Final Report

STATE-OF-THE-ART REPORT ON:

ROUNDABOUTS DESIGN, MODELING

AND SIMULATION

Dr. Mohamed A. Aty, PE

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL 32816
407-823-5657, Fax: 407-823-3315
mabdel@[Link]

and

Dr. Yasser Hosni, PE

Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Central Florida

March 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With the increased success of roundabout use in Europe and Australia, there is a renewed

interest of their use in the US. Several States, including Florida, are now considering the

use of roundabouts to solve traffic problems. A large number of diverse factors are

involved in designing a roundabout. Interactions between analytical, statistical,

geometrical, static, as well as dynamic traffic factors make the design of roundabouts a

difficult problem. There are design guidelines, however there are no formal studies to

assess the effectiveness use of roundabout in the US. On the other hand, when

interactions between design factors are so complex, simulation techniques are used to

support the design function.

This research investigated the state-of-the-art in roundabout design and analysis. The

research team also investigated the use of a computer based simulation package for the

design and analysis of roundabouts in the US. The Visual Simulation Environment

(VSE) simulation tool was acquired and tested. Numerous traffic factors, and standards

were found to be important in the simulation model. Three main criteria should be

considered: safety, delays, and capacity. These criteria can be used to study the

feasibility of using roundabouts, determine optimum design parameters, compare traffic

scenarios, or compare a roundabout to an intersection, among other design functions.

Our research pointed also to the significance of driver behavior. An essential element in

the simulation of roundabouts is the gap acceptance process, as gap acceptance at

roundabouts is likely to be different from traditional gap and lag times used for

acceptance and rejections.

Although several computer programs such as SICRA, ARCADY and RODEL were

identified, there is a need for simulation models that are more tailored to the US

characteristics. All these programs are developed and validated in Europe or Australia,

except the HCM software. As pointed above, roundabout analysis is dependent on gap

acceptance and drivers’ behavior, therefore there is a need for a US-based simulation

model that takes into consideration US driving conditions and drivers’ behavior. As more

roundabouts are built in the US, data will become available to validate a US model.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1

GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS.................................................................... 7

Inscribed Circle ......................................................................................................... 9

Circulatory Roadway ................................................................................................ 9
Central Island ............................................................................................................ 9
Truck Apron .............................................................................................................. 9
Splitter Island .......................................................................................................... 10
Bypass Lane ............................................................................................................ 10
Pedestrian Crossing ................................................................................................. 10
Approach Width ...................................................................................................... 10
Departure Width...................................................................................................... 10
Entry Width ............................................................................................................. 10
Exit Width ............................................................................................................... 11
Flare ........................................................................................................................ 11
Entry Angle ............................................................................................................. 11
Entry Radius ............................................................................................................ 11
Exit Radius .............................................................................................................. 11

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 12

Capacity .................................................................................................................. 12
Empirical (British) Method ..................................................................................... 13
Analytical (Australian) Method .............................................................................. 14
Comparison between Roundabout Capacity Models .............................................. 14
Delay ....................................................................................................................... 16

3
 Safety ...................................................................................................................... 17

ADVANTAGES OF ROUNDABOUTS ................................................................ 19

Less Serious Accidents ........................................................................................... 19

Construction, Operating, and Maintenance Costs ................................................... 20
Self Regulating........................................................................................................ 20
Environmental benefits ........................................................................................... 21

DISADVANTAGES OF ROUNDABOUTS ....................................................... 21

Flat Area.................................................................................................................. 21
Signal Coordination ................................................................................................ 21
Unbalanced Flow .................................................................................................... 22
Pedestrians / Bicyclists Safety ................................................................................ 22

MODELING AND SIMULATION ......................................................................... 22

Compute Programs .................................................................................................. 23

SIDRA ..................................................................................................................... 24
RODEL ................................................................................................................... 26
ARCADY ................................................................................................................ 26
KREISEL ................................................................................................................ 27
GIRABASE ............................................................................................................. 27
HCM Software ........................................................................................................ 27

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 28

BIBLOGRAPHY....................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 31

4
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 : Traffic circles “A” and modern roundabouts “B” .............................................. 2

Figure 2. Basic geometric elements of roundabout (FL roundabout design guide, 1996) . 4

Figure 3. Geometric factors of roundabout approach (Bared et al, 1997) .......................... 4

Figure 4. Minimum configuration for a simple roundabout ............................................... 5

Figure 5. Design elements of roundabouts (Bared et al, 1997) .......................................... 8

Figure 6. Entry capacity and circulating flow parameters (Polus and Shmueli, 1997) .... 12

Figure 7. International comparison of entry capacities for single-lane roundabouts ........ 15

Figure 8. Roundabout with right-turn bypass lane............................................................ 16

Figure 9. Average delay versus reserve capacity (Brilon and Vandehey, 1998) .............. 17

Figure 10. Potential conflict points between an intersection and a roundabout ............... 18

Figure 11. Examples for accident models for roundabout and signalized intersections ... 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Design Elements Stated by Three Guidelines (Bared et al, 1997) ....................... 6

Table 2. Entry Capacity Equations for Roundabouts (Brilon and Vandehey, 1998) ....... 15

5
INTRODUCTION

The modern roundabout is a type of circular intersection that has been successfully

implemented in Europe and Australia over the past few decades. Despite the

approximately 35,000 roundabouts in operation around the world, there are fewer than 50

that exist in the United States. Until recently, roundabouts have been slow to gain support

in the US. The lack of acceptance can generally be attributed to the negative experience

with traffic circles or rotaries built in the earlier half of the twentieth century. Severe

safety and operational problems caused these traffic circles to fall out of favor by the

1950's. However, substantial progress has been achieved in the subsequent design of

circular intersections.

