
The most critical design objective
is achieving appropriate vehicular
speeds through the roundabout.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-3. Sample
theoretical speed profile (urban
compact roundabout).
Recommended maximum entry design speeds for roundabouts at various inter-
section site categories are provided in Exhibit 6-4.
Recommended Maximum
Site Category Entry Design Speed
M ini-Roundabout 25 km/h (15 mph)
Urban Compact 25 km/h (15 mph)
Urban Single Lane 35 km/h (20 mph)
Urban Double Lane 40 km/h (25 mph)
Rural Single Lane 40 km/h (25 mph)
Rural Double Lane 50 km/h (30 mph)
Exhibit 6-4. Recommended
maximum entry design speeds.
CONTENTS
path through single-lane
roundabout.
6.2.1.3 Vehicle paths
To determine the speed of a roundabout, the fastest path allowed by the geometry
is drawn. This is the smoothest, flattest path possible for a single vehicle, in the
absence of other traffic and ignoring all lane markings, traversing through the en-
try, around the central island, and out the exit. Usually the fastest possible path is
the through movement, but in some cases it may be a right turn movement.
A vehicle is assumed to be 2 m (6 ft) wide and to maintain a minimum clearance of
0.5 m (2 ft) from a roadway centerline or concrete curb and flush with a painted
edge line (2). Thus the centerline of the vehicle path is drawn with the following
distances to the particular geometric features:
1.5 m (5 ft) from a concrete curb,
1.5 m (5 ft) from a roadway centerline, and
1.0 m (3 ft) from a painted edge line.
Exhibits 6-5 and 6-6 illustrate the construction of the fastest vehicle paths at a
single-lane roundabout and at a double-lane roundabout, respectively. Exhibit 6-7
provides an example of an approach at which the right-turn path is more critical
than the through movement.
Roundabout speed is deter-
mined by the fastest path
allowed by the geometry.
Through movements are usually
the fastest path, but sometimes
right turn paths are more
critical.
CONTENTS
path through double-lane
roundabout.
Exhibit 6-7. Example of critical
right-turn movement.
CONTENTS
The entry path radius should
not be significantly larger than
the circulatory radius.
Draw the fastest path for all
roundabout approaches.
As shown in Exhibits 6-5 and 6-6, the fastest path for the through movement is a
series of reverse curves (i.e., a curve to the right, followed by a curve to the left,
followed by a curve to the right). When drawing the path, a short length of tangent
should be drawn between consecutive curves to account for the time it takes for
a driver to turn the steering wheel. I t may be initially better to draw the path free-
hand, rather than using drafting templates or a computer-aided design (CAD) pro-
gram. The freehand technique may provide a more natural representation of the
way a driver negotiates the roundabout, with smooth transitions connecting curves
and tangents. Having sketched the fastest path, the designer can then measure
the minimum radii using suitable curve templates or by replicating the path in CAD
and using it to determine the radii.
The design speed of the roundabout is determined from the smallest radius along
the fastest allowable path. The smallest radius usually occurs on the circulatory
roadway as the vehicle curves to the left around the central island. However, it is
important when designing the roundabout geometry that the radius of the entry
path (i.e., as the vehicle curves to the right through entry geometry) not be signifi-
cantly larger than the circulatory path radius.
The fastest path should be drawn for all approaches of the roundabout. Because
the construction of the fastest path is a subjective process requiring a certain
amount of personal judgment, it may be advisable to obtain a second opinion.
6.2.1.4 Speed-curve relationship
The relationship between travel speed and horizontal curvature is documented in
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation O fficials document,
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, commonly known as the
Green Book (4). Equation 6-1 can be used to calculate the design speed for a given
travel path radius.
V R e f = + 127 ( ) (6-1a, metric) V R e f = + 15 ( ) (6-1b, U.S. customary)
where: V = Design speed, km/h where: V = Design speed, mph
R = Radius, m R = Radius, ft
e = superelevation, m/m e = superelevation, ft/ft
f = side friction factor f = side friction factor
Superelevation values are usually assumed to be + 0.02 for entry and exit curves
and -0. 02 for curves around the central i sland. For more detai ls related to
superelevation design, see Section 6.3.11.
Values for side friction factor can be determined in accordance with the AASHTO
relation for curves at intersections (see 1994 AASHTO Figure I I I -19 (4)). The coeffi-
cient of friction between a vehicles tires and the pavement varies with the vehicles
speed, as shown in Exhibits 6-8 and 6-9 for metric and U. S. customary units,
respectively.
CONTENTS
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Speed (mph)
S
i
d
e

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
Exhibit 6-9. Side friction
factors at various speeds
(U.S. customary units).
Exhibit 6-8. Side friction
factors at various speeds
(metric units).
CONTENTS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Radius (ft)
S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
e=+0.02 e=-0.02
Exhibit 6-10. Speed-radius
relationship (metric units).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Radius (m)
S
p
e
e
d

