Volume 1

Part 7
Design for Roundabouts
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Disclaimer
The State of Qatar Ministry of Municipality and Urban Planning (MMUP) provides access to the
Qatar Highway Design Manual (QHDM) and Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) on the web and
as hard copies as Version (1.0) of these manuals, without any minimum liability to MMUP

Under no circumstances does MMUP warrant or certify the information to be free of errors or
deficiencies of any kind.

The use of these manuals for any work does not relieve the user from exercising due diligence
and sound engineering practice, nor does it entitle the user to claim or receive any kind of
compensation for damages or loss that might be attributed to such use.

Any future changes and amendments will be made available on the MMUP web site. Users of
these manuals should check that they have the most current version.

Note: New findings, technologies, and topics related to transportation planning, design,
operation, and maintenance will be used by MMUP to update the manuals. Users are encouraged
to provide feedback through the MMUP website within a year of publishing the manuals, which
will be reviewed, assessed, and possibly included in the next version.

Copyright © October 2014. All rights reserved.

VOLUME 1
‫‪VOLUME 1 PART 7‬‬
‫‪DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS‬‬

‫تنويه‬

‫قامت وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني ي دولة قطر بتوف ﺮ دليل تصميم الطرق لدولة قطر ) ‐ ‪Qatar Highway Design Manual‬‬
‫‪ (QHDM‬ودليل قطر للتحكم املروري )‪ (Qatar Traffic Control Manual ‐ QTCM‬ع ى شبكة اإلن ﺮنت وكنسخ مطبوعة باعتبارها‬
‫اإلصدار رقم )‪ (1.0‬من هذﻩ األدلة وذلك دون ادنى مسؤولية ع ى وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني‪.‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫يجب التأكيد ع ى إن وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني‪ ،‬وتحت أي ظرف من الظروف‪ ،‬ال تج أو تتعهد أو تصادق ع ى أن تكون املعلومات‬
‫املتضمنة ي هذين الدليل ن خالية من أي نوع من األخطاء أو العيوب‪.‬‬

‫إن استخدام هذﻩ األدلة ألي عمل ال يعفي املستخدم من إتباع العناية الواجبة أو الفائقة واملمارسة الهندسية السليمة‪ ،‬كما أنه ال يخول‬
‫ُ‬
‫للمستخدم املطالبة أو استالم أي نوع من التعويض عن األضرار أو الخسائر ال يمكن أن تعزى إ ى هذا االستخدام‪.‬‬

‫سوف تكون أي تغي ﺮات او تعديالت متاحة ومتوفرة ع ى موقع اإلن ﺮنت الخاص بالوزارة‪ .‬ويتوجب ع ى املستخدم ن التحقق بشكل متواصل بأن‬
‫لد م أحدث إصدار من هذﻩ األدلة‪.‬‬

‫مالحظة‪ :‬ستقوم وزارة البلدية والتخطيط العمراني بمواصلة تحديث وتعديل ِكال الدليل ن مع األخذ بع ن االعتبار االكتشافات الجديدة‬
‫ُ‬
‫والتكنولوجيات الحديثة واملواضيع املستجدة ال تتعلق بتخطيط وتصميم وتشغيل وصيانة النقل والطرق واملرور‪.‬‬
‫ُ‬
‫إن الوزارة تشجع املستخدم ن ع ى تقديم املالحظات واإلق ﺮاحات والتعليقات وردود األفعال‪ ،‬خالل سنة من اصدار ِكال الدليل ن‪ ،‬وذلك من‬
‫خالل موقع الوزارة حيث سوف يتم مراجعة هذﻩ املالحظات واإلق ﺮاحات ومن ثم تقييمها وإدراجها ضمن اإلصدار القادم من األدلة‪.‬‬

‫‪VOLUME 1‬‬
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Contents Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................v

1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Definitions and Principles ............................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 General ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Design Principles ............................................................................................. 1
1.1.3 Roundabout Key Dimensions .......................................................................... 2
1.2 Roundabout Categories .................................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Mini-roundabouts ........................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Single-lane Roundabouts ................................................................................ 5
1.2.4 Two-lane Roundabouts ................................................................................... 6
1.2.5 Grade-separated Roundabouts ....................................................................... 7
1.2.6 Signalized Roundabouts .................................................................................. 7
1.3 Road Space Allocation and Lane Management .............................................................. 8
1.3.1 Public Transport .............................................................................................. 8
1.3.2 Cyclists ............................................................................................................. 9

2 Operational Analysis ........................................................................................................11

2.1 Traffic Operation .......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Effect of Geometric Elements ....................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Definition of Roundabout Capacity ............................................................... 11
2.2 Traffic Data ................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Capacity and Performance Analysis ............................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Capacity ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Performance Analysis .................................................................................... 12
2.4 Safety Considerations ................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 General .......................................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Curbs ............................................................................................................. 15
2.4.3 Two-wheeled Vehicles .................................................................................. 15
2.4.4 Large Vehicles................................................................................................ 15

3 Geometric Design ............................................................................................................17

3.1 General Considerations ................................................................................................ 17
3.1.1 Design Objectives .......................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Location of Roundabouts .............................................................................. 17
3.1.3 Design Vehicle ............................................................................................... 18
3.2 Key Design Elements..................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Inscribed Circle Diameter .............................................................................. 18
3.2.2 Circulatory Roadway ..................................................................................... 20
3.2.3 Central Island ................................................................................................ 20
3.2.4 Splitter Islands ............................................................................................... 20

VOLUME 1 PAGE I
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.2.5 Alignment of Entry Lanes .............................................................................. 21

3.2.6 Entry Curb Radius (r) ..................................................................................... 22
3.2.7 Approach Half Width (v) ................................................................................ 23
3.2.8 Entry Width (e) .............................................................................................. 23
3.2.9 Average Effective Flare Length (l’)................................................................. 23
3.2.10 Entry Angle (ϕ) .............................................................................................. 24
3.2.11 Entry Path Radius .......................................................................................... 26
3.2.12 Exit Width ...................................................................................................... 31
3.2.13 Exit Curb Radius ............................................................................................. 31
3.2.14 Free Right-turn Lanes .................................................................................... 32
3.2.15 Entry Layout at Free Right-turn Lanes ........................................................... 36
3.2.16 Exit Layout on Free Right-turn Lanes ............................................................ 39
3.2.17 Non-physically Separated Free Right-turn Lanes .......................................... 40
3.2.18 Buses and Free Right-turn Lanes ................................................................... 40
3.3 Sight Distance ............................................................................................................... 40
3.3.1 Approach Visibility ......................................................................................... 40
3.3.2 Visibility at Roundabouts ............................................................................... 41
3.3.3 Forward Visibility at Entry ............................................................................. 42
3.3.4 Visibility to the Left at Entry .......................................................................... 43
3.3.5 Circulatory Visibility ....................................................................................... 45
3.3.6 Pedestrian Crossing Visibility......................................................................... 46
3.3.7 Visual Intrusions ............................................................................................ 46
3.4 Other Aspects of Design ............................................................................................... 47
3.4.1 Cross Slope and Longitudinal Gradient ......................................................... 47
3.4.2 Curbs .............................................................................................................. 48
3.5 Signing and Marking ..................................................................................................... 50
3.5.1 Signing ........................................................................................................... 50
3.5.2 Road Markings ............................................................................................... 50
3.6 Landscaping Recommendations ................................................................................... 50
3.7 Lighting Recommendations .......................................................................................... 51
3.8 Pedestrians and Cyclists ................................................................................................ 52
3.8.1 Principles for Pedestrian Crossings ............................................................... 52
3.8.2 Pedestrian Crossing Locations and Dimensions ............................................ 52
3.8.3 Provision of Facilities by Roadway Functional Classification ........................ 53

References ................................................................................................................................ 55

PAGE II VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Tables

Table 1.1 Roundabout Categories and Key Features .......................................................... 4

Table 3.1 Minimum Inscribed Circle Diameters for Roundabouts.................................... 18
Table 3.2 Turning Width Dimensions for WB-15 Tractor-Semitrailer at Smaller
Roundabouts ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 3.3 Entry Curb Radius .............................................................................................. 22
Table 3.4 Exit Curb Radius ................................................................................................. 32
Table 3.5 Minimum Sight Distance on Free Right-turn Lane (C) ....................................... 35
Table 3.6 Minimum Curve Radii and Roadway Widths for WB-15 Design Vehicle ........... 36
Table 3.7 Minimum Diverge and Merge Tapers and Auxiliary Lanes ............................... 37
Table 3.8 Minimum Entry and Exit Section Length Factor ................................................ 37
Table 3.9 Visibility Distance at Roundabouts .................................................................... 41
Table 3.10 Provision for Nonmotorized Users at Roundabouts ......................................... 54

Figures

Figure 1.1 Roundabout Key Dimensions .............................................................................. 2

Figure 1.2 Mini-roundabout ................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1.3 Single-lane Roundabout ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.4 Two-lane Roundabout ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.5 Grade-separated Roundabout ............................................................................ 7
Figure 1.6 Bus Lane Treatment at Roundabouts .................................................................. 8
Figure 1.7 Bike Paths at Roundabouts ................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.1 Use of Additional Chevron Signing at Roundabouts ......................................... 15
Figure 3.1 Turning Width Layout for WB-15 Tractor-Semitrailer at
Smaller Roundabouts ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 3.2 Arc Projected from the Splitter Island to the Central Island at Entry ............... 21
Figure 3.3 Approach Half Width, Entry Width, and Entry Radius ...................................... 22
Figure 3.4 Average Effective Flare Length .......................................................................... 24
Figure 3.5 Entry Angle Measurement on Large Roundabouts ........................................... 25
Figure 3.6 Entry Angle Measurement at Smaller Roundabouts ......................................... 25
Figure 3.7 Entry Path Radius Determination ...................................................................... 27
Figure 3.8 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Right-Curving Approach ...................... 28
Figure 3.9 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Left-Curving Approach ........................ 28
Figure 3.10 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Typical Three-leg Roundabout ............ 29

VOLUME 1 PAGE III

VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.11 Staggering of Roundabout Legs to Increase Entry Path Radius......................... 30

