Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation

Guide to Roundabouts
PENNDOT Publication Number 414

Guidelines for the Implementation of

Roundabouts in Transportation Facilities

Prepared by:

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

May, 2001
 Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Roundabouts versus Traffic Circles 2

Benefits of Using Roundabouts 4

Where to Use Roundabouts 6

Issues Associated with Roundabouts 16

Appendices

A. Intersection Data Necessary to Evaluate Roundabout Function

B. Glossary for Common Roundabout Terms

C. Diagrams of Different Roundabout Categories

D. Roundabout Questionnaire

E. Case Studies
1. District 3-0 County: Lycoming City: Williamsport
Intersection: Via Bella & Hepburn Street
Current Intersection Control: Signal E-2

2. District 8-0 County: Cumberland City: Centerville

Intersection: S.R. 0174 (Walnut Bottom Road) & S.R. 0233 (Centerville Road)
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control E-15

3. District 5-0 County: Northampton City: Easton

Intersection: S.R. 2022 (Northampton Street) & S.R. 2023 (Third Street)
Current Intersection Control: Signalized Circle E-26

4. District 8-0 County: Dauphin Town: Linglestown

Intersection: Route 39 and Mountain Road
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control – Square E-38

5. District 11-0 County: Allegheny Township: Franklin Park

Intersection: S.R. 4049 (Nicholson Road) & S.R. 4011 (Rochester Road)
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control E-49

References
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

INTRODUCTION:

The roundabout is a successful form of intersection control used throughout the world.
Popularity of this type of circular intersection has only recently begun to increase within the
United States. Prior to the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide” there
were no existing national guidelines to assist transportation professionals and engineers in
developing and implementing roundabouts. The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation’s “Guide to Roundabouts” is designed as a supplement to the FHWA
publication. This document will aid transportation professionals and engineers in determining
whether a roundabout is a feasible alternative for a specific location.

These guidelines are designed to supplement existing design policies and procedures and are
not intended to replace or supersede any current requirements. For any project that involves
State or Federal money, or Liquid Fuels funds, the processes outlined in PennDOT’s Design
Manual Part 1 and 1A must be followed.

This guide provides an array of questions and insights that can be applied in the planning or
study phases of the preliminary design of intersections. Site and traffic characteristics
determine the benefits of using a roundabout at a particular location. This guide will help to
determine which intersections are best suited for roundabouts.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s “Guide to Roundabouts” begins with a

detailed description of the modern roundabout. Characteristics of rotaries and neighborhood
traffic circles are provided to clarify the differences between these older style circular
intersections and modern roundabouts. The benefits of implementing a roundabout are then
discussed. The core of the guide is a questionnaire that will direct transportation professionals
and engineers toward a decision regarding the feasibility of using a roundabout. The
questions are applicable to either the planning or study phases of the design process.
Following the questionnaire, there are several important issues discussed regarding
pedestrians, bicyclists, and educating the public. In order to facilitate the design process,
several case studies are also included.

Further design criteria for roundabouts can be found in the FHWA publication “Roundabouts:
An Informational Guide” (Publication number FHWA-RD-00-067) which is available from
the FHWA publication center on the internet at www.fhwa.dot.gov/pubstats.html.

Guide to Roundabouts 1
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUTS VERSUS TRAFFIC CIRCLES

At the mention of the term roundabout many people including some engineers may have a
negative reaction because they associate roundabouts with the traffic circles of the past.
Roundabouts are a type of circular intersection as are traffic circles and rotaries. However,
the modern roundabout has very specific characteristics that differentiate it from traffic circles
and rotaries. All modern roundabouts have the following characteristics:

1) Traffic control – yield control used on all entries

2) Approach geometry – the approaching roadways do not enter the roundabout
perpendicular to the circulating roadway, but, the traffic is deflected through the use of
splitter islands to enter the circulating roadway at as small an angle as possible.

3) Priority to circulating vehicles – circulating vehicles within the roundabout have the right-
of-way

4) Pedestrian access – allowed only across the legs of the roundabout behind the yield line
5) Parking – not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries
6) Direction of circulation – vehicles circulate counter-clockwise and pass to the right of the
central island

7) Splitter island – All except mini-roundabouts have raised splitter islands. Mini-
roundabouts have splitter islands defined only by pavement markings

In addition to the above characteristics, roundabouts may also possess the following
characteristics:

1) Adequate speed reduction – good roundabout design requires entering vehicles to

negotiate a radius small enough to slow speeds to no greater than 30 mph.

2) Design vehicle - accommodates the appropriate design vehicle (for small roundabouts an
apron may be required)

3) Entry flare – flare on the entry to widen the approach to multiple lanes to provide
additional capacity and storage at the yield line

4) Pedestrian crossing locations –located at least one vehicle length upstream of the yield
point

Guide to Roundabouts 2
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is important that the differences between the modern roundabout and the other types of
circular intersections are clear.

• Rotaries generally had large diameters that resulted in high speeds within the
circulatory roadway. They typically provided little or no deflection of the through
traffic paths, and some required the circulating traffic to yield to entering traffic. The
latter caused congestion, and the intersection would often “lock-up.”

• Neighborhood traffic circles are typically built to calm traffic and/or improve the
aesthetics of local street intersections. The approaches may by uncontrolled or stop-
controlled. Additional information on traffic circles can be found in Section 1.5 of
FHWA’s publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.”

There are six categories of modern roundabouts:

1) Mini-roundabouts
2) Urban compact roundabouts
3) Urban single-lane roundabouts
4) Urban double-lane roundabouts
5) Rural single-lane roundabouts
6) Rural double-lane roundabouts

Detailed descriptions of each category, along with fundamental design and operational
elements, are provided in Appendix C.

Guide to Roundabouts 3
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

BENEFITS OF USING ROUNDABOUTS

A well-designed roundabout has the potential to improve the conditions of an existing

intersection or can be a highly effective component of a new transportation system. A
modern roundabout offers benefits such as increased safety, increased capacity, reduced
delay, and calmer traffic. In addition, air and noise pollution can be reduced and the
aesthetics of the area enhanced.

Increased Safety:
One of the most important benefits of a modern roundabout is the increased level of safety
resulting from the reduction of vehicle-vehicle conflict points. A conflict point occurs where
one vehicle path crosses, merges or diverges with or queues behind the path of another
vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle. A conventional four-leg intersection has 32 vehicle-vehicle
conflict points. A four-leg single-lane roundabout reduces the number of conflict points to
only eight. But, both types of intersections have potential vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. A
traditional signalized intersection has potential for four vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, all
originating from different directions. Roundabouts require pedestrians to cross one direction
of traffic at a time allowing the pedestrian to concentrate entirely on one direction of traffic.
The lower speeds of vehicles entering and exiting a roundabout provide safer conditions for
pedestrians.

On average, roundabouts in the United States have shown total crash reductions of 37 percent
and injury crash reductions of 51 percent. The reduction is a result of several factors. The
geometric layout of a roundabout eliminates the hazardous conflicts such as left turn head-on
and right angle crashes. The latter type is the result of the entry angle between the entering
and circulating roadways being about 60-degrees rather than 90-degrees. The low speeds
allow motorists more reaction time to respond to potential conflicts. If a crash does occur, the
severity is reduced due to the lower speeds and the reduced entry angle.

Increased Capacity/Less Delay:

Generally both capacity and delay improve with the use of a roundabout when compared to
alternate intersection control methods. The capacity at a roundabout will likely be higher than
a signalized intersection because there are no losses of time due to yellow and red signal
intervals. In addition, vehicles are able to enter the roundabout from each leg simultaneously,
which is not possible with other forms of intersection control. Thus, the higher capacity of
roundabouts results in shorter delays. Often entering drivers do not need to stop, and during
off-peak periods many drivers adjust their speed to take advantage of approaching gaps in
circulating traffic.

Traffic Calming:
By reducing vehicle speeds, roundabouts can have a traffic calming effect. An appropriately
designed roundabout with raised channelization forces vehicles to physically change direction

Guide to Roundabouts 4
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

making it difficult for them to speed. Roundabouts can be used effectively at the interface
between rural and urban areas where speed limits change.