(
k
m
/
h
)
e=+0.02 e=-0.02
Using the appropriate friction factors corresponding to each speed, Exhibits 6-10
and 6-11 present charts in metric and U.S. customary units, respectively, showing
the speed-radius relationship for curves for both a + 0.02 superelevation and -0.02
superelevation.
Exhibit 6-11. Speed-radius
relationship
(U.S. customary units.)
CONTENTS
6.2.1.5 Speed consistency
I n addition to achieving an appropriate design speed for the fastest movements,
another important objective is to achieve consistent speeds for all movements.
Along with overall reductions in speed, speed consistency can help to minimize
the crash rate and severity between conflicting streams of vehicles. I t also sim-
plifies the task of merging into the conflicting traffic stream, minimizing critical
gaps, thus optimizing entry capacity. This principle has two implications:
1. The relative speeds between consecutive geometric elements should be
minimized; and
2. The relative speeds between conflicting traffic streams should be minimized.
As shown in Exhibit 6-12, five critical path radii must be checked for each ap-
proach. R
1
, the entry path radius, is the minimum radius on the fastest through
path prior to the yield line. R
2
, the circulating path radius, is the minimum radius
on the fastest through path around the central island. R
3
, the exit path radius, is
the minimum radius on the fastest through path into the exit. R
4
, the left-turn
path radius, is the minimum radius on the path of the conflicting left-turn move-
ment. R
5
, the right-turn path radius, is the minimum radius on the fastest path of
a right-turning vehicle. I t is important to note that these vehicular path radii are
not the same as the curb radii. First the basic curb geometry is laid out, and then
the vehicle paths are drawn in accordance with the procedures described in Sec-
tion 6.2.1.3.
Exhibit 6-12. Vehicle path radii.
CONTENTS
O n the fastest path, it is desirable for R
1
to be smaller than R
2
, which in turn should
be smaller than R
3
. This ensures that speeds will be reduced to their lowest level at
the roundabout entry and will thereby reduce the likelihood of loss-of-control crashes.
I t also helps to reduce the speed differential between entering and circulating traf-
fic, thereby reducing the entering-circulating vehicle crash rate. However, in some
cases it may not be possible to achieve an R
1
value less than R
2
within given right-
of-way or topographic constraints. I n such cases, it is acceptable for R
1
to be greater
than R
2
, provided the relative difference in speeds is less than 20 km/h (12 mph)
and preferably less than 10 km/h (6 mph).
At single-lane roundabouts, it is relatively simple to reduce the value of R
1
. The
curb radius at the entry can be reduced or the alignment of the approach can be
shifted further to the left to achieve a slower entry speed (with the potential for
higher exit speeds that may put pedestrians at risk). However, at double-lane round-
abouts, it is generally more difficult as overly small entry curves can cause the
natural path of adjacent traffic streams to overlap. Path overlap happens when the
geometry leads a vehicle in the left approach lane to naturally sweep across the
right approach lane just before the approach line to avoid the central island. I t may
also happen within the circulatory roadway when a vehicle entering from the right-
hand lane naturally cuts across the left side of the circulatory roadway close to the
central island. When path overlap occurs at double-lane roundabouts, it may re-
duce capacity and increase crash risk. Therefore, care must be taken when design-
ing double-lane roundabouts to achieve ideal values for R
1
, R
2
, and R
3
. Section 6.4
provides further guidance on eliminating path overlap at double-lane roundabouts.
The exit radius, R
3
, should not be less than R
1
or R
2
in order to minimize loss-of-
control crashes. At single-lane roundabouts with pedestrian activity, exit radii may
still be small (the same or slightly larger than R
2
) in order to minimize exit speeds.
However, at double-lane roundabouts, additional care must be taken to minimize
the likelihood of exiting path overlap. Exit path overlap can occur at the exit when a
vehicle on the left side of the circulatory roadway (next to the central island) exits
into the right-hand exit lane. Where no pedestrians are expected, the exit radii
should be just large enough to minimize the likelihood of exiting path overlap. Where
pedestrians are present, tighter exit curvature may be necessary to ensure suffi-
ciently low speeds at the downstream pedestrian crossing.
The radius of the conflicting left-turn movement, R
4
, must be evaluated in order to
ensure that the maximum speed differential between entering and circulating traf-
fic is no more than 20 km/h (12 mph). The left-turn movement is the critical traffic
stream because it has the lowest circulating speed. Large differentials between
entry and circulating speeds may result in an increase in single-vehicle crashes
due to loss of control. Generally, R
4
can be determined by adding 1.5 m (5 ft) to the
central island radius. Based on this assumption, Exhibits 6-13 and 6-14 show ap-
proximate R
4
values and corresponding maximum R
1
values for various inscribed
circle diameters in metric and U.S. customary units, respectively.
The natural path of a vehicle is
the path that a driver would
take in the absence of other
conflicting vehicles.
CONTENTS
4
1
values (U.S. customary units).
Approximate R
4
Value Maximum R
1
Value
Radius
(ft)
Speed
(mph)
Radius
(ft)
Speed
(mph)
Inscribed Circle
Diameter (m)
Single-Lane Roundabout
100 35 13 165 25
115 45 14 185 26
130 55 15 205 27
150 65 15 225 28
150 50 15 205 27
165 60 16 225 28
180 65 16 225 28
200 75 17 250 29
215 85 18 275 30
230 90 18 275 30
Double-Lane Roundabout
Finally, the radius of the fastest possible right-turn path, R
5
, is evaluated. Like R
1
,
the right-turn radius should have a design speed at or below the maximum design
speed of the roundabout and no more than 20 km/h (12 mph) above the conflicting
R
4
design speed.
4
1
values (metric units).
Double-Lane Roundabout
Single-Lane Roundabout
Approximate R
4
Value Maximum R
1
Value
Inscribed Circle
Diameter (m)
Radi us
(m)
Speed
(km/h)
Radius
(m)
Speed
(km/h)
30 11 21 54 41
35 13 23 61 43
40 16 25 69 45
45 19 26 73 46
45 15 24 65 44
50 17 25 69 45
55 20 27 78 47
60 23 28 83 48
65 25 29 88 49
70 28 30 93 50
CONTENTS
6.2.2 Design vehicle
Another important factor determining a roundabouts layout is the need to ac-
commodate the largest motorized vehicle likely to use the intersection. The turn-
ing path requirements of this vehicle, termed hereafter the design vehicle, will
dictate many of the roundabouts dimensions. Before beginning the design pro-
cess, the designer must be conscious of the design vehicle and possess the
appropriate vehicle turning templates or a CAD-based vehicle turning path pro-
gram to determine the vehicles swept path.
The choice of design vehicle will vary depending upon the approaching roadway
types and the surrounding land use characteristics. The local or State agency with
jurisdiction of the associated roadways should usually be consulted to identify
the design vehicle at each site. The AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets provides the dimensions and turning path requirements
for a variety of common highway vehicles (4). Commonly, WB-15 (WB-50) ve-
hicles are the largest vehicles along collectors and arterials. Larger trucks, such
as WB-20 (WB-67) vehicles, may need to be addressed at intersections on inter-
state freeways or State highway systems. Smaller design vehicles may often be
chosen for local street intersections.
I n general, larger roundabouts need to be used to accommodate large vehicles
while maintaining low speeds for passenger vehicles. However, in some cases,
land constraints may limit the ability to accommodate large semi-trailer combina-
tions while achieving adequate deflection for small vehicles. At such times, a
truck apron may be used to provide additional traversable area around the central
island for large semi-trailers. Truck aprons, though, provide a lower level of opera-
tion than standard nonmountable islands and should be used only when there is
no other means of providing adequate deflection while accommodating the de-
sign vehicle.
Exhibits 6-15 and 6-16 demonstrate the use of a CAD-based computer program
to determine the vehicles swept path through the critical turning movements.
The design vehicle dictates many
of the roundabouts dimensions.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-15. Through-
movement swept path of
WB-15 (WB-50) vehicle.
Exhibit 6-16. Left-turn and
right-turn swept paths of
WB-15 (WB-50) vehicle.
CONTENTS
6.2.3 Nonmotorized design users
Like the motorized design vehicle, the design criteria of nonmotorized potential
roundabout users (bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, strollers, etc.)
should be considered when developing many of the geometric elements of a round-
about design. These users span a wide range of ages and abilities that can have a
significant effect on the design of a facility.
The basic design dimensions for various design users are given in Exhibit 6-17 (5).
6.2.4 Alignment of approaches and entries
I n general, the roundabout is optimally located when the centerlines of all approach
legs pass through the center of the inscribed circle. This location usually allows the
geometry to be adequately designed so that vehicles will maintain slow speeds
through both the entries and the exits. The radial alignment also makes the central
island more conspicuous to approaching drivers.
I f it is not possible to align the legs through the center point, a slight offset to the
left (i.e., the centerline passes to the left of the roundabouts center point) is ac-
ceptable. This alignment will still allow sufficient curvature to be achieved at the
entry, which is of supreme importance. I n some cases (particularly when the in-
scribed circle is relatively small), it may be beneficial to introduce a slight offset of
the approaches to the left in order to enhance the entry curvature. However, care
must be taken to ensure that such an approach offset does not produce an exces-
sively tangential exit. Especially in urban environments, it is important that the exit
Roundabouts are optimally located
when all approach centerlines
pass through the center of the
inscribed circle.
User Dimension Aff ected Roundabout Features
Exhibit 6-17. Key dimensions
of nonmotorized design users.
Bicycles
Length 1.8 m (5.9 ft) Splitter island width at crosswalk
M inimum operating width 1.5 m (4.9 ft) Bike lane width
Lateral clearance on each side 0.6 m (2.0 ft); Shared bicycle-pedestrian path
width
1.0 m (3.3 ft)
to obstructions
Pedestrian (walking)
Width 0.5 m (1.6 ft) Sidewalk width, crosswalk width
Wheelchair
M inimum width 0.75 m (2.5 ft) Sidewalk width, crosswalk width
O perating width 0.90 m (3.0 ft) Sidewalk width, crosswalk width
Person pushing stroller
Length 1.70 m (5.6 ft) Splitter island width at crosswalk
Skaters
Typical operating width 1.8 m (6 ft) Sidewalk width
Source: (5)
CONTENTS
geometry produce a sufficiently curved exit path in order to keep vehicle speeds
low and reduce the risk for pedestrians.
I t is almost never acceptable for an approach alignment to be offset to the right of
the roundabouts center point. This alignment brings the approach in at a more
tangential angle and reduces the opportunity to provide sufficient entry curvature.
Vehicles will be able to enter the roundabout too fast, resulting in more loss-of-
control crashes and higher crash rates between entering and circulating vehicles.
Exhibit 6-18 illustrates the preferred radial alignment of entries.
I n addition, it is desirable to equally space the angles between entries. This pro-
vides optimal separation between successive entries and exits. This results in op-
timal angles of 90 degrees for four-leg roundabouts, 72 degrees for five-leg round-
abouts, and so on. This is consistent with findings of the British accident prediction
models described in Chapter 5.
6.3 Geometric Elements
This section presents specific parameters and guidelines for the design of each
geometric element of a roundabout. The designer must keep in mind, however,
that these components are not independent of each other. The interaction between
the components of the geometry is far more important than the individual pieces.
Care must be taken to ensure that the geometric elements are all compatible with
each other so that the overall safety and capacity objectives are met.
6.3.1 Inscribed circle diameter
The inscribed circle diameter is the distance across the circle inscribed by the
outer curb (or edge) of the circulatory roadway. As illustrated in Exhibit 6-1, it is the
sum of the central island diameter (which includes the apron, if present) and twice
the circulatory roadway. The inscribed circle diameter is determined by a number
of design objectives. The designer often has to experiment with varying diameters
before determining the optimal size at a given location.
Exhibit 6-18. Radial alignment
of entries.
Approach alignment should not
be offset to the right of the
roundabouts center point.
CONTENTS
At single-lane roundabouts, the size of the inscribed circle is largely dependent
upon the turning requirements of the design vehicle. The diameter must be large
enough to accommodate the design vehicle while maintaining adequate deflection
curvature to ensure safe travel speeds for smaller vehicles. However, the circula-
tory roadway width, entry and exit widths, entry and exit radii, and entry and exit
angles also play a significant role in accommodating the design vehicle and provid-
ing deflection. Careful selection of these geometric elements may allow a smaller
inscribed circle diameter to be used in constrained locations. I n general, the in-
scribed circle diameter should be a minimum of 30 m (100 ft) to accommodate a
WB-15 (WB-50) design vehicle. Smaller roundabouts can be used for some local
street or collector street intersections, where the design vehicle may be a bus or
single-unit truck.
At double-lane roundabouts, accommodating the design vehicle is usually not a
constraint. The size of the roundabout is usually determined either by the need to
achieve deflection or by the need to fit the entries and exits around the circumfer-
ence with reasonable entry and exit radii between them. Generally, the inscribed
circle diameter of a double-lane roundabout should be a minimum of 45 m (150 ft).
I n general, smaller inscribed diameters are better for overall safety because they
help to maintain lower speeds. I n high-speed environments, however, the design
of the approach geometry is more critical than in low-speed environments. Larger
inscribed diameters generally allow for the provision of better approach geometry,
which leads to a decrease in vehicle approach speeds. Larger inscribed diameters
also reduce the angle formed between entering and circulating vehicle paths, thereby
reducing the relative speed between these vehicles and leading to reduced enter-
ing-circulating crash rates (2). Therefore, roundabouts in high-speed environments
may require diameters that are somewhat larger than those recommended for
low-speed environments. Very large diameters (greater than 60 m [200 ft]), how-
ever, should generally not be used because they will have high circulating speeds
and more crashes with greater severity. Exhibit 6-19 provides recommended ranges
of inscribed circle diameters for various site locations.
For a single-lane roundabout,
the minimum inscribed circle
diameter is 30 m (100 ft) to
accommodate a WB-15 (WB-50)
vehicle.
For a double-lane roundabout,
the minimum inscribed circle
diamter is 45 m (150 ft).
inscribed circle diameter ranges.
M ini-Roundabout Single-Unit Truck 1325m (4580 ft)
Urban Compact Single-Unit Truck/Bus 2530m (80100 ft)
Urban Single Lane WB-15 (WB-50) 3040m (100130 ft)
Urban Double Lane WB-15 (WB-50) 4555m (150180 ft)
Rural Single Lane WB-20 (WB-67) 3540m (115130 ft)
Rural Double Lane WB-20 (WB-67) 5560m (180200 ft)
* Assumes 90-degree angles between entries and no more than four legs.
Site Category Typical Design Vehicle
Inscribed Circle
Diameter Range*
CONTENTS
6.3.2 Entry width
Entry width is the largest determinant of a roundabouts capacity. The capacity of
an approach is not dependent merely on the number of entering lanes, but on the
total width of the entry. I n other words, the entry capacity increases steadily with
incremental increases to the entry width. Therefore, the basic sizes of entries and
circulatory roadways are generally described in terms of width, not number of
lanes. Entries that are of sufficient width to accommodate multiple traffic streams
(at least 6.0 m [20 ft]) are striped to designate separate lanes. However, the circu-
latory roadway is usually not striped, even when more than one lane of traffic is
expected to circulate (for more details related to roadway markings, see Chapter 7).
As shown in Exhibit 6-1, entry width is measured from the point where the yield
line intersects the left edge of the traveled-way to the right edge of the traveled-
way, along a line perpendicular to the right curb line. The width of each entry is
dictated by the needs of the entering traffic stream. I t is based on design traffic
volumes and can be determined in terms of the number of entry lanes by using
Chapter 4 of this guide. The circulatory roadway must be at least as wide as the
widest entry and must maintain a constant width throughout.
To maximize the roundabouts safety, entry widths should be kept to a minimum.
The capacity requirements and performance objectives will dictate that each entry
be a certain width, with a number of entry lanes. I n addition, the turning require-
ments of the design vehicle may require that the entry be wider still. However,
larger entry and circulatory widths increase crash frequency. Therefore, determin-
ing the entry width and circulatory roadway width involves a trade-off between
capacity and safety. The design should provide the minimum width necessary for
capacity and accommodation of the design vehicle in order to maintain the highest
level of safety. Typical entry widths for single-lane entrances range from 4.3 to 4.9
m (14 to 16 ft); however, values higher or lower than this range may be required for
site-specific design vehicle and speed requirements for critical vehicle paths.
When the capacity requirements can only be met by increasing the entry width,
this can be done in two ways:
1. By adding a full lane upstream of the roundabout and maintaining parallel
lanes through the entry geometry; or
2. By widening the approach gradually (flaring) through the entry geometry.
Exhibit 6-20 and Exhibit 6-21 illustrate these two widening options.
Entry width is the largest
determinant of a roundabouts
capacity.
Entry widths should be kept to
a minimum to maximize safety
while achieving capacity and
performance objectives.
CONTENTS
As discussed in Chapter 4, flaring is an effective means of increasing capacity
without requiring as much right-of-way as a full lane addition. While increasing the
length of flare increases capacity, it does not increase crash frequency. Conse-
quently, the crash frequency for two approaches with the same entry width will be
essentially the same, whether they have parallel entry lanes or flared entry de-
signs. Entry widths should therefore be minimized and flare lengths maximized to
achieve the desired capacity with minimal effect on crashes. Generally, flare lengths
should be a minimum of 25 m (80 ft) in urban areas and 40 m (130 ft) in rural areas.
However, if right-of-way is constrained, shorter lengths can be used with notice-
able effects on capacity (see Chapter 4).
widening by entry flaring.
widening by adding full lane.
Flare lengths should be
at least 25 m in urban areas and
40 m in rural areas.
CONTENTS
I n some cases, a roundabout designed to accommodate design year traffic vol-
umes, typically projected 20 years from the present, can result in substantially
wider entries and circulatory roadway than needed in the earlier years of operation.
Because safety will be significantly reduced by the increase in entry width, the
designer may wish to consider a two-phase design solution. I n this case, the first-
phase design would provide the entry width requirements for near-term traffic vol-
umes with the ability to easily expand the entries and circulatory roadway to ac-
commodate future traffic volumes. The interim solution should be accomplished by
first laying out the ultimate plan, then designing the first phase within the ultimate
curb lines. The interim roundabout is often constructed with the ultimate inscribed
circle diameter, but with a larger central island and splitter islands. At the time
additional capacity is needed, the splitter and central islands can be reduced in size
to provide additional widths at the entries, exits, and circulatory roadway.
6.3.3 Circulatory roadway width
The required width of the circulatory roadway is determined from the width of the
entries and the turning requirements of the design vehicle. I n general, it should
always be at least as wide as the maximum entry width (up to 120 percent of the
maximum entry width) and should remain constant throughout the roundabout (3).
At single-lane roundabouts, the circulatory roadway should just accommodate the
design vehicle. Appropriate vehicle-turning templates or a CAD-based computer
program should be used to determine the swept path of the design vehicle through
each of the turning movements. Usually the left-turn movement is the critical path
for determining circulatory roadway width. I n accordance with AASHTO policy, a
minimum clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) should be provided between the outside edge of
the vehicles tire track and the curb line. AASHTO Table I I I -19 (1994 edition) pro-
vides derived widths required for various radii for each standard design vehicle.
I n some cases (particularly where the inscribed diameter is small or the design
vehicle is large) the turning requirements of the design vehicle may dictate that the
circulatory roadway be so wide that the amount of deflection necessary to slow
passenger vehicles is compromised. I n such cases, the circulatory roadway width
can be reduced and a truck apron, placed behind a mountable curb on the central
island, can be used to accommodate larger vehicles. However, truck aprons gener-
ally provide a lower level of operation than standard nonmountable islands. They
are sometimes driven over by four-wheel drive automobiles, may surprise inatten-
tive motorcyclists, and can cause load shifting on trucks. They should, therefore, be
used only when there is no other means of providing adequate deflection while
accommodating the design vehicle.
At double-lane roundabouts, the circulatory roadway width is usually not governed
by the design vehicle. The width required for one, two, or three vehicles, depend-
ing on the number of lanes at the widest entry, to travel simultaneously through
the roundabout should be used to establish the circulatory roadway width. The
Two-phase designs allow for
small initial entry widths that
can be easily expanded in the
future when needed to
accommodate greater traffic
volumes.
Truck aprons generally provide a
lower level of operations, but
may be needed to provide
adequate deflection while still
accommodating the design
vehicle.
CONTENTS
combination of vehicle types to be accommodated side-by-side is dependent upon
the specific traffic conditions at each site. I f the entering traffic is predominantly
passenger cars and single-unit trucks (AASHTO P and SU vehicles), where semi-
trailer traffic is infrequent, it may be appropriate to design the width for two pas-
senger vehicles or a passenger car and a single-unit truck side-by-side. I f semi-
trailer traffic is relatively frequent (greater than 10 percent), it may be necessary to
provide sufficient width for the simultaneous passage of a semi-trailer in combina-
tion with a P or SU vehicle.
Exhibit 6-22 provides minimum recommended circulatory roadway widths for two-
lane roundabouts where semi-trailer traffic is relatively infrequent.
6.3.4 Central island
The central island of a roundabout is the raised, nontraversable area encompassed
by the circulatory roadway; this area may also include a traversable apron. The
island is typically landscaped for aesthetic reasons and to enhance driver recogni-
tion of the roundabout upon approach. Central islands should always be raised, not
depressed, as depressed islands are difficult for approaching drivers to recognize.
I n general, the central island should be circular in shape. A circular-shaped central
island with a constant-radius circulatory roadway helps promote constant speeds
around the central island. O val or irregular shapes, on the other hand, are more
difficult to drive and can promote higher speeds on the straight sections and re-
duced speeds on the arcs of the oval. This speed differential may make it harder for
entering vehicles to judge the speed and acceptability of gaps in the circulatory
traffic stream. I t can also be deceptive to circulating drivers, leading to more loss-
of-control crashes. Noncircular central islands have the above disadvantages to a
rapidly increasing degree as they get larger because circulating speeds are higher.
O val shapes are generally not such a problem if they are relatively small and speeds
are low. Raindrop-shaped islands may be used in areas where certain movements
do not exist, such as interchanges (see Chapter 8), or at locations where certain
turning movements cannot be safely accommodated, such as roundabouts with
one approach on a relatively steep grade.
Exhibit 6-22. Minimum
circulatory lane widths for
two-lane roundabouts.
45 m (150 ft) 9.8 m (32 ft) 25.4 m (86 ft)
50 m (165 ft) 9.3 m (31 ft) 31.4 m (103 ft)
55 m (180 ft) 9.1 m (30 ft) 36.8 m (120 ft)
60 m (200 ft) 9.1 m (30 ft) 41.8 m (140 ft)
65 m (215 ft) 8.7 m (29 ft) 47.6 m (157 ft)
70 m (230 ft) 8.7 m (29 ft) 52.6 m (172 ft)
* Based on 1994 AASHTO Table I I I -20, Case I I I (A) (4). Assumes infrequent semi-trailer use (typically less
than 5 percent of the total traffic). Refer to AASHT O for cases with higher truck percentages.
Inscribed Circle
Diameter
Minimum Circulatory
Lane Width*
Central Island
Diameter
CONTENTS
As described in Section 6.2.1, the size of the central island plays a key role in
determining the amount of deflection imposed on the through vehicles path. How-
ever, its diameter is entirely dependent upon the inscribed circle diameter and the
required circulatory roadway width (see Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.3, respectively).
Therefore, once the inscribed diameter, circulatory roadway width, and initial entry
geometry have been established, the fastest vehicle path must be drawn though
the layout, as described in Section 6.2.1.3, to determine if the central island size is
adequate. I f the fastest path exceeds the design speed, the central island size may
need to be increased, thus increasing the overall inscribed circle diameter. There
may be other methods for increasing deflection without increasing the inscribed
diameter, such as offsetting the approach alignment to the left, reducing the entry
width, or reducing the entry radius. These treatments, however, may preclude the
ability to accommodate the design vehicle.
I n cases where right-of-way, topography, or other constraints preclude the ability
to expand the inscribed circle diameter, a mountable apron may be added to the
outer edge of the central island. This provides additional paved area to allow the
over-tracking of large semi-trailer vehicles on the central island without compro-
mising the deflection for smaller vehicles. Exhibit 6-23 shows a typical central is-
land with a traversable apron.
Where aprons are used, they should be designed so that they are traversable by
trucks, but discourage passenger vehicles from using them. They should generally
be 1 to 4 m (3 to 13 ft) wide and have a cross slope of 3 to 4 percent away from the
central island. To discourage use by passenger vehicles, the outer edge of the
apron should be raised a minimum of 30 mm (1. 2 in) above the circulatory road-
way surface (6). The apron should be constructed of colored and/or textured paving
Exhibit 6-23. Example of central
island with a traversable apron.
Leeds, MD
CONTENTS
materials to differentiate it from the circulatory roadway. Care must be taken to
ensure that delivery trucks will not experience load shifting as their rear trailer
wheels track across the apron.
I ssues regarding landscaping and other treatments within the central island are
discussed in Chapter 7.
I n general, roundabouts in rural environments typically need larger central islands
than urban roundabouts in order to enhance their visibility and to enable the design
of better approach geometry (2).
6.3.5 Entry curves
As shown in Exhibit 6-1, the entry curves are the set of one or more curves along
the right curb (or edge of pavement) of the entry roadway leading into the circula-
tory roadway. I t should not be confused with the entry path curve, defined by the
radius of the fastest vehicular travel path through the entry geometry (R
1
on Exhibit
6-12).
The entry radius is an important factor in determining the operation of a round-
about as it has significant impacts on both capacity and safety. The entry radius, in
conjunction with the entry width, the circulatory roadway width, and the central
island geometry, controls the amount of deflection imposed on a vehicles entry
path. Larger entry radii produce faster entry speeds and generally result in higher
crash rates between entering and circulating vehicles. I n contrast, the operational
performance of roundabouts benefits from larger entry radii. As described in Chap-
ter 4, British research has found that the capacity of an entry increases as its entry
radius is increased (up to 20 m [65 ft], beyond which entry radius has little effect on
capacity.
The entry curve is designed curvilinearly tangential to the outside edge of the
circulatory roadway. Likewise, the projection of the inside (left) edge of the entry
roadway should be curvilinearly tangential to the central island. Exhibit 6-24 shows
a typical roundabout entrance geometry.
The primary objective in selecting a radius for the entry curve is to achieve the
speed objectives, as described in Section 6.2.1. The entry radius should first pro-
duce an appropriate design speed on the fastest vehicular path. Second, it should
desirably result in an entry path radius (R
1
) equal to or less than the circulating path
radius (R
2
) (see Section 6.2.1.5).
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-24. Single-lane
roundabout entry design.
6.3.5.1 Entry curves at single-lane roundabouts
For single-lane roundabouts, it is relatively simple to achieve the entry speed
objectives. With a single traffic stream entering and circulating, there is no con-
flict between traffic in adjacent lanes. Thus, the entry radius can be reduced or
increased as necessary to produce the desired entry path radius. Provided suffi-
cient clearance is given for the design vehicle, approaching vehicles will adjust
their path accordingly and negotiate through the entry geometry into the circula-
tory roadway.
Entry radii at urban single-lane roundabouts typically range from 10 to 30 m (33 to
98 ft). Larger radii may be used, but it is important that the radii not be so large as
to result in excessive entry speeds. At local street roundabouts, entry radii may
be below 10 m (33 ft) if the design vehicle is small.
At rural and suburban locations, consideration should be given to the speed dif-
ferential between the approaches and entries. I f the difference is greater than 20
km/h (12 mph), it is desirable to introduce approach curves or some other speed
reduction measures to reduce the speed of approaching traffic prior to the entry
curvature. Further details on rural roundabout design are provided in Section 6.5.
6.3.5.2 Entry curves at double-lane roundabouts
At double-lane roundabouts, the design of the entry curvature is more compli-
cated. O verly small entry radii can result in conflicts between adjacent traffic
streams. This conflict usually results in poor lane utilization of one or more lanes
and significantly reduces the capacity of the approach. I t can also degrade the
safety performance as sideswipe crashes may increase. Techniques and guide-
lines for avoiding conflicts between adjacent entry lanes at double-lane round-
abouts are provided in Section 6.4.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-25. Single-lane
roundabout exit design.
6.3.6 Exit curves
Exit curves usually have larger radii than entry curves to minimize the likelihood of
congestion at the exits. This, however, is balanced by the need to maintain low
speeds at the pedestrian crossing on exit. The exit curve should produce an exit
path radius (R
3
in Exhibit 6-12) no smaller than the circulating path radius (R
2
). I f the
exit path radius is smaller than the circulating path radius, vehicles will be traveling
too fast to negotiate the exit geometry and may crash into the splitter island or into
oncoming traffic in the adjacent approach lane. Likewise, the exit path radius should
not be significantly greater than the circulating path radius to ensure low speeds at
the downstream pedestrian crossing.
The exit curve is designed to be curvilinearly tangential to the outside edge of the
circulatory roadway. Likewise, the projection of the inside (left) edge of the exit
roadway should be curvilinearly tangential to the central island. Exhibit 6-25 shows
a typical exit layout for a single-lane roundabout.
CONTENTS
6.3.6.1 Exit curves at single-lane roundabouts
At single-lane roundabouts in urban environments, exits should be designed to
enforce a curved exit path with a design speed below 40 km/h (25 mph) in order
to maximize safety for pedestrians crossing the exiting traffic stream. Generally,
exit radii should be no less than 15 m (50 ft). However, at locations with pedes-
trian activity and no large semi-trailer traffic, exit radii may be as low as 10 to 12 m
(33 to 39 ft). This produces a very slow design speed to maximize safety and
comfort for pedestrians. Such low exit radii should only be used in conjunction
with similar or smaller entry radii on urban compact roundabouts with inscribed
circle diameters below 35 m (115 ft).
I n rural locations where there are few pedestrians, exit curvature may be de-
signed with large radii, allowing vehicles to exit quickly and accelerate back to
traveling speed. This, however, should not result in a straight path tangential to
the central island because many locations that are rural today become urban in
the future. Therefore, it is recommended that pedestrian activity be considered at
all exits except where separate pedestrian facilities (paths, etc.) or other restric-
tions eliminate the likelihood of pedestrian activity in the foreseeable future.
6.3.6.2 Exit curves at double-lane roundabouts
As with the entries, the design of the exit curvature at double-lane roundabouts is
more complicated than at single-lane roundabouts. Techniques and guidelines for
avoiding conflicts between adjacent exit lanes at double-lane roundabouts are
provided in Section 6.4.
6.3.7 Pedestrian crossing location and treatments
Pedestrian crossing locations at roundabouts are a balance among pedestrian
convenience, pedestrian safety, and roundabout operations:
Pedestrian convenience: Pedestrians want crossing locations as close to the
intersection as possible to minimize out-of-direction travel. The further the cross-
ing is from the roundabout, the more likely that pedestrians will choose a shorter
route that may put them in greater danger.
Pedestrian safety: Both crossing location and crossing distance are important.
Crossing distance should be minimized to reduce exposure of pedestrian-ve-
hicle conflicts. Pedestrian safety may also be compromised at a yield-line cross-
walk because driver attention is directed to the left to look for gaps in the
circulating traffic stream. Crosswalks should be located to take advantage of
the splitter island; crosswalks located too far from the yield line require longer
splitter islands. Crossings should also be located at distances away from the
yield line measured in increments of approximate vehicle length to reduce the
chance that vehicles will be queued across the crosswalk.
Pedestrian crossing locations
must balance pedestrian
convenience, pedestrian safety,
and roundabout operations.
CONTENTS
Roundabout operations: Roundabout operations (primarily vehicular) can also
be affected by crosswalk locations, particularly on the exit. A queuing analysis
at the exit crosswalk may determine that a crosswalk location of more than one
vehicle length away may be required to reduce to an acceptable level the risk of
queuing into the circulatory roadway. Pedestrians may be able to distinguish
exiting vehicles from circulating vehicles (both visually and audibly) at crosswalk
locations further away from the roundabout, although this has not been con-
firmed by research.
With these issues in mind, pedestrian crossings should be designed as follows:
The pedestrian refuge should be a minimum width of 1.8 m (6 ft) to adequately
provide shelter for persons pushing a stroller or walking a bicycle (see Section
6.2.3).
At single-lane roundabouts, the pedestrian crossing should be located one ve-
hicle-length (7.5 m [25 ft]) away from the yield line. At double-lane roundabouts,
the pedestrian crossing should be located one, two, or three car lengths (ap-
proximately 7.5 m, 15 m, or 22.5 m [25 ft, 50 ft, or 75 ft]) away from the yield line.
The pedestrian refuge should be designed at street level, rather than elevated
to the height of the splitter island. This eliminates the need for ramps within the
refuge area, which can be cumbersome for wheelchairs.
Ramps should be provided on each end of the crosswalk to connect the cross-
walk to other crosswalks around the roundabout and to the sidewalk network.
I t is recommended that a detectable warning surface, as recommended in the
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 4.29 (De-
tectable Warnings), be applied to the surface of the refuge within the splitter
island as shown in Exhibit 6-26. Note that the specific provision of the ADAAG
requiring detectable warning surface at locations such as ramps and splitter
islands (defined in the ADAAG as hazardous vehicle areas ) has been sus-
pended until July 26, 2001 (ADAAG 4.29.5). Where used, a detectable warning
surface shall meet the following requirements (7):
- The detectable warning surface shall consist of raised truncated domes
with a nominal diameter of 23 mm (0.9 in), a nominal height of 5 mm (0.2
in), and a nominal center-to-center spacing of 60 mm (2.35 in).
- The detectable warning surface shall contrast visually with adjoining sur-
faces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light. The material used to provide
contrast shall be an integral part of the walking surface.
- The detectable warning surface shall begin at the curb line and extend
into the pedestrian refuge area a distance of 600 mm (24 in). This creates
a minimum 600-mm (24-in) clear space between detectable warning sur-
faces for a minimum splitter island width of 1.8 m (6 ft) at the pedestrian
crossing. This is a deviation from the requirements of (suspended) ADAAG
4.29.5, which requires a 915-mm (36-in) surface width. However, this
deviation is necessary to enable visually impaired pedestrians to distin-
guish the two interfaces with vehicular traffic.
I n urban areas, speed tables (flat-top road humps) could be considered for wheel-
chair users, provided that good geometric design has reduced absolute vehicle
Detectable warning surfaces
should be applied within the
pedestrian refuge.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-26. Minimum
splitter island dimensions.
Splitter islands perform
multiple functions and should
generally be provided.
speeds to less than 20 km/h (12 mph) near the crossing. Pedestrian crossings
across speed tables must have detectable warning material as described above to
clearly delineate the edge of the street. Speed tables should generally be used
only on streets with approach speeds of 55 km/h (35 mph) or less, as the introduc-
tion of a raised speed table in higher speed environments may increase the likeli-
hood of single-vehicle crashes and is not consistent with the speed consistency
philosophy presented in this document.
6.3.8 Splitter islands
Splitter islands (also called separator islands or median islands) should be provided
on all roundabouts, except those with very small diameters at which the splitter
island would obstruct the visibility of the central island. Their purpose is to provide
shelter for pedestrians (including wheelchairs, bicycles, and baby strollers), assist
in controlling speeds, guide traffic into the roundabout, physically separate enter-
ing and exiting traffic streams, and deter wrong-way movements. Additionally, splitter
islands can be used as a place for mounting signs (see Chapter 7).
The splitter island envelope is formed by the entry and exit curves on a leg, as
shown previously in Exhibits 6-24 and 6-25. The total length of the island should
generally be at least 15 m (50 ft) to provide sufficient protection for pedestrians and
to alert approaching drivers to the roundabout geometry. Additionally, the splitter
island should extend beyond the end of the exit curve to prevent exiting traffic from
accidentally crossing into the path of approaching traffic.
Exhi bi t 6-26 shows the mi ni mum di mensi ons for a spli tter i sland at a si ngle-
lane roundabout, i ncludi ng the locati on of the pedestri an crossi ng as di scussed
i n Secti on 6. 3. 7.
CONTENTS
While Exhibit 6-26 provides minimum dimensions for splitter islands, there are
benefits to providing larger islands. I ncreasing the splitter island width results in
greater separation between the entering and exiting traffic streams of the same
leg and increases the time for approaching drivers to distinguish between exiting
and circulating vehicles. I n this way, larger splitter islands can help reduce confu-
sion for entering motorists. A recent study by the Q ueensland Department of M ain
Roads found that maximizing the width of splitter islands has a significant effect on
minimizing entering/circulating vehicle crash rates (2). However, increasing the width
of the splitter islands generally requires increasing the inscribed circle diameter.