Figure 3.12 Reverse Curves on Approach to Roundabouts .................................................. 30
Figure 3.13 Typical Two-lane Roundabout Exit Where Island Length is ≥ 20 m .................. 31
Figure 3.14 Free Right-turn Lane with Direct Taper Diverge and Merge ............................. 34
Figure 3.15 Free Right-turn Lane with Auxiliary Lane Diverge and Merge........................... 34
Figure 3.16 Free Right-turn Lane with Direct Taper Diverge and Yield Control on Exit ....... 35
Figure 3.17 Example of Calculation Entry and Exit Section Lengths for a 1.5-m-wide
Island Less than 50 m ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 3.18 Termination of Hatched Road Markings at Channelizing Island ....................... 39
Figure 3.19 Measurement of Stopping Sight Distance on Curved Approach ....................... 41
Figure 3.20 Forward Visibility at Entry ................................................................................. 42
Figure 3.21 Visibility to the Left at the Yield Line ................................................................. 43
Figure 3.22 Visibility to the Left 15 m in Advance of the Yield Line ..................................... 44
Figure 3.23 Circulatory Visibility ........................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.24 Visibility at Entry to a Pedestrian Crossing at Next Exit .................................... 46
Figure 3.25 Cross Slope Design Using 2:1 Ratio Circular Crown Line ................................... 48
Figure 3.26 Method of Terminating Edge Strips on Undivided Highway Approach to a
Roundabout ....................................................................................................... 49
Figure 3.27 Method of Terminating Shoulders on a Divided Highway Approach to a
Roundabout ....................................................................................................... 49
Figure 3.28 Shared At-grade Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Adjacent to Roundabout ..... 53

PAGE IV VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ϕ entry angle

a entry path radius

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

e entry width

ICD inscribed circle diameter

IES Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

kph kilometers per hour

l’ average effective flare length

LOS level of service

m meter(s)

MMUP Ministry of Municipality and Urban Planning

QTCM Qatar Traffic Control Manual

r entry curb radius

TRL Transport Research Laboratory

v approach half-width

VOLUME 1 PAGE V
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

This page intentionally left blank.

PAGE VI VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1 Introduction
1.1 Definitions and Principles
1.1.1 General
Roundabouts are intersections at which traffic circulates counterclockwise around a
central island and traffic entering the intersection is required to yield to vehicles on
the circulatory roadway. In Qatar, new roundabouts incorporate either one lane or
two lanes on the circulatory roadway. This part describes the geometric design of new
roundabouts and for upgrading existing intersections.

The use of roundabouts on various road classifications is subject to the permitted

intersection types defined in Part 4, Intersections and Roundabouts, Table 2.2, of this
manual.

This Part relates to permitted roundabout types on the road network.

Recommendations are given on roundabout type selection, geometric layout,
visibility, pavement cross slope, and the provision of facilities for nonmotorized users.

1.1.2 Design Principles

The principal objective of roundabout design is to provide the safe passage of vehicles
between crossing traffic streams, with minimal delay. This is achieved by a combination of
geometric layout features that are ideally matched to traffic volumes and speeds, as well
as the location-specific constraints that apply. In urban situations, right-of-way constraints
have a significant influence on the design process for improvements to existing
intersections.

Roundabouts should be designed to match the forecast traffic demand and are most
efficient when vehicular flows are reasonably well-balanced between legs
(Department for Transport, 2007). Consideration should be given to the geometric
layout of the approach legs to achieve a satisfactory design.

Entry width and effective flare length are the most important determinants of
capacity, whereas the entry path radius is the most important parameter for safety,
since it governs the speed of vehicles through the roundabout (Kimber, 1980). The
entry path radius is particularly important when approach speeds are high.
Roundabouts may, in some situations, be successful in calming traffic, by reducing
vehicle speeds through the intersection.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 1
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1.1.3 Roundabout Key Dimensions

Roundabouts are made up of a number of distinct but interrelated key elements. When
considering the design of roundabouts, it is essential that these elements are correctly
defined and measured. Key parameters are shown in Figure 1.1 and defined in the
following paragraphs.

Figure 1.1 Roundabout Key Dimensions

Approach half-width (v) is the width of the traffic lanes on the approach to the
roundabout, upstream of any entry flare. It is the shortest distance between the right
edge of traveled way and the centerline of a two-lane roadway, or in the case of a
divided highway, the left edge of traveled way. Where there is white edge markings
or hatching, the measurement should be taken between the markings rather than
curb to curb. Some capacity models use approach half-width in order to estimate the
capacity of the roadway in advance of the roundabout.

Central island is the raised island at the center of the roundabout. On smaller
roundabouts, the central island can include a truck apron, allowing larger vehicles to
negotiate the roundabout while maintaining adequate entry path radius.

PAGE 2 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Circulatory roadway is the one-way roadway surrounding the central island or truck
apron.

Entry angle (ϕ) serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between entering
and circulating traffic streams. At smaller roundabouts, where entries and exits are
closely spaced, the angle can be measured between the entry and the adjacent exit.

Entry flare is a localized widening at the point of entry. Two-lane roundabouts usually
have flared entries at the yield line in order to increase capacity. Single-lane
roundabouts should also be slightly flared to accommodate large vehicles.

Entry curb radius (r) is the minimum radius of the right curb line at the entry. It is the
radius of the best fit circular curve over a length of 25 meters (m) measured on the
curb line from a point 25 m ahead of the yield line to a point 10 m downstream of it.

Entry path radius (a), or its inverse, the entry path curvature, is a measure of the
deflection to the right imposed on vehicles entering a roundabout. Entry path radius
is the most important determinant of safety at roundabouts as it governs the speed of
vehicles through the intersection and whether drivers are likely to yield to circulating
vehicles. To determine the entry path radius, the fastest path allowed by the
geometry is drawn. This is the smoothest, flattest path that a vehicle can take through
the roundabout in the absence of other traffic. The entry path radius is a measure of
the smallest, best-fit circular curve with a length of 25 m, occurring along the vehicle
path in the vicinity of the yield line, but no more than 50 m in advance of it.

Entry width (e) is the width available on immediate entry to the roundabout,
measured perpendicular to the approaching lanes, between the right curb and the
splitter island or median in the case of a divided highway. For capacity assessment,
the measurement should be taken as the total width of the lanes that drivers are
likely to use, which is normally between any white edge lining or hatching.

Exit curb radius is the exit equivalent to the entry curb radius, and is the minimum
radius of the right curb line at the exit.

Exit width is the width available on the immediate exit measured perpendicular to
the exit lanes, between the right curb and the splitter island, or the median in the
case of a divided highway.

Inscribed circle diameter (ICD) is the diameter of the outside edge of the circulatory
roadway. In cases where the roundabout is noncircular, the local value in the region
of the entry is taken.

Splitter islands are curbed, raised areas on the approaches to a roundabout, located
and shaped to direct and separate traffic movements into and out of a roundabout.
They may be enhanced by road markings to further guide vehicles into the
roundabout. Splitter islands can act as a pedestrian refuge island if they are large
enough to give adequate safe standing space for accompanied wheelchair users and
pedestrians with pushchairs.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 3
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1.2 Roundabout Categories

1.2.1 General
Table 1.1 summarizes roundabout categories and key features. Information on
geometric parameters is detailed in Chapter 3 in this Part.

Table 1.1 Roundabout Categories and Key Features

Roundabout Lanes at Urban Rural
Type Entry Classifications Classifications Key Features
Fully mountable central
Mini- One lane island featuring low-level
Local road only Not applicable
Roundabout on all legs mountable curb
Single-lane One lane Minor collector, Raised island with
Collector, local truck apron
Roundabout on all legs Service, local
Boulevard, major
Two lanes
Two-lane and minor Arterial, Raised island with truck
on at least
Roundabout collector, service, collector, local apron on smaller layouts
one leg
local
Grade- Two lanes Expressway, major
Freeway, Incorporates at least two
separated on at least arterial, collector
arterial bridges in layout
Roundabout one leg distributor
Signalized To be used only for retrofit on existing roundabouts.
Roundabout Refer to Part 8, Design for Signalized Intersections, Chapter 4, of this manual.

1.2.2 Mini-roundabouts
On local roads in residential or recreational areas where large vehicles are not
prevalent, the provision of mini-roundabouts can be appropriate. Mini-roundabouts
have reduced inscribed circle diameter in range of 18 m to 22 m and incorporate
single-lane entries and exits on each leg, as shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Mini-roundabout

The central island and splitter islands on a mini-roundabout should be distinguished

from the roadway by alternative paving of contrasting color. In addition, the central

PAGE 4 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

island and splitter islands should incorporate low-level mountable curbs, allowing
large vehicle overrun while discouraging overrun by passenger cars. Mini-
roundabouts featuring a flush painted central island are not permitted.

1.2.3 Single-lane Roundabouts

Single-lane roundabouts are appropriate on lower-classification, urban and rural
routes, providing an alternative to a crossroad intersection. The nonflared entries and
exits give the designer more flexibility in locating pedestrian crossings. A single-lane
roundabout has single-lane entries and exits on all legs (Figure 1.3). The width of the
circulatory roadway is such that it is not possible for two cars to pass one another.

Single-lane roundabouts may have low values of entry and exit radii in conjunction
with high values of entry deflection. This design has less capacity than two-lane
roundabouts but is particularly suitable where there is a need to accommodate the
movement of pedestrians and cyclists.

The maximum width of the circulatory roadway is 6 m with a truck apron provided to
accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles. Single-lane roundabout have
a minimum central island diameter of 4 m and should only be selected for use where
all approaches are undivided highways with design speeds of 50 kilometers per hour
(kph) or less.

Figure 1.3 Single-lane Roundabout

VOLUME 1 PAGE 5
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1.2.4 Two-lane Roundabouts

A two-lane roundabout has a curbed central island at least 4 m in diameter, as shown
in Figure 1.4. The approaches may be undivided or divided highways. A two-lane
roundabout normally has flared entries and exits, allowing two vehicles to enter or
leave the roundabout simultaneously. The circulatory roadway therefore needs to be
wide enough for two vehicles to travel alongside each other on the roundabout itself.
Typically, the circulatory roadway will be between 6.0 m and 10.0 m in width.

Two-lane roundabouts should be selected for use where at least one of the
approaches is a divided highway. New roundabouts with three or more lanes are not
permitted.

The circulatory roadway on large, two-lane roundabouts can be difficult for cyclists to
negotiate, especially at the roundabout entries and exits; therefore, it is
recommended that consideration be given to the provision of off-street bike paths
around the perimeter of two-lane roundabouts.

Figure 1.4 Two-lane Roundabout

PAGE 6 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1.2.5 Grade-separated Roundabouts

A grade-separated roundabout is one that has at least one approach coming from a
roadway at a different level. This type of roundabout can be used as part of an
interchange.