In a situation where a roadway can be used as a “cut-through”, a roundabout can serve as a

traffic calming method. Using roundabouts along the “cut-through” path requires traffic to
slow and may deter some motorists from using the route.

Environment & Aesthetics:

A roundabout can result in a significant lowering of noise and air pollution through reductions
in the number of acceleration/deceleration cycles and vehicle idling. In addition, fuel
consumption is reduced.

Aesthetics can be an important issue in a construction project. Choosing a roundabout offers

residents the opportunity to provide an attractive entrance into their communities.

Guide to Roundabouts 5
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

WHERE TO USE ROUNDABOUTS

It is important to understand where and how a roundabout can be a successful method of

intersection control. Intersections with the following characteristics can potentially benefit
from the implementation of a roundabout.

• Heavy delay on minor road

• Large traffic signal delays
• Heavy left turning traffic
• More than four legs or unusual geometry
• History of crashes involving crossing traffic
• “Y” or “T” configuration
• Traffic growth expected to be high and future traffic patterns uncertain or changeable
• Need for U-turns
• Freeway interchange ramps
• History of right angle crashes

Furthermore, an array of questions has been created to aid transportation professionals and
engineers in the process of determining the feasibility of a roundabout for a specific location.
These questions focus on the qualities and issues of an intersection that determine the
potential benefits of using a roundabout.

In order to complete the questionnaire, information must be collected about the intersection.
Each question is applicable to the planning or study phases of the preliminary design process.
These two phases require different levels of information. A list of the data required to
complete the form can be found in Appendix A.

Guide to Roundabouts 6
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts 7
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts 8
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts 9
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts 10
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts 11
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts 12
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

Guide to Roundabouts 13
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts 14
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY:

Upon completion of the questionnaire, engineering judgment must be used to determine if a

roundabout is a feasible alternative. When a roundabout is determined to be feasible, its
selection category should be identified. The following five categories indicate the primary
reason why a roundabout should be selected:

1) Safety Improvement
2) Operational Improvement
3) Community Enhancement
4) Traffic Calming
5) Special Conditions (such as unusual geometry, high volumes, right-of-way limits, etc.)

In addition, when a roundabout is selected for further study, the roundabout alternative should
be compared to alternate intersection control methods (i.e., TWSC, AWSC, signalization).
Traffic analyses must be completed to determine the performance of the intersection for each
control method. FHWA describes the Australian computer program SIDRA as a method to
perform the roundabout analyses.

Upon completion of the study, the results must be documented and a final recommendation
made. It is important to remember that this guide is written to be a supplement to the FHWA
publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide” and should be utilized along with the
FHWA publication.

Guide to Roundabouts 15
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ROUNDABOUTS

Several roundabout issues (pedestrians, bicyclists, and public education) need further
explanation. Each of these issues is discussed below.

Pedestrians:

Pedestrians are accommodated by crossings that are located around the perimeter of the
roundabout. Pedestrian crossings are set back from the yield line by one or more car lengths.
This placement results in shortened crossing distances when compared with locations adjacent
to the inscribed circle. This crossing placement also separates vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-
pedestrian conflict points. Entering motorists are able to devote their entire attention to
crossing pedestrians while waiting for the vehicle at the yield line to enter the circulating
roadway.

There are important design considerations that must be kept in mind. Pedestrians should be
discouraged from crossing the circulatory roadway to the central island. Items such as
benches, plaques and monuments should not be placed in the center island as they would
entice pedestrians to travel to the central island. Providing landscape buffers at the corners of
the roundabout will discourage pedestrians from jaywalking.

An important issue with roundabouts is access for blind or visually impaired pedestrians.
According to the FHWA guide, crossing roundabouts may be difficult for visually-impaired
pedestrians to perform without assistance. The following describes some of the problems that
visually impaired pedestrians may encounter when attempting to navigate through a
roundabout:

q Visually-impaired pedestrians must be able to locate the crosswalk. The crosswalks at

roundabouts are located at positions that differ from those at a typical four-leg
intersection. Landscaping can be utilized to indicate the crosswalk’s location. The
curb edge of the ramp must be detectable which can be accomplished by using a type
of warning surface.

q Visually-impaired pedestrians must listen for a safe gap to cross the entrance or exit
lane(s). The pedestrian may have a problem differentiating the sounds of the
entering/exiting traffic from those of the circulating traffic.

q Visually-impaired pedestrians must be able to locate the splitter island refuge area.
The refuge area must be ramped, curbed or equipped with detectable warnings to aid
the disabled pedestrians.

q Visually-impaired pedestrians must be able to locate the correct walkway to either

continue their path or locate the adjacent crosswalk to cross the next leg of the

Guide to Roundabouts 16
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

roundabout. The use of landscaping can again be utilized to indicate the different
locations.

Additional design remedies to the problems include using pedestrian crossings with actuated
signals, raised pavement markers with in-roadway warning lights, and raised crosswalks. It
should be noted that the use of the listed remedies would, most likely, reduce the effectiveness
of the roundabout by interfering with the yield conditions entering and exiting the facility.
Designers must adhere to the federal guidelines that dictate the use of in-roadway warning
lights.

Bicyclists:

Accommodating bicyclists with a wide range of skills and comfort levels at a roundabout can
be a difficult task. Designers must begin with the policy that bike lanes should never be used
within a roundabout due to the complexity of traffic interaction. On a single-lane roundabout
bicyclists should have the option of either mixing with traffic or using the roundabout as a
pedestrian. With double-lane roundabouts, bicyclists require special attention especially
when bicycle traffic is moderate to heavy. A bicycle path that is located outside of the
roundabout is the preferable choice.

Educating the Public:

Public acceptance of roundabouts has often been one of the biggest challenges that a
jurisdiction faces when installing its first roundabout. The initial public reaction may be
negative. Previous projects have shown that public attitudes toward roundabouts improve
significantly after construction.

Motorists unfamiliar with roundabouts may often experience driver confusion when
traversing the intersection for the first time. Therefore when a new roundabout is planned, it
is extremely important that the public be educated on the various aspects of a roundabout.
There are several means by which education can take place. Public meetings can provide a
good forum for bringing the public into the design process and allowing them to ask questions
and provide some fresh ideas. Informational brochures and videos can also be used to educate
the community. Public service announcements in newspapers, on television and radio can
also assist in the education process.

Maintenance:

Once a roundabout has been constructed and is in service, the need to maintain the facility
follows. It should be noted that maintenance of the pavement and roadway would be more
challenging than standard signalized intersections. The ability to perform half-width
construction may be eliminated if the circulating roadway is too narrow. Because the
roundabout uses more land area compared to a standard intersection, the ability to construct a
temporary roadway around the facility during construction will likely have substantial right-
of-way implications. For these reasons, the cost of maintenance of a roundabout roadway will

Guide to Roundabouts 17
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

be higher than standard signalized intersections primarily due to the maintenance and
protection of traffic issues.

Also of concern, is the removal of snow from the facility in the winter. The geometry of the
roundabout will make snow removal more difficult. There may be a need to use smaller
(pick-up truck) plows within the roundabout to effectively remove the snow to negotiate the
circulating roadway as well as the approach roadways and the splitter islands. Additionally,
care must be taken when stockpiling the snow to avoid impacting adjoining properties or
interfering with sight distance in and approaching the roundabout.

These factors must be considered before a decision can be made to utilize a roundabout
facility as the costs and concerns associated with these issues will be around for the life of the
facility.

Guide to Roundabouts 18
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

APPENDIX A – INTERSECTION DATA:

• Planning Phase
ü Detailed crash records giving the type and frequency of collisions occurring at the
existing intersection.
ü Community considerations such as parking needs, the landscaping style of the area and
any existing traffic management strategies.
ü Transit routes that exist through the intersection, their frequency, and any stops within
the vicinity (.25 mi.) of the intersection.
ü Posted and design speeds for all the approaches.
ü Miscellaneous data, such as existing geometry, population of the surrounding area, land
uses and distances to other intersections, and adjacent intersection control treatments.