Thus, these safety benefits may be offset by higher construction cost and greater
land impacts.
Standard AASHTO guidelines for island design should be followed for the splitter
island. This includes using larger nose radii at approach corners to maximize island
visibility and offsetting curb lines at the approach ends to create a funneling effect.
The funneling treatment also aids in reducing speeds as vehicles approach the
roundabout. Exhibit 6-27 shows minimum splitter island nose radii and offset di-
mensions from the entry and exit traveled ways.
Exhibit 6-27. Minimum splitter
island nose radii and offsets.
Larger splitter islands enhance
safety, but require that the
inscribed circle diameter be
increased.
CONTENTS
6.3.9 Stopping sight distance
Stopping sight distance is the distance along a roadway required for a driver to
perceive and react to an object in the roadway and to brake to a complete stop
before reaching that object. Stopping sight distance should be provided at every
point within a roundabout and on each entering and exiting approach.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 400, Determi-
nation of Stopping Sight Distances (8), recommends the formula given in Equation
6-2 for determining stopping sight distance (presented in metric units, followed by
a conversion of the equation to U.S. customary units).
(6-2a, metric)
where: d = stopping sight distance, m;
t = perception-brake reaction time, assumed to be 2.5 s;
V = initial speed, km/h; and
a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 3.4 m/s
2
.
where: d = stopping sight distance, ft;
t = perception-brake reaction time, assumed to be 2.5 s;
V = initial speed, mph; and
a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 11.2 ft/s
2
.
Exhibit 6-28 gives recommended stopping sight distances for design, as computed
from the above equations.
d t V
V
a
= + ( . )( )( ) . 0 278 0 039
2
d t V
V
a
= + ( . )( )( ) . 1 468 1 087
2
Exhibit 6-28. Design values for
stopping sight distances.
10 8.1
20 18.5
30 31.2
40 46.2
50 63.4
60 83.0
70 104.9
80 129.0
90 155.5
100 184.2 *
Speed
(km/h)
Computed
Distance* (m)
Speed
(mph)
Computed
Distance* (ft)
10 46.4
15 77.0
20 112.4
25 152.7
30 197.8
35 247.8
40 302.7
45 362.
50 427.2
55 496.7
Assumes 2.5 s perception-braking time, 3.4 m/s
2
(11.2 ft/s
2
) driver deceleration
CONTENTS
Stopping sight distance should be measured using an assumed height of drivers
eye of 1, 080 mm (3.54 ft) and an assumed height of object of 600 mm (1.97 ft) in
accordance with the recommendations to be adopted in the next AASHTO Green
Book (8).
At roundabouts, three critical types of locations should be checked at a minimum:
Approach sight distance (Exhibit 6-29);
Sight distance on circulatory roadway (Exhibit 6-30); and
Sight distance to crosswalk on exit (Exhibit 6-31).
Forward sight distance at entry can also be checked; however, this will typically be
satisfied by providing adequate stopping sight distance on the circulatory roadway
itself.
Exhibit 6-30. Sight distance
on circulatory roadway.
Exhibit 6-29. Approach sight
distance.
At least three critical types of
locations should be checked for
stopping sight distance.
CONTENTS
6.3.10 Intersection sight distance
I ntersection sight distance is the distance required for a driver without the right of
way to perceive and react to the presence of conflicting vehicles. I ntersection sight
distance is achieved through the establishment of adequate sight lines that allow a
driver to see and safely react to potentially conflicting vehicles. At roundabouts,
the only locations requiring evaluation of intersection sight distance are the en-
tries.
I ntersection sight distance is traditionally measured through the determination of a
sight triangle. This triangle is bounded by a length of roadway defining a limit away
from the intersection on each of the two conflicting approaches and by a line con-
necting those two limits. For roundabouts, these legs should be assumed to
follow the curvature of the roadway, and thus distances should be measured not
as straight lines but as distances along the vehicular path.
I ntersection sight distance should be measured using an assumed height of drivers
eye of 1, 080 mm (3.54 ft) and an assumed height of object of 1, 080 mm (3.54 ft) in
accordance with the recommendations to be adopted in the next AASH TO Green
Book (4).
Exhibit 6-32 presents a diagram showing the method for determining intersection
sight distance. As can be seen in the exhibit, the sight distance triangle has two
conflicting approaches that must be checked independently. The following two
subsections discuss the calculation of the length of each of the approaching sight
limits.
Exhibit 6-31. Sight distance to
crosswalk on exit.
Roundabout entries require
adequate intersection sight
distance.
CONTENTS
6.3.10.1 Length of approach leg of sight triangle
The length of the approach leg of the sight triangle should be limited to 15 m (49
ft). British research on sight distance determined that excessive intersection sight
distance results in a higher frequency of crashes. This value, consistent with Brit-
ish and French practice, is intended to require vehicles to slow down prior to
entering the roundabout, which allows them to focus on the pedestrian crossing
prior to entry. I f the approach leg of the sight triangle is greater than 15 m (49 ft),
it may be advisable to add landscaping to restrict sight distance to the minimum
requirements.
6.3.10.2 Length of conflicting leg of sight triangle
A vehicle approaching an entry to a roundabout faces conflicting vehicles within
the circulatory roadway. The length of the conflicting leg is calculated using Equation
6-3:
(6-3a, metric)
where: b = length of conflicting leg of sight triangle, m
V
major
= design speed of conflicting movement, km/h,
discussed below
t
c
= critical gap for entering the major road, s, equal
to 6.5 s
(6-3b, U.S. customary)
where: b = length of conflicting leg of sight triangle, ft
V
major
= design speed of conflicting movement, mph,
discussed below
t
c
= critical gap for entering the major road, s, equal
to 6.5 s
b V t
major c
=1 468 . ( )( )
Exhibit 6-32. Intersection sight
distance
b V t
major c
= 0 278 . ( )( )
CONTENTS
Two conflicting traffic streams should be checked at each entry:
Entering stream, comprised of vehicles from the immediate upstream entry.
The speed for this movement can be approximated by taking the average of the
entry path speed (path with radius R
1
from Exhibit 6-12) and the circulating path
speed (path with radius R
2
from Exhibit 6-12).
Circulating stream, comprised of vehicles that entered the roundabout prior to
the immediate upstream entry. This speed can be approximated by taking the
speed of left turning vehicles (path with radius R
4
from Exhibit 6-12).
The critical gap for entering the major road is based on the amount of time required
for a vehicle to turn right while requiring the conflicting stream vehicle to slow no
less than 70 percent of initial speed. This is based on research on critical gaps at
stop-controlled intersections, adjusted for yield-controlled conditions (9). The criti-
cal gap value of 6.5 s given in Equation 6-3 is based on the critical gap required for
passenger cars, which are assumed to be the most critical design vehicle for inter-
section sight distance. This assumption holds true for single-unit and combination
truck speeds that are at least 10 km/h (6 mph) and 15 to 20 km/h (9 to 12 mph)
slower than passenger cars, respectively.
Exhibit 6-33. Computed
length of conflicting leg of
intersection sight triangle.
I n general, it is recommended to provide no more than the minimum required
intersection sight distance on each approach. Excessive intersection sight distance
can lead to higher vehicle speeds that reduce the safety of the intersection for all
road users (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians). Landscaping can be effective in re-
stricting sight distance to the minimum requirements.
Note that the stopping sight distance on the circulatory roadway (Exhibit 6-30) and
the intersection sight distance to the circulating stream (Exhibit 6-32) imply restric-
tions on the height of the central island, including landscaping and other objects,
within these zones. I n the remaining central area of the central island, higher land-
scaping may serve to break the forward vista for through vehicles, thereby contrib-
uting to speed reduction. However, should errant vehicles encroach on the central
island, Chapter 7 provides recommended maximum grades on the central island to
minimize the probability of the vehicles rolling over, causing serious injury.
Conf licting
Approach Speed
(mph)
Computed
Distance (m)
Computed
Distance (ft)
Conf licting
Approach Speed
(km/h)
Providing more than the
minimum required intersection
sight distance can lead to
higher speeds that reduce
intersection safety.
20 36.1
25 45.2
30 54.2
35 63.2
40 72.3
10 95.4
15 143.0
20 190.1
25 238.6
30 286.3
CONTENTS
6.3.11 Vertical considerations
Elements of verti cal ali gnment desi gn for roundabouts i nclude profi les,
superelevation, approach grades, and drainage.
6.3.11.1 Profiles
The vertical design of a roundabout begins with the development of approach road-
way and central island profiles. The development of each profile is an iterative pro-
cess that involves tying the elevations of the approach roadway profiles into a
smooth profile around the central island.
Generally, each approach profile should be designed to the point where the ap-
proach baseline intersects with the central island. A profile for the central island is
then developed which passes through these four points (in the case of a four-
legged roundabout). The approach roadway profiles are then readjusted as neces-
sary to meet the central island profile. The shape of the central island profile is
generally in the form of a sine curve. Examples of how the profile is developed can
be found in Exhibits 6-34, 6-35, and 6-36, which consist of a sample plan, profiles
on each approach, and a profile along the central island, respectively. Note that the
four points where the approach roadway baseline intersects the central island
baseline are identified on the central island profile.
Exhibit 6-34. Sample plan
view.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-35. Sample
approach profile.
Exhibit 6-36. Sample central
island profile.
CONTENTS
6.3.11.2 Superelevation
As a general practice, a cross slope of 2 percent away from the central island
should be used for the circulatory roadway. This technique of sloping outward is
recommended for four main reasons:
I t promotes safety by raising the elevation of the central island and improving its
visibility;
I t promotes lower circulating speeds;
I t minimizes breaks in the cross slopes of the entrance and exit lanes; and
I t helps drain surface water to the outside of the roundabout (2, 6).
The outward cross slope design means vehicles making through and left-turn move-
ments must negotiate the roundabout at negative superelevation. Excessive nega-
tive superelevation can result in an increase in single-vehicle crashes and loss-of-
load incidents for trucks, particularly if speeds are high. However, in the intersec-
tion environment, drivers will generally expect to travel at slower speeds and will
accept the higher side force caused by reasonable adverse superelevation (10).
Exhibit 6-37 provides a typical section across the circulatory roadway of a round-
about without a truck apron. Exhibit 6-38 provides a typical section for a round-
about with a truck apron. Where truck aprons are used, the slope of the apron
should be 3 to 4 percent; greater slopes may increase the likelihood of loss-of-load
incidents.
Exhibit 6-37. Typical
circulatory roadway section.
Exhibit 6-38. Typical section
with a truck apron.
Negative superelevation (- 2%)
should generally be used for the
CONTENTS
6.3.11.3 Locating roundabouts on grades
I t is generally not desirable to locate roundabouts in locations where grades
through the intersection are greater than four percent. The installation of round-
abouts on roadways with grades lower than three percent is generally not prob-
lematic (6). At locations where a constant grade must be maintained through the
intersection, the circulatory roadway may be constructed on a constant-slope
plane. This means, for instance, that the cross slope may vary from + 3 percent
on the high side of the roundabout (sloped toward the central island) to -3 per-
cent on the low side (sloped outward). Note that central island cross slopes will
pass through level at a minimum of two locations for roundabouts constructed
on a constant grade.
Care must be taken when designing roundabouts on steep grades. O n approach
roadways with grades steeper than -4 percent, it is more difficult for entering
drivers to slow or stop on the approach. At roundabouts on crest vertical curves
with steep approaches, a drivers sight lines will be compromised, and the round-
about may violate driver expectancy. However, under the same conditions, other
types of at-grade intersections often will not provide better solutions. Therefore,
the roundabout should not necessarily be eliminated from consideration at such
a location. Rather, the intersection should be relocated or the vertical profile modi-
fied, if possible.
6.3.11.4 Drainage
With the circulatory roadway sloping away from the central island, inlets will
generally be placed on the outer curbline of the roundabout. However, inlets may
be required along the central island for a roundabout designed on a constant
grade through an intersection. As with any intersection, care should be taken to
ensure that low points and inlets are not placed in crosswalks. I f the central
island is large enough, the designer may consider placing inlets in the central
island.
6.3.12 Bicycle provisions
With regard to bicycle treatments, the designer should strive to provide bicy-
clists the choice of proceeding through the roundabout as either a vehicle or a
pedestrian. I n general, bicyclists are better served by treating them as vehicles.
However, the best design provides both options to allow cyclists of varying de-
grees of skill to choose their more comfortable method of navigating the round-
about.
To accommodate bicyclists traveling as vehicles, bike lanes should be terminated
in advance of the roundabout to encourage cyclists to mix with vehicle traffic.
Under this treatment, it is recommended that bike lanes end 30 m (100 ft) up-
stream of the yield line to allow for merging with vehicles (11). This method is
most successful at smaller roundabouts with speeds below 30 km/h (20 mph),
where bicycle speeds can more closely match vehicle speeds.
To accommodate bicyclists who prefer not to use the circulatory roadway, a wid-
ened sidewalk or a shared bicycle/pedestrian path may be provided physically
separated from the circulatory roadway (not as a bike lane within the circulatory
Avoid locating roundabouts
in areas where grades through
the intersection are greater
than 4%.
Terminate bicycle lanes prior to
a roundabout.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-39. Possible
provisions for bicycles.
6.3.13 Sidewalk treatments
Where possible, sidewalks should be set back from the edge of the circulatory
roadway in order to discourage pedestrians from crossing to the central island,
particularly when an apron is present or a monument on the central island. Equally
important, the design should help pedestrians with visual impairments to recog-
nize that they should not attempt to cross streets from corner to corner but at
designated crossing points. To achieve these goals, the sidewalk should be de-
signed so that pedestrians will be able to clearly find the intended path to the
crosswalks. A recommended set back distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) (minimum 0.6 m [2
ft]) should be used, and the area between the sidewalk and curb can be planted
with low shrubs or grass (see Chapter 7). Exhibit 6-40 shows this technique.
roadway). Ramps or other suitable connections can then be provided between this
sidewalk or path and the bike lanes, shoulders, or road surface on the approaching
and departing roadways. The designer should exercise care in locating and design-
ing the bicycle ramps so that they are not misconstrued by pedestrians as an un-
marked pedestrian crossing. Nor should the exits from the roadway onto a shared
path allow cyclists to enter the shared path at excessive speeds. Exhibit 6-39 illus-
trates a possible design of this treatment. The reader is encouraged to refer to the
AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities (12) for a more detailed dis-
cussion of the design requirements for bicycle and shared-use path design.
Set back sidewalks 1.5 m (5 ft)
from the circulatory roadway
where possible.
Ramps leading to a shared
pathway can be used to
accommodate bicyclists
traveling as pedestrians.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-40. Sidewalk
treatments.
6.3.14 Parking considerations and bus stop locations
Parking or stopping in the circulatory roadway is not conducive to proper round-
about operations and should be prohibited. Parking on entries and exits should
also be set back as far as possible so as not to hinder roundabout operations or to
impair the visibility of pedestrians. AASHTO recommends that parking should
end at least 6.1 m (20 ft) from the crosswalk of an intersection (4). Curb exten-
sions or bulb-outs can be used to clearly mark the limit of permitted parking
and reduce the width of the entries and exits.
For safety and operational reasons, bus stops should be located as far away from
entries and exits as possible, and never in the circulatory roadway.
Near-side stops: I f a bus stop is to be provided on the near side of a round-
about, it should be located far enough away from the splitter island so that a
vehicle overtaking a stationary bus is in no danger of being forced into the
splitter island, especially if the bus starts to pull away from the stop. I f an
approach has only one lane and capacity is not an issue on that entry, the bus
stop could be located at the pedestrian crossing in the lane of traffic. This is
not recommended for entries with more than one lane, because vehicles in
the lane next to the bus may not see pedestrians.
Far-side stops: Bus stops on the far side of a roundabout should be constructed
with pull-outs to minimize queuing into the roundabout. These stops should
be located beyond the pedestrian crossing to improve visibility of pedestrians
to other exiting vehicles.
CONTENTS
right-turn bypass lane.
6.3.15 Right-turn bypass lanes
I n general, right-turn bypass lanes (or right-turn slip lanes) should be avoided, espe-
cially in urban areas with bicycle and pedestrian activity. The entries and exits of
bypass lanes can increase conflicts with bicyclists. The generally higher speeds of
bypass lanes and the lower expectation of drivers to stop increases the risk of
collisions with pedestrians. However, in locations with minimal pedestrian and bi-
cycle activity, right-turn bypass lanes can be used to improve capacity where there
is heavy right turning traffic.
The provision of a right-turn bypass lane allows right-turning traffic to bypass the
roundabout, providing additional capacity for the through and left-turn movements
at the approach. They are most beneficial when the demand of an approach ex-
ceeds its capacity and a significant proportion of the traffic is turning right. How-
ever, it is important to consider the reversal of traffic patterns during the opposite
peak time period. I n some cases, the use of a right-turn bypass lane can avoid the
need to build an additional entry lane and thus a larger roundabout. To determine if
a right-turn bypass lane should be used, the capacity and delay calculations in
Chapter 4 should be performed. Right-turn bypass lanes can also be used in loca-
tions where the geometry for right turns is too tight to allow trucks to turn within
the roundabout.
Right-turn bypass lanes can be
used in locations with minimal
pedestrian and bicycle activity
to improve capacity when heavy
right-turning traffic exists.
Exhibit 6-41 shows an example of a right-turn bypass lane.
CONTENTS
There are two design options for right-turn bypass lanes. The first option, shown in
Exhibit 6-42, is to carry the bypass lane parallel to the adjacent exit roadway, and
then merge it into the main exit lane. Under this option, the bypass lane should be
carried alongside the main roadway for a sufficient distance to allow vehicles in the
bypass lane and vehicles exiting the roundabout to accelerate to comparable speeds.
The bypass lane is then merged at a taper rate according to AASHTO guidelines for
the appropriate design speed. The second design option for a right-turn bypass
lane, shown in Exhibit 6-43, is to provide a yield-controlled entrance onto the adja-
cent exit roadway. The first option provides better operational performance than
the second does. However, the second option generally requires less construction
and right-of-way than the first.
The option of providing yield control on a bypass lane is generally better for both
bicyclists and pedestrians and is recommended as the preferred option in urban
areas where pedestrians and bicyclists are prevalent. Acceleration lanes can be
problematic for bicyclists because they end up being to the left of accelerating
motor vehicles. I n addition, yield control at the end of a bypass lane tends to slow
motorists down, whereas an acceleration lane at the end of a bypass lane tends to
promote higher speeds.
The radius of the right-turn bypass lane should not be significantly larger than the
radius of the fastest entry path provided at the roundabout. This will ensure vehicle
speeds on the bypass lane are similar to speeds through the roundabout, resulting
in safe merging of the two roadways. Providing a small radius also provides greater
safety for pedestrians who must cross the right-turn slip lane.
Exhibit 6-42. Configuration
of right-turn bypass lane with
acceleration lane.
Right-turn bypass lanes can
merge back into the main exit
roadway or provide a yield-
controlled entrance onto the
main exit roadway.
CONTENTS
6.4 Double-Lane Roundabouts
While the fundamental principles described above apply to double-lane roundabouts
as well as single-lane roundabouts, designing the geometry of double-lane round-
abouts is more complicated. Because multiple traffic streams may enter, circulate
through, and exit the roundabout side-by-side, consideration must be given to how
these adjacent traffic streams interact with each other. Vehicles in adjacent entry
lanes must be able to negotiate the roundabout geometry without competing for
the same space. O therwise, operational and/or safety deficiencies can occur.
6.4.1 The natural vehicle path
As discussed in Section 6.2.1, the fastest path through the roundabout is drawn to
ensure the geometry imposes sufficient curvature to achieve a safe design speed.
This path is drawn assuming the roundabout is vacant of all other traffic and the
vehicle cuts across adjacent travel lanes, ignoring all lane markings. I n addition to
evaluating the fastest path, at double-lane roundabouts the designer must also
evaluate the natural vehicle paths. This is the path an approaching vehicle will natu-
rally take, assuming there is traffic in all approach lanes, through the roundabout
geometry.
Exhibit 6-43. Configuration of
right-turn bypass with yield at
exit leg.
CONTENTS
As two traffic streams approach the roundabout in adjacent lanes, they will be
forced to stay in their lanes up to the yield line. At the yield point, vehicles will
continue along their natural trajectory into the circulatory roadway, then curve around
the central island, and curve again into the opposite exit roadway. The speed and
orientation of the vehicle at the yield line determines its natural path. I f the natural
path of one lane interferes or overlaps with the natural path of the adjacent lane,
the roundabout will not operate as safely or efficiently as possible.
The key principle in drawing the natural path is to remember that drivers cannot
change the direction of their vehicle instantaneously. Neither can they change their
speed instantaneously. This means that the natural path does not have sudden
changes in curvature; it has transitions between tangents and curves and between
consecutive reversing curves. Secondly, it means that consecutive curves should
be of similar radius. I f a second curve has a significantly smaller radius than the
first curve, the driver will be traveling too fast to negotiate the turn and may lose
control of the vehicle. I f the radius of one curve is drawn significantly smaller than
the radius of the previous curve, the path should be adjusted.
To identify the natural path of a given design, it may be advisable to sketch the
natural paths over the geometric layout, rather than use a computer drafting program
or manual drafting equipment. I n sketching the path, the designer will naturally draw
transitions between consecutive curves and tangents, similar to the way a driver
would negotiate an automobile. Freehand sketching also enables the designer to feel
how changes in one curve affect the radius and orientation of the next curve. I n
general, the sketch technique allows the designer to quickly obtain a smooth, natural
path through the geometry that may be more difficult to obtain using a computer.
Exhibit 6-44 illustrates a sketched natural path of a vehicle through a typical double-
lane roundabout.
Exhibit 6-44. Sketched natural
paths through a double-lane
roundabout.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-45. Path overlap at a
6.4.2 Vehicle path overlap
Vehicle path overlap occurs when the natural path through the roundabout of one
traffic stream overlaps the path of another. This can happen to varying degrees. I t can
reduce capacity, as vehicles will avoid using one or more of the entry lanes. I t can
also create safety problems, as the potential for sideswipe and single-vehicle crashes
is increased. The most common type of path overlap is where vehicles in the left lane
on entry are cut off by vehicles in the right lane, as shown in Exhibit 6-45.
6.4.3 Design method to avoid path overlap
Achieving a reasonably low design speed at a double-lane roundabout while avoid-
ing vehicle path overlap can be difficult because of conflicting interaction between
the various geometric parameters. Providing small entry radii can produce low en-
try speeds, but often leads to path overlap on the entry, as vehicles will cut across
lanes to avoid running into the central island. Likewise, providing small exit radii
can aid in keeping circulating speeds low, but may result in path overlap at the
exits.
6.4.3.1 Entry curves
At double-lane entries, the designer needs to balance the need to control entry
speed with the need to minimize path overlap. This can be done a variety of ways
that will vary significantly depending on site-specific conditions, and it is thus inap-
propriate to specify a single method for designing double-lane roundabouts. Re-
gardless of the specific design method employed, the designer should maintain
the overall design principles of speed control and speed consistency presented in
Section 6.2.
O ne method to avoid path overlap on entry is to start with an inner entry curve that
is curvilinearly tangential to the central island and then draw parallel alignments to
determine the position of the outside edge of each entry lane. These curves can
range from 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) in urban environments and 40 to 80 m (130 to
260 ft) in rural environments. These curves should extend approximately 30 m (100
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-46. One method of
entry design to avoid path
overlap at double-lane
roundabouts.
Another method to reduce entry speeds and avoid path overlap is to use a small-
radius (generally 15 to 30 m [50 to 100 ft]) curve approximately 10 to 15 m (30 to 50
ft) upstream of the yield line. A second, larger-radius curve (or even a tangent) is
then fitted between the first curve and the edge of the circulatory roadway. I n this
way, vehicles will still be slowed by the small-radius approach curve, and they will
be directed along a path that is tangential to the central island at the time they
reach the yield line. Exhibit 6-47 demonstrates this alternate method of design.
ft) to provide clear indication of the curvature to the driver. The designer should
check the critical vehicle paths to ensure that speeds are sufficiently low and con-
sistent between vehicle streams. The designer should also ensure that the portion
of the splitter island in front of the crosswalk meets AASHTO recommendations
for minimum size. Exhibit 6-46 demonstrates this method of design.
Exhibit 6-47. Alternate
method of entry design to avoid
path overlap at double-lane
roundabouts.
CONTENTS
As in the case of single-lane roundabouts, it is a primary objective to ensure that
the entry path radius along the fastest path is not substantially larger than the
circulating path radius. Referring to Exhibit 6-12, it is desirable for R
1
to be less than
or approximately equal to R
2
. At double-lane roundabouts, however, R
1
should not
be excessively small. I f R
1
is too small, vehicle path overlap may result, reducing
the operational efficiency and increasing potential for crashes. Values for R
1
in the
range of 40 to 70 m (130 to 230 ft) are generally preferable. This results in a design
speed of 35 to 45 km/h (22 to 28 mph).
The entry path radius, R
1
, is controlled by the offset between the right curb line on
the entry roadway and the curb line of the central island (on the drivers left). I f the
initial layout produces an entry path radius above the preferred design speed, one
way to reduce it is to gradually shift the approach to the left to increase the offset;
however, this may increased adjacent exit speeds. Another method to reduce the
entry path radius is to move the initial, small-radius entry curve closer to the circu-
latory roadway. This will decrease the length of the second, larger-radius curve and
increase the deflection for entering traffic. However, care must be taken to ensure
this adjustment does not produce overlapping natural paths.
6.4.3.2 Exit curves
To avoid path overlap on the exit, it is important that the exit radius at a double-lane
roundabout not be too small. At single-lane roundabouts, it is acceptable to use a
minimal exit radius in order to control exit speeds and maximize pedestrian safety.
However, the same is not necessarily true at double-lane roundabouts. I f the exit
radius is too small, traffic on the inside of the circulatory roadway will tend to exit
into the outside exit lane on a more comfortable turning radius.
At double-lane roundabouts in urban environments, the principle for maximizing
pedestrian safety is to reduce vehicle speeds prior to the yield and maintain similar
(or slightly lower) speeds within the circulatory roadway. At the exit points, traffic
will still be traveling slowly, as there is insufficient distance to accelerate signifi-
cantly. I f the entry and circulating path radii (R
1
and R
2
, as shown on Exhibit 6-12)
are each 50 m (165 ft), exit speeds will generally be below 40 km/h (25 mph) re-
gardless of the exit radius.
To achieve exit speeds slower than 40 km/h (25 mph), as is often desirable in envi-
ronments with significant pedestrian activity, it may be necessary to tighten the
exit radius. This may improve safety for pedestrians at the possible expense of
increased vehicle-vehicle collisions.
6.5 Rural Roundabouts
Roundabouts located on rural roads often have special design considerations be-
cause approach speeds are higher than urban or local streets and drivers generally
do not expect to encounter speed interruptions. The primary safety concern in rural
locations is to make drivers aware of the roundabout with ample distance to com-
fortably decelerate to the appropriate speed. This section provides design guide-
lines for providing additional speed-reduction measures on rural roundabout ap-
proaches.
CONTENTS
6.5.1 Visibility
Perhaps the most important element affecting safety at rural intersections is the
visibility of the intersection itself. Roundabouts are no different from stop-controlled
or signalized intersections in this respect except for the presence of curbing along
roadways that are typically not curbed. Therefore, although the number and sever-
ity of multiple-vehicle collisions at roundabouts may decrease (as discussed previ-
ously), the number of single-vehicle crashes may increase. This potential can be
minimized with attention to proper visibility of the roundabout and its approaches.
Where possible, the geometric alignment of approach roadways should be con-
structed to maximize the visibility of the central island and the general shape of the
roundabout. Where adequate visibility cannot be provided solely through geomet-
ric alignment, additional treatments (signing, pavement markings, advanced warn-
ing beacons, etc.) should be considered (see Chapter 7). Note that many of these
treatments are similar to those that would be applied to rural stop-controlled or
6.5.2 Curbing
O n an open rural highway, changes in the roadways cross-section can be an effec-
tive means to help approaching drivers recognize the need to reduce their speed.
Rural highways typically have no outside curbs with wide paved or gravel shoul-
ders. Narrow shoulder widths and curbs on the outside edges of pavement, on the
other hand, generally give drivers a sense they are entering a more urbanized set-
ting, causing them to naturally slow down. Thus, consideration should be given to
reducing shoulder widths and introducing curbs when installing a roundabout on
an open rural highway.
Curbs help to improve delineation and to prevent corner cutting, which helps to
ensure low speeds. I n this way, curbs help to confine vehicles to the intended
design path. The designer should carefully consider all likely design vehicles, in-
cluding farm equipment, when setting curb locations. Little research has been per-
formed to date regarding the length of curbing required in advance of a rural round-
about. I n general, it may be desirable to extend the curbing from the approach for
at least the length of the required deceleration distance to the roundabout.
6.5.3 Splitter islands
Another effective cross-section treatment to reduce approach speeds is to use
longer splitter islands on the approaches (10). Splitter islands should generally be
extended upstream of the yield bar to the point at which entering drivers are ex-
pected to begin decelerating comfortably. A minimum length of 60 m (200 ft) is
recommended (10). Exhibit 6-48 provides a diagram of such a splitter island design.
The length of the splitter island may differ depending upon the approach speed.
The AASHTO recommendations for required braking distance with an alert driver
should be applied to determine the ideal splitter island length for rural roundabout
approaches.
A further speed-reduction technique is the use of landscaping on the extended
splitter island and roadside to create a tunnel effect. I f such a technique is used,
the stopping and intersection sight distance requirements (sections 6.3.9 and 6.3.10)
will dictate the maximum extent of such landscaping.
Roundabout visibility is a key
design element at rural
locations.
Curbs should be provided at all
rural roundabouts.
Extended splitter islands are
recommended at rural
locations.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-48. Extended splitter
island treatment.
6.5.4 Approach curves
Roundabouts on high-speed roads (speeds of 80 km/h [50 mph] or higher), despite
extra signing efforts, may not be expected by approaching drivers, resulting in er-
ratic behavior and an increase in single-vehicle crashes. Good design encourages
drivers to slow down before reaching the roundabout, and this can be most effec-
tively achieved through a combination of geometric design and other design treat-
ments (see Chapter 7). Where approach speeds are high, speed consistency on
the approach needs to be addressed to avoid forcing all of the reduction in speed to
be completed through the curvature at the roundabout.
The radius of an approach curve (and subsequent vehicular speeds) has a direct
impact on the frequency of crashes at a roundabout. A study in Q ueensland, Aus-
tralia, has shown that decreasing the radius of an approach curve generally de-
creases the approaching rear-end vehicle crash rate and the entering-circulating
and exiting-circulating vehicle crash rates (see Chapter 5). O n the other hand, de-
creasing the radius of an approach curve may increase the single-vehicle crash rate
on the curve, particularly when the required side-friction for the vehicle to maintain
its path is too high. This may encourage drivers to cut across lanes and increase
sideswipe crash rates on the approach curve (2).
O ne method to achieve speed reduction that reduces crashes at the roundabout
while minimizing single-vehicle crashes is the use of successive curves on ap-
proaches. The study in Q ueensland, Australia, found that by limiting the change in
85th-percentile speed on successive geometric elements to 20 km/h (12 mph), the
crash rate was reduced. I t was found that the use of successive reverse curves
prior to the roundabout approach curve reduced the single-vehicle crash rate and
the sideswipe crash rate on the approach. I t is recommended that approach speeds
immediately prior to the entry curves of the roundabout be limited to 60 km/h (37
mph) to minimize high-speed rear-end and entering-circulating vehicle crashes.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-49. Use of
successive curves on high
speed approaches.
Equations 6-4 and 6-5 can be used to estimate the operating speed of two-lane
rural roads as a function of degree of curvature. Equation 6-6 can be used similarly
for four-lane rural roads (13).
A series of progressively sharper
curves on a high-speed
roundabout approach helps
slow traffic to an appropriate
entry speed.
Two-lane rural roads:
V D D
85
103 66 1 95 3 = . . ,
(6-4)
V D
85
97 9 3 = < . , (6-5)
where: V
85
= 85th-percentile speed, km/h (1 km/h = 0.621 mph); and
D = degree of curvature, degrees = 1746.38 / R
R = radius of curve, m
Four-lane rural roads:
V D
85
103 66 1 95 = . . (6-6)
where: V
85
= 85th-percentile speed, km/h (1 km/h = 0.621 mph); and
D = degree of curvature, degrees = 1746.38 / R
R = radius of curve, m
6.6 Mini-Roundabouts
As discussed in Chapter 1, a mini-roundabout is an intersection design alternative
that can be used in place of stop control or signalization at physically constrained
intersections to help improve safety problems and excessive delays at minor ap-
proaches. M ini-roundabouts are not traffic calming devices but rather are a form of
roundabout intersection. Exhibit 6-50 presents an example of a mini-roundabout.
Mini-roundabouts are not
recommended where approach
speeds are greater than 50 km/h
(30 mph), nor in locations
with high U-turning volumes.
Exhibit 6-49 shows a typical rural roundabout design with a succession of three
curves prior to the yield line. As shown in the exhibit, these approach curves should
be successively smaller radii in order to minimize the reduction in design speed
between successive curves. The aforementioned Q ueensland study found that
shifting the approaching roadway laterally by 7 m (23 ft) usually enables adequate
curvature to be obtained while keeping the curve lengths to a minimum. I f the
lateral shift is too small, drivers are more likely to cut into the adjacent lane (2).
CONTENTS
Exhibit 6-50. Example of a
mini-roundabout.
M ini-roundabouts should only be considered in areas where all approaching road-
ways have an 85th-percentile speed of less than 50 km/h (30 mph). I n addition,
mini-roundabouts are not recommended in locations in which high U-turn traffic is
expected, such as at the ends of street segments with access restrictions. M ini-
roundabouts are not well suited for high volumes of trucks, as trucks will occupy
most of the intersection when turning.
The design of the central island of a mini-roundabout is defined primarily by the
requirement to achieve speed reduction for passenger cars. As discussed previ-
ously in Section 6.2, speed reduction for entering vehicles and speed consistency
with circulating vehicles are important. Therefore, the location and size of the cen-
tral island are dictated by the inside of the swept paths of passenger cars that is
needed to achieve a maximum recommended entry speed of 25 km/h (15 mph).
The central island of a mini-roundabout is typically a minimum of 4 m (13 ft) in
diameter and is fully mountable by large trucks and buses. Composed of asphalt,
concrete, or other paving material, the central island should be domed at a height
of 25 to 30 mm per 1 m diameter (0.3 to 0.36 in per 1 ft diameter), with a maximum
height of 125 mm (5 in) (14). Although fully mountable and relatively small, it is
essential that the central island be clear and conspicuous (14, 15). Chapter 7 pro-
vides a sample signing and striping planing plan for mini-roundabout.
The outer swept path of passenger cars and large vehicles is typically used to
define the location of the yield line and boundary of each splitter island with the
circulatory roadway. Given the small size of a mini-roundabout, the outer swept
path of large vehicles may not be coincident with the inscribed circle of the round-
about, which is defined by the outer curbs. Therefore, the splitter islands and yield
line may extend into the inscribed circle for some approach geometries. O n the
other hand, for very small mini-roundabouts, such as the one shown in Exhibit 6-
50, all turning trucks will pass directly over the central island while not encroaching
on the circulating roadway to the left which may have opposing traffic. I n these
cases, the yield line and splitter island should be set coincident with the inscribed
The central island of a
mini-roundabout should be
clear and conspicuous.
CONTENTS
6.7 Ref erences
1. Department of Transport of Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany. Empfehlungen zum
Einsatz und zur Gestaltung von M ini-Kreisverkehrsplaetzen (Guidelines for the
Use and Design of M ini-Roundabouts). Dusseldorf, Germany, 1999.
2. Q ueensland Department of M ain Roads (Q DM R). Relationships between Round-
about Geometry and Accident Rates. Q ueensland, Australia: I nfrastructure De-
sign of the Technology Division of Q DM R, April 1998.
3. Department of Transport (United Kingdom). Geometric Design of Roundabouts.
TD 16/93. September 1993.