A roundabout can be designed to be at a higher level than the major road, or it can be
at ground level with the major road passing above. It is also possible to provide a
three-level interchange with the roundabout designed to be at the mid-level of two
mainlines. Figure 1.5 shows a typical grade-separated roundabout.

Figure 1.5 Grade-separated Roundabout

Grade-separated roundabouts should be designed as two-lane roundabouts. The

circulatory roadway needs to be wide enough for two vehicles to travel alongside one
another on the roundabout itself. New grade separated roundabouts with three or
more lanes are not permitted.

1.2.6 Signalized Roundabouts

A signalized roundabout has traffic signals on one or more of the approaches and at
the corresponding point on the circulatory roadway itself. Traffic signals may be
installed with either continuous or part-time operation.

It is not permitted to design a new intersection as a signalized roundabout; therefore,

an alternative type of intersection or interchange should be considered. However,
signal control may be installed at existing roundabouts in response to any of the
following problems:

• Excessive queuing on one or more of the approaches

• Capacity problems, such as unbalanced traffic flows
• Safety, such as excessive circulatory speeds

In some cases, the desired result may be achieved without traffic signal installation by
making suitable changes to the layout. These changes should be checked using
appropriate modeling software prior to installing traffic signals.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 7
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

At busy traffic signalized roundabouts, there may be insufficient storage space on the
circulatory roadway for all traffic waiting. In such instances, appropriate controls
should be in place, through road markings and signal phasing, so that queuing traffic
does not block the circulatory roadway or entries to the roundabout.

Further details of signalized roundabouts are provided in Part 8, Design for Signalized
Intersections, of this manual and the Qatar Traffic Control Manual, Part 5, Traffic
Signals.

1.3 Road Space Allocation and Lane Management

1.3.1 Public Transport
Roundabouts generally should be available for use by all transportation modes,
including buses, taxis, and cars. Where roundabouts are to be located on transit
routes, the designer should liaise with the public transport operators. Options that
can be considered include elements such dedicated bus lanes in advance of and
following the roundabout.

Bus lanes should terminate in advance of roundabouts and recommence following the
roundabout, as shown in Figure 1.6. Bus stops should be located sufficiently far away
from roundabout entries and exits and never within the circulatory roadway (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program [NCHRP], 2010).

Figure 1.6 Bus Lane Treatment at Roundabouts

PAGE 8 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

1.3.2 Cyclists
Cyclists should be encouraged to use off-street facilities at roundabouts, particularly
at large roundabouts where significant operating speeds are experienced on the
circulatory roadway. A typical layout is shown below in Figure 1.7. For further guidance
on providing for cyclists, refer to Section 3.8 in this Part.

Figure 1.7 Bike Paths at Roundabouts

VOLUME 1 PAGE 9
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

This page intentionally left blank.

PAGE 10 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

2 Operational Analysis
2.1 Traffic Operation
2.1.1 Effect of Geometric Elements
The geometry of the roundabout should be designed to encourage vehicles
approaching the roundabout to decelerate to a speed that will allow them to safely
negotiate the roundabout avoiding conflicts with other road users. The approach
speed is governed by the following parameters:

• Approach half width (v)

• Entry path radius (a)
• Volume of traffic on the approach

Several geometric parameters influence the rate at which approaching vehicles can
enter the roundabout. The approach half width and the entry width directly influence
the number of vehicles that can queue side by side at the yield line. The width of the
circulatory roadway influences how many vehicles can travel side by side on the
roundabout. Extensive research has found that the following parameters have the
most significant effect on entry capacity:

• Approach half width (v)

• Entry width (e)
• Entry angle (ϕ)
• Average effective flare length (l’)

Research has found that the size of the ICD has a relatively insignificant effect on the
capacity and that the entry curb radius has an insignificant effect on entry capacity,
providing the entry curb radius is at least 20 m.

Thus, the geometric design of a roundabout, together with the combined traffic
volume, may significantly influence the operational efficiency of the intersection.

2.1.2 Definition of Roundabout Capacity

The capacity at a roundabout is the maximum rate at which vehicles can enter the
circulatory roadway during a given period under prevailing traffic and geometric
conditions. For operational studies, an analysis period assessing a single “worst-case”
15-minute period is used, assessing all approaches over the same period. More than
one 15-minute period may have to be assessed to establish the peak; for example,
during the morning, midday, and evening peak periods. Operational analyses are
carried out to check the volume-to-capacity ratio of each approach, taking into

VOLUME 1 PAGE 11
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

account the geometric parameters and the traffic volumes on other approaches and
the circulatory roadway.

On a properly designed and well-functioning roundabout, capacity is measured at the

yield line of each leg. On two-lane roundabouts, it is important that the demands on the
individual approach lanes be balanced to avoid lane starvation at the yield line.

2.2 Traffic Data

Traffic data are needed for each approach to the roundabout, including the
proportions of each turning movement. Volumes comprising various vehicle types
should be converted to passenger car equivalents and defined for each 15-minute
interval. Traffic volumes should be collected for at least the morning, midday, and
evening peak periods.

Manual data collection at roundabouts can be inherently difficult, and the use of
closed-circuit television cameras should be considered to cover each entry. Where
queuing occurs, the traffic survey should include traffic counts taken concurrently
with entry counts and upstream of the start of the queue, to collect data that are
representative of the true demand.

2.3 Capacity and Performance Analysis

2.3.1 Capacity
The capacity of a roundabout and how it is influenced by geometric parameters is
discussed in Section 2.1 in this Part. Similar to other uncontrolled intersections,
roundabouts do not perform in a predictable manner once the ratio of volume-to-
capacity exceeds 0.85. For this reason, it is recommended that the volume-to-capacity
ratio at all approaches does not exceed 0.85.

2.3.2 Performance Analysis

Analysis of roundabouts should be carried out in accordance with the latest version of
the Guidelines and Procedures for Traffic Studies (Ministry of Municipality and Urban
Planning [MMUP], 2011). Key performance measures typically used to analyze the
performance of roundabouts include the following:

• Level of service (LOS)

• Volume-to-capacity ratio
• Average delay
• Average queue length
• 95th percentile queue length
• Approach delay and LOS on worst-case movement

PAGE 12 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

2.4 Safety Considerations

2.4.1 General
The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has studied the characteristics of crashes at
roundabouts in relation to geometric layout design and traffic flows. The studies
provide insight into how various aspects of design interact to influence crash type and
frequency. The relationships of crash characteristics constitute the fundamentals of
design for safety. As relationships between differing aspects of design are not always
mutually compatible, minimizing the likely incidence of a particular type of crash may
increase the potential for another. Therefore, design is often a balance between
operational efficiency, minimizing delays at the intersection, and various safety
aspects within applicable location constraints. Location constraints are often the
dominating factor when designing improvements to an intersection, particularly in
urban areas.

Numerous studies have shown significant safety improvements when conventional

intersections are converted to roundabouts (Hall and Surl, 1981; Maycock and Hall,
1984; and Kennedy et al., 1998). Many have shown that crash severity at roundabouts
is much lower than at unsignalized and signalized intersections. This is mainly due to
the speed reducing effects of roundabouts together with a low impact angle of
vehicles at conflict points, which together reduce the forces experienced by vehicle
occupants significantly.

The most common factor affecting safety at roundabouts is excessive speed, both at
entry and within the roundabout. The most significant factors contributing to high
entry and circulating speeds are as follows:

• Inadequate entry deflection

• Small entry angles
• Inadequate visibility on approaches
• Inadequate advance warning signing
• Very large ICDs

Additional safety aspects to be considered in designing a roundabout include:

• Gradient: Approach gradients should provide appropriate conditions for vehicles

entering the roundabout. Steep uphill gradients can make roundabout entry
difficult, particularly for large vehicles, while steep downhill gradients may
encourage excessive speeds at entry, thus increasing crash potential.
• Visibility to the left at entry: This has comparatively little influence upon crash
risk. There is nothing to be gained by increasing visibility above the recommended
level.
• Crest curves: Roundabouts should not be sited on crest curves where the visibility
on approach to the roundabout is impaired.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 13
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

• Entry and exit speeds: Roundabouts should be designed to encourage slow entry
to the roundabout and quick exit to leave the roundabout clear for the next users.
• Pedestrian crossings: Location of controlled pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of
entries and exits. Further guidance is given in Section 3.8 in this Part.

Based on studies carried out in the United Kingdom, the following measures have
been found to help reduce the crash frequency at roundabouts; however, the
designer should bear in mind that the overprovision of signs can have a detrimental
effect on the visual environment and can dilute important messages to drivers if they
result in information overload (Department for Transport, 2013):

• Repositioning or reinforcing advance warning signs.

• Provision of map-type advance directional signs.
• Making the yield line more conspicuous (Department for Transport, 2007)
• Extending the central island chevron signing farther to the right, as shown in
Figure 2.1, may aid in emphasizing the amount of deflection at the roundabout
(Department for Transport, 2007). On divided highways, additional chevron
signing located within the median area in line with the left approach lane, as
shown in Figure 2.1, may also prove beneficial (Department for Transport, 2007).
• When approach speeds are low, such as in urban areas, a ring of contrasting
paving can be laid in a chevron pattern inside the central island perimeter at a
gentle slope. Chevron signs should also be installed at these locations. In rural
areas, raised curbed chevrons on roundabouts are not recommended. Experience
has shown that physical obstructions such as chevron curbing will be struck
inadvertently at night by drivers who are unaware of the intersection ahead. Only
chevron signs should be placed in these locations.
• Landscaping in urban areas where approach speeds are high enhance the visibility
of the roundabout.
• Provision of transverse yellow bar markings on high-speed, divided highway
approaches has shown a 57 percent reduction in crashes based on studies in the
United Kingdom by the Transport Research Laboratory.
• Provision of appropriate levels of skid resistance on the approaches to
roundabouts and on the circulatory roadways.
• Avoidance of abrupt and excessive superelevation in the entry region.
• Physical adjustment of central island or splitter islands, or both, to achieve
compliant roundabout geometry.
• Provision of “Reduce Speed Now” signs or countdown markers, or both.

High circulatory speeds often cause merging concerns at roundabout entries. Such
concerns normally occur at large roundabouts with excessively long circulatory
roadways.

PAGE 14 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

If entry issues are caused by inadequate visibility to the left, good results can be
achieved by moving the yield line forward in conjunction with curtailing the adjacent
circulatory roadway by hatched road markings or extension of the splitter island.