• Study Phase
ü Peak hour turning movement volumes summarized by 15-minute intervals.
ü 24-hour approach volumes for each leg of the intersection to identify the heaviest eight
hours for a signal warrant analysis.
ü Pedestrian and bicycle counts and future generators must be considered when the
numbers are significant. Care should be taken with planning for pedestrian and bicycle
counts as existing counts may not be indicative of future use through the facility.
ü Percentage of large trucks that will be using the intersection.

Note that the future traffic volumes should be projected based on the assumed growth rate for
the area.

Guide to Roundabouts A-1

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY:

The following is a list of typical terms associated with roundabouts.

Reprinted from FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

1) Central Island – raised area in the center of a roundabout around which traffic
circulates

2) Splitter Island – 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

3) Circulatory Roadway – the curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counter-

clockwise fashion around the central island

4) Apron – the mountable portion of the central island adjacent to the circulatory
roadway (may be required on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel
tracking of large vehicles)

Guide to Roundabouts B-1

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

5) Yield line – a pavement marking used to mark the point of entry from an approach
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 circulating roadway.

6) Accessible pedestrian crossing – should be provided at all roundabouts. The

crossing location is set back from the yield line, and the splitter island is cut to allow
pedestrian, wheelchairs, strollers, and bicycles to pass through.

7) Bicycle treatments – roundabouts provide bicyclists the option of traveling through

the roundabout either as a vehicle or as a pedestrian, depending on the bicyclist’s
level of comfort

8) Landscaping buffer – 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
aesthetics of the intersection.

9) Inscribed circle diameter – the basic parameter used to define the size of a
roundabout. It is measured between the outer edges of the circulatory roadway.

10) 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.

11) Approach width – 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.

12) Departure width - 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.

13) Entry width – 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 and the inscribed circle.

14) Exit width – the width of the exit where it meets the inscribed circle. It is measured
perpendicularly from the right edge of the exit to the intersection point of the left
edge and the inscribed circle.

15) Entry radius – the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the entry.
16) Exit radius – the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the exit.

Guide to Roundabouts B-2

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

APPENDIX C – CATEGORIES:
The FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide” divides roundabouts into six
categories. The categories are based on the size of the facility, number of lanes and the
location of the facility. A listing of the design and operational elements of each of the
roundabout categories is included in the table below. The following pages contain a
description of each category of roundabouts as well as a typical figure of the facility (these are
reprinted from the FHWA publication as noted).

The roundabout categories are:

• Mini Roundabouts
• Urban Compact Roundabouts
• Urban Single-Lane Roundabouts
• Urban Double-Lane Roundabouts
• Rural Single-Lane Roundabouts
• Rural Double –Lane Roundabouts
Design Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural
Element Round- Compact Single- Double- Single- Double-
about Lane Lane Lane Lane
Recommended
maximum 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
entry design (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
speed
Maximum
number of
1 1 1 2 1 2
entering lanes
per approach
Typical
inscribed circle 45’ - 80’ 80’ - 100’ 100’ - 130’ 150’ - 180’ 115’ - 130’ 180’ - 200’
diameter (13m - 25m) (25m - 30m) (30m - 40m) (45m -55m) (35m - 40m) (55m - 60m)

Splitter island Raised if Raised, Raised, Raised, Raised and Raised and
treatment possible, with with with extended, extended,
crosswalk crosswalk crosswalk crosswalk with with
cut if cut cut cut crosswalk crosswalk
raised cut cut
Typical daily 10,000 15,000 20,000 Refer to 20,000 Refer to
service vol. on FHWA FHWA
4-leg Publication Publication
roundabout
(veh/day)
Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”
Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-1

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Mini-roundabouts
Mini-roundabouts are small roundabouts used in low-speed urban environments, with average
operating speeds of 35 mph (60km/h) or less. The figure below provides an example of a
typical mini-roundabout. They can be useful in low-speed urban environments in cases where
conventional roundabout design is precluded by right-of-way constraints. In retrofit
applications, mini-roundabouts are relatively inexpensive because they typically require
minimal additional pavement at the intersection roads – for example, minor widening at the
corner curbs. They are mostly recommended 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.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-2

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

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 pedestrian 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. The figure below provides an
example of a typical urban compact roundabout.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-3

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Urban single-lane roundabouts

This type of roundabout is characterized as having a single-lane entry at all legs and one
circulatory lane. The figure below 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 circulatory roadway, and at the exit.
Notwithstanding the larger inscribed circle diameters than compact roundabouts, the speed
ranges recommended in this guide are somewhat lower than those used in other countries, in
order to enhance safety for bicycles and pedestrians. The roundabout design is focused on
achieving consistent entering and circulating vehicle speeds. The geometric design includes
raised splitter islands, a nonmountable central island, and preferable, no apron. The design of
these roundabouts is similar to those in Australia, France, and the United Kingdom.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-4

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Urban double-lane roundabouts

Urban double-lane roundabouts included 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. The figure below 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 consistent throughout the roundabout. The geometric design will include
raised splitter islands, no truck apron, a nonmountable central island, and appropriate
deflection.

Alternate routes may be provided for bicyclists who choose to bypass the roundabout.
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 roundabout located in areas with high pedestrian or bicycle volumes may have
special design recommendations such as those provided in the FHWA publication. The
design of these roundabouts is based on the methods used in the United Kingdom, with
influences from Australia and France.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-5

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Rural single-lane roundabouts

Rural single-lane roundabouts generally have high average approach speeds in the range of 50
to 60 mph (80 to 100 km/h). 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 pedestrians are expected at these intersections, currently and in the future.
There is preferable no apron because their larger diameters should accommodate larger
vehicles. Supplemental geometric design elements include extended and raised splitter
islands, a nonmountable central island, and adequate horizontal deflection. The design of
these roundabouts is based primarily on the methods used by Australia, France, and the
United Kingdom. The figure below provides an example of a typical rural single-lane
roundabout.

Rural roundabouts that may one day become part of an urbanized area should be designed as
urban roundabouts, with slower speeds and pedestrian treatment. However, in the interim,
they should be designed with supplementary approach and entry features to achieve safe
speed reduction.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-6

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

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 50 to 60 mph (80 to 100 km/h).
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 counterparts. 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 Kingdom, Australia, and France. The figure below 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
accommodate pedestrians and bicyclist. However, in the interim they should be designed
with approach and entry features to achieve safe speed reduction.

Reprinted from Section 1.6 of FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”

Publication Number FHWA-RD-00-067

Guide to Roundabouts C-7

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE:

Appendix D contains a complete copy of the questionnaire from the text. It is intended that
this section of the publication will be reproduced and used by planners and designers to
evaluate intersections for roundabout facilities.

Guide to Roundabouts D-1

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

APPENDIX E – CASE STUDIES:

For the purpose of this study, available traffic data was used to evaluate the effectiveness of
roundabouts at representative locations throughout the Commonwealth. Locations for the
studies were selected with the assistance of District Traffic Engineers. Complete traffic
information was not available at all the locations studied and an effort was made to determine
appropriate values based on the available data. Actual traffic counts and/or turning
movements were beyond the scope of this study. In actual practice, it is imperative that
current and reliable traffic information be obtained to properly evaluate the use of a
roundabout. Appendix A lists the traffic information needed to make such determination.