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation O fficials (AASHTO ). A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO ,
1994.
5. Pein, W.E. Trail I ntersection Design Guidelines. Prepared for State Bicycle/Pedes-
trian Program, State Safety O ffice, Florida Department of Transportation. High-
way Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, September 1996.
6. Service d Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (SETRA Center for Tech-
nical Studies of Roads and Highways). Amnagement des Carrefours I nterurbains
sur les Routes Principales (Design of Rural I ntersections on M ajor Roads). M inis-
try of Transport and Housing, December 1998.
7. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facili-
ties (ADAAG). 36 CFR Part 1191. As amended through January 1998.
8. Fambro, D.B., et al. NCHRP Report 400: Determination of Stopping Sight Dis-
tances. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
1997.
9. Harwood, D.W., et al. NCHRP Report 383: I ntersection Sight Distances. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
11. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Roundabout Guide. Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation, M arch 1996.
12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation O fficials (AASHTO ).
Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO , 1991.
13. Krammes, R., et al. Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency for Rural Two-Lane
Highways. Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-034. Washington, D.C.: Federal High-
way Administration, January 1995.
14. Sawers, C. M ini-roundabouts: Getting them right! . Canterbury, Kent, United King-
dom: Euro-M arketing Communications, 1996.
15. Brilon, W., and L. Bondzio. Untersuchung von M ini-Kreisverkehrsplaetzen (I nves-
tigation of M ini-Roundabouts). Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, 1999.
CONTENTS
183 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 7: Traffic Design and Landscaping
7.1 Signing 185
7.1.1 Relationship with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices 185
7.1.2 Regulatory signs 186
7.1.3 Warning signs 188
7.1.4 Guide signs 191
7.1.5 Urban signing considerations 192
7.1.6 Rural and suburban signing considerations 194
7.1.7 Mini-roundabout signing considerations 195
7.2 Pavement Markings 197
7.2.1 Relationship with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices 197
7.2.2 Approach and entry pavement markings 197
7.2.3 Circulatory roadway pavement markings 200
7.2.4 Mini-roundabout pavement markings 201
7.3 Illumination 202
7.3.1 Need for illumination 202
7.3.2 Standards and recommended practices 203
7.3.3 General recommendations 204
7.3.4 Clear zone requirements 205
7.4 Work Zone Traffic Control 205
7.4.1 Pavement markings 205
7.4.2 Signing 205
7.4.3 Lighting 206
Traffic Design
and Landscaping
7
CONTENTS
Exhibit 7-1. YIELD sign (R1-2). 186
Exhibit 7-2. ONE WAY sign (R6-1R). 186
Exhibit 7-3. KEEP RIGHT sign (R4-7). 186
Exhibit 7-4. Lane-use control signing for roundabouts with double-lane
entries. 188
Exhibit 7-5. Lane-use control signing for roundabouts with heavy
turning traffic. 188
Exhibit 7-6. Circular Intersection sign (W2-6). 189
Exhibit 7-7. Advisory speed plate (W13-1). 189
Exhibit 7-8. Roundabout Ahead sign. 189
Exhibit 7-9. YIELD AHEAD sign (W3-2a). 189
Exhibit 7-10. Large Arrow sign (W1-6). 190
Exhibit 7-11. Chevron plate (W1-8a). 190
Exhibit 7-12. Pedestrian Crossing sign (W11-2a). 190
Exhibit 7-13. Examples of advance destination guide signs. 191
Exhibit 7-14. Exit guide sign (D1-1). 192
Exhibit 7-15. Sample signing plan for an urban roundabout. 193
Exhibit 7-16. Sample signing plan for a rural roundabout. 194
Exhibit 7-17. Examples of speed reduction treatments. 195
Exhibit 7-18. Sample signing plan for a mini-roundabout. 196
Exhibit 7-19. Examples of yield lines. 198
Exhibit 7-20. Approach pavement markings. 199
Exhibit 7-21. Sample pavement marking plan for a mini-roundabout. 201
Exhibit 7-22. Illumination of a roundabout. 202
Exhibit 7-23. Recommended street illumination levels. 204
Exhibit 7-24. Landscaping of the central island. 208
7.4.4 Construction staging 206
7.4.5 Public education 207
7.5 Landscaping 207
7.5.1 Advantages 207
7.5.2 Central island landscaping 208
7.5.3 Splitter island and approach landscaping 208
7.5.4 Maintenance 209
7.6 References 209
CONTENTS
This chapter presents guidelines on the design of traffic elements, illumination,
and landscaping associated with roundabouts. The design of these elements is
critical in achieving the desired operational and safety features of a roundabout, as
well as the desired visibility and aesthetics. This chapter is divided into the follow-
ing sections:
Signing;
Pavement Markings;
Illumination;
Work Zone Traffic Control; and
Landscaping.
7.1 Signing
The overall concept for roundabout signing is similar to general intersection sign-
ing. Proper regulatory control, advance warning, and directional guidance are re-
quired to avoid driver expectancy related problems. Signs should be located where
they have maximum visibility for road users but a minimal likelihood of even mo-
mentarily obscuring pedestrians as well as motorcyclists and bicyclists, who are
the most vulnerable of all roundabout users. Signing needs are different for urban
and rural applications and for different categories of roundabouts.
7.1.1 Relationship with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD)
(1) and Standard Highway Signs (2), as well as local applicable standards, govern
the design and placement of signs. To the extent possible, this guide has been
prepared in accordance with the 1988 edition of the MUTCD. However, round-
abouts present a number of new signing issues that are not addressed in the 1988
edition. For this reason, a number of new signs or uses for existing signs have
been introduced that are under consideration for inclusion in the next edition of the
MUTCD. Until such signs or uses are formally adopted, these recommendations
should be considered provisional and are subject to MUTCD Section 1A-6, Manual
Changes, Interpretations and Authority to Experiment.
The following signs and applications recommended below are subject to these
conditions:
Use of YIELD signs on more than one approach to an intersection (Section 7.1.2.1);
Long chevron plate (Section 7.1.2.2);
Roundabout Ahead sign (Section 7.1.3.1);
Advance diagrammatic guide signs (Section 7.1.4.1); and
Exit guide signs (Section 7.1.4.2).
Signing, striping, illumination,
and landscaping are the critical
finishing touches for an
effectively functioning
roundabout.
Chapter 7
Traffic Design and Landscaping
CONTENTS
7.1.2 Regulatory signs
A number of regulatory signs are appropriate for roundabouts and are described
below.
7.1.2.1 YIELD sign
A YIELD sign (R1-2), shown in Exhibit 7-1, is required at the entrance to the round-
about. For single-lane approaches, one YIELD sign placed on the right side is suffi-
cient, although a second YIELD sign mounted in the splitter island on the left side
of the approach may be used. For approaches with more than one lane, the de-
signer should place YIELD signs on both the left and right sides of the approach.
This practice is consistent with the recommendations of the MUTCD on the loca-
tion of STOP and YIELD signs on single-lane and multilane approaches (MUTCD,
2B-9). To prevent circulating vehicles from yielding unnecessarily, the face of the
yield sign should not be visible from the circulatory roadway. YIELD signs may also
be used at the entrance to crosswalks on both the entry and exit legs of an ap-
proach. However, the designer should not use both YIELD signs and Pedestrian
Crossing signs (see Section 7.1.3.5) to mark a pedestrian crossing, as the yield
signs at the roundabout entrance may be obscured.
YIELD signs are required on all
approaches.
7.1.2.3 KEEP RIGHT sign
KEEP RIGHT signs (R4-7 or text variations R4-7a and R4-7b) should be used at the
nose of all nonmountable splitter islands. This sign is shown in Exhibit 7-3.
For small splitter islands, a Type 1 object marker may be substituted for the KEEP
RIGHT sign. This may reduce sign clutter and improve the visibility of the YIELD
sign.
Exhibit 7-1. YIELD sign (R1-2).
Exhibit 7-2. ONE WAY sign
(R6-1R).
Exhibit 7-3. KEEP RIGHT sign
(R4-7).
ONE WAY signs establish the
direction of traffic flow within
the roundabout.
7.1.2.2 ONE WAY sign
ONE WAY signs (R6-1R) may be used in the central island opposite the entrances.
An example is shown in Exhibit 7-2. The ONE WAY sign may be supplemented with
chevron signs to emphasize the direction of travel within the circulatory roadway
(see Section 7.1.3.4).
At roundabouts with one-way streets on one or more approaches, the use of a
regulatory ONE WAY sign may be confusing. In these cases, a Large Arrow warn-
ing sign (see Section 7.1.3.3) may be used.
CONTENTS
7.1.2.4 Lane-use control signs
For roundabouts with multiple entry lanes, it can often be confusing for unfamiliar
drivers to know which lanes to use for the various left, through, and right move-
ments. There is no international consensus on the effectiveness of lane-use signs
and/or pavement markings.
The designation of lanes on entry to a roundabout is directly related to a number of
factors:
Traffic volume balance. Roundabouts with especially heavy left- or right-turning
traffic may require more than one lane to handle the expected demand (see
Chapter 4).
Exit lane requirements. In general, the number of exit lanes provided should be
the minimum required to handle the expected exit volume. This may not corre-
spond with the number of entry lanes on the opposite side of the roundabout
that would use the exit as through vehicles (see Chapter 4).
The rules of the road. Drivers have a reasonable expectation that multiple through
lanes entering a roundabout will have an equal number of receiving lanes on
exit on the far side of the roundabout (see Chapter 2).
Lane-use control signs are generally not required where the number of receiving
lanes for through vehicles on exit matches the number of entry lanes, as shown in
Exhibit 7-4. Lane-use control signs should be used only for the following condi-
tions:
Where only a single exit lane is provided to receive two lanes of vehicles mak-
ing through movements, lane-use designations should be made to indicate that
an entry lane drops as a turning movement (see Exhibit 7-4). This does not in-
clude cases where an approach is flared from one to two lanes at the round-
about.
Where left- or right-turning traffic demand dictates the need for more than one
left-turn lane or more than one right-turn lane for capacity reasons (see Exhibit 7-5).
The use of a left-turn-only lane designation as shown in the exhibits may be initially
confusing to drivers. This type of designation has worked successfully in other
countries, and there is no evidence to suggest that it will not work in the United
States. However, given the general unfamiliarity of roundabouts to drivers in the
United States at this time, it is recommended that double-lane roundabouts be
designed to avoid the use of lane-use control signs wherever possible, at least until
drivers become more accustomed to driving roundabouts.
Lane-use control signs are
generally not recommended.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 7-4. Lane-use control
signing for roundabouts with
double-lane entries.
Exhibit 7-5. Lane-use control
signing for roundabouts with
heavy turning traffic.
7.1.3 Warning signs
A number of warning signs are appropriate for roundabouts and are described be-
low. The amount of warning a motorist needs is related to the intersection setting
and the vehicular speeds on approach roadways. The specific placement of warn-
ing signs is governed by the applicable sections of the MUTCD.
CONTENTS
7.1.3.1 Circular Intersection sign
A Circular Intersection sign (W2-6) may be installed on each approach in advance of
the roundabout. This sign, given in Exhibit 7-6, is proposed as part of the next
edition of the MUTCD. When used, it is recommended that this sign be modified to
reflect the number and alignment of approaches.
Exhibit 7-6. Circular
Intersection sign (W2-6).
It is also recommended that an advisory speed plate (W13-1) be used with this
sign, as shown in Exhibit 7-7. The speed given on the advisory speed plate should
be no higher than the design speed of the circulatory roadway, as determined in
Chapter 6.
Exhibit 7-7. Advisory speed
plate (W13-1).
An alternative to the Circular Intersection sign, called a Roundabout Ahead sign, has
been proposed and is shown in Exhibit 7-8. The rationale for this sign is given in
Appendix C. At a minimum it is recommended that the Roundabout Ahead sign be
used in place of the Circular Intersection sign at mini-roundabouts (see Section 7.1.7).
Exhibit 7-8. Roundabout
Ahead sign.
7.1.3.2 YIELD AHEAD sign
A YIELD AHEAD sign (W3-2 or W3-2a) should be used on all approaches to a round-
about in advance of the yield sign. These signs provide drivers with advance warn-
ing that a YIELD sign is approaching. The preferred symbolic form of this sign is
shown in Exhibit 7-9.
Exhibit 7-9. YIELD AHEAD sign
(W3-2a).
YIELD AHEAD signs warn drivers
of the upcoming YIELD sign.
CONTENTS
7.1.3.3 Large Arrow sign
A Large Arrow sign with a single arrow pointing to the right (W1-6) should be used
in the central island opposite the entrances, unless a regulatory ONE-WAY sign
has been used. The Large Arrow sign is shown in Exhibit 7-10.
7.1.3.4 Chevron Plate
The Large Arrow may be supplemented or replaced by a long chevron board (W1-
8a, as proposed in the next edition of the MUTCD) to emphasize the direction of
travel within the circulatory roadway.
Exhibit 7-11. Chevron plate
(W1-8a).
7.1.3.5 Pedestrian Crossing
Pedestrian Crossing signs (W11-2a) may be used at pedestrian crossings within a
roundabout at both entries and exits. Pedestrian Crossing signs should be used at
all pedestrian crossings at double-lane entries, double-lane exits, and right-turn
bypass lanes. This sign is shown in Exhibit 7-12.
The use of Pedestrian Crossing signs is dependent on the specific laws of the
governing state. If the crosswalk at a roundabout is not considered to be part of
the intersection and is instead considered a marked midblock crossing, Pedestrian
Crossing signs are required. Where installed, Pedestrian Crossing signs should be
located in such a way to not obstruct view of the YIELD sign.
Exhibit 7-12. Pedestrian
Crossing sign (W11-2a).
Chevron plates can be especially
useful for nighttime visibility for
sites without illumination.
Exhibit 7-10. Large Arrow sign
(W1-6).
CONTENTS
7.1.4 Guide signs
Guide signs are important in providing drivers with proper navigational informa-
tion. This is especially true at roundabouts where out-of-direction travel may disori-
ent unfamiliar drivers. A number of guide signs are appropriate for roundabouts
and are described below.
7.1.4.1 Advance destination guide signs
Advance destination guide signs should be used in all rural locations and in urban/
suburban areas where appropriate. The sign should be either a destination sign
using text (D1-3) or using diagrams. Examples of both are shown in Exhibit 7-13.
Diagrammatic signs are preferred because they reinforce the form and shape of
the approaching intersection and make it clear to the driver how they are expected
to navigate the intersection. Advance destination guide signs are not necessary at
local street roundabouts or in urban settings where the majority of traffic tends to
be familiar with the site.
Exhibit 7-13. Examples of
advance destination guide
signs.
Diagrammatic Style (Preferred)
Lothian, MD
Leeds, MD Taneytown, MD
Long Beach, CA
The circular shape in a
diagrammatic sign provides an
important visual cue to all users
of the roundabout.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 7-14. Exit guide sign
(D1-1).
7.1.4.2 Exit guide signs
Exit guide signs (D1-1) are recommended to designate the destinations of each
exit from the roundabout. These signs are conventional intersection direction signs
or directional route marker assemblies and can be placed either on the right-hand
side of the roundabout exit or in the splitter island. An example is shown in Exhibit
7-14.
7.1.4.3 Route confirmation signs
For roundabouts involving the intersection of one or more numbered routes, route
confirmation assemblies should be installed directly after the roundabout exit. These
provide drivers with reassurance that they have selected the correct exit at the
roundabout. These assemblies should be located no more than 30 m (100 ft) be-
yond the intersection in urban areas and 60 m (200 ft) beyond the intersection in
rural areas.
7.1.5 Urban signing considerations
The amount of signing required at individual locations is largely based on engineer-
ing judgment. However, in practice, the designer can usually use fewer and smaller
signs in urban settings than in rural settings. This is true because drivers are gener-
ally traveling at lower vehicular speeds and have higher levels of familiarity at urban
intersections. Therefore, in many urban settings the advance destination guide signs
can be eliminated. However, some indication of street names should be included
in the form of exit guide signs or standard street name signs. Another consider-
ation in urban settings is the use of minimum amounts of signing to avoid sign
clutter. A sample signing plan for an urban application is shown in Exhibit 7-15.
Exit guide signs reduce the
potential for disorientation.
The designer needs to balance the
need for adequate signing
with the tendency to use
too many signs.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 7-15. Sample signing
plan for an urban roundabout.
CONTENTS
plan for a rural roundabout.
7.1.6 Rural and suburban signing considerations
Rural and suburban conditions are characterized by higher approach speeds. Route
guidance tends to be focused more on destinations and numbered routes rather
than street names. A sample signing plan for a rural application is shown in Exhibit
7-16.
Rural signing needs to be more
conspicuous than urban signing
due to higher approach speeds.
CONTENTS
In cases where high speeds are expected (in excess of 80 km/h [50 mph]) and the
normal signage and geometric features are not expected to produce the desired
reduction in vehicle speeds, the following measures may also be considered (ex-
amples of some of these treatments are given in Exhibit 7-17):
Large advance warning signs;
Addition of hazard identification beacons to approach signing;
Use of rumble strips in advance of the roundabout;
Pavement marking across pavement; and
Use of speed warning signs. These can be triggered by speeds exceeding an
acceptable threshold.
These speed reduction treatments
can apply to all intersection
types, not just roundabouts.
speed reduction treatments.
Warning beacons. Leeds, MD Rumble strips. Cearfoss, MD
Speed warning signs. Leeds, MD
7.1.7 Mini-roundabout signing considerations
Due to their small size and unique features, mini-roundabouts require a somewhat
different signing treatment than the larger urban roundabouts. The principal differ-
ences in signing at mini-roundabouts as compared to other urban roundabouts are
the following:
The central island is fully mountable. Therefore, no ONE WAY signs, Large Ar-
row signs, or chevrons can be located there. It is recommended that the direc-
tion of circulation be positively indicated through the use of pavement mark-
ings, as discussed in Section 7.2.4.
The splitter islands are either painted or are fully mountable. Therefore, KEEP
RIGHT signs are not appropriate for mini-roundabouts.
CONTENTS
Typically, advance directional guide signs and exit guide signs are unnecessary,
given the size of the mini-roundabout and the nature of the approach roadways
(generally low-speed local streets). However, standard street name signs (D3)
should be used.
The Roundabout Ahead warning sign discussed in Section 7.1.3.1 should be
used on each approach in advance of the YIELD sign. The Circular Intersection
warning gives no indication of the direction of circulation required at the mini-
roundabout.
Exhibit 7-18 gives a sample signing plan for a mini-roundabout.
plan for a mini-roundabout.
CONTENTS
7.2 Pavement Markings
Typical pavement markings for roundabouts consist of delineating the entries and
the circulatory roadway.
7.2.1 Relationship with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
As with signing, the MUTCD (1) and applicable local standards govern the design
and placement of pavement markings. Roundabouts present a number of new
pavement marking issues that are not addressed in the 1988 edition of the MUTCD.
For this reason, a number of new pavement markings or uses for existing pave-
ment markings have been introduced that are under consideration for inclusion in
the next edition of the MUTCD. Until such pavement markings or uses are formally
adopted, these recommendations should be considered provisional and are sub-
ject to MUTCD Section 1A-6, Manual Changes, Interpretations and Authority to
Experiment.
The following pavement markings and applications recommended below are sub-
ject to these conditions:
YIELD lines (Section (7.2.2.1); and
Symbolic YIELD legend (Section 7.2.2.2).
7.2.2 Approach and entry pavement markings
Approach and entry pavement markings consist of yield lines, pavement word and
symbol markings, and channelization markings. In addition, multilane approaches
require special attention to pavement markings. The following sections discuss
these in more detail.
7.2.2.1 Yield lines
Yield lines should be used to demarcate the entry approach from the circulatory
roadway. Yield lines should be located along the inscribed circle at all roundabouts
except mini-roundabouts (see Section 7.2.4). No yield lines should be placed to
demarcate the exit from the circulatory roadway.
The MUTCD currently provides no standard for yield lines. The recommended yield
line pavement marking is a broken line treatment consisting of 400-mm (16-in)
wide stripes with 1-m (3-ft) segments and 1-m (3-ft) gaps. This type of yield line is
the simplest to install.
Alternatively, several European countries use a yield line marking consisting of a
series of white triangles (known as sharks teeth). These markings tend to be
more visible to approaching drivers. Exhibit 7-19 presents examples of broken line
and sharks teeth yield line applications. The sharks teeth ahead of the broken
line has been recommended for adoption in the next edition of the MUTCD.
Yield lines provide a visual separation
between the approach and the
Sharks teeth provide more visual
punch but require a new template
for installation.
CONTENTS
yield lines.
Broken line. Leeds, MD
7.2.2.2 Pavement word and symbol markings
In some cases, the designer may want to consider pavement word or symbol
markings to supplement the signing and yield line marking. This typically consists
of the word YIELD painted on the entrance to the roundabout immediately prior to
the yield line. These markings should conform to the standards given in the appro-
priate section of the MUTCD (3B-20).
Alternatively, some European countries paint a symbolic yield sign upstream of the
yield line. This treatment has the advantage of being symbolic; however, such a
treatment has not seen widespread use in the United States to date.
7.2.2.3 Lane-use control markings
If lane-use control signing has been used to designate specific lane use on an
approach with more than one lane, it is recommended that corresponding arrow
legends be used within each lane. See Section 7.1.2.4 for more discussion of the
use of lane-use controls.
7.2.2.4 Approach markings
Typically, pavement markings are provided around raised splitter islands and right-
turn bypass islands to enhance driver recognition of the changing roadway.
Channelization markings shall be yellow when to the left of the traffic stream and
white when to the right of the traffic stream. For a roundabout splitter island, pave-
ment markings shall be yellow adjacent to the entry and exit and white adjacent to
the circulatory roadway. Exhibit 7-20 presents a recommended pavement marking
plan for the channelization on a typical single-lane approach to a roundabout. Op-
tionally, edge stripes may end at the points of the splitter islands, allowing the
curbs themselves to provide edge delineation.
Raised pavement markers are generally recommended for supplementing pavement
markings. These have the benefit of additional visibility at night and in inclement
weather. However, they increase maintenance costs and can be troublesome in
areas requiring frequent snow removal. In addition, raised pavement markers should
not be used in the path of travel of bicycles.
Pavement word markings are
less effective in rainy or
especially snowy climates.
Raised pavement markers are
useful supplements to
pavement markings.
Sharks teeth. Lothian, MD
CONTENTS
pavement markings.
For small splitter islands (in area less than 7 m
2
[75 ft
2
), the island may consist of
pavement markings only. However, where possible, curbed splitter islands should
be used.
7.2.2.5 Pedestrian crosswalk markings
Pedestrian crosswalk markings should generally be installed at all pedestrian cross-
ing locations within roundabouts in urban locations. Because the crosswalk at a
roundabout is located away from the yield line, it is important to channelize pedes-
trians to the appropriate crossing location. These markings should not be construed
as a safety device, as data from other countries suggest that the presence of
markings has no appreciable effect on pedestrian safety. Rather, markings provide
guidance for pedestrians in navigating a roundabout and provide a visual cue to
drivers of where pedestrians may be within the roadway. The use of crosswalk
markings in this manner is consistent with published recommendations (3). Marked
crosswalks are generally not needed at locations where the crosswalk is distin-
guished from the roadway by visually contrasting pavement colors and textures.
A crosswalk marking using a series of lines parallel to the flow of traffic (known as
a zebra crosswalk) is recommended. These lines should be approximately 0.3 m
to 0.6 m (12 in to 24 in) wide, spaced 0.3 m to 1.0 m (12 in to 36 in) apart, and span
the width of the crosswalk (similar to the recommendations in MUTCD 3B-18).
Crosswalk markings should be installed across both the entrance and exit of each
leg and across any right turn bypass lanes. The crosswalk should be aligned with
Zebra crosswalks provide an
important visual cue for drivers
and pedestrians.
CONTENTS
the ramps and pedestrian refuge in the splitter island and have markings that are
generally perpendicular to the flow of vehicular traffic.
The zebra crosswalk has a number of advantages over the traditional transverse
crosswalk marking in roundabout applications:
Because the crosswalk at a roundabout is set back from the yield line, the zebra
crosswalk provides a higher degree of visibility.
The zebra crosswalk is distinct from traditional transverse crosswalk markings
typically used at signalized intersections, thus alerting both drivers and pedes-
trians that this intersection is different from a signalized intersection.
The zebra crosswalk is also less likely to be confused with the yield line than a
transverse crosswalk.
Although the initial cost is somewhat higher, the zebra crossing may require
less maintenance due to the ability to space the markings to avoid vehicle tire
tracks.
In rural locations where pedestrian activity is expected to be minimal, pedestrian
crosswalk markings are optional. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be
used at roundabouts without illumination (see Section 7.3 for an identification of
these cases) because the headlights of vehicles may not be sufficient to illuminate
a pedestrian in time to avoid a collision (4). Regardless of whether the crosswalk is
marked, all roundabouts with any reasonable possibility of pedestrian activity should
have geometric features to accommodate pedestrians as described in Chapter 6.
In addition to pavement markings, flashing warning lights mounted in the pave-
ment and activated by a pedestrian push button or other method may be consid-
ered. These are not part of the current MUTCD and thus must be treated as an
experimental traffic control device (see Section 7.2.1).
7.2.2.6 Bike lane markings
Bicycle striping treatments should be used when an existing (or proposed) bike
lane is part of the roadway facility. Exhibit 7-20 shows a recommended treatment
for bike lanes on an approach to a roundabout.
7.2.3 Circulatory roadway pavement markings
In general, lane lines should not be striped within the circulatory roadway, regard-
less of the width of the circulatory roadway. Circulatory lane lines can be mislead-
ing in that they may provide drivers a false sense of security.
In addition, bike lane markings within the circulatory roadway are not recommended.
The additional width of a bike lane within the circulatory roadway increases vehicu-
lar speed and increases the probability of motor vehicle-cyclist crashes. Bicyclists
should circulate with other vehicles, travel through the roundabout as a pedestrian
on the sidewalk, or use a separate shared-use pedestrian and bicycle facility where
provided.
Circulatory pavement markings
are generally not recommended.
Bike lanes within the
roundabout are
not recommended.
CONTENTS
7.2.4 Mini-roundabout pavement markings
Mini-roundabouts require pavement marking treatments that are somewhat differ-
ent from other urban roundabouts. The following pavement marking treatments
are recommended for mini-roundabouts.
Pavement marking arrows should be provided in the circulatory roadway in front
of each entry to indicate the direction of circulation. As noted in the discussion
of signing treatments (Section 7.1.7), no signs can be placed in the fully mount-
able central island.
At a minimum, the edges of the mountable central island and splitter islands
should be painted to improve their visibility.
A sample pavement marking plan for a mini-roundabout is given in Exhibit 7-21.
Exhibit 7-21. Sample pavement
marking plan for
a mini-roundabout.
CONTENTS
7.3.1 Need for illumination
The need for illumination varies somewhat based on the location in which the round-
about is located.
7.3.1.1 Urban conditions
In urban settings, illumination should be provided for the following reasons:
Most if not all approaches are typically illuminated.
Illumination is necessary to improve the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists.
7.3.1.2 Suburban conditions
For roundabouts in suburban settings, illumination is recommended. For safety
reasons, illumination is necessary when:
One or more approaches are illuminated.
An illuminated area in the vicinity can distract the drivers view.
Heavy nighttime traffic is anticipated.
7.3 Illumination
For a roundabout to operate satisfactorily, a driver must be able to enter the round-
about, move through the circulating traffic, and separate from the circulating stream
in a safe and efficient manner. To accomplish this, a driver must be able to perceive
the general layout and operation of the intersection in time to make the appropriate
maneuvers. Adequate lighting should therefore be provided at all roundabouts.
Exhibit 7-22 shows an example of an illuminated roundabout at night.
Exhibit 7-22. Illumination of
a roundabout.
Loveland, CO
CONTENTS
Continuity of illumination must be provided between illuminated areas and the
roundabout itself (5). An unlit roundabout with one or more illuminated approaches
is dangerous. This is because a driver approaching on an unlit approach will be
attracted to the illuminated area(s) and may not see the roundabout.
7.3.1.3 Rural conditions
For rural roundabouts, illumination is recommended but not mandatory. If there is
no power supply in the vicinity of the intersection, the provision of illumination can
be costly. When lighting is not provided, the intersection should be well signed and
marked so that it can be correctly perceived by day and night. The use of reflective
pavement markers and retroreflective signs (including chevrons supplement-
ing the ONE-WAY signs) should be used when lighting cannot be installed in a
cost-effective manner.
Where illumination can be provided, any raised channelization or curbing should be
illuminated. In general, a gradual illumination transition zone of approximately 80 m
(260 ft) should be provided beyond the final trajectory changes at each exit (5). This
helps drivers adapt their vision from the illuminated environment of the round-
about back into the dark environment of the exiting roadway, which takes approxi-
mately 1 to 2 seconds. In addition, no short-distance dark areas should be allowed
between two consecutive illuminated areas (5).
7.3.2 Standards and recommended practices
The following standards and recommended practices should be consulted in com-
pleting the lighting plan:
AASHTO, An Information Guide for Roadway Lighting (6). This is the basic guide
for highway lighting. It includes information on warranting conditions and de-
sign criteria.
AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires and Traffic Signals (7). This specification contains the strength re-
quirements of the poles and bracket arms for various wind loads, as well as the
frangibility requirements. All luminaire supports, poles, and bracket arms must
comply with these specifications.
IES RP-8: The American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (8).
This Recommended Practice, published by the Illuminating Engineering Soci-
ety, provides standards for average-maintained illuminance, luminance, and small
target visibility, as well as uniformity of lighting. Recommended illumination
levels for streets with various classifications and in various areas are given in
Exhibit 7-23.
CONTENTS
Arterial Commercial 17 lx (1.7 fc) 3 to 1
Intermediate 13 lx (1.3 fc)
Residential 9 lx (0.9 fc)
Collector Commercial 12 lx (1.2 fc) 4 to 1
Local Commercial 9 lx (0.9 fc) 6 to 1
street illumination levels.
Definitions:
Commercial A business area of a municipality where ordinarily there are many pedestrians during
night hours. This definition applies to densely developed business areas outside, as well
as within, the central part of a municipality. The area contains land use which attracts a
relatively heavy volume of nighttime vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic on a frequent
basis.
Intermediate Those areas of a municipality often with moderately heavy nighttime pedestrian activity
such as in blocks having libraries, community recreation centers, large apartment build-
ings, industrial buildings, or neighborhood retail stores.
Residential A residential development, or a mixture of residential and small commercial establish-
ments, with few pedestrians at night.
Note: Values in table assume typical asphalt roadway surface (pavement classification R2 or R3). Consult
the IES document for other pavement surfaces.
Source: Illuminating Engineering Society RP-8 (8)
Street
Classification
Area
Classification
Average
Maintained
Illuminance
Values
Illuminance
Uniformity Ratio
(Average to
Minimum)
7.3.3 General recommendations
The primary goal of illumination is to ensure perception of the approach and mutual
visibility among the various categories of users. To achieve this, the following fea-
tures are recommended:
The overall illumination of the roundabout should be approximately equal to the
sum of the illumination levels of the intersecting roadways. If the approaching
roadways have been designed to the illumination levels given in Exhibit 7-23,
this may result in illumination levels at the roundabout ranging from 9 lx (0.8 fc)
for roundabouts at the intersection of local streets in residential areas to 36 lx
(3.4 fc) for roundabouts at the intersection of arterials in commercial areas.
Local illumination standards should also be considered when establishing the
illumination at the roundabout to ensure that the lighting is consistent.
Good illumination should be provided on the approach nose of the splitter is-
lands, at all conflict areas where traffic is entering the circulating stream, and at
all places where the traffic streams separate to exit the roundabout.
It is preferable to light the roundabout from the outside in towards the center.
This improves the visibility of the central island and the visibility of circulating
vehicles to vehicles approaching to the roundabout. Ground-level lighting within
the central island that shines upwards towards objects in the central island can
improve their visibility.
Lighting from the central island
causes vehicles to be backlit and
thus less visible.
CONTENTS
Special consideration should be given to lighting pedestrian crossing and bi-
cycle merging areas.
7.3.4 Clear zone requirements
As discussed in Chapter 5, the proportion of single-vehicle crashes at roundabouts
is high compared to other intersection types. This is because roundabouts consist
of a number of relatively small-radii horizontal curves for each traveled path through
the roundabout. Drivers travel on these curves with quite high values of side fric-
tion, particularly at roundabouts in higher speed areas. Single-vehicle crashes, which
predominantly involve out-of-control vehicles, increase with an increased amount
of side friction.
Because of the relatively high number of out-of-control vehicles, it is desirable to
have adequate amounts of clear zone where there are no roadside hazards on each
side of the roadway. Lighting supports and other poles should not be placed within
small splitter islands or on the right-hand perimeter just downstream of an exit
point. Lighting poles should be avoided in central islands when the island diameter
is less than 20 m (65 ft).
The reader should refer to the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide for a more detailed
discussion of clear zone requirements (9).
7.4 Work Zone Traffic Control
During the construction of a roundabout it is essential that the intended travel path
be clearly identified. This may be accomplished through pavement markings, sign-
ing, delineation, channelizing devices, and guidance from police and/or construc-
tion personnel, depending on the size and complexity of the roundabout. Care
should be taken to minimize the channelizing devices so that the motorist, bicy-
clist, and pedestrian has a clear indication of the required travel path. Each installa-
tion should be evaluated separately, as a definitive guideline for the installation of
roundabouts is beyond the scope of this guide. Refer to Part 6 of the MUTCD for
requirements regarding work zone traffic control.
7.4.1 Pavement markings
The pavement markings used in work zones should be the same layout and dimen-
sion as those used for the final installation. Because of the confusion of a work
area and the change in traffic patterns, additional pavement markings may be used
to clearly show the intended direction of travel. In some cases when pavement
markings cannot be placed, channelizing devices should be used to establish the
travel path.
7.4.2 Signing
The signing in work zones should consist of all necessary signing for the efficient
movement of traffic through the work area, preconstruction signing advising the pub-
Construction signing for a
roundabout should follow the
MUTCD standard.
CONTENTS
lic of the planned construction, and any regulatory and warning signs necessary for
the movement of traffic outside of the immediate work area. The permanent round-
about signing should be installed where practicable during the first construction
stage so that it is available when the roundabout is operable. Permanent signing
that cannot be installed initially should be placed on temporary supports in the
proposed location until permanent installation can be completed.
7.4.3 Lighting
Permanent lighting, as described in Section 7.3, should be used to light the work
area. If lighting will not be used, pavement markings, as described in Section 7.2,
should be used.
7.4.4 Construction staging
As is the case with any construction project, before any work can begin, all traffic
control devices should be installed as indicated in the traffic control plan or recom-
mended typical details. This traffic control shall remain in place as long as it applies
and then be removed when the message no longer applies to the condition.
Prior to work that would change the traffic patterns to that of a roundabout, certain
peripheral items may be completed. This would include permanent signing (cov-
ered), lighting, and some pavement markings. These items, if installed prior to the
construction of the central island and splitter islands, would expedite the opening
of the roundabout and provide additional safety during construction.
When work has commenced on the installation of the roundabout, it is desirable
that it be completed as soon as possible to minimize the time the public is faced
with an unfinished layout or where the traffic priority may not be obvious. If pos-
sible, all work, including the installation of splitter islands and striping, should be
done before the roundabout is open to traffic.
If it is necessary to leave a roundabout in an uncompleted state overnight, the
splitter islands should be constructed before the central island. Any portion of the
roundabout that is not completed should be marked, delineated, and signed in
such a way as to clearly outline the intended travel path. Pavement markings that
do not conform to the intended travel path should be removed.
It is highly desirable to detour traffic for construction of a roundabout. This will
significantly reduce the construction time and cost and will increase the safety of
the construction personnel. If it is not possible to detour all approaches, detour as
many approaches as possible and stage the remainder of the construction as follows:
1. Install and cover proposed signing.
2. Construct outside widening if applicable.
3. Reconstruct approaches if applicable.
Construction staging should be
considered during the siting of
the roundabout, especially if it
must be built under traffic.
CONTENTS
Public education during
construction is as important as
the public education effort
during the planning process.
4. Construct splitter islands and delineate the central island. At this point the signs
should be uncovered and the intersection should operate as a roundabout.
5. Finish construction of the central island.
7.4.5 Public education
It is important to educate the public whenever there is a change in traffic patterns.
It is especially important for a roundabout because a roundabout will be new to
most motorists. The techniques discussed in Chapter 2 can be applied during the
construction period. The following are some specific suggestions to help alleviate