Modern roundabout should not be confused with the traffic circles of the past. Modern

roundabout have been used successfully in many cities throughout the world, including

several in the US. They have recently been built in California, Colorado, Florida,

Maryland, Nevada, and Vermont. Two states, Florida and Maryland, have published

guidelines for the design and justification of modern roundabouts. Modern roundabouts

(Figure 1) are distinguished from traffic circles by

1. Roundabouts follow the "yield-at-entry" rule in which approaching vehicles must

wait for a gap in the circulating flow before entering the circle, whereas traffic

circles require circulating vehicles to grant the right of way to entering vehicles.

2. Roundabouts involve low speeds for entering and circulating traffic, as governed

by small diameters and deflected entrances. In contrast, traffic circles emphasize

 high-speed merging and weaving, made possible by larger diameters and

tangential entrances.

3. Parking is not allowed on the circulating roadway

4. No pedestrian activities take place on the central island.

Figure 1 : Traffic circles “A” and modern roundabouts “B”

(Public Roads, Autumn 1995)

There are a large number of factors that should be considered in the design of the

roundabout. In the preliminary study for this project, the following were identified as

factors affecting the design and performance of the roundabout. Dimensional/ geometric

factors affecting roundabout operations:

• Number of legs

• Roundabout diameter (D)

• Entry radius (r)

• Flare length (l’)

• Entry width (e)

• Approach width (v)

2
• Entry angle ()

• Number of lanes

• Separator island and its design

The aforementioned dimensions are illustrated in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

Traffic flow factors include:

• Entering flow (ADT or pcu/hr)

• Circulating flow (ADT or pcu/hr)

• Design speed

• Traffic mix

Other factors which would affect the design of the roundabout include:

• Location (urban, suburban, or rural)

• Traffic standards

• Traffic rules

• Lighting

Combinations of these factors, and any other factors affect the performance of a

roundabout. Because of the infinite number of combinations, countries have developed

guidelines for roundabout design.

British, French and Australian guidelines are shown in Table 1.

3
Figure 2. Basic geometric elements of roundabout (FL roundabout design guide, 1996)

Figure 3. Geometric factors of roundabout approach (Bared et al, 1997)

4
Figure 4. Minimum configuration for a simple roundabout
(FL roundabout design guide, 1996)

5
 Table 1. Design Elements Stated by Three Guidelines (Bared et al, 1997)
DESCRIPTION BRITISH AUSTRALIAN FRENCH

Central Island diameter (at the Min. 4m Min. 5m, Min. 7m

non-mountable curbs) Recommend 10m

Typical 20-30m

Width of circulatory travel-way Max. 15m ------------------- Min. 6.5 - 8.5m

(curb to curb) Max. 9m

Inscribed circle diameter Min. 15m ------------------- -------------------

Max. 100m

Cross-Section (X-tion) of Adverse and crowded Adverse X-section Adverse X-section

circulatory travel-way X-tion recommend 2- Min. 2.5 - 3% recommend 1-2%

2.5%

Entry width (Curb to Curb) Min. 4m Min. 5m Recommend

Max. 15m 5m for 1-In approach

8m for 2-In approach

Entry Radius Min. 6m ------------------- Recommend 10-15m entry

Recommend 20m radius<= inscribed radius

Exit width (curb to curb) Recommend 7-7.5m Min. 5m Recommend 5-6m for 1-In,

8m for 2-In

Exit Radius Min.20m, ------------------- Min. 15m, Max. 30m

desirable 40m Exit rad. > central Isl.

radius

Length of separator island 20-50m Comfortable = to radius of inscribed

deceleration length circle

(high speed)

Lighting Required Required 1. Required if approach

is already lighted

2. Otherwise not

required in rural areas

6
While the guidelines are useful, the diversity in the values between countries, and within

each factor, as well as the fuzziness of the terms used limit its use only as guidelines. In

addition the guidelines are particular to specific country, and it is not inclusive to all

factors.

There is a need for an efficient tool that would enable traffic analysts to evaluate different

combinations of design and traffic factors and propose efficient designs in a timely

manner. When interactions between design factors are so complex, such as the case of

roundabout design; simulation techniques proved to be the most efficient tools to support

the design function.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS

There is no uniform design guidance in the U.S. for modern roundabouts. However, the

Federal Highway Administration is planning to develop guidelines, and information on

roundabouts will also be introduced in the next edition of AASHTO's Policy on

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The design practices currently used in the

US are generally based on either the British or the Australian guidelines.

The basic principle of roundabout design is to restrict the operating speed within the

intersection by deflecting the paths of entering and circulating vehicles. Safety and

capacity benefits can be fully achieved only if vehicles are physically unable to traverse

7
the roundabout at speeds higher than approximately 40 km/h. The major elements of a

roundabout are shown in Figure 5. 5and are described as follows:

Figure 5. Design elements of roundabouts (Bared et al, 1997)

8
Inscribed Circle

The diameter of the inscribed circle may range between 15 m and 100 m. A minimum

diameter of 37 m is required for roundabouts on the State highway system, because

smaller circles do not adequately accommodate truck movements. However, the safety

advantages of a roundabout may begin to diminish when the diameter of the inscribed

circle exceeds 75 m.