The following case studies were performed at the intersections indicated:

1. District 3-0 County: Lycoming City: Williamsport

Intersection: Via Bella & Hepburn Street
Current Intersection Control: Signal
Page E-2

2. District 8-0 County: Cumberland City: Centerville

Intersection: S.R. 0174 (Walnut Bottom Road) & S.R. 0233 (Centerville Road)
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control
Page E-15

3. District 5-0 County: Northampton City: Easton

Intersection: S.R. 2022 (Northampton Street) & S.R. 2023 (Third Street)
Current Intersection Control: Signalized Circle
Page E-26

4. District 8-0 County: Dauphin Town: Linglestown

Intersection: Route 39 and Mountain Road
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control – Square
Page E-38

5. District 11-0 County: Allegheny Township: Franklin Park

Intersection: S.R. 4049 (Nicholson Road) & S.R. 4011 (Rochester Road)
Current Intersection Control: Two-Way Stop Control
Page E-49

Guide to Roundabouts E-1

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Case Study No. 1:

Intersection: Hepburn Street and Via Bella in Williamsport, PA

The intersection of Hepburn Street and Via Bella in the City of Williamsport is a unique
intersection. The existing signalized intersection handles traffic generated from the I-180 off-
ramp and city traffic entering onto the I-180 on-ramp. Another generator of traffic for the
intersection is the Wegman’s grocery store that is located on one corner. Currently, the
majority of the traffic passing through this city intersection is traveling between Route 15 and
I-180 due to the absence of a direct connection between these two roadways. Presently, such
a direct connection is under design. This direct connection will reduce the amount of traffic
that the intersection experiences. PennDOT officials are interested in improving this
intersection and adding a missing left-turn movement from Hepburn Street. The City of
Williamsport is interested in improving the aesthetics of the city. Due to these circumstances,
a roundabout may be a viable solution.

In order to determine the feasibility of utilizing a roundabout at the intersection of Hepburn

and Via Bella, various parameters were investigated. Recent traffic studies have been
performed in the City of Williamsport for the direct connection project that includes this
intersection. The PennDOT “Guide to Roundabouts” questionnaire was completed along with
a crash investigation and capacity analyses. A preliminary design layout for a single-lane
urban roundabout was also produced.

From the results of this case study, it was determined that a single-lane urban roundabout is a
feasible alternative for the intersection of Hepburn Street and Via Bella. A roundabout
provides a solution to the unique geometry of this intersection and allows the missing left-turn
movement to be easily incorporated. If a signalized intersection was retained, it is probable
that an additional turn-lane would be necessary on Hepburn Street and the delay for the entire
intersection would increase. A roundabout would lessen the delay and increase capacity.
The City of Williamsport would benefit by having an intersection that could be aesthetically
pleasing through the use of landscaping. The disadvantages in choosing a roundabout would
be the minimal amount of right-of-way that would be necessary to construct sidewalks along
Via Bella. In addition, this would be the first roundabout in the area, which would require
education and justification efforts. Further study is now necessary to accurately quantify and
compare the roundabout to other forms of intersection control.

Guide to Roundabouts E-2

Intersection of Hepburn Street and Via Bella: Peak Hour Volumes
Assign each entry leg a number going counter-clockwise around the roundabout as illustrated by figure on the right. Enter data into shaded areas below for each entry leg roundabout has.
For each entry leg present at least one pce/hr must be shown entering or exiting roundabout for the leg. If roundabout has less than five entry legs, then enter zero in the
shaded areas for the entry legs not used. (Note: Use of the tab key will toggle through all the data input shaded areas.)
To get accurate results from this spreadsheet the calculated V/C value should not exceed 0.85.

Exiting (veh/hr) Entering Circulating 5\ / 4 Exiting (pce/hr)

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 pce/hr pce/hr \ / X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
E1 0 380 120 0 0 547 48 \ / E1 0 416 131 0 0
Entering (veh/hr) E2 390 0 90 0 0 525 131 1 ---- ---- O ----- ---- 3 Entering E2 427 0 99 0 0
(Roundabouts with 3, 4 or 5 legs) E3 290 45 0 0 0 360 427 | (pce/hr) E3 311 48 0 0 0
E4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | E4 0 0 0 0 0
E5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 2 E5 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ENTERING ROUNDABOUT (pce/hr) 1,433

CAPACITY AT AN ENTRY OF A ROUNDABOUT

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Inscribed diameter, D (m) 30 30 30
Entry width, e (m) 5.5 5.5 5.5
Approach width, v (m) 4.6 4.6 4.6
Entry angle, Q (degrees) 50 50 50
Entry radius, r (m) 18 21 2114
Average effective flare length, l' (m) 12 12 12
Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.95 0.95 0.95
% Single-Unit Truck or Bus 4.00% 4.00% 2.00%
% Truck With Trailer 2.00% 2.00% 1.00%

ENTRY CAPACITY (pce/hr) C=Qe 1,464 1,427 1,312

V/C 0.37 0.37 0.27

CONTROL DELAY (sec/veh) d 3.9 4.0 3.8

LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A Compared to an unsignalized intersection

LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A Compared to a signalized intersection

QUEUE LENGTH 95th percentile (veh) 1.8 1.7 1.1

Circulating flow across the entry, Qc (pce/hr) 48 131 427 0 0

S 0.12 0.12 0.12
M 0.05 0.05 0.05
X2 5.33 5.33 5.33
F 1613.72 1613.72 1613.72
tp 1.48 1.48 1.48
fc 0.64 0.64 0.64
k 0.93 0.93 0.98
Entering flow, qe (pce/hr) 547 525 360 0 0
Definitions:

pce/hr - passenger car equivalent per hour

Inscribed Diameter, D - the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed within the junction outline
Entry Width, e - measured at the point of maximum entry deflection, from the left hand end of give-way line along a normal to the nearside curb
Approach Width, v - measured at a point in the approach upstream from any entry flare, from the median line (or edge of travelway on dual lane roads)
to the nearside curb, along a normal
Entry Angle, Q - serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between entering and circulating streams.
Entry Radius, r - measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the nearside curbline at entry
Average Effective Flare Length, l' - measured along a curve offset from curbline a distance of (e-v)/2 starting from line where e is measured to
intersection with a projected curve offset from median a distance v.

Entering flow, qe=V

Sharpness of Flare, S=1.6*(e-v)/l'
M=exp{(D-60)/10}
X2=v+(e-v)/(1+2*S)
F=303*X2
tp=1+.5/(1+M)
fc=.21*tp*(1+.2*X2)
k=1-.00347*(Q-30)-.978*{(1/r)-.05}
Qe=k*(F-fc*Qc) or Qe=0 when fc*Qc>F
d=3600/C+900*T*[V/C-1+sqrt{(V/C-1)^2+(3600/C)*(V/C)/450*T}] where T=analysis time period, hours (T=0.25 for a 15-minute period)
Queue length 95th percentile = 900*T*{V/C-1+sqrt[(1-V/C)^2+(3600/C)*(V/C)/150*T]}*(C/3600) where T is the same as defined for d above

References:

Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council,

Special Report 209, Third edition, Washington, D.C., 1998.

United Kingdom Department of Transport, Geometric Design of Roundabouts, Design

Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6, United Kingdom, 1993. e

l’ v

D
Q

r
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:
Hepburn Street and Via Bella
Lycoming County, City of Williamsport, PA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

- Traffic generated by I-180
- Missing left-turn movement
- Improvements wanted by PennDOT officials
- City interested in improving aesthetics of the downtown

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?
Yes

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?
The roundabout would be a retrofit to an existing intersection.

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts E-7

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?
There are railroad tracks in the vicinity, but there are no at-grade crossings.

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

The Williamsport city buses may run through this intersection, but it is unlikely that there is
currently a stop nearby. This information should be verified in the study phase.

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?
There is no need for parking in the vicinity.

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?
The 2019 AADT is approximately 12,100 vehicles. This figure is below the maximum
allowable AADT’s for a single-lane roundabout.

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts E-8

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?
The intersection consists of two city streets and the on- and off-ramps for I-180.

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?
The v/c ratio is: 0.43 for Via Bella, 0.34 for Hepburn, and 0.44 for the I-180 ramps.
FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts E-9

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?
A minimal amount of right-of-way may be necessary to accommodate sidewalks along the
Via Bella approach.

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?
The existing intersection is signal controlled. In order for the missing left-turn movement to
be added, an additional turn lane on Hepburn may be necessary.

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts E-10

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?
N/A

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?
N/A

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?
N/A

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?
There are several signalized intersections along Via Bella. It is assumed that these are not
Coordinated but this should be verified in the study phase.

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts E-11

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?
The existing intersection is signal controlled.

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.
DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?
A maximum of 20 mph.

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts E-12

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?
The largest vehicle that can be expected would be an interstate tractor trailer. A WB-50
design vehicle should be sufficient.