initial driver confusion.
Hold public meetings prior to construction;
Prepare news releases/handouts detailing what the motorist can expect be-
fore, during, and after construction;
Install variable message signs before and during construction;
Use Travelers Advisory Radio immediately prior to and during construction to
disseminate information on How to drive, etc.; and
Install signing during and after construction that warns of changed traffic patterns.
7.5 Landscaping
This section provides an overview of the use of landscaping in the design of a
roundabout.
7.5.1 Advantages
Landscaping in the central island, in splitter islands (where appropriate), and along
the approaches can benefit both public safety and community enhancement.
The landscaping of the roundabout and approaches should:
Make the central island more conspicuous;
Improve the aesthetics of the area while complementing surrounding
streetscapes as much as possible;
Minimize introducing hazards to the intersection, such as trees, poles, walls,
guide rail, statues, or large rocks;
Avoid obscuring the form of the roundabout or the signing to the driver;
Maintain adequate sight distances, as discussed in Chapter 6;
Clearly indicate to the driver that they cannot pass straight through the intersec-
tion;
Discourage pedestrian traffic through the central island; and
Help blind and visually impaired pedestrians locate sidewalks and crosswalks.
Landscaping is one of the
distinguishing features that
gives roundabouts an aesthetic
advantage over traditional
intersections.
CONTENTS
7.5.2 Central island landscaping
The central island landscaping can enhance the safety of the intersection by mak-
ing the intersection a focal point and by lowering speeds. Plant material should be
selected so that sight distance (discussed in Chapter 6) is maintained, including
consideration of future maintenance requirements to ensure adequate sight dis-
tance for the life of the project. Large, fixed landscaping (trees, rocks, etc.) should
be avoided in areas vulnerable to vehicle runoff. In northern areas, the salt toler-
ance of any plant material should be considered, as well as snow storage and
removal practices. In addition, landscaping that requires watering may increase
the likelihood of wet and potentially slippery pavement. Exhibit 7-24 shows the
recommended placement of landscaping within the central island.
The slope of the central island should not exceed 6:1 per the requirements of the
AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (9).
Where truck aprons are used in conjunction with a streetscape project, the pave-
ment should be consistent with other streetscape elements. However, the mate-
rial used for the apron should be different than the material used for the sidewalks
so that pedestrians are not encouraged to cross the circulatory roadway. Street
furniture that may attract pedestrian traffic to the central island, such as benches or
monuments with small text, must be avoided. If fountains or monuments are be-
ing considered for the central island, they must be designed in a way that will
enable proper viewing from the perimeter of the roundabout. In addition, they must
be located and designed to minimize the possibility of impact from an errant vehicle.
Avoid items in the central island
that might tempt people to take
a closer look.
Exhibit 7-24. Landscaping of
the central island.
7.5.3 Splitter island and approach landscaping
In general, unless the splitter islands are very large or long, they should not contain
trees, planters, or light poles. Care must be taken with the landscaping to avoid
obstructing sight distance, as the splitter islands are usually located within the
critical sight triangles (see Chapter 6).
CONTENTS
Landscaping on the approaches to the roundabout can enhance safety by making
the intersection a focal point and by reducing the perception of a high-speed through
traffic movement. Plant material in the splitter islands (where appropriate) and on
the right and left side of the approaches can help to create a funneling effect and
induce a decrease in speeds approaching the roundabout. Landscaping in the cor-
ner radii will help to channelize pedestrians to the crosswalk areas and discourage
pedestrians from crossing to the central island.
7.5.4 Maintenance
A realistic maintenance program should be considered in the design of the land-
scape features of a roundabout. It may be unrealistic to expect a typical highway
agency to maintain a complex planting plan. Formal agreements may be struck
with local civic groups and garden clubs for maintenance where possible. Liability
issues should be considered in writing these agreements. Where there is no inter-
est in maintaining the proposed enhancements, the landscape design should con-
sist of simple plant materials or hardscape items that require little or no mainte-
nance.
7.6 References
1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control De-
vices. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, 1988.
2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Standard Highway Signs. Washing-
ton, D.C.: FHWA, 1979.
3. Smith, S.A., and R.L. Knoblauch. Guidelines for the Installation of Crosswalk
Markings. In Transportation Research Record 1141. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987.
4. Herms, B.F. Some Visual Aspects of Pedestrian Crosswalks. In Proceedings,
22nd California Street and Highway Conference, Institute of Transportation and
Traffic Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, January 1970.
5. Centre dEtudes sur les Rseaux les Transports, lUrbanisme et les construc-
tions publiques (CERTU). Lclairage des Carrefours Sens Giratoire (The Illumi-
nation of Roundabout Intersections). Lyon, France: CERTU, 1991.
An Information Guide for Roadway Lighting. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1985.
Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires
and Traffic Signals. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1994.
8. Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). American National Standard Practice for
Roadway Lighting. Standard RP-8. December 1982.
Roadside Design Guide. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1989.
Ensure that whatever
landscaping is installed, it will
be maintained.
CONTENTS
System Considerations 8
8.1 Traffic Signals at Roundabouts 213
8.1.1 M etered entrance 214
8.1.2 Nearby vehicular and pedestrian signals 214
8.1.3 Full signalization of the circulatory roadway 215
8.2 At-Grade Rail Crossings 215
8.3 Closely Spaced Roundabouts 217
8.4 Roundabout I nterchanges 219
8.4.1 Two-bridge roundabout interchange 219
8.4.2 O ne-bridge roundabout interchange 220
8.4.3 Analysis of roundabout interchanges 222
8.4.4 Geometric design parameters 223
8.5 Roundabouts in an Arterial Network 223
8.5.1 Platooned arrivals on roundabout approaches 224
8.5.2 Roundabout departure pattern 224
8.5.3 Wide nodes and narrow roads 225
8.6 M icroscopic Simulation 227
8.6.1 How to use simulation 227
8.6.2 Examples of simulation models 228
8.7 References 229
CONTENTS
Exhibit 8-1. Rail crossing treatments at roundabouts. 216
Exhibit 8-2. M ethods for accommodating a rail crossing
adjacent to a roundabout. 217
Exhibit 8-3. Example of closely spaced offset T-intersections
with roundabouts. 218
Exhibit 8-4. Through bypass lanes at staggered T-intersections. 218
Exhibit 8-5. Two-bridge roundabout interchange. 219
Exhibit 8-6. Examples of two-bridge roundabout interchanges. 220
Exhibit 8-7. Examples of one-bridge roundabout interchanges
with circular central islands. 221
Exhibit 8-8. O ne-bridge roundabout interchange with
raindrop-shaped central islands. 222
Exhibit 8-9. Roundabouts in an arterial network. 223
Exhibit 8-10. Wide nodes and narrow roads. 226
Exhibit 8-11. Summary of simulation models for roundabout
analysis. 228
CONTENTS
213 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 8: System C onsiderations
Roundabouts have been considered as isolated intersections in most other inter-
national roundabout guides and publications. However, roundabouts may need to
fit into a network of intersections, with the traffic control functions of a roundabout
supporting the function of nearby intersections and vice versa. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide some guidance on potentially difficult, but not uncommon,
circumstances or constraints.
M any countries whose initial design and driver experience was with isolated round-
abouts have since extended their application to transportation system design and
operation. This chapter addresses the appropriate use of roundabouts in a roadway
network context and the benefits obtained. Since the design of each roundabout
should generally follow the principles of isolated roundabout design, the discus-
sion is at a conceptual and operational level and generally complements the plan-
ning of isolated roundabouts discussed in Chapter 3. I n many cases, site-specific
issues will determine the appropriate roundabout design elements.
To establish some fundamental understanding for subsequent discussion, three
design issues at an isolated roundabout are presented. First, this chapter will de-
scribe the requirements and effects of signal control of one or more legs of a
roundabout, as well as the entire roundabout. I t is noted that fully signalized round-
abouts are not desirable. Next, modified designs that incorporate at-grade rail cross-
ings are discussed. I t is noted that intersections with rail lines passing through
them or near them are not desirable. However, these situations do occur and would
then need to be analyzed.
Building upon this understanding, the next sections address design and perfor-
mance of two closely spaced roundabouts and the specific application to round-
about interchanges. This is followed by issues pertaining to the use of roundabouts
on an arterial or network that may include or replace coordinated signalized inter-
sections. Finally, the role of microscopic simulation models in assisting with analy-
sis of these system effects is reviewed.
8.1 Traff ic Signals at Roundabouts
Although yield control of entries is the default at roundabouts, when necessary,
traffic circles and roundabouts have been signalized by metering one or more en-
tries, or signalizing the circulatory roadway at each entry. Roundabouts should never
be planned for metering or signalization. However, unexpected demand may dic-
tate the need after installation. Each of these will be discussed in turn. I n the first
case, entrance metering can be implemented at the entrance or some distance
upstream.
This chapter considers
roundabouts as they relate to
other elements of the
transportation system,
including other intersections.
Chapter 8
System Considerations
CONTENTS
8.1.1 Metered entrance
Roundabouts operate effectively only when there are sufficient longer and accept-
able gaps between vehicles in the circulatory lanes. I f there is a heavy movement
of circulating drivers, then entering drivers at the next downstream entry may not
be able to enter. This situation occurs most commonly during the peak periods, and
the performance of the roundabout can be greatly improved with entrance metering.
The concept of entrance metering at roundabouts is similar to ramp metering on
freeways. A convenient sign is a changeable one that reads Stop on red signal
and shows the usual yield sign for a roundabout otherwise. The sign would also
include a yellow and red signal above the sign. The operation of the sign would be
to show drivers the roundabout sign, display the yellow light and the sign Stop on
red signal, and finally display the red light and the same text sign. This would
cause entering vehicles to stop and allow the vehicles at the downstream entrance
to proceed. A queue length detector on the downstream entrance may be used to
indicate to the signal controller when the metering should be activated and deacti-
vated. O nce on the circulatory roadway, vehicles are not stopped from leaving the
roundabout.
8.1.2 Nearby vehicular and pedestrian signals
Another method of metering is the use, with appropriate timing, of a nearby up-
stream signalized intersection or a signalized pedestrian crossing on the subject
approach road. Unlike pure entry metering, such controls may stop vehicles from
entering and leaving the roundabout, so expected queue lengths on the round-
about exits between the metering signal and the circulatory roadway should be
compared with the proposed queuing space.
Because of additional objectives and constraints, metering by upstream signals is
generally not as effective as direct entrance metering. However, a signalized pe-
destrian crossing may be desirable on its own merits. M ore than one entrance can
be metered, and the analyst needs to identify operational states and evaluate each
one separately to provide a weighted aggregate performance measure.
When disabled pedestrians and/or school children are present at a high-volume
site, a pedestrian-actuated traffic signal could be placed 20 to 50 m (65 to 165 ft)
from the yield line. This longer distance than at an unsignalized crossing may be
required because the vehicle queues downstream of the roundabout exit will be
longer. The trade-offs for any increased distance requirement are increased walk-
ing distances and higher exiting vehicle speeds. An analysis of signal timing will be
needed to minimize queuing of vehicles into the roundabouts.
Roundabouts should not be
planned for metering or
signalization unless
unexpected demand dictates
this need after installation.
Nearby intersections or
pedestrian crossing signals can
also meter traffic, but not as
effectively as direct
entrance metering.
CONTENTS
Full signalization of the
circulatory roadway requires
careful coordination and
vehicle progression.
8.1.3 Full signalization of the circulatory roadway
Full signalization that includes control of circulating traffic at junctions with major
entrances is possible at large-diameter multilane traffic circles or rotaries that have
adequate storage space on the circulatory roadway. The double-lane roundabout
dimensions resulting from the design criteria recommended in this guide may pre-
clude such possibilities. As stated previously, full signalization should in any case
only be considered as a retrofit alternative resulting from unanticipated traffic de-
mands. O ther feasible alternatives should also be considered, such as flaring criti-
cal approaches, along with the associated widening of the circulatory roadway;
converting a large-diameter rotary to a more compact modern roundabout form; or
converting to a conventional signalized intersection. This guide recommends that
signalizing roundabouts to improve capacity be considered only when it is the most
cost-effective solution.
Traffic signals at fully signalized rotaries should be timed carefully to prevent queu-
ing on the circulatory roadway by ensuring adequate traffic progression of circulat-
ing traffic and especially critical movements. I ntroducing continuous or part-time
signals on the circulatory roadway requires careful design of geometry, signs, lane
markings, and signal timing settings, and literature on this specific topic should be
consulted (1, 2).
8.2 At-Grade Rail Crossings
Locating any intersection near an at-grade railroad crossing is generally discour-
aged. However, roundabouts are sometimes used near railroad-highway at-grade
crossings. Rail transit, including stations, have successfully been incorporated into
the medians of approach roadways to a roundabout, with the tracks passing through
the central island. I n such situations, the roundabout either operates partially dur-
ing train passage, or is completely closed to allow the guided vehicles or trains to
pass through. The treatment of at-grade rail crossings should follow primarily the
recommendations of the M anual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M UTCD) (3).
Another relevant reference is the FHWA Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Hand-
book (4).
There are essentially two ways in which rails can interact with a roundabout, as
shown in Exhibit 8-1:
Through the center; or
Across one leg in close proximity to the roundabout.
CONTENTS
I n either case, traffic must not be forced to stop on the tracks. A new intersection
should not be designed with railroad tracks passing through the center of it. How-
ever, on occasions, the rail line passes through an existing intersection area. The
traffic engineer might be faced with a decision whether to change the intersection
type to a roundabout or to grade-separate the crossing.
A gated rail crossing through the center of a roundabout can be accommodated in
two ways. The first method is to prevent all vehicular traffic from entering the round-
about. The second method is to prevent traffic from crossing the tracks while still
allowing some movements to occur. This latter method will have lower delays and
queues, but it may be more confusing and less safe.
A gated rail crossing adjacent to a roundabout can be accommodated in two ways,
as shown in Exhibit 8-2:
M ethod A: Closure only at rail crossing. This method prohibits vehicles from
crossing the rails but still allows vehicles to enter and leave the circulatory road-
way. This method allows for many of the movements through the roundabout to
continue to run free, if a queue does not build to the point of impeding circula-
tion within the roundabout. A queuing analysis should be performed using the
expected volume crossing the rails and the expected duration of rail crossing to
determine the likelihood that this blockage will occur. I n general, this method
works better than M ethod B if there is sufficient separation between the round-
about and the rail crossing. I f blockage is anticipated, the designer should choose
M ethod B.
M ethod B: Closure at rail crossing and at most entries to the roundabout. This
method closes all entries to the roundabout except for the entry nearest the rail
crossing. This allows any vehicles in the roundabout to clear prior to the arrival
of the train. I n addition, a gate needs to be provided on the approach to the rail
crossing exiting the roundabout to protect against possible U-turns in the round-
about. This causes increased queuing on all approaches but is generally safer
than M ethod A when there is insufficient storage capacity between the round-
about and rail crossing.
Closing only the leg with the
rail crossing may work if
queues are not anticipated to
back into the
Exhibit 8-1. Rail crossing
treatments at roundabouts.
CONTENTS
(b) Closure at rail crossing and at most entries to roundabout
(a) Closure only at rail crossing
8.3 Closely Spaced Roundabouts
I t is sometimes desirable to consider the operation of two or more roundabouts in
close proximity to each other. I n these cases, the expected queue lengths at each
roundabout become important. Exhibit 8-3 presents an example of closely spaced
T-intersections. The designer should compute the 95th-percentile queues for each
approach to check that sufficient queuing space is provided for vehicles between
the roundabouts. I f there is insufficient space, then drivers will occasionally queue
into the upstream roundabout and may cause it to lock.
Exhibit 8-2. Methods for
accommodating a rail crossing
adjacent to a roundabout.
CONTENTS
France (5)
Closely spaced roundabouts may improve safety by calming the traffic on the
major road. Drivers may be reluctant to accelerate to the expected speed on the
arterial if they are also required to slow again for the next close roundabout. This
may benefit nearby residents.
When roundabouts are used at offset T-intersections, there is an opportunity to
bypass one through lane direction on the major road at each roundabout. Exhibit
8-4 presents sketches of through bypass lanes for the two basic types of offset
T-intersection configurations. I n both cases, through traffic in each direction needs
to negotiate only one roundabout, and capacity is therefore typically improved. The
weaving section should be analyzed both for capacity and for safety through an
evaluation of the relative speeds of the weaving vehicles.
Exhibit 8-4. Through
bypass lanes at staggered
T-intersections.
closely spaced offset
T-intersection with
roundabouts.
Closely spaced roundabouts
may have a traffic calming
effect on the major road.
Option A (roundabout precedes
bypass) is preferred.
CONTENTS
O f the two arrangements shown in Exhibit 8-4, O ption A (roundabout precedes
bypass) is preferred. The roundabout offers a visual cue to drivers to slow in Ar-
rangement A and encourages slower (and therefore safer) driving through the two
roundabouts. I f O ption B (bypass precedes roundabout) is used, the merges and
diverges could occur at higher speeds. I t may be appropriate in this case to omit
the bypass lane and pass all through traffic through both roundabouts. Another
advantage of O ption A is that there would be less queuing of traffic on the road
space between the roundabouts.
Note that when conventional T-intersections are used, O ption A is less preferable
than O ption B due to the need to provide interior storage space for left turns in
O ption A. Therefore, roundabouts may be a satisfactory solution for cases like
O ption A.
8.4 Roundabout Interchanges
Freeway ramp junctions with arterial roads are potential candidates for roundabout
intersection treatment. This is especially so if the subject interchange typically has
a high proportion of left-turn flows from the off-ramps and to the on-ramps during
certain peak periods, combined with limited queue storage space on the bridge
crossing, off-ramps, or arterial approaches. I n such circumstances, roundabouts
operating within their capacity are particularly amenable to solving these problems
when compared with other forms of intersection control.
8.4.1 Two-bridge roundabout interchange
There are two basic types of roundabout interchanges. The first is a large diameter
roundabout centered over or under a freeway. The ramps connect directly into the
roundabout, as do the legs from the crossroad. This is shown in Exhibit 8-5.
Exhibit 8-5. Two-bridge
roundabout interchange.
Source: Based on (6)
The freeway may go either
over or under the circulatory
roadway.
CONTENTS
This type of interchange requires two bridges. I f the roundabout is above the free-
way as shown in Exhibit 8-5, then the bridges may be curved. Alternatively, if the
freeway goes over the roundabout then up to four bridges may be required. The
number of bridges will depend on the optimum span of the type of structure com-
pared with the inscribed diameter of the roundabout island and on whether the
one bridge is used for both freeway directions or whether there is one bridge for
each direction. The road cross-section will also influence the design decision. Ex-
hibit 8-6 shows an example from the United Kingdom. The designer should decide
if the expected speeds of vehicles at larger roundabouts are acceptable.
two-bridge roundabout
interchanges.
A50/Heron Cross, United Kingdom (mirrored to show right-hand-side driving)
8.4.2 One-bridge roundabout interchange
The second basic type uses a roundabout at each side of the freeway and is a
specific application of closely spaced roundabouts discussed in the previous sec-
tion. A bridge is used for the crossroad over the freeway or for a freeway to cross
over the minor road. Again, two bridges may be used when the freeway crosses
over the minor road.
This interchange form has been used successfully in some cases to defer the need
to widen bridges. Unlike signalized ramps that may require exclusive left-turn lanes
across the bridge and extra queue storage, this type of roundabout interchange
exhibits very little queuing between the intersections since these movements are
almost unopposed. Therefore, the approach lanes across the bridge can be mini-
mized.
The actual roundabouts can have two different shapes or configurations. The first
configuration is a conventional one with circular central islands. This type of con-
figuration is recommended when it is desirable to allow U-turns at each round-
about or to provide access to legs other than the cross street and ramps. Examples
from the United Kingdom and France are shown in Exhibit 8-7.
One-bridge roundabout
interchanges have been
successfully used to defer the
need for bridge widening.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 8-7 (continued).
Examples of one-bridge
roundabout interchanges with
circular central islands.
France
one-bridge roundabout
interchanges with circular
central islands.
United Kingdom
CONTENTS
8.4.3 Analysis of roundabout interchanges
The traffic performance evaluation of the roundabout interchange is the same as
for a single conventional roundabout. The maximum entry capacity is dependent
on the circulatory flow and the geometry of the roundabouts. The evaluation pro-
cess is included in Chapter 4.
The benefits and costs associated with this type of interchange also follow those
for a single roundabout. A potential benefit of roundabout interchanges is that the
queue length on the off-ramps may be less than at a signalized intersection. I n
almost all cases, if the roundabout would operate below capacity, the performance
of the on-ramp is likely to be better than if the interchange is signalized. The head-
way between vehicles leaving the roundabout along the on-ramp is more random
than when signalized intersections are used. This more random ramp traffic allows
for smoother merging behavior on the freeway and a slightly higher performance
at the freeway merge area compared with platooned ramp traffic from a signalized
intersection.
The second configuration uses raindrop-shaped central islands that preclude some
turns at the roundabout. This configuration is best used when ramps (and not front-
age roads) intersect at the roundabout. A raindrop central island can be considered
to be a circular shape blocked at one end. I n this configuration, a driver wanting to
make a U-turn has to drive around both raindrop-shaped central islands. This con-
figuration has an additional advantage in that it makes wrong-way turns into the
off-ramps more difficult. O n the other hand, drivers do not have to yield when
approaching from the connecting roadway between the two roundabouts. I f the
roundabout is designed poorly, drivers may be traveling faster than they should to
negotiate the next roundabout safely. The designer should analyze relative speeds
to evaluate this alternative. O n balance, if the length of the connecting road is
short, this design may offer safety advantages. Exhibit 8-8 provides an example of
this type of interchange configuration.
Interstate 70/Avon Road, Avon, CO
Raindrop central islands make
wrong-way movements more
difficult, but require navigating
two roundabouts to
make a U-turn.
Roundabouts produce more
random headways on ramps
than signalized intersections,
resulting in smoother merging
behavior on the freeway.
Exhibit 8-8. One-bridge
roundabout interchange with
raindrop-shaped
central islands.
CONTENTS
The traffic at any entry is the same for both configurations. The entry capacity is
the same and the circulating flow is the same for the large single roundabout (Ex-
hibit 8-6) and for the second configuration of the two teardrop roundabout system
(Exhibit 8-8). Note that the raindrop form may be considered and analyzed as a
single large roundabout as in the circular roundabout interchange, but with a
pinched waistline across or under one bridge rather than two. The relative perfor-
mance of these systems will only be affected by the geometry of the roundabouts
and islands. The system with the two circular roundabouts will have a slightly differ-
ent performance depending upon the number of U-turns.
8.4.4 Geometric design parameters
The design parameters are not restrained by any requirement here. They are only
constrained by the physical space available to the designer and the configuration
selected. The raindrop form can be useful if grades are a design issue since they
remove a potential cross-slope constraint on the missing circulatory road segments.
I f there are more roads intersecting with the interchange than the single cross
road, then two independent circular roundabouts are likely to be the best solution.
8.5 Roundabouts in an Arterial Network
I n order to understand how roundabouts operate within a roadway system, it is
important to understand their fundamental arrival and departure characteristics
and how they may interact with other intersections. Exhibit 8-9 gives an example
of a series of roundabouts along an arterial street.
Exhibit 8-9. Roundabouts in
an arterial network.
Avon Road, Avon, CO
The Avon Road network
consists of five roundabouts
(all pictured)two at the
interchange ramp terminals
and three along the arterial
south of the freeway.
CONTENTS
8.5.1 Platooned arrivals on roundabout approaches
The performance of a roundabout is affected by its proximity to signalized intersec-
tions. I f a signalized intersection is very close to the roundabout, it causes vehicles
to enter the roundabout in closely spaced platoons; more importantly, it results in
regular periods when no vehicles enter. These latter periods provide an excellent
opportunity for traffic on the next downstream entry to enter. Since the critical gap
is larger than the follow-up time, a roundabout becomes more efficient when the
vehicles are handled as packets of vehicles rather than as isolated vehicles.
When the signalized intersection is some distance from the roundabout, then the
vehicles arrival patterns have fewer closely spaced platoons. Platoons tend to dis-
perse as they move down the road. The performance of a roundabout will be re-
duced under these circumstances when compared with a close upstream signal. I f
arrival speeds are moderate, then few longer gaps allow more drivers to enter a
roundabout than a larger number of shorter gaps. I f arrival speeds are low, then
there are more opportunities for priority-sharing (where entering and circulating
vehicles alternate) and priority-reversals (where the circulating vehicles tend to
yield to entering vehicles) between entering and circulating traffic streams, and the
influence of platoon dispersal is not as marked.
8.5.2 Roundabout departure pattern
Traffic leaving a roundabout tends to be more random than if another type of inter-
section control were used. A roundabout may therefore affect the performance of
Signalized intersections close
to roundabouts produce gaps
in traffic that can be used by
minor street traffic to enter the
major street.
Even one circulating vehicle in
a roundabout will result in a
platoon breaking down.
other unsignalized intersections or driveways more than if the intersection was
signalized. However, as this traffic travels further along the road downstream of
the roundabout, the faster vehicles catch up to the slower vehicles and the propor-
tion of platooning increases.
I n the case of a well-defined platoon from an upstream signalized intersection
arriving at a downstream unsignalized intersection just after a well-defined platoon
arrives from the other direction, it may be difficult for the minor street drivers at
this unsignalized intersection to enter the link. I f, on the other hand, one of these
signalized intersections were to be replaced by a roundabout, then the effect of the
random traffic from the roundabout might be relatively advantageous. Under these
conditions, more dispersed platoons (or random) traffic could assist drivers enter-
ing along the link at the unsignalized intersection.
I f a roundabout is used in a network of coordinated signalized intersections, then it
may be difficult to maintain the closely packed platoons required. I f a tightly packed
platoon approached a roundabout, it could proceed through the roundabout as long
as there was no circulating traffic or traffic upstream from the left. O nly one circu-
lating vehicle would result in the platoon breaking down. Hence, the use of round-
abouts in a coordinated signalized network needs to be evaluated carefully. O ne
possibility for operating roundabouts within a signal network is to signalize the
major approaches of the roundabout and coordinate them with adjacent upstream
and downstream signalized intersections.
CONTENTS
Another circumstance in which a roundabout may be advantageous is as an alter-
native to signal control at a critical signalized intersection within a coordinated net-
work. Such intersections are the bottlenecks and usually determine the required
cycle length, or are placed at a signal system boundary to operate in isolated actu-
ated mode to minimize their effect on the rest of the surrounding system. I f a
roundabout can be designed to operate within its capacity, it may allow a lowering
of the system cycle length with resultant benefits to delays and queues at other
intersections.
Because roundabouts accommodate U-turns more easily than do signals, they may
also be useful as an access management tool. Left-turn exits from driveways onto
an arterial which may currently experience long delays and require two-stage left-
turn movements could be replaced with a simpler right turn, followed by a U-turn at
the next roundabout.
8.5.3 Wide nodes and narrow roads
The ultimate manifestation of roundabouts in a system context is to use them in
lieu of signalized intersections. Some European cities such as Nantes, France, and
some Australian cities have implemented such a policy. I t is generally recognized
that intersections (or nodes), not road segments (or links), are typically the bottle-
necks in urban roadway networks. A focus on maximizing intersection capacity
rather than widening streets may therefore be appropriate. Efficient, signalized
intersections, however, usually require that exclusive turn lanes be provided, with
sufficient storage to avoid queue spillback into through lanes and adjacent inter-
sections. I n contrast, roundabouts may require more right-of-way at the nodes, but
this may be offset by not requiring as many basic lanes on the approaches, relative
to signalized arterials. This concept is demonstrated in Exhibit 8-10.
Analysis tools, such as those provided in Chapter 4, should be used to evaluate the
arterial or network. These may be supplemented by appropriate use of microscopic
simulation models as discussed next. Supplemental techniques to increase the
capacity of critical approaches may be considered if necessary, such as bypass
lanes, flaring of approaches and tapering of exits, and signalization of some round-
about approaches.
Roundabouts as an access
management tool.
Roundabouts may require
more right-of-way at
intersections, but may also
allow fewer lanes (and less
right-of-way) between
intersections.
CONTENTS
Exhibit 8-10. Wide nodes and
narrow roads.
CONTENTS
8.6 Microscopic Simulation
M icroscopic simulation of traffic has become a valuable aid in assessing the system
performance of traffic flows on networks, as recognized by the Highway Capacity
M anual 2000 (7). Analysis of many of the treatments discussed in this chapter may
benefit from the use of appropriate simulation models used in conjunction with ana-
lytic models of isolated roundabouts discussed in Chapter 4. These effects include
more realistic modeling of arrival and departure profiles, time-varying traffic patterns,
measurement of delay, spatial extent and interaction of queues, fuel consumption,
emissions, and noise. However, the user must carefully select the appropriate mod-
els and calibrate the model for a particular use, either against field data, or other
validated analytic models. I t would also be advisable to check with others to see if
there have been any problems associated with the use of the model.
8.6.1 How to use simulation
M icroscopic simulation models are numerous and new ones are being developed,
while existing models are upgraded frequently. Each model may have particular
strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, when selecting a model, analysts should con-
sider the following:
Should a simulation model be used, or is an isolated analytic roundabout model
sufficient?
What are the model input requirements, are they sufficient, and how can they be
provided or estimated?
What outputs does the model provide in animated, graphical, or tabular form?
What special features of the model are pertinent to the problem being addressed?
Does the user manual for the simulation model specifically address modeling a
roundabout?
How sensitive is the model to various geometric parameters?
I s there literature on the validation of this model for evaluating roundabouts?
I s there sufficient information available on the microscopic processes being used
by the model such as car following, gap acceptance, lane changing, or steering?
(The availability of animation can assist in exposing model logic.)
Are relevant past project examples available?
When a simulation model is used, the analyst is advised to use the results to make
relative comparisons of the differences between results from changing conditions,
and not to conclude that the absolute values found from the model are equivalent to
field results. I t is also advisable to perform a sensitivity analysis by changing selected
parameters over a range and comparing the results. I f a particular parameter is found
CONTENTS
to affect the outcomes significantly, then more attention should be paid to accu-
rate representation and calibration of this parameter. Finally, the analyst should
check differences in results from using different random number seeds. I f the dif-
ferences are large, then the simulation time should be increased substantially.
8.6.2 Examples of simulation models
Five commercially available microscopic simulation models are CO RSI M , I ntegra-
tion, Simtraffic, Paramics, and VI SSI M . The first three are North American models;
Paramics is from Scotland, and VI SSI M is from Germany. The following sections
present a brief overview of each model. Since software packages (and simulation
models in particular) are in constant development, the user is encouraged to con-
sult the most current information available on each model.
Simulation results are best
used for relative comparisons,
rather than relying on absolute
values produced by the model.
Exhibit 8-11. Summary of
simulation models for
roundabout analysis.
Name Scope Notes (1999 versions)
CO RSI M Urban streets, freeways FHWA has been investigating modifications that may be required for CO RSI M to
adequately model controls such as stop and yield control at roundabouts through
gap acceptance logic. I n this research, roundabouts have been coded as a circle
of four yield-controlled T-intersections. The effect of upstream signals on each
approach and their relative offsets has also been reported (8).
I ntegration Urban streets, freeways I ntegration has documented gap acceptance logic for permitted movements at
signal-, yield-, and stop-controlled intersections. As with CO RSI M , I ntegration
requires coding a roundabout simply as a series of short links and nodes with
yield control on the entrances.
Simtraffic Urban streets Simtraffic is a simulation model closely tied to the signal timing software package
Synchro. Simtraffic has the capability to model unsignalized intersections and
thus may be suitable for modeling roundabouts. However, no publications to date
have demonstrated the accuracy of Simtraffic in modeling roundabout operations.
Paramics Urban streets, freeways Paramics has been used in the United Kingdom and internationally for a wide
range of simulation projects. I t has been specifically compared with ARCADY in
evaluating roundabouts (9). The model has a coding feature to automatically code
a roundabout intersection at a generic node, which may then be edited. The
model has been used in the United Kingdom for a number of actual roundabout
evaluations. The model specifically employs a steering logic on the circulatory
roadway to track a vehicle from an entry vector to a target exit vector (10).
VI SSI M Urban streets, transit networks VI SSI M is widely used in Germany for modeling urban road and transit networks,
including roundabouts. Roundabout examples are provided with the software,
including explicit modeling of transit and pedestrians. M odeling a roundabout
requires detailed coding of link connectors, control, and gap acceptance
parameters (11).
CONTENTS
8.7 Ref erences
1. Brown, M . TRL State of the Art Review The Design of Roundabouts. London:
HM SO , 1995.
2. Hallworth, M .S. Signalling Roundabouts. I n Traffic Engineering + Control, Vol.
33, No. 6, June 1992.
3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). M anual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, 1988.
4. Federal Highway Administration. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook,
2nd edition. Report number FHWA-TS-86-215, September 1986.
5. Centre D Etudes sur les Rseaux, les Transports, l Urbanisme, et les Construc-
tions Publiques (CERTU) (Center for Studies on Transportation Networks, Urban
Planning, and Public Works). Carrefours Urbains (Urban I ntersections) Guide.
Lyon, France: CERTU, January 1999.
6. Department of Transport (United Kingdom). Geometric Design of Roundabouts.
TD 16/93. September 1993.
July 1999 (draft).
8. Courage, K.G. Roundabout M odeling in CO RSI M . Presented at the Third I nter-
national Symposium on I ntersections without Traffic Signals, Portland, O regon,
U.S.A., 1997.
9. Paramics, Ltd. Comparison of Arcady and Paramics for Roundabout Flows.
Version 0.3. August 23, 1996.
10. Duncan, G. Paramics Technical Report: Car-Following, Lane-Changing and Junc-
tion M odelling. Edinburgh, Scotland: Q uadstone, Ltd., 1997.
11. I nnovative Transportation Concepts, LLC. VI SSI M User M anual. Program Ver-
sion 2.322.36. November 10, 1997.
CONTENTS
231 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Glossary
Glossary
85th-percentile speeda speed value obtained from a set of field-measured speeds where
only 15 percent of the observed speeds are greater (source: HCM 2000).
AADTsee average annual daily traffic.
AASHOAmerican Association of State Highway Officials. Predecessor to AASHTO.
AASHTOAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
accessibledescribes a site, building, facility, or portion thereof that complies with the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (source: ADAAG).
accessible routea continuous, unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and
spaces of a building or facility. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles,
curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps, and lifts (source: ADAAG).
accidentsee crash.
ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act.
ADAAGAmericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