Circulatory Roadway

The width of the circulatory roadway depends mainly on the number of entry lanes and

the radius of vehicle paths. The roadway must be at least as wide as the maximum entry

width, and lane lines within the circle should not delineated. The pavement may be either

crowned or sloped to one side, depending on the need to facilitate drainage or minimize

adverse crossfalls for vehicle paths.

Central Island

The central island is usually delineated by a raised curb, and its size is determined by the

width of the circulatory roadway and the diameter of the inscribed circle.

Truck Apron

A truck apron may be needed on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel path of

oversized vehicles. The apron is usually designed as a mountable portion of the central

island.

9
Splitter Island

This splitter island is placed within the leg of a roundabout to separate entering and

exiting traffic. It is usually designed with raised curb to deflect entering traffic and to

provide a refuge for pedestrian crossings.

Bypass Lane

A bypass lane may be warranted for heavy right turn volumes.

Pedestrian Crossing

The location of pedestrian crossing is generally recommended to be one to three vehicle

lengths behind the yield line. Bringing crossings closer to the circle would reduce

roundabout capacity, while placing them further away would expose pedestrians to higher

speeds.

Approach Width

This approach width refers to the half of the roadway that is approaching the roundabout.

Departure Width

This departure width refers to the half of the roadway that is departing the roundabout.

Entry Width

The entry width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the entry to the

intersection of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.

10
Exit Width

The exit width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the exit to the

intersection of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.

Flare

A flare may be used to increase the capacity of a roundabout by providing additional

lanes at the entry. Because flared entries tend to increase the potential for accidents, they

should be used only when required by traffic volumes.

Entry Angle

To provide the optimum deflection for entering vehicles, the angle of entry should be

approximately 30 degrees. Smaller angles reduce visibility to the driver's left, while

larger angles cause excessive braking on entry and a resulting decrease in capacity.

Entry Radius

The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at

entry. The practical entry radius is approximately 20 m. Smaller radii may decrease

capacity, while larger radii may cause inadequate entry deflection.

Exit Radius

The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at exit.

The desirable exit radius is approximately 40 m.

11
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

Capacity

Roundabout capacity is defined as the sum of all entering approach capacities. Capacity

of each entry is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can enter the

roundabout within 1 hour; this is defined for a given volume of circulating vehicles. This

is similar in concept to the analysis method of the Highway Capacity Manual HCM

“Chapter 10” for unsignalized intersection capacity, whereby the capacity of each minor

traffic stream is defined separately, depending in the critical gap and the conflicting

traffic-stream volume. Linear regression equations have been developed to describe the

relationship between the entry capacity (Ve) of an approach and the circulating traffic

volume (Vc). Error! Reference source not found.6 presents these parameters.

Figure 6. Entry capacity and circulating flow parameters (Polus and Shmueli, 1997)

Generally, there are two approaches to calculating the capacity of a roundabout. The

British method involves an empirical formula based on measurements at saturated

12
roundabouts, whereas the Australian method uses an analysis based on gap acceptance. A

draft update of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) includes a procedure for

determining the capacity of single-lane roundabouts using the gap acceptance approach.

For analyzing multi-lane roundabouts, the draft HCM suggests the use of software

programs, but no specific program is mentioned. It is recognized that there are

advantages to using empirical models to develop relationships between geometric design

characteristics and roundabout performance. However, given the current lack of field data

in the United States, the draft HCM recommends using the analytical approach.

Although both approaches are currently acceptable, the fundamental differences between

the empirical and analytical methods may sometimes produce inconsistent results. The

two methods are described as follows:

Empirical (British) Method

In the British method, the capacity formula is based on the relationship between entry

capacity and various geometric parameters. For example, the capacity of each approach

to a roundabout decreases linearly as the entry angle increases. Other parameters include

entry width, approach width, entry radius, and inscribed circle diameter. Two computer

software packages commonly used to calculate capacities, queues, and delays in

accordance with the British formula are ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout CApacity

and DelaY) and RODEL (ROundabout DELay). Statistical tests have been performed to

confirm the suitability of the geometric parameters used to predict capacity, and the

output of both computer programs have been verified through direct field observations.

13
Analytical (Australian) Method

In the Australian method, the capacity of a roundabout is calculated using a traditional

gap acceptance approach that is similar to the process described in the HCM for

analyzing two-way stop-controlled intersections. It is assumed that drivers need a

minimum "critical gap" in the circulating flow before entering the roundabout. As the

available gaps become larger, more than one driver can enter with subsequent headways

equal to the "follow-up time". The capacity formula calculates the capacity of each

approach as a function of the circulating flow, the critical gap, and the follow-up time.

SIDRA (Signalized and unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid) is the

computer software package commonly used for predicting the performance of

roundabouts by applying the gap-acceptance methodology.

Comparison between Roundabout Capacity Models

Given that no capacity models are yet developed in the United States, equations from

foreign sources may temporarily be used to conduct capacity analysis. Error! Reference

source not found.7 shows models developed in England, Australia, Switzerland, and

Germany. English and Australian models include the outside diameter “D” (see Error!

Reference source not found.6). The German and Swiss models do not depend on the

diameter and therefore, they can be adopted only for general planning rather than for

detailed designs.