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?
Emergency vehicles may pass through the intersection.

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?
The percent of trucks is: 6% for Via Bella, 3% for Hepburn, and 6% for the I-180 ramps.

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?
Currently the pedestrian/bicycle volumes are minimal. There is reason to believe that this
will increase as the beautification process of the city progresses.

Guide to Roundabouts E-13

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?
Illumination in an urban area should be provided including most if not all of the approaches.

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?
Currently a budget has not been determined.

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts E-14

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Case Study No. 2:

Intersection: S.R. 0174 Walnut Bottom Rd. & S.R. 0233 Centerville Rd.

NOTE: For the purpose of this study, available traffic data was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of roundabouts at representative locations. At this location, complete traffic
information was not available. Therefore an effort was made to determine appropriate values
based on the available data. Actual traffic counts and/or turning movements were beyond the
scope of this study. In actual practice, it is imperative that current and reliable traffic
information be obtained to properly evaluate the use of a roundabout. Appendix A lists the
traffic information needed to make such determination.

The intersection of Walnut Bottom Road and Centerville Road is located in a rural area of
Cumberland County in Penn Township. The intersection is currently a Two-Way Stop
Controlled (TWSC) intersection. Over the five years from 1995 to 1999, a number of angle
crashes have occurred with 86% resulting in injury. One of these crashes resulted in a
fatality. Safety improvements are needed at this intersection. Due to these circumstances, a
roundabout may be a viable solution.

In order to determine the feasibility of utilizing a roundabout at the intersection of Walnut

Bottom Road and Centerville Road, various parameters were investigated. Since turning
movement counts were not available for this intersection, this investigation includes only
information applicable to the planning phase of preliminary design. The PennDOT “Guide to
Roundabouts” questionnaire was completed along with a crash investigation. A preliminary
design layout for a single-lane urban roundabout was also produced.

From the results of this case study, it was determined that a single-lane urban roundabout is a
feasible alternative for the intersection of Walnut Bottom Road and Centerville Road. A
roundabout provides a solution to the safety issue for this intersection. Roundabouts have
been shown to reduce all crashes by 37% and injury crashes by 51%. If a crash did occur the
crash would be less severe due to the reduced entry angle between the entering and circulating
vehicles. This case study found that according to the ADT, the volumes on the two roadways
are less than 5% different. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while
lower proportions favor TWSC. A roundabout would lessen the delay for the minor street
since roundabouts give equal priority to all intersection movements. The disadvantages
would be that this is the first roundabout in the area, which would require education and
justification efforts. The study phase is now necessary to accurately quantify and compare the
roundabout to other forms of intersection control.

Guide to Roundabouts E-15

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:
S.R. 0174 (Walnut Bottom Road) and S.R. 0233 (Centerville Road)
Cumberland County, Penn Township, Centerville, PA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

- Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) Intersection
- History of right angle crashes including one fatality

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?
Yes.

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?
The roundabout would be a retrofit to an existing intersection.

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts E-18

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?
No.

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

The intersection is located in a rural area where transit would not be expected.

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse through. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to
minimize the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?
This is a rural intersection where there is not a current need for parking.

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?
The 2019 AADT is approximately 6,054 vehicles. The proportion of minor street traffic is
50%. The percent of left turning vehicles is currently unknown but should be determined in
the study phase. A single-lane rural roundabout would be applicable.

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts E-19

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?
Neither of these roads are major arterials.

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?
This information is currently unavailable.

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts E-20

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?
Over the five years from 1995-1999, this intersection has experienced a number of angle
crashes. Eight-five percent of these crashes involved injuries including one fatality.
“Didn’t stop” and “Didn’t see the stop sign” were the most common reasons stated.

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?
Assuming that a rural single-lane roundabout would be implemented, the typical range
of 115 ft. to 130 ft. inscribed circle diameter would not require any additional right-of-way.

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts E-21

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?
No.

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts E-22

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?
This information is currently unavailable.

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?
A maximum of 25 mph.

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts E-23

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?
The largest vehicle that can be expected would be a five axle semi- trailer. A WB-50
design vehicle should be sufficient.

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?
Emergency vehicles may pass through the intersection.

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?
Walnut Bottom Road (S.R. 0174) has 2% trucks while Centerville Road (S.R. 0233) has 4%
trucks.

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?
There currently is not any data to support significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The
location of the intersection is a rural area.

Guide to Roundabouts E-24

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?
Illumination in rural areas is not mandatory but is recommended.

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?
A budget has not been determined.

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts E-25

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Case Study No. 3:

Intersection: Northampton Street and Third Street in Easton, PA

NOTE: For the purpose of this study, available traffic data was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of roundabouts at representative locations. At this location, complete traffic
information was not available. Therefore an effort was made to determine appropriate values
based on the available data. Actual traffic counts and/or turning movements were beyond the
scope of this study. In actual practice, it is imperative that current and reliable traffic
information be obtained to properly evaluate the use of a roundabout. Appendix A lists the
traffic information needed to make such determination.

The intersection of Northampton Street and Third Street in the City of Easton is a large rotary
that is signalized for pedestrians. Under normal operation, motorists traveling on the
circulatory roadway receive a flashing yellow signal while approaching motorists receive a
flashing red signal. When pedestrians activate the pedestrian signal, all motorists receive a
steady red signal. Parking currently exists on the outer edge of the circular intersection for the
nearby businesses. The City of Easton refers to this intersection as the Centre Square.
Retrofitting a roundabout at this location may improve the operations, safety and aesthetics of
the intersection.

In order to determine the feasibility of utilizing a roundabout at the intersection of

Northampton and Third, various parameters were investigated. Since turning movement
counts were not available for this intersection, this investigation includes only information
applicable to the planning phase of preliminary design. The PennDOT “Guide to
Roundabouts” questionnaire was completed along with a crash investigation. A preliminary
design layout for a single-lane urban roundabout was also produced.

From the results of this case study, it was determined that a single-lane urban roundabout is a
feasible alternative for the intersection of Northampton Street and Third Street. A roundabout
would provide an improvement in the safety conditions. Roundabouts have been shown to
reduce all crashes by 37% and injury crashes by 51%. If a crash did occur it would be less
severe due to the reduced entry angle between the entering and circulating vehicles. The
existing condition of the intersection allows pedestrians to cross to the center island. The
investigation found that a pedestrian crash did occur within the past six years. One of the
basic philosophies of a roundabout is that pedestrians are not allowed to cross to the center
island. This would improve safety for the pedestrians. The reduction in the vehicle speed
would also be a benefit for the safety of pedestrians and motorists. Since pedestrians would
no longer have access to the center island, the pedestrian signals would no longer be required.
This would be a great financial savings for the City of Easton. This case study found that the
ADT requires only a single-lane urban roundabout. No additional right-of-way is required
and in actuality the area for the roundabout is dramatically less when compared to the area
used by the rotary. Another advantage would be the opportunity for the City to improve the
aesthetics of the area by landscaping the center island. In terms of operations a roundabout

Guide to Roundabouts E-26

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

may lessen the delay and increase capacity. The disadvantages would be that this is the first
roundabout in the area, which would require education and justification efforts. In addition,
roundabouts do not allow parking with the circulatory roadway. The issue of how to
accommodate parking for the nearby businesses would need further investigation. The study
phase is now necessary to accurately quantify and compare the roundabout to other forms of
intersection control.

Guide to Roundabouts E-27

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:
Northampton Street and Third Street
Northampton County, City of Easton, PA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

- Existing intersection is a rotary that is signalized for pedestrians
- When pedestrians are not accessing the intersection, the circulating traffic receives a
flashing yellow. Traffic entering the square receives a flashing red.
- Urban environment, existing intersection is the city’s Centre Square.
- Parking is located at three of the four corners of the existing intersection.

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?
Yes

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?
The roundabout would be a retrofit to the existing rotary.

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts E-30

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?
There are not any railroad tracks in the vicinity of the intersection.

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

The Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority has services that run through this
intersection.