Figure 2.1 Use of Additional Chevron Signing at Roundabouts

2.4.2 Curbs
Care should be taken with the choice of curb type for roundabout design. Safety
concerns can arise where certain specialized, high-profile curbs are used around the
central island. Observations have shown that striking the curbs can result in loss of
vehicle control or overturning of vehicles unless the approach angle is small and
vehicle speeds are low. If high-profile curbs are used on approaches, consideration
should be given to the provision of pedestrian guardrails. When installing pedestrian
guardrails, care should be taken to maintain visibility sightlines for drivers.

2.4.3 Two-wheeled Vehicles

Roundabouts have a good overall safety record for most users; however, cyclists and
motorcyclists are especially vulnerable in areas of conflict, particularly at large two-
lane roundabouts. Therefore, it is essential that these vehicle types be considered in
the design process. Particular guidance on designing for cyclists is detailed in
Section 3.8 in this Part.

2.4.4 Large Vehicles

Crashes involving large vehicles often cause major congestion and delay and are
expensive to clear, especially at major intersections. Roundabouts where large vehicle
issues persist usually exhibit one or more of the following features:

• Long straight, high-speed approaches with inadequate entry deflection leading to

high entry speeds
• Low circulating flow combined with excessive visibility to the left
• Long straight sections of circulatory roadway leading into deceptively tight curves
• Sharp turns into exits

VOLUME 1 PAGE 15
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

• Excessive cross slope changes on the circulatory roadway

• Excessive adverse cross slope on the circulatory roadway

Load shedding is an inherent problem for some vehicles at low speeds. Research has
shown that a large articulated vehicle with a center of gravity height of 2.5 m above
the ground can overturn on a 20-m radius curve at speeds as low as 24 kph. Particular
attention should be paid to comply with pavement surface tolerances and to avoid
abrupt changes in cross slope. It is good practice to make exit radii greater than entry
radii.

PAGE 16 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3 Geometric Design
3.1 General Considerations
3.1.1 Design Objectives
Designing a roundabout involves selecting the various geometric parameters that find
a balance between safety and capacity. Roundabouts operate most safely when their
geometry forces traffic to enter and circulate at slow speeds. Horizontal curvature
and narrow roadway widths are used to produce this reduced-speed environment.
Conversely, the capacity of roundabouts is negatively affected by low-speed design
elements. As the widths and radii of entries and circulatory roadways are reduced, so
too is capacity. In addition, geometric parameters at roundabouts are also controlled
by the swept path width of large vehicles. Thus, a roundabout is designed to achieve
safety while balancing operational performance and accommodating large vehicles.

3.1.2 Location of Roundabouts

Besides functioning as an intersection, a roundabout can also be helpful in
accomplishing the following:

• Facilitate a change in the roadway cross section; for example, from divided to
undivided highways.
• Emphasize the transition from a rural to an urban or suburban environment.
• Allow U-turns to be executed safely.
• Facilitate heavy left-turn flow.

Most crashes at priority intersections are associated with left turns. The
inconvenience of banned left turns can be mitigated by providing a roundabout
nearby.

Roundabouts are preferably located on level ground or in sags rather than at or near
crests, because it is difficult for drivers to interpret the layout when approaching on
an upward grade. However, there is no evidence that roundabouts on crests are
intrinsically unsafe if they are correctly signed and adequate visibility has been
provided on the approach to the yield line. Roundabouts should not be sited at the
bottom of or on long descents.

Roundabouts in urban areas often are incompatible with urban traffic control
systems. These systems move vehicles through controlled areas in platoons, or
groups, by adjusting traffic signal times to suit progress. Roundabouts can interfere
with platoon movement to the extent that subsequent inflows to downstream traffic

VOLUME 1 PAGE 17
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

signals cannot be reliably predicted and, thus, the sequence breaks down. In cases
where there is a heavy left-turn flow, the roundabout may be a better option.

Where several roundabouts are to be installed on the same route, they should be of
similar design to the extent possible with the traffic volumes concerned, in order to
provide route consistency and, hence, safety for drivers. For closely spaced
roundabouts, the designer should check queue lengths and storage available on the
roadway linking the roundabouts. Where a proposed roundabout may affect the
operation of an adjacent intersection, or vice versa, the interactive effects should be
examined.

3.1.3 Design Vehicle

At roundabouts, allowance should be made for the swept path widths of long
vehicles. The recommended design vehicle for roundabout design is the AASHTO
WB-15 tractor-semitrailer. Further information on design vehicles is given in Part 2,
Planning, of this manual.

3.2 Key Design Elements

3.2.1 Inscribed Circle Diameter
The ICD is the diameter of the largest circle that can be fitted into the roundabout
outline. Table 3.1 lists the minimum ICD values for each roundabout type that can
accommodate the WB-15 tractor-semitrailer design vehicle.

Table 3.1 Minimum Inscribed Circle Diameters for Roundabouts

Minimum
Roundabout ICD Recommended Design
Type (m) Vehicle Central Island Treatment
Mini-roundabout 18 WB-15 tractor-semitrailer Fully mountable central island
featuring low level mountable curb
Single-lane 28 WB-15 tractor-semitrailer Raised central island with truck
Roundabout apron
Two-lane 28 WB-15 tractor-semitrailer Raised central island, with truck
Roundabout apron on smaller layouts

The smallest ICD on a mini-roundabout is 18 m. Provision for large vehicles is provided

by incorporating a fully mountable central island together with a fully mountable
splitter islands on all approaches. The largest ICD value for mini-roundabouts is 22 m.

The smallest ICD for single-lane and two-lane roundabouts is 28 m. On smaller

roundabouts, it may be difficult to provide sufficient vehicle deflection on entry,
therefore the provision of a truck apron is often needed. A truck apron incorporates a
low-level mountable curb that provides adequate deflection for passenger cars while
allowing overrun by large vehicles. Truck aprons should have the same cross slope
value and direction as that of the circulatory roadway. For details of low-level
mountable curb, refer to Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, of this manual.

PAGE 18 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Caution should be exercised in the use of roundabouts with large inscribed circle
diameters, as these can have the effect of encouraging high circulatory speeds.

Figure 3.1 shows the swept path width for a WB-15 tractor-semitrailer at smaller one-
lane and two-lane roundabouts with inscribed circle diameters in the range of 28 m to
36 m. In these cases, splitter islands should not extend into the inscribed circle
diameter. Table 3.2 shows turning width dimensions for WB-15 tractor-semitrailer at
smaller roundabouts.

Figure 3.1 Turning Width Layout for WB-15 Tractor-Semitrailer at Smaller

Roundabouts

Table 3.2 Turning Width Dimensions for WB-15 Tractor-Semitrailer at Smaller

Roundabouts
Central Island Diameter Radius R1 Radius R2 Minimum ICD
(m) (m) (m) (m)
4.0 3.0 13.0 28.0
6.0 4.0 13.4 28.8
8.0 5.0 13.9 29.8
10.0 6.0 14.4 30.8
12.0 7.0 15.0 32.0
14.0 8.0 15.6 33.2
16.0 9.0 16.3 34.6
18.0 10.0 17.0 36.0
Source: Geometric Design of Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2007)

VOLUME 1 PAGE 19
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.2.2 Circulatory Roadway

Where possible, the circulatory roadway should be circular in plan, avoiding
deceptively tight horizontal curvature. In cases of complex roundabouts of noncircular
geometry, tight curves should be avoided because they can lead to loss of control
crashes and increase the risk of load shedding by large vehicles.

The width of the circulatory roadway on two-lane and grade-separated roundabouts

should not exceed 10 m. On single-lane roundabouts, the width of the circulatory
roadway should not exceed 6 m. A truck apron surrounding the central island can be
used to provide additional width for large vehicles; however, the additional width
provided by a truck apron is not included in the definition of the circulatory roadway
width. If the circulatory roadway does not correspond to these maximum widths, it is
considered a Departure from Standard.

The width of the circulatory roadway should be constant around the roundabout and
be between 1.0 and 1.2 times the maximum entry width. If turning proportions are
such that one section of circulatory roadway has a relatively low flow, it is not
considered good practice to reduce the circulatory roadway width by extending the
splitter island into the circulatory roadway. If the width of the circulatory roadway is
not in accordance with this paragraph, it is considered a Departure from Standard.

It is generally considered good design practice to avoid short lengths of reverse curve
between entries and adjacent exits by linking the curves or joining them with straight
segments between the entry curb radius and the exit curb radius.

3.2.3 Central Island

The central island should be circular and at least 4 m in diameter. The ICD, the width
of the circulatory roadway, and the central island diameter are interdependent: once
any two of these are established, the remaining measurement is determined
automatically.

To provide sufficient entry deflection for light vehicles at single-lane or smaller two-
lane roundabouts, a truck apron can be incorporated. A truck apron incorporates a
low-level mountable curb that provides adequate deflection for passenger cars while
allowing overrun by large vehicles. Truck aprons should have the same cross slope
value and direction as that of the circulatory roadway. For details of low-level
mountable curb, refer to Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, of this manual.

3.2.4 Splitter Islands

Splitter islands are used on each roundabout leg and are located and shaped to
separate and direct traffic entering and leaving the roundabout. The geometry of a
splitter island is defined by the alignment geometry of entrances and exits, and is
generally unique to each site. Splitter islands are located in the residual area at the
approaches to roundabouts between entrances and exits that is left after the
optimum roundabout geometry has been established.

PAGE 20 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Curbing is the recommended treatment for splitter islands. If there is insufficient

space to accommodate a full height curbs, as may be the case on a smaller
roundabout, the splitter island should incorporate low-level mountable curbs and
alternative contrasting paving to allow occasional vehicle overrun. Road markings can
also be used to extend the splitter island on the approach, the exit, or the circulatory
roadway.

Curbed splitter islands can act as pedestrian refuges if they are large enough to give
adequate standing space for accompanied wheelchair users, pedestrians with
pushchairs and cyclists. A minimum pedestrian island width of 2.0 m should be
provided but this should be increased where nonmotorized user demand is high. Signs
and other street furniture can be located on splitter islands provided adequate
clearance to the edge of traveled way is maintained and visibility is not obscured.

3.2.5 Alignment of Entry Lanes

In order to reduce the likelihood of vehicle paths overlapping on the circulatory
roadway, the alignment of entry lanes is critical.