14
 Figure 7. International comparison of entry capacities for single-lane roundabouts
(Brilon and Vandehey, 1998)

Brilon and Vandehey (1998) found that entry capacity is significantly affected by human

behavior, particularly personal attitudes and experience. Because all these behavior

elements are variable, capacity at roundabouts is generally expected to be much more

variable than for signalized intersections. Table 2 summarizes modeling effort done by

Brilon (1998, Germany).

Table 2. Entry Capacity Equations for Roundabouts (Brilon and Vandehey, 1998)

15
Based on applications in Germany, compact single-lane roundabouts have many

advantages for intersection with traffic volumes of up to 25,000 vpd. However, this

amount can be increased by using a right-hand “bypass” or “slip” lane for high-volume,

right turn flow (see Error! Reference source not found.8).

Figure 8. Roundabout with right-turn bypass lane

(Public Roads, Autumn 1995)

Delay

Roundabout delay is defined separately for each entry approach. The delay for any entry

approach is composed of two distinct components: queuing and geometric delay.

Queuing delay occurs when drivers are waiting for an appropriate gap in the circulating

traffic. Geometric delay results from vehicles slowing down as they traverse the

roundabout (i.e., driving through circulating lane).

To avoid long queues and delays, traffic demands must not exceed the design capacity for

all entry approaches, as is the case at any intersection. Error! Reference source not

found.9 shows average delay versus reserve capacity. Reserve capacity is an indication

16
for how busy the entry approach. Based on this figure if the demand flow of a given

approach entry is 100 pcph below the design capacity, average delay should remain

below 35 seconds per vehicle.

Figure 9. Average delay versus reserve capacity (Brilon and Vandehey, 1998)

When comparing a roundabout’s operation with that of a traffic signal, it is important to

recognize that outside the intersection’s peak hours (i.e., traffic demands are lower),

roundabouts result less delay to motorists, whereas a signal will always result more delay,

even under extremely low flow conditions.

Safety

Reduced speeds at roundabouts have been shown to be the primary cause of improving

safety. Another factor is the reduced number of conflict points as compared to

conventional intersection.

17
 Figure 10. Potential conflict points between an intersection and a roundabout
(Bared et al, 1997)

Accident predication models for roundabouts have been developed in terms of entering

traffic, circulating traffic, and geometric features such as entry path curvature, entry

width, circulating width, and central diameter. Accident models are classified by accident

types for a given entry approach. Bared et a (1997) presented the following accident

model for roundabouts.

A  kQa (or Qe Qc )exp( bi Xi )

Error! Reference source not found.11 provides examples for these accident models.

This figure confirms that roundabouts experience fewer and lower severity than stop and

18
signalized intersections. The most safety sensitive design elements of roundabouts are

entry width and circulating width. Widening of both entry and circulating widths

increases accident frequency. However, capacity of roundabout does increase as entry

and circulating widths increases. Keep in mind, that capacity often conflicts with safety.

Figure 11. Examples for accident models for roundabout and signalized intersections
(Bared et al, 1997)

ADVANTAGES OF ROUNDABOUTS

Less Serious Accidents

Head-on and angle collisions are virtually non-existent because of the circular rather than

opposing flow of traffic. The angles of traffic interaction and slower speed through the

interchange reduce the severity of accidents. Roundabouts in the USA and other countries

have achieved a 50 to 90 percent reduction in collisions compared to intersections using

2- or 4-way stop control or traffic signals ([Link]

19
Construction, Operating, and Maintenance Costs

A simple signalized intersection costs about $3,000 (US) per year for electricity,

maintenance of loops, controller, signal heads, timing plans, etc. In addition, signal heads

and controllers have to be replaced and completely rebuilt on a regular basis. Larger

signalized intersections are more expensive to maintain. The only maintenance costs for a

roundabout are for landscape maintenance and occasional sign replacement.

Small roundabouts only cost several thousand dollars. Larger roundabouts can cost as

much or more than a set of traffic signals. Even if the construction cost of a roundabout is

higher than traffic signals, a life cycle economic analysis including construction,

operation, maintenance and collision cost reduction of each type of control will usually

show that a roundabout has a higher benefit/cost ratio than signalized intersection.

Self Regulating

Traffic flows change with time and development. To provide optimum operation, traffic

signals need to be retimed regularly. As traffic volumes increase, especially cross-traffic

volumes, additional intersection lanes need to be added so the intersection capacity can

approach that of the mid-block segment. In most cases the whole road is widened. In

contrast, the capacity of a roundabout can approach the mid-block capacity of the

intersecting roads. Although as the cross-traffic volumes increase, short approach lanes

and/or an additional circulating lane may be added. The resulting roadwork and right-of-

way requirements are much less than for the signal controlled intersection. Generally a

well-designed roundabout closely matching approach and mid-block capacity, rarely

20
needs altering, except where the road is widened and the number of approach lanes

increased.

Environmental benefits

Brilon (1998) mentioned that German and other countries indicate that roundabouts

account for a reduction in noise levels. Roundabout also can be expected to result in a

lower pollutant output as the result of fewer vehicle stops and starts.

DISADVANTAGES OF ROUNDABOUTS

Flat Area

Roundabouts should be considered only in areas that can accommodate an acceptable

outside diameter and other appropriate geometric design elements. To provide adequate

sight distance for approaching drivers to perceive the layout of the intersection, the

roundabout should be preferably located either on level terrain or at the bottom of a sag

vertical curve. The topography should also allow the circle of the roundabout to be

constructed on a flat plateau to provide visibility within the intersection.