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?
- Currently parking exists at three of the four corners surrounding the rotary for the nearby
businesses.

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?
The 2001 AADT is approximately 17,200 vehicles. The proportion of minor street traffic is
37%. The percent of left turning vehicles is currently unknown. This figure is below the
maximum allowable AADT’s for a single-lane roundabout.

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts E-31

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?
The intersection consists of two city streets.

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?
This information is currently unavailable.

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts E-32

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?
Over the past six years 1995-2000 (inclusive), this intersection has experienced a number of
rear-end crashes. In addition, one crash involved a pedestrian. Currently pedestrians
are allowed to travel onto the center island.

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?
A single lane roundabout with an inscribed diameter of 100 ft. to 130 ft. would dramatically
reduce the area used by the circular intersection. The center island would be reduced as
much as 68%.

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts E-33

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?
N/A

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?
N/A

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?
An AWSC is not a feasible solution.

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?
The intersection is currently a rotary therefore retrofitting a roundabout at this location
should not be a problem with respect to a coordinated signal system.

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts E-34

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?
This information is currently unavailable.

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?
A maximum of 20 mph.

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts E-35

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?
The largest vehicle that can be expected would be a single-unit truck. This should be
verified in the study phase.

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?
Emergency vehicles may pass through the intersection.

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?
The percent of trucks is: 4% for Third Street, and 2% for Northampton Street.

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?
Existing count data is unavailable but a large amount of pedestrian activity can be
expected due to the urban environment. Bicycle traffic should also be expected. Pedestrians
are currently allowed to cross the circulatory roadway into the center island.

Guide to Roundabouts E-36

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?
Illumination in an urban area should be provided including most if not all of the approaches.

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?
Currently a budget has not been determined.

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts E-37

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Case Study No. 4:

Intersection: Linglestown Road and Mountain Road in Linglestown, PA

NOTE: For the purpose of this study, available traffic data was used to evaluate the effectiveness of
roundabouts at representative locations. At this location, complete traffic information was not
available. Therefore an effort was made to determine appropriate values based on the available data.
Actual traffic counts and/or turning movements were beyond the scope of this study. In actual
practice, it is imperative that current and reliable traffic information be obtained to properly evaluate
the use of a roundabout. Appendix A lists the traffic information needed to make such determination.

The intersection of Linglestown Road and Mountain Road in the town of Linglestown is a
Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersection that has a small circular island containing a
flagpole at its center. The intersection is referred to as the Linglestown Village Square. The
Village of Linglestown Action Plan currently has plans for many improvements for
Linglestown that include the addition of a roundabout at the square. A roundabout at this
location may improve the operations, safety and aesthetics of the intersection.

In order to determine the feasibility of utilizing a roundabout at the intersection of

Linglestown and Mountain, various parameters were investigated. Since turning movement
counts were unavailable for this intersection, this investigation includes only information
applicable to the planning phase of preliminary design. The PennDOT “Guide to
Roundabouts” questionnaire was completed along with a crash investigation. A preliminary
design layout for a single-lane urban roundabout was also produced.

From the results of this case study, it was determined that a single-lane urban roundabout is a
feasible alternative for the intersection of Linglestown Road and Mountain Road. The Village
of Linglestown Action Plan is looking to enhance the landscaping of the square, and provide a
traffic calming device that would discourage pass-through truck traffic using the intersection
as a short cut to I-81 and/or SR 322. A roundabout would be able to provide these goals. In
addition, a roundabout would provide an improvement in the safety conditions. Roundabouts
have been shown to reduce all crashes by 37% and injury crashes by 51%. If a crash did
occur it would be less severe due to the reduced entry angle between the entering and
circulating vehicles. With the improvements planned for the area, increased amounts of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic can be expected. With the reduced speed the safety for the
pedestrian and bicyclists will be improved. This case study found that the ADT requires a
single-lane urban roundabout. Additional right-of-way will be required. A disadvantage of
utilizing a roundabout would be that this would be the first roundabout in the area. Education
and justification efforts would be necessary. In addition, roundabouts do not allow parking
within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. The issue of how to accommodate parking
for the nearby businesses would need further investigation. The Village of Linglestown
Action Plan is also looking to keep the flagpole at its current location in the center of the
intersection. Careful attention must be shown when designing the flagpole’s location within
the roundabout. Pedestrians will not be allowed to cross the circulatory roadway to the
central island. The study phase is necessary to accurately quantify and compare the
roundabout to other forms of intersection control.

Guide to Roundabouts E-38

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:
S.R. 0039 (Linglestown Road), S.R. 3019 (Mountain Road) and Township Road #440
Dauphin County, Lower Paxton Township, Linglestown, PA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

- These two roads form what is known as the Linglestown Square
- The current intersection has a small circular island that contains a flagpole in its center
- The intersection is Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC)
- Delay occurs on the minor roads
- Community wants to retain the existing flagpole (considered a landmark)

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?
Yes.

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?
The roundabout would be a retrofit of an existing intersection.

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts E-41

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?
No.

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

Capital Area Transit has a route that runs through this area.

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?
The intersection currently has parking along the approaches and future planned
improvements to the community may increase the need for parking.

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?
AADT data for all legs of this intersection were unavailable at the time of this study. The
AADT was estimated to be 17,400 vehicles. Traffic turning movement counts should be
performed in the study phase. A single-lane urban roundabout would be applicable.

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts E-42

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?
The western approach of Linglestown Road and Mountain Road can be
considered major arterials.

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?
This information is currently unavailable.

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts E-43

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?
Over the five years from 1995-1999, this intersection has experienced a number of angle
crashes. Seventeen percent of these crashes involved injuries. “Pulled out too soon” was
The most common reason stated for the crashes.

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?
Additional right-of-way will be necessary to construct a roundabout at this location (see the
conceptual design for details)

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts E-44

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?
During peak periods queues form on Mountain Road.

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?
No.

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?
N/A

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?
No.

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts E-45

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?
This information is currently unavailable.

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?
A maximum of 20 mph.

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts E-46

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?
The largest vehicle that can be expected would be a five axle semi- trailer. A WB-50
design vehicle should be sufficient.

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?
The Linglestown Fire Company is located approximately ¼ mile from the square.
Emergency vehicles should be expected to traverse through the intersection.

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?
Linglestown Road (S.R. 0039) has 3% trucks while Mountain Road (S.R. 3019) has
3% trucks. Data on the Township Road #440 was unavailable, however, <1% trucks can
be anticipated.

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?
Count data unavailable, but a large amount of pedestrian activity can be
expected due to the urban environment. Bicycle traffic should also be expected.

Guide to Roundabouts E-47

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?
Illumination in an urban area should be provided including most, if not all, of the
approaches.

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?
Currently a budget has not been determined.

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts E-48

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Case Study No. 5:

Intersection: Nicholson Road and Rochester Road in Franklin Park, PA

The intersection of Nicholson Road and Rochester Road in the Franklin Park is a rural
intersection in the western side of the state. The intersection is currently Two-Way Stop
Controlled (TWSC) and has experienced a number of angle crashes over a five year period.
PennDOT officials feel that a method to improve this intersection may be the implementation
of a roundabout.

In order to determine the feasibility of utilizing a roundabout at the intersection of Nicholson

and Rochester, various parameters were investigated. Traffic studies were performed in 1997
on this intersection that included turning movement counts. The PennDOT “Guide to
Roundabouts” questionnaire was completed along with a crash investigation and capacity
analyses. A preliminary design layout for a single-lane urban roundabout was also produced.

From the results of this case study, it was determined that a single-lane rural roundabout
offers marginal benefits to the operation of the intersection and that the disadvantages
outweigh the advantages. The primary advantage for this intersection is the reduction in delay
time and increase in capacity through the intersection. The current crash data indicates that
only 10 crashes have occurred over the five year observation period with no fatalities and only
five injury crashes. Any reduction in crashes at this intersection would be minimal, if at all,
by implementing a roundabout intersection.