On rural roundabouts, where design speeds are relatively high, the curb line of the
splitter island, or median in the case of a divided highway, should lie on an arc which,
when projected forward, meets the central island tangentially to reduce the likelihood
of vehicle paths overlapping, as shown in Figure 3.2. In urban areas, where design
speeds are lower, this is less important, but should be achieved where possible. Care
should be taken to confirm the resultant entry angle is not too low.

Figure 3.2 Arc Projected from the Splitter Island to the Central Island at Entry

VOLUME 1 PAGE 21
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.2.6 Entry Curb Radius (r)

Entry curb radius, r, is the minimum radius of curvature of the right hand side curb line
from a point 25 m in advance of the yield line to a point 10 m downstream of it as
shown in Figure 3.3. Minimum values for entry curb radius for the various roundabout
types as detailed in Table 3.3. The entry curb radius should not be less than 6 m at mini-
roundabouts and 10 m at single-lane roundabouts. At two-lane roundabout entries, the
minimum entry curb radius is 10 m; however, where regular use by large vehicles is
expected, it should not be less than 20 m.

Table 3.3 Entry Curb Radius

Minimum Entry Curb Radius, r
Roundabout Type (m)
Mini-Roundabout 6
Single-lane Roundabout 10
Two-lane Roundabout 10
Two-lane Roundabout (particularly for large vehicles) 20
Source: Based on guidance from Geometric Design of Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2007)

Although entry capacity can be increased by increasing the entry curb radius, once its
value reaches 20 m, further increases only result in very small capacity improvements.
Reducing the entry radius below 15 m reduces capacity.

Figure 3.3 Approach Half Width, Entry Width, and Entry Radius

PAGE 22 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.2.7 Approach Half Width (v)

The approach half width, v, is the total combined width of all approaching traffic lanes
on the link upstream of any entry flare, as shown in Figure 3.3. Some capacity models
use this to estimate the capacity of the roadway in advance of the roundabout.

3.2.8 Entry Width (e)

Entry width, e, is the width available on immediate entry to the roundabout,
measured perpendicular to the approaching lanes, between the right curb and the
splitter island or median in the case of a divided highway. The entry width is
measured from the point of maximum deflection at point A, as shown in Figure 3.3.

It is good practice to have two lanes on all entries to a two-lane roundabout.

Therefore, where the approach road is limited to one lane upstream, an additional
lane should be provided in advance of the roundabout entry. The relationship
between entry width and capacity is significant. Entry width is the largest single factor
affecting capacity, apart from approach half width.

There may be some cases, usually associated with low predicted flows, where
increased entry width is not operationally necessary on a two-lane roundabout, but it
is still recommended that two entry lanes be provided. This will give added flexibility
at abnormal flow periods in the future and a passing facility in the event of
breakdown, and will ease the problem of space provision for long vehicles turning.

Lane widths at the yield line should not be less than 3 m and not more than 4.5 m.
Entry width at single-lane roundabouts should be 4.5 m. The width of any additional
lane should be tapered back in the entry flare to a minimum width of 2.5 m.
Reduction in these widths is considered to be a Departure from Standard.

The development of entry lanes should take into account the anticipated turning
proportions and possible lane bias, as drivers often have a tendency to use the right
lane. A lane that widens into two should maximize use of the entry width. The use of
short lanes on the left is not recommended.

3.2.9 Average Effective Flare Length (l’)

Entry flaring is localized widening at the point of entry. Two-lane roundabouts usually
have flared entries with the addition of a lane at the yield line to increase capacity.
The average effective flare length, l', is the average length over which the entry
widens, as shown in Figure 3.4.

The capacity of an entry can be improved by increasing the average effective flare
length. A minimum length of about 5 m is desirable in urban areas, whereas 25 m is
adequate in rural areas. Flare lengths greater than 25 m may improve the geometric
layout but have little effect in increasing capacity. Flare lengths should not be greater
than 100 m, as beyond this the design becomes one of link widening. Where the
design speed is high, entry widening should be developed gradually, avoiding any
sharp angles.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 23
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

The measurement of average effective flare length is shown in Figure 3.4 and is
constructed as follows:

• AB = entry width, e
• GH = approach half width, v
• GD is parallel to AH and distance v from AH (v is measured along a line
perpendicular to both AH and GD and, therefore, the length of AD is equal to v
only if AB is perpendicular to the median at A).
• CF' is parallel to BG and distance one-half BD from the curb line BG.
• Average effective flare length, l’ = CF’

Figure 3.4 Average Effective Flare Length

3.2.10 Entry Angle (ϕ)

The entry angle, ϕ, serves as a geometric proxy for the conflict angle between
entering and circulating traffic streams. Depending on the size of the roundabout, the
following methods should be used to determine the entry angle.

For large roundabouts where links are widely spaced the entry angle is measured as
shown in Figure 3.5.

Line BC is a tangent to line EF, which is midway between the right entry curb line and
the splitter or median island, where this intersects the circulatory roadway. Curve AD
is constructed as the locus of the midpoint of the used section of the circulatory
roadway, which is a proxy for the average direction of travel for traffic circulating past
the entry.

PAGE 24 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

The entry angle is measured as the acute angle between BC and the tangent to AD at
the point of intersection between BC and AD, as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Entry Angle Measurement on Large Roundabouts

Figure 3.6 shows the layout for smaller roundabouts. This construction is used when
there is insufficient separation between entry and adjacent exit to be able to define
the path of the circulating vehicle clearly. The angle between the projected entry and
exit paths is measured and then halved to find the entry angle, ϕ.

Figure 3.6 Entry Angle Measurement at Smaller Roundabouts

Line BC is the same as in Figure 3.5.

Line GH is the tangent to line JK, which is in the following exit, midway between the
right curb and the splitter or median island, where this intersects the outer edge of
the circulatory roadway.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 25
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

BC and GH intersect at L. The entry angle, ϕ is then defined by:

ϕ = BLH/2

If the angle GLB exceeds 180 degrees, ϕ is taken to be zero.

The entry angle, ϕ, should lie between 20 and 60 degrees with the optimum angle
being between 30 and 45 degrees. High entry angles tend to lower capacity and
produce excessive entry deflection, which can lead to sharp braking at entries
accompanied by rear end crashes, especially on high-speed approaches. Low entry
angles force drivers into merging situations where they will be forced to look over
their shoulder or use side mirrors to merge with circulating traffic.

3.2.11 Entry Path Radius

Entry path radius is one of the most important safety factors at roundabouts. It is a
measure of the amount of entry deflection to the right imposed on vehicles at entry
to the roundabout. This governs the speed of vehicles through the roundabout and
whether or not drivers are likely to yield to circulating vehicles.

The entry path radius should be checked for all turning movements. It should not
exceed 70 m at single-lane roundabouts. At other roundabouts, except mini-
roundabouts, the entry path radius should not exceed 100 m (Department for
Transport, 2007). At mini-roundabouts, there is no maximum value for entry path
radius. Where the entry path radius is greater than these values, it is considered a
Departure from Standard.

Determining the entry path radius is based on the following assumptions and shown
in Figure 3.7 through Figure 3.10.

• The entering vehicle is 2 m wide so that it maintains a distance of at least 1 m

between its centerline and any curb or edge marking, and that it is continuing
straight ahead at a four-leg roundabout and across the head of the tee at a three-
leg roundabout.
• There is no other traffic on the approach and on the circulatory roadway.
• The driver negotiates the site constraints with minimum deflections and that lane
markings by the yield line are ignored.
• The commencement point of the vehicle path is located 50 m in advance of the
yield line and at least 1 m from the edge of traveled way or centerline.

PAGE 26 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

• The vehicle proceeds as follows:

− First, toward the yield line
− Then, toward the central island of the roundabout, passing through a point
not less than 1 m from the right hand curb, the position of which relative to
the starting point depends on the amount of approach flare to the right
− Then continuing on a smooth path with its centerline, never passing closer
than 1 m from the central island, more in some configurations

Figure 3.7 Entry Path Radius Determination

VOLUME 1 PAGE 27
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.8 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Right-Curving Approach

Figure 3.9 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Left-Curving Approach

PAGE 28 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.10 Entry Path Radius Determination for a Typical Three-leg Roundabout

On a layout of the roundabout, to a scale not less than 1:500, draw the centerline of
the most realistic path that a vehicle would take in its complete passage through the
roundabout on a smooth alignment without sharp transitions.

The exact path drawn is a matter of personal judgment. The results should be examined
for compliance and consistency with the appropriate clauses in this section. Any reverse
of curvature in the vehicle path around the central island should be drawn so that there
is no sharp deviation between that curve and the entry curve. Particular care in
checking entry path radius is needed when considering small central island designs.

This tightest radius can be measured by means of suitable templates. The entry path
radius is measured on the curved length of path near the yield line, but not more than
50 m in advance of it as shown in Figure 3.7 through Figure 3.10. The entry path
radius is the radius of the best-fit circular curve over a length of 25 m.

At single-lane and smaller two-lane roundabouts incorporating a truck apron, the

entry path radius is measured relative to the outer perimeter of the truck apron
rather than that of the central island (Department for Transport, 2007).

One method for increasing entry deflection at roundabouts is to stagger the legs, such
that the centerline of each leg intersects with the roundabout slightly left of center,

VOLUME 1 PAGE 29
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

as shown in Figure 3.11. This method also results in a reduction in the overall size of
the roundabout, minimizing land acquisition, and in addition, helps to provide a clear
exit route of sufficient width to avoid conflicts (Department for Transport, 2007).

Figure 3.11 Staggering of Roundabout Legs to Increase Entry Path Radius

Another method for increasing entry deflection at roundabouts, especially on high-

speed divided highways, is to use a combination of reverse curves on the approach as
shown in Figure 3.12. This method also has the added benefit of helping to reduce
vehicle speeds on the immediate approach to the roundabout.

Figure 3.12 Reverse Curves on Approach to Roundabouts

PAGE 30 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.2.12 Exit Width

The exit width is measured similarly to entry width. It is the distance between the
right curb line and the splitter island or, in the case of a divided highway, the median
where it intersects with the outer edge of the circulatory roadway. As with the entry
width, it is measured perpendicular to the right hand curb line. Values typically are
similar to or slightly less than entry widths; that is, exits have less flaring.

The number of lanes at an exit should be equal to the number of lanes at the
corresponding entry for the straight though-traffic movement. At single-lane
roundabouts, only one lane should be provided. There should be no more than two
lanes on an exit.