Signal Coordination

Roundabouts are not suitable in areas with a coordinated traffic signal system, because

such systems break down when the progression of platoons is disrupted by the

unregulated movement of a roundabout. Conversely, a roundabout should not be

constructed at a location where the flow of vehicles leaving the intersection would be

obstructed by queues from downstream traffic controls.

21
Unbalanced Flow

Roundabouts may not be effective at intersections where entry flows are unbalanced.

When the volume on the major road is much heavier than that on the minor road, the

equal treatment of approaches may cause undue delay to the major road. Also, if the

major road carries a heavy stream of through-traffic, the lack of adequate gaps in the

dominant flow may prevent the minor flow from entering the roundabout.

Pedestrians / Bicyclists Safety

Additional assessment is warranted prior to constructing roundabouts in areas where

pedestrian or bicycle activity is expected. With the absence of conventional crossing

controls, many pedestrians do not perceive roundabouts to be safe. Despite this

perception, accident records indicate that with the use of proper design elements, a

pedestrian is at least as safe at a roundabout as at a conventional intersection. However,

the safety record for bicyclists appears to be more problematic.

MODELING AND SIMULATION

The theory of gap-acceptance leads to complex assumptions regarding driver behavior.

Various simplifications need to be made in order to obtain less complicated model.

Although simulation models have many advantages, it should be noted that the need for

data is great. Since simulation models are dependent on driver behavior, the criticism

directed at gap-acceptance models is also valid.

22
Simulation techniques involving complex computer programs have been developed in the

last decade, which require considerable computing power. These are used in a number of

countries to model behavior at non-signalized intersections, but only some have been

adapted to roundabouts. The earlier role of simulation models of entry capacity, delay,

and accident risk is changing from an instrument of scientific research towards a practical

tool for the traffic engineer.

Simulation models have been developed or investigated in Australia, France, Germany,

England and Switzerland. The development of a simulation model (INSECT) in

Australia has indicated that fixed gap times are not applicable, and there are differences

of gap-acceptance characteristics between sign controlled intersections and roundabouts,

where gaps acceptance depends on waiting time. The model attempts to simulate the

movements of individual vehicles every second. It contains five sub-models: drivers,

vehicle generation, lane selection, standard conflict resolution, and roundabout conflict

resolution. The latter considers also the closest approach on the right. Gap-acceptance

methods are used to resolve the conflicts. Small roundabouts are not modeled very well.

Results, surveyed and simulated queue delays, confirms that for most cases the model

predictions are reasonably accurate. Further development in the field of crash prediction

is possible.

Compute Programs

Since roundabout design is fairly new, there are very few programs developed that are

used for analysis of roundabouts. Modifying the results of present day intersection

23
analysis programs form many of these programs. Some of the more popular programs

are RODEL, ARCADY, SIDRA, KREISEL, GIRABASE, and HCM (Highway Capacity

Manual). Of these programs, SIDRA is the most commonly used.

SIDRA

The SIDRA (Signalized & unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid) package

has been developed by ARRB Transport Research in Australia, as an aid for design and

evaluation of the following intersection types:

• Signalized intersections

• Roundabouts

• Two-way stop control

• All-way stop control

• Yield sign control

Recent Australian research shows that if there is more than one entry lane, the traffic flow

differs between the lanes. The lane with the greatest flow is called the dominant stream

and the other lanes are termed the sub-dominant streams.

The gap-acceptance parameters are calculated in the following order:

• The follow up time in the dominant stream is estimated as a function of the

circulating flow and the inscribed circle diameter;

• The follow up time in the sub-dominant stream is calculated as a function of the

ratio of flows between the lanes considered and the dominant-stream follow up

time;

24
 • The critical gap is calculated as a function of the follow up time, the major flow,

the number of effective circulating lanes and the entry lane width.

All capacity estimates are based on gap acceptance modeling. SIDRA computes the

capacity of each approach lane separately. This method allows for capacity losses due to

lane under-utilization and allocated the largest degree of saturation in any lane movement

(Kerenyi, 1998).

SIDRA requires site specific data covering traffic volumes by movement, number of

entry and circulating lanes, central island diameter, and circulating roadway width. It

uses several parameters for which reasonable default values are offered.

One parameter of particular importance is the practical capacity of roundabouts. The

default value of 85% of the possible capacity (i.e. v/c = 0.85). The SIDRA

documentation points out that roundabout operation at near capacity levels is less

predictable than signal operation. This is because signal control is more positive, and

therefore less dependent on drivers’ behavior. Therefore, more caution is urged in

dealing with roundabouts that operate above the practical capacity. The concept of

geometric delay is added to the queuing delay. Geometric delay is the delay experienced

by drivers within the roundabout due to a negotiation speed that is slower that the

approach speed. SIDRA offers the option to include or exclude the geometric delay from

computations. Technically, a delay that includes the geometric delay provides a more

realistic assessment of roundabout performance (FDOT, 1996).

25
RODEL

RODEL is an interactive program intended for the evaluation and design of roundabouts.

This program was developed in the Highways Department of Staffordshire County

Council in England. RODEL is based on an empirical model developed by Kimber at the

Transport and Road Research Lab (TRRL) in the UK. The empirical model was chosen

over the gap acceptance model because it directly related capacity to detailed geometric

parameters. RODEL is an interactive program in which simultaneous display of both

input and output data is shown in a single screen. There are two main modes of operation.