One of the disadvantages of implementing a roundabout would be the intersection of Locust

Road with Nicholson Road that is less then 100 feet southwest of the entry to the roundabout.
The close proximity of Locust Road to the roundabout is not a desirable feature and would
likely require left turns out of Locust Road to be prohibited. Another disadvantage is that a
reverse curve would be required on Nicholson Road to achieve the desired entry angle at the
eastern approach to the roundabout. In addition, this would be the first roundabout in the
area, which would require education and justification efforts.

A roundabout would not be recommended at this location as the benefits of such a facility
would be minimal compared to a standard intersection. The additional costs associated with
maintenance of the roundabouts and the undesirable geometric conditions discussed above
suggest that a standard intersection would be more practical here.

Guide to Roundabouts E-49

Intersection of Nicholson Road and Rochester Road: Peak Hour Volumes
Assign each entry leg a number going counter-clockwise around the roundabout as illustrated by figure on the right. Enter data into shaded areas below for each entry leg roundabout has.
For each entry leg present at least one pce/hr must be shown entering or exiting roundabout for the leg. If roundabout has less than five entry legs, then enter zero in the
shaded areas for the entry legs not used. (Note: Use of the tab key will toggle through all the data input shaded areas.)
To get accurate results from this spreadsheet the calculated V/C value should not exceed 0.85.

Exiting (veh/hr) Entering Circulating 5\ / 4 Exiting (pce/hr)

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 pce/hr pce/hr \ / X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
E1 0 151 95 23 0 311 266 \ / E1 0 175 110 27 0
Entering (veh/hr) E2 110 0 114 98 0 381 156 1 ---- ---- O ----- ---- 3 Entering E2 130 0 135 116 0
(Roundabouts with 3, 4 or 5 legs) E3 119 126 0 26 0 336 273 | (pce/hr) E3 148 156 0 32 0
E4 6 55 12 0 0 119 434 | E4 10 90 20 0 0
E5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 2 E5 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL ENTERING ROUNDABOUT (pce/hr) 1,148

CAPACITY AT AN ENTRY OF A ROUNDABOUT

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Inscribed diameter, D (m) 35 35 35 35
Entry width, e (m) 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25
Approach width, v (m) 3.048 3.048 3.048 3.048
Entry angle, Q (degrees) 50 45 50 45
Entry radius, r (m) 21 21 21 21
Average effective flare length, l' (m) 12 12 12 12
Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.89 0.87 0.83 0.63
% Single-Unit Truck or Bus 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
% Truck With Trailer 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

ENTRY CAPACITY (pce/hr) C=Qe 982 1,058 979 913

V/C 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.13

CONTROL DELAY (sec/veh) d 5.4 5.3 5.6 4.5

LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A Compared to an unsignalized intersection

LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A Compared to a signalized intersection

QUEUE LENGTH 95th percentile (veh) 1.4 1.7 1.5 0.4

Circulating flow across the entry, Qc (pce/hr) 266 156 273 434 0
S 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
M 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
X2 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96
F 1199.35 1199.35 1199.35 1199.35
tp 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46
fc 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
k 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.95
Entering flow, qe (pce/hr) 311 381 336 119 0
Definitions:

pce/hr - passenger car equivalent per hour

Inscribed Diameter, D - the diameter of the largest circle that can be inscribed within the junction outline
Entry Width, e - measured at the point of maximum entry deflection, from the left hand end of give-way line along a normal to the nearside curb
Approach Width, v - measured at a point in the approach upstream from any entry flare, from the median line (or edge of travelway on dual lane roads)
to the nearside curb, along a normal
Entry Angle, Q - serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between entering and circulating streams.
Entry Radius, r - measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the nearside curbline at entry
Average Effective Flare Length, l' - measured along a curve offset from curbline a distance of (e-v)/2 starting from line where e is measured to
intersection with a projected curve offset from median a distance v.

Entering flow, qe=V

Sharpness of Flare, S=1.6*(e-v)/l'
M=exp{(D-60)/10}
X2=v+(e-v)/(1+2*S)
F=303*X2
tp=1+.5/(1+M)
fc=.21*tp*(1+.2*X2)
k=1-.00347*(Q-30)-.978*{(1/r)-.05}
Qe=k*(F-fc*Qc) or Qe=0 when fc*Qc>F
d=3600/C+900*T*[V/C-1+sqrt{(V/C-1)^2+(3600/C)*(V/C)/450*T}] where T=analysis time period, hours (T=0.25 for a 15-minute period)
Queue length 95th percentile = 900*T*{V/C-1+sqrt[(1-V/C)^2+(3600/C)*(V/C)/150*T]}*(C/3600) where T is the same as defined for d above

References:

Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council,

Special Report 209, Third edition, Washington, D.C., 1998.

United Kingdom Department of Transport, Geometric Design of Roundabouts, Design

Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6, United Kingdom, 1993.

l’ v

D
Q

r
 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ROUNDABOUT QUESTIONNIARE

Please use the answers to the following questions to aid in the planning or preliminary design
phases. Each question is followed by pertinent information that will help analyze the
feasibility of using a roundabout.

INTERSECTION LOCATION:
Nicholson Road and Rochester Road
Allegheny County, Franklin Park Borough, Franklin Park, PA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION:

- Rural environment
- History of angle crashes
- Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersection

IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be the first in the area?
Yes

The first roundabout in an area will require education and justification efforts. Please refer to
the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section for further information regarding this topic.
Selecting a single-lane roundabout is recommended since this type will initially be more
easily understood than a multi-lane type.

Question No. 2: Would the roundabout be part of a new roadway system or a retrofit of an
existing intersection?
The roundabout would be a retrofit to an existing intersection.

A roundabout that is part of a new roadway will normally have fewer constraints, and right-
of-way should be easier to acquire than for an existing intersection. If the roundabout is a
retrofit of an existing intersection, the resulting cost of maintaining traffic can be relatively
high.

Guide to Roundabouts E-54

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located in the vicinity of a railroad grade crossing?
There are no railroad tracks in the vicinity.

Special consideration must be given when a railroad grade crossing is located in the vicinity
of the roundabout. Queues from a railroad crossing cannot be allowed to back up into the
roundabout. The crossing will obviously require railroad crossing signals and/or gates to stop
traffic on the crossing roadway. However, due to the proximity of the railroad crossing to the
roundabout, it may be necessary to install railroad crossing signals/gates at all legs of the
roundabout and shut down the roundabout during train crossings. This condition may negate
the beneficial effect of the roundabout.

Question No. 2: Is the intersection on any transit routes?

No.

A roundabout properly designed using the appropriate design vehicle should pose no problem
for a bus to traverse. It is important to carefully select the location of bus stops to minimize
the probability of vehicle queues backing up into the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 3: Does the community have a need for parking within or near the intersection?
There is no need for parking in the vicinity.

Parking is not allowed within the circulatory roadway or at the entries. This may be an
important issue if businesses are located in the vicinity of the intersection.

CAPACITY OF THE INTERSECTION:

• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the required capacity for the intersection?
The 2012 AADT is approximately 10,436 vehicles. This figure is below the maximum
allowable AADT’s for a single-lane roundabout.

The following tables provide information to determine which category of roundabout is

required for the intersection in question. The data provided below can be found in Chapter 3
of the FHWA publication “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.” Maximum AADT in the
tables below represents the total of the approaching roadways.

Guide to Roundabouts E-55

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

Four-leg Roundabout
Proportion of
Category Traffic on Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
Minor Street
0% 22,500
Single-lane 33% 20% 21,250
40% 20,000
0% 26,250
Single-lane 50% 20% 25,000
40% 23,750
0% 43,750
Double-lane 33% 20% 41,250
40% 40,000
0% 51,250
Double-lane 50% 20% 48,750
40% 46,875
*For three-leg roundabouts, use 75% of the maximum AADT volumes shown above.
Mini-roundabout
Percent Cross Traffic Left Turn Percentage Maximum AADT
0% 14,500
25% 30% 12,500
50% 12,250
0% 15,500
50% 30% 14,500
50% 14,250
* Mini-roundabouts are usually implemented with safety in mind, rather than capacity

Question No. 2: Does the intersection under consideration consist of a major arterial and a
minor arterial or local road?
The intersection consists of two local roads.