On undivided highway exits where the length of the splitter island is 20 m or greater,
a minimum width of 6 m, measured perpendicular to the right curb, should be
provided adjacent to splitter island to allow traffic to pass a broken down vehicle.
Figure 3.13 shows a typical two-lane roundabout exit using some of the principles
described here.

Figure 3.13 Typical Two-lane Roundabout Exit Where Island Length is ≥ 20 m

3.2.13 Exit Curb Radius

Table 3.4 lists acceptable ranges of exit curb radius. For a two-lane roundabout, a
value of 40 m is desirable, but for larger roundabouts on high-speed roads, a higher
value can better fit the overall intersection geometry. A compound curve starting with

VOLUME 1 PAGE 31
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

a radius of 40 m, developing to a larger radius, of up to 100 m, usually offers the best

solution. Larger values of exit radii can lead to high exit speeds, which may not be
appropriate where pedestrian crossing facilities are located immediately downstream.

Table 3.4 Exit Curb Radius

Minimum Exit Curb Radius Maximum Exit Curb Radius
Roundabout Type (m) (m)
Mini-roundabout 6 20
Single-lane Roundabout 15 20
Two-lane Roundabout 20 100
Source: Based on guidance from Geometric Design of Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2007)

The spacing of an exit and the preceding entry should not be less than the
combination of the minimum entry curb radius and the minimum exit curb radius. If a
roundabout is to be modified to include an additional entry, care should be taken so
that this does not affect safety at the preceding entry and the following exit. It may be
necessary to redesign the whole roundabout if adequate spacing between entries and
exits cannot be achieved.

3.2.14 Free Right-turn Lanes

Free right-turn lanes are a useful method for providing improved service to vehicles
intending to leave a roundabout at the first exit after entry. Through a free right-turn
lane, vehicles are able to proceed directly to the first exit without having to interact
with vehicles on the circulatory roadway. This is particularly appropriate at two-lane
roundabouts.

There is a simple procedure to provide guidance to determine if a free right-turn lane

would be beneficial to a roundabout design and merit further investigation. It is based
on total traffic in-flows at entry, vehicle composition, right-turning traffic, and the
number of entry lanes. The inclusion of a free right-turn lane should be considered if
the following is true for the individual approach:

R ≥ F/E

where:
R = flow of right-turning vehicles per hour
F = total entry flow in vehicles per hour
E = total number of entry lanes including the free right-turn lane
Source: Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at Roundabouts (Department for
Transport, 2003)

In cases where R and F/E are very close, consideration of other factors, such as safety,
should be included in the appraisal.

The removal of flow from the circulatory roadway can improve the overall
performance of the roundabout, but vehicle composition should be examined when

PAGE 32 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

considering the use of these lanes. If the right-turning vehicles are predominantly
light and there are high proportions of large vehicles leaving the roundabout, there
could be problems with different speeds at the merge, particularly if this is on an
uphill gradient. If dedicated lanes are to be used in such situations, they should finish
with a yield line at the exit from the lane.

The use of free right-turn lanes in urban areas where pedestrians are expected is not
recommended. Pedestrians should be channeled using a guardrail to a suitable
crossing point. If this is not possible, the channelizing island should be of sufficient
width to accommodate the anticipated peak number of pedestrians, and the location
of pedestrian crossing points should be carefully considered.

Free right-turn lanes should include a fully curbed channelizing island. Vehicles are
channeled into the right-hand lane by lane arrows and road markings supplemented
by advance direction signs. The operation of the free right-turn lane should not be
impaired by traffic queuing to use the roundabout itself.

Free right-turn bypass lanes should not be designed to encourage high speeds. The
curve radius used for the free right-turn lane will depend on both the design speed of
the approach road and site constraints. The driver’s perception of the approach and
free right-turn lane radii will be a determining factor in their approach speed.
Therefore, the designer should consider the need for speed reduction measures on the
approach depending on the minimum curve radii used. For divided highways, a
minimum inside curve radius of 30 m is recommended, and in all instances the inside
curve radii should not be less than 10 m. The radius at exit should not be less than the
radius at entry.

Superelevation along the free right-turn lane should be designed in accordance with
Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, of this manual to a maximum value of 5 percent.

Examples of free right-turn lanes at roundabouts are shown in Figure 3.14 to

Figure 3.16.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 33
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.14 Free Right-turn Lane with Direct Taper Diverge and Merge

Figure 3.15 Free Right-turn Lane with Auxiliary Lane Diverge and Merge

PAGE 34 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.16 Free Right-turn Lane with Direct Taper Diverge and Yield Control on
Exit

Stopping sight distance for the design speed of the main approach road should be
provided to the start of the inside curve radius at the start of the free right-turn lane.
Forward visibility from the main approach road into the free right-turn lane to the start
of the exit section, should be in accordance with Table 3.5. The maximum curve radius
defined in Table 3.5 refers to the maximum radius encountered on the inner edge
through the length of the free right-turn lane. Beyond the start of the exit section, the
stopping sight distance should be in accordance with the design speed of the road being
entered. Reduction in stopping sight distance is considered a Departure from Standard.

Table 3.5 Minimum Sight Distance on Free Right-turn Lane (C)

Maximum Curve Radius on
Free Right-turn Lane, (C) Minimum Sight Distance
(m) (m)
≤20 35
21–40 70
41–80 90
81–100 120
>100 215
Source: Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at Roundabouts (Department for
Transport, 2003)

The roadway width should be sufficient to accommodate the swept path of the design
vehicle. Table 3.6 provides guidance for minimum roadway widths through the free
right-turn lane for a WB-15 tractor-semitrailer. However, hatched road markings can
be provided on the inside of the curve to reduce the marked lane width to a minimum
of 3.65 m.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 35
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Where the channelizing island is less than 50 m in length, it is not necessary to make
allowance for broken-down vehicles and, in such cases, the width of the free right-turn
lane should be as detailed in the second column of Table 3.6. However, when the
island is longer than 50 m, the lane width should be increased as detailed in the third
column of Table 3.6, and a swept-path analysis should be performed to allow passing
of a broken-down vehicle.

Table 3.6 Minimum Curve Radii and Roadway Widths for WB-15 Design Vehicle
Minimum Curve Radius on Free Free Right-turn Lane Roadway Free Right-turn Lane Roadway
Right-turn Lane, (C) Width for Island Length <50 m Width for Island Length ≥50 m
(m) (m) (m)
10 8.4 10.9
15 7.1 9.6
20 6.2 8.7
25 5.7 8.2
30 5.3 7.8
40 4.7 7.2
50 4.4 6.9
75 4.0 6.5
100 3.8 6.3
>100 3.65 6.0
Source: Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at Roundabouts (Department for
Transport, 2003)

The channelizing island should not prevent a right turn at the roundabout in the usual
manner by way of the circulatory roadway.

The maximum longitudinal gradient on a free right-turn lane at a roundabout should

be limited to 5 percent.

The merging between vehicles from a free right-turn lane and other vehicles exiting
the roundabout should take place relatively close to the roundabout, where speeds
are still comparatively low.

Under no circumstances should two right-turn lanes be used together. If right-turning

traffic is very high and cannot be accommodated by a single free right-turn lane, then
alternative forms of intersection should be investigated.

3.2.15 Entry Layout at Free Right-turn Lanes

The two basic forms of entry layout for a free right-turn lane are as follows:

• Direct taper (A) followed by entry section (B), as shown in Figure 3.14
• Auxiliary taper (F) and auxiliary lane (G) followed by entry section (B) as shown in
Figure 3.15

PAGE 36 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

The type of diverge will be dependent on traffic and site constraints. The use of the
minimum values provided in Table 3.7 is recommended. The design speeds defined in
Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 relate to the design speed of the road from which the free
right-turn lane diverges, or onto which it merges.

Table 3.7 Minimum Diverge and Merge Tapers and Auxiliary Lanes

Minimum Auxiliary Minimum Auxiliary

Minimum Direct Taper Length Lane Length
Design Speed Taper Rate (F) and (J) (G) and (H)
(kph) (A) and (E) (m) (m)
≤ 60 1:10 30 55
> 60 1:15 45 85
Source: Based on guidance from Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at
Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2003)

The free right-turn lane width should be at least 3.65 m at the beginning of the
diverge nose as shown in Figure 3.14 to Figure 3.16. Any reduction from this value is
considered a Departure from Standard.

The recommended length of the entry section should be the larger of the following
values:

• The widening needed to accommodate the channelizing island, subject to a

minimum width of 2.1 m, consisting of a 1.5 m wide island plus a 0.3 m road
marking offset on each side, as shown in Figure 3.18, multiplied by the
appropriate factor in Table 3.8.
• The widening needed to accommodate the swept path of a large vehicle as
detailed in Table 3.6, multiplied by the appropriate factor in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Minimum Entry and Exit Section Length Factor

Design Speed on Major Roadway Entry and Exit Section Factor
(kph) (B) and (D)
≤70 20
80 and 90 25
≥100 30
Source: Based on guidance from Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at
Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2003)

Figure 3.17 shows how to calculate the length of the entry and exit section and for a
1.5-m-wide channelizing island less than 50 m long on an undivided highway
approach.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 37
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.17 Example of Calculation Entry and Exit Section Lengths for a 1.5-m-wide
Island Less than 50 m

PAGE 38 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

The taper for the chevron road markings on the nose should be developed
asymmetrically on the right-turn bypass lane side, as shown in Figure 3.17. The nose
edge line marking should terminate in a position offset 0.3 m from the edge of the
physical island, as shown in Figure 3.18.

Figure 3.18 Termination of Hatched Road Markings at Channelizing Island

3.2.16 Exit Layout on Free Right-turn Lanes

The three basic types of exit layout from a free right-turn lane are as follows:

• Merge consisting of exit section (D), and merge taper (E), as shown in Figure 3.14
• Merge consisting of exit section (D), auxiliary lane (G), and auxiliary taper (J), as
shown in Figure 3.15
• Yield control, as shown in Figure 3.16

Exits with merge tapers or auxiliary lanes consist of a merge maneuver between the
traffic leaving the roundabout circulatory roadway and the free right-turn lane. These
layouts inherently include risks associated with vehicles exiting the roundabout being
in the side-mirror visually impaired spot for traffic using the free right-turn lane. This
situation may contribute to crashes between merging vehicles as well as nose-to-tail
crashes, particularly for motorists with limited ability to look over their shoulders and
for some drivers of large vehicles.

When a free right-turn lane exits onto a divided highway, merge tapers or auxiliary
lanes should be provided, as detailed in Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.15. In the situation
where a free right-turn lane exits onto an undivided highway, yield control can be
provided, as shown in Figure 3.16.