all-way stop controlall approaches at the intersections have stop signs where all drivers
must come to a complete stop. The decision to proceed is based in part on the rules of the
road, which suggest that the driver on the right has the right-of-way, and also on the traffic
conditions of the other approaches (source: HCM 2000).
angle, entrysee entry angle.
approachthe portion of a roadway leading into a roundabout.
approach capacitythe capacity provided at the yield line during a specified period of time.
approach curvaturea series of progressively sharper curves used on an approach to slow
traffic to a safe speed prior to reaching the yield line.
approach road half-widthterm used in the United Kingdom regression models. The ap-
proach half width is measured at a point in the approach upstream from any entry flare, from
the median line or median curb to the nearside curb along a line perpendicular to the curb. See
also approach width. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
approach speedthe posted or 85th-percentile speed on an approach prior to any geometric
or signing treatments designed to slow speeds.
approach widththe width of the roadway used by approaching traffic upstream of any
changes in width associated with the roundabout. The approach width is typically no more
than half the total roadway width.
apronthe mountable portion of the central island adjacent to the circulatory roadway. Used
in smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles.
average annual daily trafficthe total volume passing a point or segment of a highway
facility in both directions for one year divided by the number of days in the year (source: HCM
2000).
average effective flare lengthterm used in the United Kingdom regression models. De-
fined by a geometric construct and is approximately equivalent to the length of flare that can
be effectively used by vehicles. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
AWSCsee all-way stop control.
back of queuethe distance between the yield line of a roundabout and the farthest reach of
an upstream queue, expressed as a number of vehicles. The vehicles previously stopped at
the front of the queue may be moving (adapted from HCM 2000).
A
B
CONTENTS
benefit-cost analysisa method of economic evaluation that uses the benefit-cost ratio as
the measure of effectiveness.
benefit-cost ratiothe difference in benefits between an alternative and the no-build sce-
nario, divided by the difference in costs between the alternative and the no-build scenario.
See also incremental benefit-cost ratio.
bulb-outsee curb extension.
capacitythe maximum sustainable flow rate at which persons or vehicles can be reason-
ably expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified
time period under a given roadway, geometric, traffic, environmental, and control conditions.
Usually expressed as vehicles per hour, passenger cars per hour, or persons per hour (source:
HCM 2000).
capacity, approachsee approach capacity.
capacity, roundaboutsee roundabout capacity.
capital recovery factora factor that converts a present value cost into an annualized cost
over a period of n years using an assumed discount rate of i percent.
central islandthe raised area in the center of a roundabout around which traffic circulates.
CFRCode of Federal Regulations.
channelizationthe separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite
paths of travel by traffic islands or pavement marking to facilitate the safe and orderly move-
ments of both vehicles and pedestrians (source: 1994 AASHTO Green Book).
circle, inscribedsee inscribed circle.
circular intersectionan intersection that vehicles traverse by circulating around a central
island.
circulating flowsee circulating volume.
circulating path radiusthe minimum radius on the fastest through path around the central
island.
circulating trafficvehicles located on the circulatory roadway.
circulating volumethe total volume in a given period of time on the circulatory roadway
immediately prior to an entrance.
circulatory roadwaythe curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counterclockwise fash-
ion around the central island.
circulatory roadway widththe width between the outer edge of the circulatory roadway
and the central island, not including the width of any apron.
circulating speedthe speed vehicles travel at while on the circulatory roadway.
community enhancement roundabouta roundabout used for aesthetic or community
enhancement reasons, rather than as a solution to traffic problems. When used, often located
in commercial and civic districts.
conflict pointa location where the paths of two vehicles, or a vehicle and a bicycle or
pedestrian, merge, diverge, cross, or queue behind each other.
conflict, crossingsee crossing conflict.
conflict, divergesee diverge conflict.
conflict, mergesee merge conflict.
conflict, queuingsee queuing conflict.
conflicting flowsthe two paths that merge, diverge, cross, or queue behind each other at
a conflict point.
control delaydelay experienced by vehicles at an intersection due to movements at slower
speeds and stops on approaches as vehicles move up in the queue.
C
CONTENTS
crasha collision between a vehicle and another vehicle, a pedestrian, a bicycle, or a fixed
object.
crash frequencythe average number of crashes at a location per period of time.
crash ratethe number of crashes at a location or on a roadway segment, divided by the
number of vehicles entering the location or by the length of the segment.
CRFsee capital recovery factor.
crossing conflictthe intersection of two traffic streams, including pedestrians. Crossing
conflicts are the most severe type of conflict.
curb extensionthe construction of curbing such that the width of a street is reduced. Often
used to provide space for parking or a bus stop or to reduce pedestrian crossing distances.
curb rampa short ramp cutting through a curb or built up to it (source: ADAAG).
curvature, approachsee approach curvature.
D factorthe proportion of the two-way traffic assigned to the peak direction.
deflectionthe change in trajectory of a vehicle imposed by geometric features of the road-
way.
degree of saturationsee volume-to-capacity ratio.
delayadditional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian beyond what
would reasonably be desired for a given trip.
delay, controlsee control delay.
delay, geometricsee geometric delay.
demand flowthe number of vehicles or persons that would like to use a roadway facility
during a specified period of time.
departure widththe width of the roadway used by departing traffic downstream of any
changes in width associated with the roundabout. The departure width is typically no more
than half the total roadway width.
design userany user (motorized or nonmotorized) that can be reasonably be anticipated to
use a facility.
design vehiclethe largest vehicle that can reasonably be anticipated to use a facility.
detectable warning surfacea standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking
surfaces or other elements to warn visually impaired people of hazards on a circulation path
(source: ADAAG).
diameter, inscribed circlesee inscribed circle diameter.
distance, set-backsee set-back distance.
diverge conflictthe separation of two traffic streams, typically the least severe of all con-
flicts.
double-lane roundabouta roundabout that has at least one entry with two lanes, and a
circulatory roadway that can accommodate more than one vehicle traveling side-by-side.
downstreamthe direction toward which traffic is flowing (source: HCM 2000).
entering trafficvehicles located on a roundabout entrance.
entering volumethe total volume in a given period of time on an entrance to a roundabout.
entry angleterm used in the United Kingdom regression models. It serves as a geometric
proxy for the conflict angle between entering and circulating streams and is determined through
a geometric construct. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
entry flarethe widening of an approach to multiple lanes to provide additional capacity at
the yield line and storage.
entry flowsee entering volume.
D
E
CONTENTS
entry path curvatureterm used in the United Kingdom to describe a measure of the amount
of entry deflection to the right imposed on vehicles at the entry to a roundabout. (source: UK
Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
entry path radiusthe minimum radius on the fastest through path prior to the yield line.
entry radiusthe minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the entry.
entry speedthe speed a vehicle is traveling at as it crosses the yield line.
entry widththe width of the entry where it meets the inscribed circle, measured perpen-
dicularly from the right edge of the entry to the intersection point of the left edge line and the
inscribed circle.
entry, perpendicularsee perpendicular entry.
exit path radiusthe minimum radius on the fastest through path into the exit.
exit radiusthe minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the exit.
exit widththe width of the exit where it meets the inscribed circle, measured perpendicu-
larly from the right edge of the exit to the intersection point of the left edge line and the
inscribed circle.
exiting trafficvehicles departing a roundabout by a particular exit.
extended splitter islandsee splitter island, extended.
FHWAFederal Highway Administration.
flaresee entry flare.
flare, entrysee entry flare.
flow, circulatingsee circulating volume.
flow, demandsee demand flow.
flow, entrysee entry volume.
flows, conflictingsee conflicting flows.
geometric delaythe delay caused by the alignment of the lane or the path taken by the
vehicle on a roadway or through an intersection.
geometric designa term used in this document to describe the design of horizontal and
vertical alignment and cross-sectional elements of a roadway.
give wayterm used in the United Kingdom and Australia for yield.
give way rulerule adopted in the United Kingdom in November 1966 which required that
all vehicles entering a roundabout give way, or yield, to circulating vehicles.
HCMHighway Capacity Manual.
IESIlluminating Engineers Society.
incremental benefit-cost ratiothe difference in benefits between two alternatives, divided
by the difference in costs between the two alternatives. See also benefit-cost ratio.
inscribed circlethe circle forming the outer edge of the circulatory roadway.
inscribed circle diameterthe basic parameter used to define the size of a roundabout,
measured between the outer edges of the circulatory roadway. It is the diameter of the larg-
est circle that can be inscribed within the outline of the intersection.
interchangea grade-separated junction of two roadways, where movement from one road-
way to the other is provided for.
F
G
H
I
CONTENTS
intersectionan at-grade junction of two or more roadways.
intersection sight distancethe distance required for a driver without the right-of-way to
perceive and react to the presence of conflicting vehicles.
island, centralsee central island.
island, mediansee splitter island.
island, separatorsee splitter island.
island, splittersee splitter island.
ITEInstitute of Transportation Engineers.
K factorthe proportion of the AADT assigned to the design hour.
left-turn path radiusthe minimum radius on the fastest path of the conflicting left-turn
movement.
level of servicea qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream,
generally described in terms of service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience.
line, yieldsee yield line.
lockingstoppage of traffic on the circulatory roadway caused by queuing backing into the
roundabout from one of the exits, resulting in traffic being unable to enter or circulate.
LOSsee level of service.
maximum service volumethe maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles, or per-
sons can be reasonably expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during
an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service.
(source: HCM 2000)
measures of effectivenessa quantitative parameter whose value is an indicator of the
performance of a transportation facility or service from the perspective of the users of the
facility or service.
median islandsee splitter island.
merge conflictthe joining of two traffic streams.
mini-roundaboutsmall roundabouts used in low-speed urban environments. The central
island is fully mountable, and the splitter islands are either painted or mountable.
model, crash predictionsee crash prediction model.
modern roundabouta term used to distinguish newer circular intersections conforming to
the characteristics of roundabouts from older-style rotaries and traffic circles.
m.o.e.see measures of effectiveness.
mountableused to describe geometric features that can be driven upon by vehicles with-
out damage, but not intended to be in the normal path of traffic.
multilane roundabouta roundabout that has at least one entry with two or more lanes,
and a circulatory roadway that can accommodate more than one vehicle traveling side-by-
side.
MUTCDManual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
neighborhood traffic circlea circular intersection constructed at the intersection of two
local streets for traffic calming and/or aesthetic purposes. They are generally not channelized,
may be uncontrolled or stop-controlled, and may allow left turns to occur left (clockwise) of
the central island.
K
L
M
N
CONTENTS
nonconforming traffic circlesee traffic circle.
nontraversablesee raised.
O&M costsoperations and maintenance costs.
peak hour factorthe hourly volume during the maximum-volume hour of the day divided by
the peak 15-minute flow rate within the peak hour; a measure of traffic demand fluctuation
within the peak hour.
pedestrian refugean at-grade opening within a median island that allows pedestrians to
safely wait for an acceptable gap in traffic.
perpendicular entryan entry angle of 70 degrees or more.
PHFsee peak hour factor.
platoona group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either voluntarily
or involuntarily because of signal control, geometrics, or other factors.
point, conflictsee conflict point.
prioritythe assignment of right-of-way to a particular traffic stream or movement.
progression, signalsee signal progression.
queuea line of vehicles, bicycles, or persons waiting to be served by the system in which
the flow rate from the front of the queue determines the average speed within the queue.
Slowly moving vehicles or persons joining the rear of the queue are usually considered a part
of the queue. The internal queue dynamics may involve a series of starts and stops. (source:
HCM 2000)
queuing conflicta conflict that arises within a traffic stream between a lead vehicle and a
following vehicle, when the lead vehicle must come to a stop.
radius, circulating pathsee circulating path radius.
radius, entrysee entry radius.
radius, entry pathsee entry path radius.
radius, exitsee exit radius.
radius, exit pathsee exit path radius.
radius, left-turn pathsee left-turn path radius.
radius, right-turn pathsee right-turn path radius.
raisedused to describe geometric features with a sharp elevation change that are not in-
tended to be driven upon by vehicles at any time.
ramp, wheelchairsee wheelchair ramp.
refuge, pedestriansee pedestrian refuge.
right-of-way(1) an intersection user that has priority over other users. (2) Land owned by a
public agency for transportation uses.
right-turn bypass lanea lane provided adjacent to, but separated from, the circulatory
roadway, that allows right-turning movements to bypass the roundabout. Also known as a
right-turn slip lane.
right-turn path radiusthe minimum radius on the fastest path of a right-turning vehicle.
right-turn slip lanesee right-turn bypass lane.
roadway, circulatorysee circulatory roadway.
O
P
Q
R
CONTENTS
rotarya term used particularly in the Eastern U.S. to describe an older-style circular inter-
section that does not have one or more of the characteristics of a roundabout. They often have
large diameters, often in excess of 100 m (300 ft), allowing high travel speeds on the circula-
tory roadway. Also known as a traffic circle.
roundabouta circular intersection with yield control of all entering traffic, channelized ap-
proaches, counter-clockwise circulation, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure that
travel speeds on the circulatory roadway are typically less than 50 km/h (30 mph).
roundabout capacitythe maximum number of entering vehicles that can be reasonably
expected to be served by a roundabout during a specified period of time.
roundabout, community enhancementsee community enhancement roundabout.
roundabout, modernsee modern roundabout.
roundabout, multilanesee multilane roundabout.
roundabout, rural double-lanesee rural double-lane roundabout.
roundabout, rural single-lanesee rural single-lane roundabout.
roundabout, single lanesee single-lane roundabout.
roundabout, urban compactsee urban compact roundabout.
roundabout, urban single-lanesee urban single-lane roundabout.
rural double-lane roundabouta roundabout located in a rural area that has at least one
entry with two lanes, and a circulatory roadway that can accommodate more than one vehicle
traveling side-by-side. They incorporate approach curvature to slow entering traffic to a safe
speed.
rural single-lane roundabouta roundabout located in a rural area that has single lanes on
all entries and one circulatory lane. This form typically has larger diameters and more tangen-
tial exits than urban forms.
separator islandsee median island.
service volumethe hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles, or persons can be reasonably
expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific
assumed conditions. See also maximum service volume. (Adapted from HCM 2000)
set-back distancethe distance between the edge of the circulatory roadway and the side-
walk.
sharpness of flarea measure of the rate at which extra width is developed in the entry
flare. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
sight distance, intersectionsee intersection sight distance.
sight distance, stoppingsee stopping sight distance.
sight trianglean area required to be free of obstructions to enable visibility between con-
flicting movements.
signal progressionthe use of coordinated traffic signals along a roadway in order to mini-
mize stops and delay to through traffic on the major road.
single-lane roundabouta roundabout that has single lanes on all entries and one circula-
tory lane.
speed tablean extended, flat-top road hump sometimes used at pedestrian crossings to
slow traffic and to provide a better visual indication of the crosswalk location.
speed, approachsee approach speed.
speed, circulatingsee circulating speed.
speed, entrysee entry speed.
S
CONTENTS
splitter islanda raised or painted area on an approach used to separate entering from exit-
ing traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and provide storage space for pedestrians cross-
ing that intersection approach in two stages. Also known as a median island or a separator
island.
splitter island, extendeda raised splitter island that begins some distance upstream of the
pedestrian crossing to separate entering and exiting traffic. A design feature of rural round-
abouts.
stopping sight distancethe distance along a roadway required for a driver to perceive and
react to an object in the roadway and to brake to a complete stop before reaching that object.
traffic calminggeometric treatments used to slow traffic speeds or to discourage the use
of a roadway by nonlocal traffic.
traffic circlea circular intersection that does not have one or more of the characteristics of
a roundabout. Also known as a rotary.
traffic circle, neighborhoodsee neighborhood traffic circle.
traffic circle, nonconformingsee traffic circle.
traffic designa term used in this document to describe the design of traffic control devices,
including signing, pavement markings, and construction traffic control.
traffic, circulatingsee circulating traffic.
traffic, enteringsee entering traffic.
truck apronsee apron.
two-stage crossinga process in which pedestrians cross a roadway by crossing one direc-
tion of traffic at a time, waiting in a pedestrian refuge between the two traffic streams if
necessary before completing the crossing.
two-way stop-controlstop signs are present on the approach(es) of the minor street. Driv-
ers on the minor street or drivers turning left from the major street wait for a gap in the major
street traffic in order to complete a maneuver.
TWSCsee two-way stop control.
U-turna turning movement at an intersection in which a vehicle departs the intersection
using the same roadway it used to enter the intersection.
upstreamthe direction from which traffic is flowing (source: HCM 2000).
urban compact roundabouta small roundabout with a raised central island and splitter
islands, with perpendicular approaches that require vehicles to make a distinct right turn into
the circulatory roadway.
urban double-lane roundaboutan urban roundabout with at least one entry with two
lanes, and a circulatory roadway that can accommodate more than one vehicle traveling side-
by-side. They have similar speed characteristics as urban single-lane roundabouts.
urban single-lane roundabouta roundabout with single lane entries on all legs and one
circulatory lane. Entries are less perpendicular than the urban compact roundabout, allowing
somewhat higher speeds with higher capacities.
UVCUniform Vehicle Code.
vehicle, designsee design vehicle.
volume, circulatingsee circulating volume.
volume, enteringsee entering volume.
volume, servicesee service volume.
volume-to-capacity ratiothe ratio of flow rate to capacity for a transportation facility.
V
U
T
CONTENTS
wheelchair rampsee curb ramp.
width, approachsee approach width.
width, circulatory roadwaysee circulatory roadway width.
width, departuresee departure width.
width, entrysee entry width.
width, exitsee exit width.
yieldan intersection control in which controlled traffic must stop only if higher priority traffic
is present.
yield linea pavement marking used to mark the point of entry from an approach into the
circulatory roadway and generally marked along the inscribed circle. If necessary, entering
traffic must yield to circulating traffic before crossing this line into the circulatory roadway.
zebra crossinga crossing marked by transverse white stripes where vehicles are required
to yield to pedestrians.
W
Y
Z
CONTENTS
Bibliography
5.1 U.S. References
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO). A Policy on Design of Urban High-
ways and Arterial Streets. Washington, D.C.: AASHO, 1973.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for De-
velopment of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1991.
. An Information Guide for Roadway Lighting. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1985.
. A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus Transit Improvements. Washing-
ton, D.C.: AASHTO, 1977.
. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1994.
. Roadside Design Guide. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1989.
. Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic
Signals. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 1994.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG).
36 CFR Part 1191. As amended through January 1998.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Wash-
ington, D.C.: FHWA, 1988.
. Older Driver Highway Design Handbook. Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-135. Washington,
D.C.: FHWA, January 1998.
. Standard Highway Signs. Washington, D.C.:, FHWA, 1979.
. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, 2nd edition. Report number FHWA-TS-86-
215, September 1986.
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). American National Standard Practice for Roadway Light-
ing. Standard RP-8. December 1982.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies (H.D.
Robertson, J.E. Hummer, and D.C. Nelson, ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
. Transportation Planning Handbook (J. Edwards, Jr., ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1992.
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO). Uniform Vehicle Code
and Model Traffic Ordinance. Evanston, Illinois: NCUTLO, 1992.
Pein, W.E. Trail Intersection Design Guidelines. Prepared for State Bicycle/Pedestrian Program,
State Safety Office, Florida Department of Transportation. Highway Safety Research Center,
University of North Carolina. September 1996.
CONTENTS
241 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Bibliography
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1994.
. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, July 1999 (draft).
5.2 Roundabout Design Guides
5.2.1 United States
Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Roundabout Guide. Florida Department of Trans-
portation, March 1996
Maryland Department of Transportation. Roundabout Design Guidelines. State of Maryland
Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, 1995.
Ourston & Doctors, Inc. Roundabout Design Guidelines. 1995.
5.2.2 Australia/New Zealand
Australia/New Zealand Standard. Road lighting. Part 1.3: Vehicular traffic (Category V) light-
ingGuide to design, installation, operation and maintenance. Report no. AS/NZS 1158.1.3:1997.
Published jointly by Homebush, New South Wales (Australia): Standards Australia and
Wellington (New Zealand): Standards New Zealand. 1997.
Austroads. Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 6Roundabouts. Sydney, Australia:
Austroads, 1993.
Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR), Road Planning and Design Guidelines (Draft),
Chapter 12, Section 12.4Roundabouts. Brisbane, Australia: QDMR, 1999.
Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR). Relationships between Roundabout Geom-
etry and Accident Rates. Queensland, Australia: Infrastructure Design of the Technology Divi-
sion of QDMR, April 1998.
Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), New South Wales (Australia). RoundaboutsGeometric
Design Method. January 1997.
Roundabouts: A Design Guide, National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, 1986.
5.2.3 Germany
Small Roundabouts: Recommendations for Application and Design, Nordrhein-Westfalen De-
partment of City Development and Traffic (MSV), prepared by Werner Brilon, Ruhr-University
Bochum; translated from German by Daniel J. Parrish, 1993.
Haller, et al. Merkblatt fr die Anlage von kleinen Kreisverkehrspltzen (Guideline for the Con-
struction of Small Roundabouts). Cologne, Germany: Forschungsgesellschaft fr Straen- und
Verkehrswesene. V., August 1998.
Department of Transport of Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany. Empfehlungen zum Einsatz und
zur Gestaltung von Mini-Kreisverkehrsplaetzen (Guidelines for the Use and Design of Mini-
Roundabouts). Dusseldorf, Germany, 1999.
CONTENTS
5.2.4 The Netherlands
C.R.O.W. Eenheid in rotondes (Uniformity in roundabouts). Publication 126. Ede, The Nether-
lands: C.R.O.W., March 1998.
Centrum voor Regelgeving en Onderzoek in de Grond-, Water- en Wegenbouw en de
Verkeerstechniek (C.R.O.W). Rotondes (Roundabouts). Ede, The Netherlands: C.R.O.W. De-
cember 1993.
5.2.5 United Kingdom
Department of Transport (United Kingdom). Geometric Design of Roundabouts. TD 16/93.
September 1993.
Sawers, C. Mini-roundabouts: Getting them right!. Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom: Euro-
Marketing Communications, 1996
5.2.6 France
Service dEtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (SETRACenter for Technical Studies of
Roads and Highways). Amnagement des Carrefours Interurbains sur les Routes Principales (De-
sign of Rural Intersections on Major Roads). Ministry of Transport and Housing, December 1998.
Centre dEtudes sur les Rseaux, les Transports, lUrbanisme et les constructions publiques
(CERTU). Lclairage des Carrefours Sens Giratoire (The Illumination of Roundabout Inter-
sections). Lyon, France: CERTU, 1991.
Centre dEtudes sur les Rseaux, les Transports, lUrbanisme, et les Constructions Publiques
(CERTU) (Center for Studies on Transportation Networks, Urban Planning, and Public Works).
Carrefours Urbains (Urban Intersections) Guide. Lyon, France: CERTU, January 1999.
5.2.7 Spain
Ministerio de Fomento. Recomendaciones sobre glorietas (Recommendations on roundabouts).
Ministerio de Fomento, Direccin General de Carreteras, 1996.
5.3 Books and Reports
5.3.1 United States
Bauer, K.M., and D.W. Harwood. Statistical Models of At-Grade Intersection Crashes. Report
No FHWA-RD-99-094. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1999.
Fambro, D.B., et al. NCHRP Report 400: Determination of Stopping Sight Distances. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997.
Garder, P. The Modern Roundabouts: The Sensible Alternative for Maine. Maine Department
of Transportation, Bureau of Planning, Research and Community Services, Transportation Re-
search Division, 1998.
Glauz, W.D., and D.J. Migletz. NCHRP Report 219: Application of Traffic Conflict Analysis at
Intersections. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1980.
CONTENTS
Harwood, D.W., et al. NCHRP Report 383: Intersection Sight Distances. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Use of Roundabouts, prepared by ITE Technical Council
Committee 5B-17, February 1992.
Jacquemart, G. Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Practice in the United
States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Washington, D.C: National Acad-
emy Press, 1998.
Krammes, R., et al. Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency for Rural Two-Lane Highways. Pub-
lication No. FHWA-RD-94-034. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, January 1995.
Migletz, D.J., W.D. Glauz, and K.M. Bauer. Relationships between Traffic Conflicts and Crashes.
Report No. FHWA-RD-84-042. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1985.
National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1998 Edition.
Ourston & Doctors, Inc. Designs of Modern American Roundabouts. September 1996.
Prince Georges County, Maryland. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Prince Georges
County (Maryland), Department of Public Works and Transportation, November 1995.
The Design and Evaluation of Roundabout Layouts, source unknown
Transportation Research Board. Review of International Practices Used to Evaluate Unsignalized
Intersections. Transportation Research Circular 468. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, April 1997.
5.3.2 United Kingdom
Brown, M. TRL State of the Art ReviewThe Design of Roundabouts. London: HMSO, 1995.
Department of Transport (United Kingdom). The Highway Code. Department of Transport and
the Central Office of Information for Her Majestys Stationery Office, 1996.
Kimber, R.M., and E.M. Hollis. Traffic queues and delays at road junctions. TRRL Laboratory
Report LR 909. Crowthorne, England: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1979.
Kimber, R.M. The traffic capacity of roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR 942. Crowthorne,
England: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1980.
Maycock, G., and R.D. Hall. Crashes at four-arm roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR
5.3.3 Australia
Australia. Traffic Act, Part 6A, 1962.
Troutbeck, R.J. Evaluating the Performance of a Roundabout. SR 45. Australian Road Re-
search Board, August 1989.
VicRoads. Victorian Traffic Handbook, Fourth Edition. Melbourne, Australia: Roads Corpora-
tion, 1998.
CONTENTS
5.3.4 Germany
Brilon, W., B. Stuwe, and O. Drews. Sicherheit und Leistungsfhigkeit von Kreisverkehrspltzen
(Safety and Capacity of Roundabouts). Research Report. Ruhr-University Bochum, 1993.
Empfehlungen zum Einsatz und zur Gestaltung kleiner Kresverkehrsplatze, Freistaat Sahsen
Einsatz-Und Gestaltung von Kreisverkehrsplatzen an Bundersstrassen Ausserhalb Bebauter
Gebiete, Brilon, W. and Bondzio, L., Ruhr-Universitat Bochum (Juni 1995).
5.3.5 France
Acts du Seminaire: Giratoires 92 SETRA, CETUR.
5.3.6 The Netherlands
Schoon, C.C., and J. van Minnen. Accidents on Roundabouts: II. Second study into the road
hazard presented by roundabouts, particularly with regard to cyclists and moped riders. R-93-
16. The Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 1993.
5.4 Articles
Akelic, R., and R.J. Troutbeck, Implementation of the Australian roundabout analysis method
in SIDRA, In Highway Capacity and Level of Service: Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Highway Capacity (U. Brannolte, ed.), Karlsruhe, Germany. Rotterdam, Germany:
Balkema Publisher, 1991, pp. 1734.
Akelik, R., and M. Besley, SIDRA 5 User Guide. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Road Re-
search Board Transport Research Ltd., January 1999.
Akelik, R., Lane-by-Lane Modeling of Unequal Lane Use and Flares at Roundabouts and
Signalized Intersection: the Sidra Solution, Traffic Engineering & Control, Vol. 38, No. 7/8, July/
August 1997.
Akelik, R., E. Chung, and M. Besley, Performance of Roundabouts under Heavy Demand
Conditions, Road & Transport Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 3650.
Akelik, R., E. Chung, and M. Besley, Getting Around Better, Pc-Trans, winter quarter 1997,
pp. 1419.
Alphand, F., U. Noelle, and B. Guichet, Evolution of Design Rules for Urban Roundabouts in
France, In Intersection without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.),
1991, pp. 126140.
Alphand, F., U. Noelle, and B. Guichet, Roundabouts and Road Safety: State of the Art in
France, In Intersections without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.),
1991, pp. 107125.
Arem, Bart van, Capacities and Delays at Roundabouts in The Netherlands, Proceedings of
Seminar H held at the PTRC Transport, Highways and Planning Summer Annual Meeting,
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, England, from 1418 Septem-
ber 1992, pp. 257267.
Armitage, D.J., and M. McDonald, Roundabout Capacity, Traffic Engineering & Control, Oc-
tober 1974.
CONTENTS
Arndt, O, Road Design Incorporating Three Fundamental Safety Parameters, Technology Trans-
fer Forums 5 & 6, Transport Technology Division, Main Roads Department, Queensland, Aus-
tralia, August 1998.
Avent, A.M., and R.A. Taylor, RoundaboutsAspects of their Design and Operations,
Queensland Division Technical Papers, Vol. 20, No. 17, 1979, pp. 110.
Bared, J.G., W. Prosser, and C. Tan Esse, State-of-the-Art Design of Roundabouts, In Trans-
portation Research Record 1579. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, 1997.
Bergh, T., Intersections Without Traffic SignalsSwedish Experience on Capacity and Traffic Safety,
Intersection without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 192213.
Brilon, W., N. Wu, and L. Bondzio, Unsignalized Intersections in GermanyA State of the Art
1997, In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections without Traffic
Signals (M. Kyte, ed.), Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. University of Idaho, 1997.
Brilon, W., and B. Stuwe, Capacity and Design of Traffic Circles in Germany, In Transportation
Research Record 1398. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, 1993.
Brilon, W., and L. Bondzio, Untersuchung von Mini-Kreisverkehrsplaetzen (Investigation of
Mini-Roundabouts). Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany, 1999.
Brilon, W., and L. Bondzio, White Paper: Summary of International Statistics on Roundabout
Safety (unpublished), July 1998.
Brilon, W., and M. Vandehey, RoundaboutsThe State of the Art in Germany, In ITE Journal,
November 1998.
Brilon, Werner, Traffic Engineering and the New German Highway Capacity Manual, Trans-
portation Research A, Vol. 28 A, No. 6, 1994, pp.469481.
Brilon, Werner, and Birgit Stuwe, Capacity and Safety of Roundabouts in West Germany,
Proceedings, 15th ARRB Conference, Vol. 15, Part 5, 1990, pp. 275281.
Brilon, Werner, Michael Grossmann, and Birgit Stuwe, Toward a New German Guideline for Ca-
pacity of Unsignalized Intersections, Transportation Research Record 1320, 1991, pp.168174.
Brude, U., and J. Larsson, The Safety of Cyclists at RoundaboutsA Comparison Between
Swedish, Danish and Dutch Results. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
(VTI), Nordic Road & Transport Research No. 1, 1997.
Cassidy, Michael J., Samer M. Madanat, Wang Mu-han, and Fan Yan, Unsignalized Intersec-
tion Capacity and Level of Service: Revisiting Critical Gap, Transportation Research Record
1484 (1995) pp. 1623.
Cedersund, H.A., Traffic Safety at Roundabouts, Intersection without Traffic Signals I, Springer-
Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 305318.
Centre dEtude des Transports Urbains (CETUR), Safety of Roundabouts in Urban and Subur-
ban Areas, Paris, 1992.
Chang, Stanley H., Overcoming Unbalanced Flow Problems at a Roundabouts by Use of
Part-Time Metering Signals, Masters Thesis, Monash University, January 1994.
CONTENTS
Chin, H.C., SIMRO: A Model to Simulate Traffic at Roundabouts, Traffic Engineering & Controls.
Chung, Edward, Comparison of Roundabout Capacity and Delay Estimates from Analytical
and Simulation Models, Proceedings, 16th ARRB Conference, Vol. 16, Part 5, 1992.
Courage, Kenneth G., Roundabout Modeling in CORSIM, presented at the Third Interna-
tional Symposium on Intersections without Traffic Signals, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.,1997.
CROW. Sign Up for the Bike: Design Manual for a Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure. The Nether-
lands: Center for Research and Standardization in Civil Engineering (CROW), 1993.
Crown, B., An Introduction to Some Basic Principles of U.K. Roundabout Design, presented at
the ITE District 6 Conference on Roundabouts, Loveland, Colorado, October 1998.
Department of Transport (United Kingdom), Killing Speed and Saving Lives, as reported in
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1995.
Department of Transport, Determination of Size of Roundabouts at Major/Minor Junctions,
Departmental Advice Note TA 23/81, 1981.
Dinwoodie, J., Surveying Traffic Delays at a Roundabout near Plymouth, Mathematics In
Transport Planning and Control (J.D. Criffiths, ed.), 1992, pp. 227286.
Duncan, G., Paramics Technical Report: Car-Following, Lane-Changing and Junction Model-
ling. Edinburgh, Scotland: Quadstone, Ltd., 1997.
Fisk, C.S., Traffic Performance Analysis at Roundabouts, Transportation Research Board, Vol.
25B, Bi. 2/3, 1991, pp. 89102.
Flannery, A., and T.K. Datta, Modern Roundabouts and Traffic Crash Experience in the United
States. In Transportation Research Record 1553. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, 1996.
Flannery, A., L. Elefteriadou, P. Koza, and J. McFadden, Safety, delay and capacity of single-
lane roundabouts in the United States. In Transportation Research Record 1646. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1998, pp. 6370.
Flannery, Aimee, and Tapan K. Datta, Operational Performance Measures of American Round-
abouts, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 1997, Washington D.C., Janu-
ary 1997.
Flannery, Aimee, and Tapan K. Datta, Operational Performance Measures of American Round-
abouts, 1996 ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1996.
Gambard, J.M., Safety and Design of Unsignalized Intersections in France, Intersection with-
out Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp.4861.
Guichet, B., Roundabouts In France: Development, Safety, Design, and Capacity. In Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections Without Traffic Signals (M.
Kyte, ed.), Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. University of Idaho, 1997.
Hagring, Ola, The Use of the Cowan M3 Distribution for Modeling Roundabout Flow, Traffic
Engineering & Control, May 1996, pp. 328332.
CONTENTS
Hakkert, A.S., D. Mahalel, and S.A. Asante, A Comparative Study of Roundabout Capacity
Procedures, Intersection without Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991,
pp. 93106.
Hallworth, M.S., Signalling Roundabouts, In Traffic Engineering + Control, Vol. 33, No. 6,
June 1992.
Harders, J., Grenz- und Folgezeitlcken als Grundlage fr die Berechnung der Leistungsfhigkeit
von Landstrassen (Critical gaps and follow-up times for capacity calculations at rural roads),
Schriftenreihe Strassenbau und Strassenverkehrstechnik, Vol. 216, 1976.
Heidemann, D., Queue lengths and waiting-time distributions at priority intersections. In
Transportation Research B, Vol. 25B, 4, pp. 163174, 1991.
Herms, B.F., Some Visual Aspects of Pedestrian Crosswalks. In Proceedings, 22nd Califor-
nia Street and Highway Conference, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles, January 1970.
Hoglund, Paul G., Case Study. Performance Effects of Changing a Traffic Signal Intersection
to Roundabout, Intersection without Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.),
1991, pp. 141158.
Horman, C.B., Design and Analysis of Roundabouts, Proceedings, 7th ARRB Conference,
Vol. 7, Part 4, 1974, pp. 5882.
Hughes, B.P., So You Think You Understand Gap Acceptance!, Australian Road Research
Board, 19(3), 1989, pp. 195204.
Innovative Transportation Concepts, LLC, VISSIMUser Manual. Program Version 2.322.36.
November 10, 1997.
ITE Technical Council Committee 5B-17, Use of Roundabouts, ITE Journal, February 1992,
pp. 4245.
Jessen, G.D., Ein Richtlinienvorschlag fr die Behandlung der Leistungsfhigkeit von
Knotenpunkten ohne Signalregelung (A guideline suggested for capacity calculations for
unsignalized intersections). Strassenverkehrstechnik, Nr. 7/8, 1968.
Jones, S.E., Signalling Roundabouts 2. Controlling the Revolution, Traffic Engineering & Con-
trol, Vol. 33, No. 11, November 1992, pp. 606613.
Kimber, R.M., Gap-Acceptance and Empiricism in Capacity Prediction, Transportation Sci-
ence, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1989.
Kimber, R.M., The Design of Unsignalized Intersections in the UK, Intersections Without
Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 2034.
Lalani, N., The impact on accidents of the introduction of mini, small and large roundabouts
at major/minor priority junctions. Traffic Engineering + Control, December 1975.
Lamm, R., and E. M. Choueiri, Recommendations for Evaluating Horizontal Design Consis-
tency Based on Investigations in the State of New York. In Transportation Research Record
1122. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1987.
Layfield, R.E., and G. Maycock, Pedal-Cyclists at Roundabouts, Traffic Engineering + Con-
trol, June 1986, pp. 343349.
CONTENTS
List, George, Siew Leong, Yursi Embong, Azizan Naim, and Jennifer Conley, Case Study Inves-
tigation of Traffic Circle Capacity, Transportation Research Record 1457, 1994, pp.118126.
Little, J.D.C., A Proof of the Queueing Formula L = W
. Operations Research 9, S. 383387,