In mode 1, the user specifies a target parameter for average delay, maximum delay,

maximum queue, and maximum v/c ratio. RODEL generates several sets of entry

geometrics for each approach based on the given input. Depending on site specifics and

constraints, the generated geometrics can be used for design purposes. Mode 2 focuses

more on performance evaluation using specified values of the geometric and traffic

characteristics.

ARCADY

ARCADY is a British roundabout analysis program which has the same theoretical

background as RODEL. This program also incorporates Kimber’s model which is based

on the rule of circulating vehicles having priority over entry vehicles. Kimber used the

idea of entry geometry affecting the capacity and related the equation to several site-

specific parameters. The model also assumes a linear relationship between the

circulating flow and the maximum entry flow. The ARCADY input data requirements are

similar to RODEL since both programs follow the same methodology. The input

26
parameters include entry width, inscribed circle diameter, flare length, approach road

width, entry radius, and entry angle. Like RODEL, ARCADY deals in the concept of

confidence level. The main difference is that the confidence level may be specified for

RODEL, but is embedded in the ARCADY model at 50 percent.

KREISEL

Developed in Germany, it offers many user-specified options to implement the full range

of procedures found in the literature from Europe and Australia. KREISEL gives the

average capacity from a number of different procedures. It provides means to compare

these procedures.

GIRABASE

Is a French method. Capacity, delay, and queuing projections based on regression.

Sensitive to geometric parameters. Gives average values.

HCM Software

US HCM method. Limited to capacity estimation based on entering and circulating

volume. Optional gap acceptance parameter values provide both a liberal and

conservative estimate of capacity. The data used to calibrate the models were recorded in

the US. 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.

27
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Modern roundabouts are circular intersections that have been successfully implemented

in Europe and Australia over the past few decades. Despite the approximately 35,000

roundabouts in operation around the world, there are fewer than 50 that exist in the

United States. Modern roundabouts are distinguished from traffic circles by; (1) the

"yield-at-entry" rule in which approaching vehicles must wait for a gap in the circulating

flow before entering the circle, (2) parking is not allowed on the circulating roadway,

and (3) no pedestrian activities take place on the central island.

Roundabout capacity is defined as the sum of all entering approach capacities. Capacity

of each entry is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can enter the

roundabout within 1 hour; this is defined for a given volume of circulating vehicles.

Linear regression equations have been developed to describe the relationship between the

entry capacity (Ve) of an approach and the circulating traffic volume (Vc).

Because roundabouts have only begun to appear in the U.S., there is a lack of empirical

data regarding the volume at which a roundabout begins to break down. Until further data

is available, roundabouts on the State highway system should be considered only at

intersections where volumes generally do not exceed 5000 vehicles per hour. Regardless

of whether the proposal involves a new facility or an operational improvement, the design

of a roundabout should be based on estimated traffic 20 years after the completion of

construction.

28
Our investigation showed many advantages to roundabouts, including safety and delay

benefits. It is therefore suggested that roundabouts be considered as alternatives to

intersections that experience or expected to experience high crash rates or delay levels.

Developing a simulation tool for roundabouts is recommended to evaluate existing

roundabouts or comparing roundabouts to intersections.

There is a need for an efficient tool that would enable traffic analysts to evaluate different

combinations of design and traffic factors and propose efficient designs in a timely

manner. When interactions between design factors are so complex, such as the case of

roundabout design; simulation techniques proved to be the most efficient tools to support

the design function. The simulation program will need to include a model of driver

behavioral patterns, including the gap acceptance process. The definition of delay is

critical during the validation of the program. If delays are taken as those incurred by

vehicles on the approaches to the roundabout, then delays from queues observed will

need to be compared to the simulated delays.

29
BIBLOGRAPHY

Bared, J., Prosser, W., and Esse, C., (1997) “State-of-the-art design of roundabouts”,
Transportation Research Record 1579.

Brilon, W., Vandehey, M., (1998) "The state of the art in Germany", ITE journal

Florida roundabout guide, Florida Department of Transportation, 1996.

Kerenyi L (1998) “A Comparison of a Traffic Signal Controlled Junction and a

Roundabout Solution at the Sluppen Bridge Junction in Trondheim”, Master’s thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Polus, A., and Shmueli, S., (1997) “Analysis and evaluation of the capacity of
roundabouts”, Transportation Research Record 1572

Public Roads (Autumn 1995), [Link]

[Link]

[Link]