The exit section from the free right-turn lane and the associated merge nose should
be provided in accordance with Table 3.7 and Table 3.8. The width of the right-turn
bypass lane should be at least 3.65 m at the end of the exit section, as shown in
Figure 3.14 and Figure 3.15. Any reduction in this width is considered a Departure
from Standard.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 39
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Any widening needed to accommodate the swept paths of large vehicles through the
free right-turn lane should be removed along the length of the exit section. As with
the entry section, the length of the exit section and adjacent merge nose is calculated
using the larger value of the width of the channelizing island and the widening required
to accommodate the design vehicle, as shown in Figure 3.17. The angle of the chevron
road markings at the nose should be developed, as shown in Figure 3.17, and terminate
in a position offset from the edge of a physical island, as shown in Figure 3.18.

At the beginning of a roundabout exit, it is recommended that its width allows for an
extra traffic lane over and above that of the link downstream, provided that the
maximum of two lanes on exit is not exceeded. Where a free right-turn lane is
present, the exit width reduction should be completed upstream of the end of the
free right-turn lane exit section.

A yield exit from a free right-turn lane should be located as close as practical to the
roundabout, at a minimum entry angle of 45 degrees between the yield line and the
entering vehicle as shown in Figure 3.16.

Signs and street furniture placed on the physical island near the exit should not
obstruct visibility between the free right-turn lane exit and the adjacent roundabout
exit lane.

3.2.17 Non-physically Separated Free Right-turn Lanes

Right-turn bypass lanes separated from the circulatory roadway by no more than a
flush, painted island can be subject to abuse by drivers. Consequently, non-physically
separated free right-turn lanes are not permitted.

3.2.18 Buses and Free Right-turn Lanes

Free right-turn lanes can improve journey time reliability on bus routes, either in
isolation or as part of a larger traffic management proposal. However, the use of bus-
only free right-turn lanes at roundabouts needs careful consideration. Factors
including the number of buses using the dedicated lane and any detrimental impact
on the overall capacity of the roundabout should be taken into account. Bus stops and
bus bays should not be located within the free right-turn lane.

3.3 Sight Distance

3.3.1 Approach Visibility
The forward visibility at the approach to a roundabout should be as indicated in
Part 3, Roadway Design Elements, of this manual for the appropriate design speed of
the approach. This stopping sight distance is measured to the yield line, as shown in
Figure 3.19. Stopping sight distance should be obtainable from a driver’s eye height of
1.08 m to an object height of 0.60 m.

PAGE 40 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.19 Measurement of Stopping Sight Distance on Curved Approach

3.3.2 Visibility at Roundabouts

Table 3.9 details the visibility distances applicable at roundabouts of varying size.
These distances should be used when assessing the forward visibility at entry,
visibility to the left at entry, and circulatory visibility. Refer to Figure 3.20 through
Figure 3.24.

Table 3.9 Visibility Distance at Roundabouts

Inscribed Circle Diameter Visibility Distance
(m) (m)
<40 Whole Intersection
40 to 60 40
60 to 100 50
>100 70
Source: Geometric Design of Roundabouts (Department for Transport, 2007)

VOLUME 1 PAGE 41
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.3.3 Forward Visibility at Entry

Drivers of vehicles approaching the yield line should be able to see to an object height
of 0.60 m on the full width of the circulatory roadway for the appropriate visibility
distance indicated in Table 3.9, measured along the centerline of the circulatory
roadway. Visibility should be checked from a driver’s eye height of 1.08 m at the
center of the right lane and a distance of 15 m back from the yield line, as shown in
Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20 Forward Visibility at Entry

PAGE 42 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.3.4 Visibility to the Left at Entry

Drivers of all vehicles approaching the yield line should be able to see the full width of
the circulatory roadway to their left from the center of the left lane at the yield line for
a distance appropriate to the visibility distance, listed in Table 3.9, measured along the
centerline of the circulatory roadway and shown in Figure 3.21.

Visibility should also be checked from the center of the left lane at a distance of 15 m
back from the yield line, as shown in Figure 3.22. The envelope of visibility should be
obtainable from a driver’s eye height of 1.08 m to an object height of 1.08 m.

Checks should be made that traffic sign location, street furniture, safety barriers, and
other potential obstructions do not restrict visibility.

Figure 3.21 Visibility to the Left at the Yield Line

VOLUME 1 PAGE 43
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Excessive visibility to the left at entry could result in high entry speeds, potentially
resulting in crashes. This can be mitigated by design, such as through the careful use
of landscaping on the approach to the roundabout, enabling the designer to limit
visibility to the left to that necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the
roundabout.

Figure 3.22 Visibility to the Left 15 m in Advance of the Yield Line

PAGE 44 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.3.5 Circulatory Visibility

Drivers of all vehicles circulating on a roundabout should be able to see the full width of
the circulatory roadway ahead of them for the visibility distance, as indicated in
Table 3.9. Circulatory visibility is checked from a point 2 m out from the central island,
as shown in Figure 3.23, using a driver’s eye of 1.08 m and an object height of 0.60 m.

It is often useful to improve the conspicuousness of central islands by the use of

landscaping however, any landscaping provided should not interfere with drivers sight
lines.

Once a vehicle has crossed the inscribed circle at the exit from the roundabout,
stopping sight distance should be provided in accordance with Part 3, Roadway Design
Elements, of this manual.

Figure 3.23 Circulatory Visibility

VOLUME 1 PAGE 45
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.3.6 Pedestrian Crossing Visibility

Where a pedestrian crossing is positioned in advance of a roundabout, approaching
drivers should be able to see the full width of the crossing, from a distance equal to
the stopping sight distance for the design speed of the approach, as detailed in Part 3,
Roadway Design Elements, of this manual.

At the yield line, all drivers should be able to see the full width of a pedestrian crossing
across the next exit if the crossing is within 20 m of the roundabout at shown in
Figure 3.24). Pedestrian crossings should not be positioned between 20 m and 60 m
from the yield line. Refer to Section 3.8 in this Part and Part 19, Pedestrian, Bike, and
Public Transportation, of this manual for further advice relating to pedestrians and
other nonmotorized users.

Figure 3.24 Visibility at Entry to a Pedestrian Crossing at Next Exit

3.3.7 Visual Intrusions

Where traffic signs are to be erected at roundabouts within visibility envelopes, the
mounting height should not be less than 2 m above the roadway surface.

Traffic signs, street furniture, and landscaping should not obstruct driver’s sight lines,
however, isolated slim objects such as lighting columns, sign supports, and bridge
columns can be ignored provided they are less than 550 millimeters wide
(Department for Transport, 2007).

PAGE 46 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.4 Other Aspects of Design

3.4.1 Cross Slope and Longitudinal Gradient
Immediately in advance of the roundabout yield line, steep gradients should be
avoided or flattened. This zone of limited gradient should be within 15 m of the yield
or stop line but may be reduced to 10 m in residential areas. Approach gradients
within this zone should be limited to a maximum of 3 percent. An approach gradient
higher than 3 percent is considered to be a Departure from Standard.

On the approaches and exits, superelevation can assist drivers in negotiating the
associated curves. When used, the superelevation value should be appropriate to the
speed of vehicles, and equal to or greater than those necessary for surface drainage,
but should not exceed 5 percent. Superelevation should be reduced to 2 percent from
a point 20 m in advance of the yield line, given that, with adequate advance signing
and entry deflection, speeds on approaches should be reducing.

Cross slope and longitudinal gradient combine to provide the necessary slope that will
drain surface water from the roadway. Thus, although the following clauses are for
simplicity written in terms of cross slope, the value and direction of the greatest slope
should always be taken into account when considering drainage flow paths.

Except on large grade-separated roundabouts, where the circulatory roadway should

have appropriate superelevation, adequate cross slope is should be provided in order
to drain surface water on circulatory roadways. Cross slope on the circulatory
roadway should be 2.0 percent.

In order to minimize surface water ponding, longitudinal edge profiles should be

graded at not less than 0.67 percent, with 0.5 percent considered the minimum. The
design gradients alone do not achieve satisfactory drainage; therefore, the correct
positioning and spacing of gullies is critical.

At two-lane roundabouts on high-speed roads, it is good practice to arrange for cross

slope to assist vehicles maneuvering around the circulatory roadway and to reduce
drainage flow paths. To do this, a crown line is formed. This line can divide the
circulatory roadway in the proportion 2:1 internal to external, as shown in
Figure 3.25. Alternatively, the crown line can join the ends of the splitter islands.

The conflicting cross slope at the crown lines have a direct effect on driver comfort
and may be a contributory factor in load shedding and large vehicle roll-over crashes.
Over a given section, the maximum recommended arithmetic difference in cross slope
is 5 percent. Lower values are desirable, particularly for roundabouts with a small ICD.
There should be no sharp changes in cross slope and a smooth crown is essential.

At mini-roundabouts and single-lane roundabouts, it is sometimes more appropriate

to apply a constant cross slope in one direction across the full width of the circulatory
roadway. At roundabouts where the design speed does not exceed 50 kph on any

VOLUME 1 PAGE 47
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

approach, the cross slope can slope outwards to ease drainage and help keep speeds
down. The cross slope also makes the central island more conspicuous.

At exits, superelevation should be provided where necessary to allow vehicles to

accelerate safely away from the roundabout. However, as with entries, cross slope
adjacent to the roundabout should not exceed 2 percent. If the exit leads into a left-
hand curve, superelevation should be introduced gradually.

Drainage of the central island should be considered in roundabout design in order to

obtain adequate cross slope and provision for collection. Water from the central
island should not be designed to run on to the circulatory roadway.

Figure 3.25 Cross Slope Design Using 2:1 Ratio Circular Crown Line

3.4.2 Curbs
Roundabout entries and exits should be curbed, and shoulders on each approach
should terminate where entry widening begins. Where connecting roads are not
curbed, the simplest procedure is to start the curbs on the approach at the back of
the shoulder and then terminate the edge of traveled way road marking in a short
smooth curve or taper, as shown in Figure 3.26 and Figure 3.27. On the exit, the
curbing can terminate at the end of the exit curb radius.

PAGE 48 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Figure 3.26 Method of Terminating Edge Strips on Undivided Highway Approach

to a Roundabout

Figure 3.27 Method of Terminating Shoulders on a Divided Highway Approach to a

Roundabout

VOLUME 1 PAGE 49
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

3.5 Signing and Marking

3.5.1 Signing
Signing, including destination signs, regulatory signs, warning signs, and information
signs should be provided in accordance with the Qatar Traffic Control Manual.