One of basic principles of a roundabout is that all intersection movements are given equal
priority. This fact may cause major street movements to be delayed more than desired. The
overall street classification system and hierarchy should be considered before selecting a
roundabout.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for each leg of the roundabout?
This information is currently unavailable.

FHWA recommends that the v/c ratio should not exceed 0.85 for any leg of the roundabout.

Guide to Roundabouts E-56

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

SAFETY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the crash history of the intersection over the past five years?
Over the past five years 1995-1999, this intersection has experienced <10 angle
crashes.

Roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes by 37 percent and injury crashes by 51
percent. If the intersection has a large number of head-on and angle crashes, a roundabout
may help reduce the number and severity of these incidents. The decrease is due to the entry
angle being reduced to about 60 degrees from 90 degrees, lower speeds, and the elimination
of vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

RIGHT-OF-WAY:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Can a roundabout be constructed within the existing right-of-way, or will it
be necessary to acquire additional space?
A minimal amount of right-of-way may be necessary to accommodate sidewalks along the
eastern approach of Nicholson Road.

Roundabouts usually require more space for the circulatory roadway and central island than
what would be necessary for a traditional rectangular intersection. Be aware that corner
properties at the intersections can create significant right-of-way problems.

• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Would selecting a signalized intersection require long or multiple turn lanes
to provide sufficient capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts with similar capacity should require less space on the approaches than a
signalized intersection. Additional capacity at the intersection can be added by using flared
approach lanes. Utilizing flared approach lanes still maintains the benefit of reduced spatial
requirements upstream and downstream of the intersection.

Guide to Roundabouts E-57

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

ALTERNATE TYPES OF INTERSECTION CONTROL:

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (TWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: (if applicable) Is the existing TWSC intersection experiencing congestion on
the minor street caused by a demand that exceeds capacity?
This information is currently unavailable.

As stated previously, a basic principle of roundabouts is that all intersection movements are
given equal priority. Higher proportions of minor street traffic favor roundabouts while lower
proportions favor TWSC.

Question No. 2: (if applicable) Are queues forming on the major street due to inadequate
capacity for left turning vehicles?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts provide a more favorable treatment of left turning vehicles than TWSC.

All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection (AWSC)

• Study Phase
Question No. 1: Are the cross street traffic volumes heavy enough to meet the MUTCD
warrants for an AWSC?
This information is currently unavailable.

Roundabouts offer higher capacity and lower delays. A reduction in delay during off-peak
periods is a benefit that roundabouts offer but cannot be provided by an AWSC intersection.

Signalized Intersection
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Would the roundabout be located within a coordinated signal system?
No.

Introducing a roundabout into a coordinated signal system may disperse and rearrange
platoons of traffic if other conflicting flows are significant, thereby affecting progressive

Guide to Roundabouts E-58

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

movement. It may be beneficial to divide the signal system into subsystems separated by the
roundabout to minimize overall system delay.
• Study Phase
Question No. 2: Are traffic volumes heavy enough to warrant signalization?
This information is currently unavailable.

When comparing roundabouts to signalized intersections, there is a notable delay savings

when volumes are evenly split between minor and major approaches, especially on two-lane
approaches with high left turn percentages. When the major street approaches dominate,
roundabout delay will be lower than signal delay.

Other benefits that roundabouts have when compared to signalized intersections are increased
capacity, slower speeds, fewer and less severe crashes, less maintenance costs, greater traffic
calming, and a more attractive environment. Roundabouts are self-regulating, while a signal
will require periodic adjustments to its timing sequences.

DESIGN SPEED:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What will the design speed of the roadway be?
A maximum of 25 mph.

The following table lists the FHWA recommended maximum entry design speed for various
categories.

Mini- Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural

Roundabout Compact Single-lane Double-lane Single-lane Double-lane
Max. Entry 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph
Design Speed (25 km/h) (25 km/h) (35 km/h) (40 km/h) (40 km/h) (50 km/h)
Max. Number
of entering
1 1 1 2 1 2
lanes per
approach

Guide to Roundabouts E-59

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

PERCENT/TYPE OF TRUCKS:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: What is the largest vehicle that can be reasonably expected to travel through
the intersection?
The largest vehicle that can be expected would be an interstate tractor trailer. A WB-50
design vehicle should be sufficient.

Single-lane roundabouts may require the use of a mountable apron around the perimeter of the
central island to provide additional tracking width for large vehicles. Trucks utilizing double-
lane roundabouts may track across the entire width of the circulatory roadway.

Question No. 2: Will large emergency vehicles be passing through the intersection?
Emergency vehicles may pass through the intersection.

Emergency vehicles will pass through a roundabout in the same manner as other large
vehicles and may require a mountable apron. Unlike signalized intersections, emergency
vehicles are not faced with through movement vehicles unexpectedly running the intersection
at high speed and hitting them.
• Study Phase
Question No. 3: What is the percent of trucks on each approach?
This information is currently unavailable.

Due to their length, trucks will find it more challenging than passenger vehicles to use a
roundabout. Careful consideration must be given to the amount of truck traffic anticipated,
the types of trucks anticipated and their expected route through a roundabout when
evaluating. Accommodating trucks may require that a larger inscribed circle diameter be used
which may present right of way issues. Additionally, it may be necessary to include a
concrete apron in the center island to accommodate truck turns.

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic existing/expected at the
intersection?
Current counts are unavailable. Due to the rural environment pedestrian
activity should not be expected but future activity should be taken into consideration.

Guide to Roundabouts E-60

 Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation

It is very important to consider pedestrian and bicycle activity when choosing an intersection
control method. Please refer to the “Issues Associated with Roundabouts” section of this
guide for further information regarding these topics.

ILLUMINATION:
• Planning Phase
Question No. 1: Determine the need for illumination?
Illumination in rural conditions is not mandatory but is recommended.

It is suggested that the approach roadways serving a roundabout be illuminated. The specific
site conditions and design criteria will determine the need for and level of illumination. Care
must be exercised to ensure that the clear zone requirements are met.

COST:
• Study Phase
Question No. 1: What is the project’s budget?
Currently a budget has not been determined.

Costs for a roundabout will include construction, engineering and design, land acquisition,
and maintenance. It is important to note that costs of installing roundabouts can vary
significantly from site to site. The costs of a roundabout and a signalized intersection are
comparable at new sites and at existing signalized intersections that require widening at one
or more approaches for additional lanes. In most cases, a roundabout will be more expensive
to construct than a two-way or all-way stop controlled intersection. Costs of maintaining
traffic during construction tends to be relatively high when retrofitting intersections.

Other factors that may contribute to higher costs for roundabouts include large amounts of
landscaping, splitter islands, extensive signing, lighting, and curbing. Operation and
maintenance costs are somewhat higher than unsignalized intersections but are less than
signalized intersections. On-going maintenance costs include restriping and repaving, snow
removal/storage, and landscaping.

Guide to Roundabouts E-61

References:

Bared, Joe G., and Kelly Kennedy, “Safety Impacts of Roundabouts,” Chapter 28, The
Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
2000.

Federal Highway Administration. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Mclean, VA:

FHWA, 2000.

Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Roundabout Guide, Second Edition.

Tallahassee, FL: 1996.

Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration. Roundabout

Design Guidelines. Baltimore, MD: 1995.

Articles:

Luttrell, Greg, Eugene R. Russell, and Margaret Rys, “A Comparison of a Roundabout to

Two-way Stop Controlled Intersections with Low and High Traffic Volumes,” presented
at the ITE 2000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., August
2000.

Sides, Ken, “Assessing The Clearwater Beach Entryway Roundabout,” presented at the
ITE 2000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., August 2000.

Singer, Linda I., and Thomas Hicks, “An Engineer’s Dilemma: Accommodating the
Needs of People with Disabilities at Modern Urban Roundabouts,” presented at the ITE
2000 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., August 2000.

Wallwork, Michael and Ken Sides, “Roundabouts Are Coming to Your Town,” Public
Works Magazine, October 2000, pp.82-85.