30
APPENDIX

31
 ROUNDABOUTS IN THE U.S.

Status: Existing

State County City Intersection Type

N/A (unincorporated) [Link]?site_id=140
CA Alameda Berkeley Marin Ave./Los Angeles Ave./Del Norte
St./Arlington Ave.
CA Humboldt Arcata West End @ Spear Single-Lane
CA Los Angeles Long Beach Los Alamitos Circle (Hwy. 1/Hwy 19/Los Multi-Lane
Coyotes Diagonal)
CA Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Alameda Padre Serra/Montecito St./Salinas Single Lane
St./Sycamore Canyon Rd.
CO N/A Avon Avon Rd./Beaver Creek Blvd. Multi-Lane
CO N/A Avon Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd. Multi-Lane
CO N/A Avon Avon Rd./I-70 EB Ramps Multi-Lane
CO N/A Avon Avon Rd./I-70 WB Ramps Multi-Lane
CO N/A Avon Avon Rd./US 6 Multi-Lane
CO N/A Nederland Hwy 72/Hwy 119/2nd St./Bridge St. Single Lane
CO N/A Vail Chamonix Rd./I-70 EB Ramps/South Multi-Lane
Frontage Rd.
CO N/A Vail Chamonix Rd./I-70 WB Ramps/North Multi-Lane
Frontage Rd.
CO N/A Vail Vail Road/I-70 EB Ramps/South Frontage Multi-Lane
Rd.
CO N/A Vail Vail Road/I-70 WB Ramps/North Frontage Multi-Lane
Rd./Spraddle Cr. Rd.
DC N/A Washington Chevy Chase Circle (Conn. Ave./Western
Ave.)
DC N/A Washington Dupont Circle (Mass Ave./Conn.
Ave./New Hampshire Ave.19th St./P St.)
DC N/A Washington Grant Circle (New Hampshire Ave./Illinois
Ave./NW 5th St.)

32
State County City Intersection Type
DC N/A Washington Logan Circle (Rhode Isl. Ave./Vermont
Ave./13th St./P St.)
DC N/A Washington Scott Circle (Mass. Ave./Rhode Isl.
Ave./16th St./N St.)
DC N/A Washington Sheridan Circle (Mass Ave./23rd St./R St.)
DC N/A Washington Sherman Circle (Kansas Ave./Illinois Ave.)
DC N/A Washington Tenley Circle (Conn. Ave./Nebraska Ave.)
DC N/A Washington Thomas Circle (Mass Ave./Vermont
Ave./14th St./M St.)
DC N/A Washington Ward Circle (Mass. Ave./Nebraska Ave.)
DC N/A Washington Washington Circle (Penn. Ave./New
Hampshire Ave./23rd St./K St.)
DC N/A Washington Westmoreland Circle (Mass.
Ave./Dalecarlia Pkwy/Western Ave.)
FL Alachua Gainesville SE 7th Street/SE 4th Avenue Single Lane
FL Broward Hollywood Hollywood Blvd./26th Ave. Multi-Lane
FL Broward Hollywood Hollywood Blvd./Rainbow Dr. Multi-Lane
FL Broward Hollywood Hollywood Blvd./S. Federal Hwy. (US Multi-Lane
1)/Harrison St./Tyler St.
FL Collier Naples 7th St. N./11th Ave. N. Single Lane
FL Collier Naples 7th St. N./12th Ave. N. Single Lane
FL Collier Naples 7th St. N./3rd Ave. N. Single Lane
FL Collier Naples 7th St. N./7th Ave. N. Single Lane
FL Collier Naples 8th St. S./12th Ave. S. Single Lane
FL Hillsborough Tampa North Blvd./Country Club Single Lane
FL Lake Lady Lake () Multi-Lane
FL Lake Lady Lake () Multi-Lane
FL Lake Tavares Main St./Disston Ave./Lake Dora Dr. Single Lane
FL Leon Tallahassee Killarney Way/Shamrock Drive Single Lane
FL Manatee Bradenton SR 789/Bridge Street Single Lane
Beach
FL Martin Stuart Federal Hwy (US 1)/SR 76/SR A1A Single Lane

33
State County City Intersection Type
FL Martin Stuart N. Colorado Ave./E. Osceola St. Single Lane
FL N/A (unincorporated) [Link]?site_id=138
FL Okaloosa Fort Walton Hollywood Blvd./Doolittle Blvd. Single Lane
Beach
FL Palm Beach Boca Raton SW 18th St./Juana Rd. (SW 12th Ave.) Single Lane
FL Palm Beach West Boca Lakes at Boca Raton/Cain Blvd. Single Lane
Raton
FL Sarasota Sarasota South Gate Circle (Tuttle Ave./Siesta Dr.) Multi-Lane
FL Sarasota Sarasota St. Armands Circle (SR 780/Blvd. of the Multi-Lane
Presidents/John Ringling Blvd.)
MD Anne Lothian MD 2/MD 408/MD 422 Single Lane
Arundel
MD Baltimore Towson MD 45/MD 146/Joppa Rd./Allegheny Ave. Multi-Lane
MD Carroll Taneytown MD 140/MD 832 Multi-Lane
MD Cecil Leeds MD 213/Leeds Road/Elk Mill Road Single Lane
MD Harford Bel Air Tollgate Rd. & Marketplace Dr. Single-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) Baneker Rd.
MD Howard (unincorporated) MD 103/MD 100 EB Ramps Single Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) MD 103/MD 100 WB Ramps Single Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) Trotter Rd.
MD Howard Lisbon MD 94/MD 144 Single Lane
MD Montgomery Gaithersburg Longdraft Rd./Kentlands Multi-Lane
MD Prince (unincorporated) Ft. Washington Rd.
George's
MD Washington Cearfoss MD 63/MD 58/MD 494 Single Lane
ME N/A Gorham Rte. 202/Rte. 4/Rte. 237
MS Hinds Jackson MS 475/Airport Rd./Old Brandon Single Lane
NV N/A Las Vegas Lake South/Crystal Water Way Single Lane
NV N/A Las Vegas Michael/Harmony Way Single Lane
NV N/A Summerlin North Roundabout (Village Center Multi-Lane
Circle/Town Center Drive/Library Hill
Drive?)