Advance direction signs should be provided on the approach to the roundabout.

Generally, these signs should be a map style sign displaying a plan of the intersection
and the destination or street names of the adjoining roads. Direction signs should also
be provided at exits to provide confirmation of destination or street names to road
users as they leave the intersection.

3.5.2 Road Markings

Road markings are used to channel traffic and, when appropriate, to indicate a
dedicated lane. Lane indication arrows to reinforce the advance map-type direction
signs at entries can be beneficial where heavy traffic flows occur in a particular
direction.

Lane dedication by arrows and markings on the circulatory roadway is not normally
recommended. However, where a roundabout is particularly extensive, partially
signalized, and it is tending to a circulatory system, then some degree of
channelization by road markings may prove beneficial in the operation of the
roundabout.

Road markings are detailed in the Qatar Traffic Control Manual.

3.6 Landscaping Recommendations

Roundabouts can form significant features on a road, both within the wider landscape
and in an urban context, and can represent an opportunity to contribute to a sense of
place. The landscape design can be considered as a specific project to develop an
overall and coordinated landscape approach. Roundabouts can act as landmarks and
wayfinding features through distinctive design however, special care is needed in the
central island so that this area does not become used for recreational purposes.
Features such as benches, picnic areas, and fountains should therefore be avoided.

The landscaping design within the roundabout and adjoining approaches should be
carried out by specialists in landscaping design and maintenance. Landscaping design
should be carried out in coordination with the highway designer to avoid obstructing
visibility sight lines.

PAGE 50 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

Other than amenity benefits, the landscaping treatment of roundabouts and its
approaches can have several advantages. Generally, the landscaping on the
approaches should accomplish the following:

• Make the median and roundabout more obvious to approaching traffic.

• Minimize introducing hazards to the intersection, such as trees, poles, walls,
guardrail, monuments, or large rocks.
• Avoid obscuring the form of the roundabout or the signing to the driver.
• Maintain adequate visibility.
• Indicate to the driver that they cannot pass straight through the intersection.
• Discourage pedestrian traffic through the central island.
• Help visually impaired pedestrians locate sidewalks and pedestrian crossings.

Planting on the median or splitter island on the immediate approach to the

roundabout, up to 15 m from the yield line, should be avoided to achieve
unobstructed visibility to the left. On large roundabouts, landscaping and planting
should be designed and located to prevent excess visibility to the right.

Maintenance of landscaping and the safety of maintenance personnel should be

carefully considered. Plants, grass, and trees should be selected with consideration
given to the likely maintenance regime.

In rural areas, where sources of irrigation water may not be available, alternative
methods of landscaping should be considered, but without introducing hazards that
would compromise safety of road users. Further guidance on Landscaping is provided
in Part 22, Landscape and Planting Design.

3.7 Lighting Recommendations

Due to the constrained curvature of roundabouts, the effectiveness of vehicle
headlights is limited. Illumination of roundabouts is therefore an important feature
for nighttime visibility of hazards and obstructions (Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America [IES], 2008). Street lighting provides visibility from a distance for users
approaching the roundabout as well as visibility of the key conflict areas improving
users’ perception of the layout and visibility of other users within the roundabout
(IES, 2008).

An approaching driver must be able to see the general layout and operation of a
roundabout in time to make the appropriate maneuvers. Adequate lighting should
therefore be provided at all roundabouts (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials [AASHTO], 2011).

It is also important that approaching drivers are not misled by the projection of the
lighting layout beyond the roundabout, particularly when visibility is restricted. The
layout of the luminaires at roundabouts should therefore contrast with that provided

VOLUME 1 PAGE 51
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

on the approaches. This can be achieved by locating the luminaires around the outer
perimeter of the roundabout.

When a roundabout is being modified, the lighting layout should be checked for
suitability with the new road arrangement. Further guidance on the provision of
Street Lighting at roundabouts is given in Part 18, Street Lighting, of this manual.

3.8 Pedestrians and Cyclists

3.8.1 Principles for Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian crossing locations at roundabouts are a balance between pedestrian
convenience, pedestrian safety, and roundabout operations.

• Pedestrian desire lines: Pedestrians want crossing locations as close to the

intersection as possible to minimize out-of-direction travel. The farther the
crossing from the roundabout, the more likely pedestrians are to choose a shorter
route that may put them in danger.
• Pedestrian safety: Both crossing location and crossing distance are important.
Crossing distance should be minimized to reduce exposure of pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts. Pedestrian safety may also be compromised at a crossing very close to
the yield line, because driver attention is directed to the left to look for gaps in
the circulating traffic stream. Where possible, crossings should be located to take
advantage of the splitter island; crossings should be located at distance from the
yield line, as measured in increments of approximate vehicle lengths to reduce
the chance that vehicles will be queued across the crossing.
• Roundabout operations: Roundabout operations, primarily vehicular, can be
affected by controlled crossing locations, particularly on the exit. A queuing
analysis at the exit crossing should therefore be carried out.

3.8.2 Pedestrian Crossing Locations and Dimensions

Where an island serves as a refuge for pedestrians, it shall be at least 2 m wide,
preferably 2.5 m wide to accommodate wheelchairs, prams and strollers. The
minimum width for a pedestrian refuge island is 1.5 m; however, this offers little
protection for pedestrians. The island shall be a raised-curbed island. The width may
be increased depending on anticipated pedestrian flows and associated requirements.
Where the facility is required to accommodate dismounted cyclists, the minimum
width shall be increased to 2 m.

At single-lane roundabouts, the pedestrian crossing should be located one vehicle-

length (7.5 m) away from the yield line. At two-lane roundabouts, the pedestrian
crossing should be located between 7.5 m and 20 m away from the yield line.
Pedestrian crossing should not be located within the region between 20 m and 60 m
from the yield line.

PAGE 52 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

The pedestrian refuge should be designed at street level, rather than being elevated
to the height of the splitter island. This eliminates the need for ramps within the
refuge area, which can be cumbersome for wheelchairs.

Dropped curbs should be provided on each end of the crossing. In addition, tactile
paving should be provided at the crossing facility, to assist the visually impaired.
Further information about provisions for pedestrians is included in Part 19,
Pedestrian, Bike, and Public Transportation, of this manual.

3.8.3 Provision of Facilities by Roadway Functional Classification

Provisions for nonmotorized users at roundabouts, including cyclists, should be in
accordance with Table 3.9 and Part 19, Pedestrian, Bike, and Public Transportation, of
this manual.

Off-street bike paths should generally be provided at roundabouts, except on single-

lane roundabouts on low-speed local roads. Where off-street bike paths are provided,
at-grade crossings should be configured to be shared between pedestrians and
cyclists. Figure 3.28 shows a typical arrangement.

Figure 3.28 Shared At-grade Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Adjacent to

Roundabout

VOLUME 1 PAGE 53
VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

In rural areas, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings may be appropriate where

nonmotorized user demand is low. Table 3.9 indicates the recommended provision
for cyclists and pedestrians where there is sufficient demand to justify them. Further
advice on providing for nonmotorized users is given in Part 19, Pedestrian, Bike, and
Public Transportation, of this manual. At large roundabouts on high-speed roads,
grade-separation for nonmotorized users is the preferred solution.

Table 3.10 Provision for Nonmotorized Users at Roundabouts

Posted
Highway Speed on Two-Way Recommended Combined Bike
Type on Approach AADT on Recommended Pedestrian and Pedestrian
Approach (kph) Leg Cyclist Provision Provision Provision
Four-lane Signal-controlled, Signal-controlled, Signal-controlled,
>50 Any
divided grade-separated grade-separated grade-separated
Four-lane Signal- Signal-
≤50 >25,000 Signal-controlleda
divided controlleda controlleda
Four-lane 16,000 to Signal- Uncontrolled or
≤50 Signal-controlleda
divided 25,000 controlleda signalized
Informal or
Four-lane
≤50 <16,000 Informal uncontrolled Informal
divided
crossing
Two-lane Signal- Signal-
≤50 >12,000 Signal-controlleda
undivided controlleda controlleda
Informal or
Two-lane 8,000 to Informal or
≤50 Informal uncontrolled
undivided 12,000 signalized
crossing
Two-lane
≤50 <8,000 Informal Informal Informal
undivided
Notes:
a In rural areas, signalized facilities may be omitted where pedestrian and bike flows do not justify their

provision.
AADT = annual average daily traffic

PAGE 54 VOLUME 1
 VOLUME 1 PART 7
DESIGN FOR ROUNDABOUTS

References

AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th edition (the Green Book).
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, DC, United
States. 2011.

Department for Transport. “Segregated Left Turn Lanes and Subsidiary Deflection Islands at
Roundabouts.” Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 6, Section 3, Part 5. TD51/03.
UK Highways Agency: London, England.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section3/td5103.pdf. November 2003.

Department for Transport. “Geometric Design of Roundabouts.” Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges. Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3. TD 16/07. UK Highways Agency: London, England.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section2/td1607.pdf. August 2007.

Department for Transport. Reducing Sign Clutter. Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL) 01/13.
UK Highways Agency: London, England.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/info%20notes/DfT_advice_leaflet_-
_Reducing_sign_clutter_-_Jan_2013.pdf. January 2013.

Hall, R. D., and R. A. J. Surl. “Accidents at Four Arm Roundabouts and Dual Carriageway
Intersections – Some Preliminary Findings.” Traffic Engineering and Control. Vol. 22, Issue 6:
pp. 339-344. 1981.

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES). Design Guide for Roundabout Lighting.
IES DG-19-08. New York, New York, United States. 2008.

Kennedy, Janet V., R. D. Hall, and S. R. Barnard. Accidents at Urban Mini-Roundabouts. TRL
Report 281. Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL): Wokingham, Berkshire, England. 1998.

Kimber, R. M. The Traffic Capacity of Roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report No. LR942. Transport
and Road Research Laboratory: Berkshire, England. 1980.

Maycock, G., and R. D. Hall. Accidents at 4-Arm Roundabouts. TRL Report LR1120. Transportation
Research Laboratory (TRL): Wokingham, Berkshire, England. 1984.

Ministry of Municipality and Urban Planning (MMUP). Guidelines and Procedures for Transport
Studies. State of Qatar: Doha, Qatar. May 2011.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Roundabouts: An Informational

Guide. 2nd Edition. Report 672. Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, United States.
2010.

VOLUME 1 PAGE 55