1961.
McDonald, M.; and D.J. Armitage, The capacity of roundabouts, Traffic Engineering & Con-
trol, Vol. 19, October 1978, pp. 447450.
Minnen, J. van, Roundabouts, Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV, The Netherlands,
1986.
Myers, Edward J., Modern Roundabouts for Maryland, ITE Journal, October 1994, pp. 1822.
Niederhauser, M.E., B.A. Collins, E.J. Myers, The Use of Roundabouts: Comparison with
Alternate Design Solution, Compendium of Technical Papers, 67th Annual Meeting, Institute
of Transportation Engineers, August 1997.
Ourston, Leif, British Interchanges, Intersections, and Traffic Control Devices, Westernite,
Vol. XXXV, No. 5, SeptemberOctober 1992.
Ourston, Leif, Wide Nodes and Narrow Roads, paper presented to the Transportation Re-
search Board 72nd Annual Meeting, January 1014, 1993.
Ourston, Leif, and Joe G. Bared, Roundabouts: A Direct Way to Safer Highways, Public
Roads, Autumn 1995, pp. 4149.
Ourston, Leif, and Gregory A. Hall, Modern Roundabout Interchanges come to America,
1996 ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1996.
Paramics, Ltd., Comparison of Arcady and Paramics for Roundabout Flows, Version 0.3,
August 23, 1996.
Pearce, C.E.M., A Probabilistic Model for the Behavior of Traffic at Roundabout, Transporta-
tion Research Board, Vol. 21B, No. 3, 1987, pp. 207216. Washington, D.C., January 1997.
Rahman, Mountasser A., Design Criteria for Roundabouts, 1995 ITE Compendium of Techni-
cal Papers, 1995.
Redington, T., The Modern Roundabout Arrives in Vermont, AASJTP Quarterly Magazine,
Vol. 75, No. 1, 1995, pp. 1112.
Schoon, C., and J. van Minnen, The Safety of Roundabouts in The Netherlands, Traffic Engi-
neering & Control, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1994, pp. 142148.
Seim, K., Use, Design and Safety of Small Roundabouts in Norway, In Intersections Without
Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag, Germany (W. Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 270281.
Service dEtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (SETRA), Carrefours Giratoires: Evolu-
tion des Characteristiques Geometriques, Ministre de lEquipement, du Logement, de
lAmnagement du Territoire et des Transports, Documentation Technique 44, SETRA, August
1997, and 60, SETRA, May 1988.
SETRA/CETE de lOuest, Safety Concerns on Roundabouts, 1998.
CONTENTS
Simon, Michael J., Roundabouts in Switzerland, Intersection without Traffic Signals II, Springer-
Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 4152.
Smith, Mark J., Improved Signing for Traffic Circles, New Jersey Department of Transporta-
tion, FHWA/NJ-91-003 91-003-7350, 1990.
Smith, S.A., and R. L. Knoblauch, Guidelines for the Installation of Crosswalk Markings. In
Transportation Research Record 1141, Transportation Research Board, National Research Coun-
cil, Washington, D.C., 1987.
Stuwe, Birgit, Capacity and Safety of RoundaboutsGerman Results, Intersection Without
Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 112.
Tan, Jian-an, A Microscopic Simulation Model of Roundabout Entry Operations, Intersection
without Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 159176.
Taylor, Marie C., UK Techniques for the Prediction of Capacities, Queues, and Delays At
Intersections Without Traffic Signals, Intersection without Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag
(Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 274288.
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Traffic effects of a roundabout, Nordic Road &
Transport Research, No. 1, 1993, pp. 911.
Todd, K., A history of roundabouts in Britain, Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1, January
1991.
Troutbeck, R.J., Changes to Analysis and Design of Roundabouts Initiated in the Austroads
Guide Proceedings, 16th ARRB Conference, Vol. 16, Part 5, 1992.
Troutbeck, R.J., Capacity and Delays at RoundaboutsA Literature Review, Australian Road
Research Board, 14(4), 1984, pp. 205216.
Troutbeck, R.J., Capacity and Design of Traffic Circles in Australia, Transportation Research
Record 1398, 1993, pp. 6874.
Troutbeck, R.J., Current and Future Australian Practices for the Design of Unsignalized Inter-
sections, Intersection without Traffic Signals I, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp.
119.
Troutbeck, R.J., Does Gap Acceptance Theory Adequately Predict the Capacity of a Round-
about, Proceedings, 12th ARRB Conference, Vol. 12, Part 4, 1985, pp. 6275.
Troutbeck, R.J., Effect of Heavy Vehicles at Australian Traffic Circles and Unsignalized Inter-
sections, Transportation Research Record 1398, 1993, pp. 5460.
Troutbeck, R.J., Recent Australian Unsignalized Intersection Research and Practices, Inter-
section without Traffic Signals II, Springer-Verlag (Werner Brilon, ed.), 1991, pp. 238257.
Troutbeck, R.J., Traffic Interactions at Roundabouts, Proceedings, 15th ARRB Conference,
Vol. 15, Part 5, 1990.
Tudge, R.T., Accidents at Roundabouts in New South Wales, Proceedings, 15th ARRB Con-
ference, Vol. 15, Part 5, 1990.
Unknown source, RoundaboutsImplications of U.S. Implementation.
CONTENTS
Van Minnen, J., Safety of Bicyclists on Roundabouts Deserves Special Attention, SWOV
Institute of Road Safety Research in the Netherlands, Research Activities 5, March 1996.
Vogt, A., Crash Models for Rural Intersections: 4-Lane by 2-Lane Stop-Controlled and 2-Lane
by 2-Lane Signalized. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1999.
Wallwork, Michael J., Roundabouts, Genesis Group, Inc.
Wong, S.C., On the Reserve Capacities of Priority Junctions and Roundabouts, Transporta-
tion Research Board, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1996, pp. 441453.
Worthington, J.C., Roundabout Design: A Comparison of Practice in the UK and France,
Proceedings of Seminar H Held at the PTRC Transport, Highways and Planning Summer An-
nual Meeting, University of Manchester Institute of Science And Technology, England, 1418
September 1992, pp. 269279.
Wu, N., An Approximation for the Distribution of Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersec-
tions, In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity (R. Akelik,
ed.). Sydney, Australia: Australian Road Research Board, 1994.
5.5 Video Cassettes
Ourston & Doctors, Inc. I-70/Vail Road.
. Nonconforming Traffic Circle Becomes Modern Roundabout.
. Snow at Roundabouts.
Maryland DOT. Modern Roundabouts.
CONTENTS
251 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Appendix A: Operational Analysis Formulas
This appendix presents the assumptions used to develop the graphs and charts in
the operational analysis presented in Chapter 4.
A.1 Single-Lane Roundabout
A.1.1 Equations
(A-1)
where: Q
e
= entry capacity, pce/h
Q
c
= circulating flow, pce/h
k
r
=
1 0 00347 30 0 978
1
0 05 . ( ) . . (A-2)
F x = 303
2
(A-3)
f t x
c D
= + 0 210 1 0 2
2
. ( . )
(A-4)
t
D
D
= +
+