34
State County City Intersection Type
NV N/A Summerlin South Roundabout (Village Center Multi-Lane
Circle/Hill Center Drive/Meadow Hills
Drive?)
OR Multnomah Portland NE 39th Ave./Glisan St. Multi-Lane
OR Washington Beaverton SW Teal Blvd./155th Ave./Nutcracker Ct. Single Lane
SC N/A Hilton Head Whooping Crane/Main Street Single Lane
TX N/A Addison Mildred St./Quorum Dr. Multi-Lane
VT N/A Montpelier Keck Circle (Main St./Spring St.) Single Lane
WA Kitsap Port Orchard Mile Hill Dr. (Hwy 166)/Bethel Avenue Single-Lane

Status: Planned

State County City Intersection Type

CA Humboldt Arcata Samoa @ Buttermilk Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata Samoa @ Crescent Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata Samoa @ Union Single-Lane
CA Placer Truckee Donner Pass Rd./I-80 Ramps
FL Palm Beach Lake Worth Lake Worth Ave. (SR 802)/South A Street Multi-Lane
KS N/A Rice Rd./I-70 EB Ramps
KS N/A Rice Rd./I-70 WB Ramps
MD Anne (unincorporated) Arundel Beach Road/Leelynn Drive Single Lane
Arundel
MD Anne Annapolis Gateway Circle (West St./Taylor Ave./Spa Multi-Lane
Arundel Rd.)
MD Anne Glen Burnie Quarterfield Road (MD 174)/I-97 SB Multi-Lane
Arundel Ramps
MD Baltimore (unincorporated) Charles St./Bellona Ave. Single Lane
MD Baltimore (unincorporated) MD 372/Hilltop Rd.
MD Caroline Federalsburg MD 307/MD 318 Single Lane
MD Cecil (unincorporated) MD 291/US 301 NB Ramps Single Lane
MD Cecil (unincorporated) MD 291/US 301 SB Ramps Single Lane
MD Frederick Brunswick MD 17/A St./B St./Maryland Ave. Single Lane

35
State County City Intersection Type
MD Harford Abingdon Tollgate Pkwy. & Singer Rd. Single-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) Hopkins-Gorman Rd./US 29 SB Ramps Multi-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) MD 104/MD 100 WB Ramps Multi-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) MD 216/US 29 NB Ramps Multi-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) MD 216/US 29 SB Ramps Multi-Lane
MD Howard (unincorporated) Snowden River Pkwy./MD 100 WB Ramps Single Lane
MD Howard Lisbon MD 94/Old Frederick Rd.
MD Prince Mt. Rainier US 1/34th St. Multi-Lane
George's
MD Prince Ritchie Ritchie-Marlboro Rd./I-95 NB Ramps Multi-Lane
George's
MD Prince Ritchie Ritchie-Marlboro Rd./I-95 SB Ramps Multi-Lane
George's
NJ N/A Southampton Red Lion Circle
NJ N/A Wall Brielle Circle
VT N/A Bennington Rte. 67A
VT N/A Brattleboro Rte. 9/Rte. 5
VT N/A Manchester Rte. 7A/Equinox
VT N/A Manchester Rte. 7A/Grand Union Single Lane
VT N/A Richmond Rte. 2/Rte. 117/I-89
VT N/A Stow Rte. 108

Status: Proposed

State County City Intersection Type

CA Alameda Berkeley Gilman St./I-80 Ramps
CA Humboldt Arcata 11th @ D Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata Alliance @ Foster Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata Guintoli @ Heindon Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata US101NB @ 14th Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata US101NB @ Sunset & LK Wood Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata US101NB @ Guintoli Single-Lane

36
State County City Intersection Type
CA Humboldt Arcata US101SB @ Sunset Single-Lane
CA Humboldt Arcata US101SB @ Guintoli Single-Lane
CA Los Angeles Castaic NorthLake Blvd./D St. Single Lane
CA Los Angeles Long Beach Lakewood Blvd. (Hwy 19)/Outer Circle Dr. Multi-Lane
CA N/A Calabasas Lost Hills Road/Agoura Rd Multi-Lane
CA N/A Calabasas Lost Hills Road/US 101 NB Ramps Multi-Lane
CA N/A Carlsbad Lego Dr./Armada Dr. Multi-Lane
CA N/A Fresno Fresno St./N. Fresno St./Divisadero St. Multi-Lane
CA Nevada Grass Valley Hwy 49/McKnight Rd.
CA Orange (unincorporated) Conroy-Windermere Rd./Apopka-Vineland Multi-Lane
Rd.
CA Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Milpas St./US 101 WB Ramps/Carpinteria St. Multi-Lane
CA Sonoma Sonoma Hwy 12/Napa Rd.
MD Anne Glen Burnie Quarterfield Road (MD 174)/I-97 NB Ramps Multi-Lane
Arundel
MD Harford (unincorporated) MD 165/MD 23 Single Lane
MD Harford (unincorporated) MD 165/MD 24 Single Lane
MD Washington Ringgold MD 64/MD 418 Single Lane
MD Worcester Ocean City US 113/MD 589

Status: Removed

State County City Intersection Type

FL Palm Beach West Palm S. Quadrille Blvd. (El Campeon Blvd.)/Fern Single Lane
Beach St.
FL Volusia Daytona Beach Seabreeze Circle(Seabreeze Bridge/Mason Multi-Lane
Ave./Ballough Dr.)

37