1
0 5
1
60
10
.
exp
(A-5)
x v
e v
S
2
1 2
= +

+
(A-6)
S
e v
l
=

1 6 . ( )
(A-7)
where: e = entry width, m
v = approach half width, m
l = effective flare length, m
S = sharpness of flare, m/m
D = inscribed circle diameter, m
= entry angle, degrees
r = entry radius, m
Q k F f Q f Q F
f Q F
e c c c c
c c
=
= >
( ),
, 0
Appendix A
Operational Analysis Formulas
CONTENTS
A.1.2 Parameter assumptions
D = 40 m
r
e
= 20 m
= 30 degrees
v = 4 m
e = 4 m
l = 40 m
S
e v
l
=

=

=
1 6 1 6 4 4
40
0
. ( ) . ( )
t
D
D
= +
+

= 1
0 5
1
60
10
1 4404
.
exp
.
x v
e v
S
2
1 2
4
4 4
1 2 0
4 = +

+
= +

+
=
( )
F x = = = 303 303 4 1212
2
( )
f t x
c D
= + = 0 210 1 0 2 0 5447
2
. ( . ) .
k
r
=
= 1 0 00347 30 0 978
1
0 05 1 . ( ) . .
A.1.3 Final equation
Q Q
e c
= 1212 0 5447 .
(A-8)
A.2 Double-Lane Roundabout
A.2.1 Equations
See Section A.1.1.
A.2.2 Parameter assumptions
D = 55 m
r
e
= 20 m
= 30 degrees
v = 8 m
e = 8 m
l = 40 m
For design purposes, when e = v
then l is effectively zero.
However, setting l = 0 results in
S being undefined. Therefore a
non-zero value of l has been
selected. When e = v, any
non-zero value of l results in
S = 0 and x
2
= v.
For design purposes, when e = v
then l is effectively zero.
However, setting l = 0 results in
S being undefined. Therefore a
non-zero value of l has been
selected. When e = v, any
non-zero value of l results in
S = 0 and x
2
= v.
CONTENTS
S
e v
l
=

=

=
1 6 1 6 8 8
40
0
. ( ) . ( )
t
D
D
= +
+

= 1
0 5
1
60
10
1 3112
.
exp
.
x v
e v
S
2
1 2
8
8 8
1 2 0
8 = +

+
= +

+
=
( )
F x = = = 303 303 8 2424
2
( )
f t x
c D
= + = 0 210 1 0 2 0 7159
2
. ( . ) .
k
r
=
= 1 0 00347 30 0 978
1
0 05 1 . ( ) . .
A.2.3 Final equation
Q Q
e c
= 2424 0 7159 .
(A-9)
A.3 Urban Compact Roundabout
The capacity curve for the urban compact roundabout is based on the capacity
curves developed for roundabouts in Germany with single-lane entries and a single-
lane circulatory roadway. This equation, developed by Brilon, Wu, and Bondzio is as
follows:
Q Q
e c
= 1218 0 74 .
(A-10)
where: Q
e
= entry capacity, pce/h
Q
c
= circulating flow, pce/h
CONTENTS
A.4 Short Lanes
The effect of short lanes (flare) on capacity has been documented by Wu (3). Page
321 of Wus paper states that for a right flared approach,
k
x x x
f right
L T
n
R
n n
F right F right F right
,
( )
, , ,
=
+ +
+ + +
1
1 1 1
(A-11)
Dropping some subscripts,
k
x x
LT
n
R
n n
=
+
+ + +
1
1 1 1
( ) ( )
(A-12)
Noting that the capacities of each lane are the same and that the flows are the
same (that is, the entries are constantly fed with vehicles), this gives:
k
x
n
=
+
1
2
1
(A-13)
with x
LT
= x
R
. Capacity q
max
is then
q k q
i max
=
(A-14)
where q
i
is flow in lane i and q
1
=q
2
q
q
x
n
max
=
+
2
2
1
(A-15)
q
max2
is the capacity of a two-lane roundabout, the capacity of each entry lane is
q
max2
/2 and this is equal to the flow, q, divided by the degree of saturation, x.
q
q
n
max
max 2
=
+
2
1
(A-16)
The results of Equation A-16 can be compared with the results from the British
equations. The TRL equations are listed above. The results are listed for four circu-
lating flow conditions: 500 veh/h,1000 veh/h, 1500 veh/h, and 2000 veh/h.
CONTENTS
Q
c
= 500 veh/h Q
c
=1000 veh/h Q
c
=1500 veh/h Q
c
=2000 veh/h
n TRL Wu TRL Wu TRL Wu TRL Wu
0 940 940 668 668 395 395 123 123
1 1447 1461 1151 1208 855 955 559 702
2 1636 1640 1321 1356 1006 1072 691 787
3 1737 1737 1411 1436 1086 1135 761 834
4 1799 1799 1468 1487 1136 1175 805 864
5 1841 1841 1506 1522 1170 1203 835 884
6 1872 1871 1534 1547 1195 1223 857 899
7 1896 1895 1555 1566 1214 1238 873 910
8 1914 1913 1571 1581 1229 1250 886 919
9 1929 1928 1585 1594 1240 1260 896 926
10 1941 1940 1596 1604 1250 1268 905 932
11 1951 1950 1605 1612 1258 1274 912 936
12 1960 1959 1612 1619 1265 1280 918 941
13 1967 1966 1619 1626 1271 1285 923 944
14 1974 1973 1625 1631 1276 1289 928 947
15 1979 1978 1630 1636 1281 1293 931 950
16 1984 1983 1635 1640 1285 1296 935 952
17 1989 1988 1639 1644 1288 1299 938 955
18 1993 1992 1642 1647 1292 1302 941 957
19 1996 1996 1645 1650 1294 1304 943 958
20 2000 1999 1648 1653 1297 1306 946 960
2066 2066 1708 1708 1350 1350 992 992
Exhibit A-2. Graphical
comparison of TRL and Wu
short-lane methodologies.
Exhibit A-1. Tabular
comparison of TRL and Wu
short-lane methodologies.
CONTENTS
A.5 References
1. Kimber, R.M. The traffic capacity of roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR
2. Brilon , W., N. Wu, and L. Bondzio. Unsignalized Intersections in Germany A
State of the Art 1997. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Intersections without Traffic Signals (ed: M. Kyte), Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. Uni-
versity of Idaho, 1997.
3. Wu, N. Capacity of shared/short lanes at unsignalized intersections. In
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Intersections without Traf-
fic Signals (ed: M. Kyte), Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. University of Idaho, 1997.
CONTENTS
257 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Appendix B: Example Roundabout Designs
The purpose of this Appendix is to provide examples for each of the six roundabout
categories. Exhibit B-1 lists typical inscribed circle diameter ranges for each round-
about category. Note that the flared-entry roundabout uses the same range of
inscribed circle diameters as the double-lane roundabouts. Note that the dimen-
sions of roundabouts may vary considerably within each category, depending on
site-specific characteristics, including number of legs, approach angles, design
vehicle requirements, and so on. Refer to Chapter 6 for more discussion of specific
dimensions.
Mini-roundabout 1325 m (4580 ft)
Urban compact 2530 m (80100 ft)
Urban single lane 3040 m (100130 ft)
Urban double lane 4555 m (150180 ft)
Rural single lane 3540 m (115130 ft)
Rural double lane 5560 m (180200 ft)
Inscribed Circle
Site Category Diameter Range
The following pages show examples for each of the roundabout categories:
Exhibit B-2: Typical mini-roundabout.
Exhibit B-3: Typical urban compact roundabout.
Exhibit B-4: Typical urban single-lane roundabout.
Exhibit B-5: Typical urban double-lane roundabout.
Exhibit B-6: Typical flared-entry roundabout.
Exhibit B-7: Typical rural single-lane roundabout.
Exhibit B-8: Typical rural double-lane roundabout.
Exhibit B-1. Typical inscribed
circle diameter ranges by
roundabout category.
Example Roundabout Designs
Appendix B
CONTENTS
Exhibit B-2. Example of a
typical mini-roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical urban compact
roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical single-lane roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical urban double-lane
roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical flared-entry roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical rural single-lane
roundabout.
CONTENTS
typical rural double-lane
roundabout.
CONTENTS
265 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Appendix C : MUTC D Rec ommendations
The purpose of this Appendix is to provide the rationale behind recommended
deviations from the current (1988 edition) or proposed (2000 edition) M anual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M UTCD). The following devices are discussed:
YI ELD Sign
Roundabout Ahead Sign
C.1 Yield Sign
The proposed use of the YI ELD sign in the Guide is generally consistent with the
M UTCD. However, the M UTCD contains language that generally discourages the
use of YI ELD signs for controlling the major flow at an intersection and the use of
YI ELD signs on more than one approach (M UTCD, 2B-8). This language predates
the consideration of roundabouts and should be modified in the next edition of the
M UTCD.
C.2 Roundabout Ahead Sign
As an alternative to the Circular I ntersection sign, a Roundabout Ahead sign has
been proposed. This sign, along with a supplemental advisory speed plate (W13-1),
is shown in Exhibit C-1.
Exhibit C-1. Roundabout
Ahead sign with advisory
speed plate (W13-1).
This sign should be used on all approaches to a roundabout. The purpose of a
Roundabout Ahead sign is to convey to a driver that the driver is approaching an
intersection with the form of a roundabout. The intent of this sign is to be similar in
function to the other intersection warning signs (e.g., CRO SS ROAD (W2-1) signs),
for example, which convey that the driver is approaching intersections of those
forms. Unlike those signs, however, the Roundabout Ahead sign is recommended
for all roundabouts, not just visually obscured locations.
C.2.1 Need
The 1988 edition of the M UTCD provides no sign related to roundabouts. The clos-
est applicable sign is the YI ELD AHEAD sign, either in word message or symbolic
form (W3-2 or W3-2a, respectively). While this sign is necessary for indicating an
upcoming traffic control device, it does not provide any information to the driver
that the upcoming yield sign is for a roundabout. Driver behavior, lane assignments,
MUTCD Recommendation
Appendix C
CONTENTS
and driver expectation are much different for roundabouts than for traditional yield-
controlled locations (typically low-volume streets or right-turn bypass lanes). I den-
tification that a roundabout is upcoming is particularly important for multilane ap-
proaches so that drivers can anticipate and move into the proper lane in advance of
the roundabout. Therefore, some indication that a driver is approaching a round-
about is essential, especially given the relative rarity of roundabouts in the United
States.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) has adopted
the Circular I ntersection sign shown in Exhibit C-2, and this sign is being consid-
ered for adoption by FHWA.
Exhibit C-2. Circular
Intersection sign.
C.2.2 Existing Practice
Due to the lack of a standard Roundabout Ahead sign, jurisdictions in the U.S.
have experimented with a variety of warning signs, sometimes with multiple varia-
tions within the same jurisdiction. Examples of these are shown in Exhibit C-3. As
can be seen from the figure, the lack of standardization from jurisdiction to juris-
diction is evident.
Exhibit C-3. Sample of
existing Roundabout Ahead
signs in United States.
(g) (g)
(b)
(c) (d) (e)
(a)
(h) (f)
Bradenton Beach, FL
Mary Esther, FL
Mary Esther, FL
Lisbon, MD
Leeds, MD
Lothian, MD
Naples, FL
West Boca Raton, FL
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
CONTENTS
267 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Appendix C : MUTC D Rec ommendations
Exhibit C-4. Sample of
Roundabout Ahead signs used
internationally.
C.2.3 Recommendation
Based on a review of existing signs in the U.S. and current international practice,
a recommended Roundabout Ahead sign was developed, as presented previously
in Exhibit C-1. This sign is similar in concept to those shown in (b), (c), and (j) of
Exhibit C-3 and is shown fully dimensioned in Exhibit C-5. This sign has been
developed based on the following criteria:
The recommended sign is symbolic, consistent with current M UTCD practice.
The recommended sign uses the internationally recognized circular ring of ar-
rows to represent a roundabout and is almost an exact mirror image of the sign
used in Australia (Exhibit C-4).
The recommended sign gives advanced notice of the proper direction of circu-
lation. The NCUTCD-adopted sign in Exhibit C-2 does not convey this informa-
tion and could give the driver the incorrect impression that the circulatory road-
way is bidirectional.
I nternational practice varies from country to country but is generally more consis-
tent than current U.S. practice. Sign shapes and coloration vary depending on the
standards of that country, but the one consistent feature is a simple ring of arrows,
oriented to the direction of traffic flow. Examples from the United Kingdom and
Australia are given in Exhibit C-4.
(i)
(n)
(k) (j)
Exhibit C-3 (continued).
(i) Santa Barbara, CA
(j) Tallahassee, FL
(k) Taneytown, MD
(l) Tavares, FL
(m) Vail, CO
(n) West Vail, CO
(m) (l)
United Kingdom Australia
CONTENTS
Exhibit C-5. Dimensions of
Roundabout Ahead sign.
The recommended sign can be used for roundabouts with any number of legs,
including intersections with one-way approaches. M any of the signs in Exhibit
C-3 and the NCUTCD-recommended sign in Exhibit C-2 are unique to four-leg
roundabouts with legs at right angles and would be inappropriate for round-
abouts with three or five legs, for example.
The recommended sign can be supplemented by an advisory speed plate. An
advisory speed plate would not be appropriate for a YI ELD AHEAD sign because
of the need for the driver to proceed only when clear.
The recommended sign is simple with no extraneous or distracting elements to
confuse a driver. Some of the signs in Exhibit C-3 are perhaps too complex for
higher speed environments.
M ini-roundabouts cannot be easily signed to show the proper direction of circu-
lation. The recommended sign provides guidance to the driver as to the proper
direction of circulation.
CONTENTS

Roundabouts Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roundabouts Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roundabouts Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENTS

. Operations Research 9, S. 383387,

You might also like