Optimizing Roundabout Design to Reduce Traffic Congestion

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Traffic congestion is a normal phenomenon associated with transportation,

especially in urban areas. Congestion is one of the problems involving road. Normally,
network congestion occurs on land transport on roads.
As demand approaches the capacity of a road or of the intersections along the

road, extreme traffic congestion will set in. When vehicles are fully stopped for periods
of time, this is colloquially known as a traffic jam or traffic snarl-up. Traffic congestion
can lead to drivers becoming frustrated and engaging in road rage.
Local agencies try to often propose some solutions to reduce traffic delays at
intersections. Some of the proposed solutions include changing roundabout
intersections to signalized intersections. Nonetheless, many professionals believe that
the solution to this daily problem is much more complicated than just replacing
roundabout intersections with signalized ones. This is a concern to both urban planners
and traffic engineers on the spot, as the public expect urban planners to open new areas
carefully to avoid future congestion and traffic engineers to propose solutions to
existing intersections.
Usually, urban planners cannot recommend the use of a roundabout or a traffic

signal or replacing one of them at any intersection without consulting traffic engineers.
Traffic engineers usually use computer software programs to analyze whether a
roundabout intersection should be implemented.
The delay and level of service on at-grade intersections have been considered
by many researchers in the past. The use of roundabouts has been increasing over the
past decade. A study estimated the number of roundabouts in the US and Canada to be
more than two thousand in 2010 (Pochowski, 2010). Delays at roundabouts have been
considered in several researches since the 1960’s and 1970’s (Tanner, 1962) (Country
Roads Board, 1979). Most roundabout evaluation studies adopted SIDRA (Signalized
1
& Unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid) software for the estimation of
delay and level-of-service characteristics (Akcelik, 1997) (Akçelik, 1996). The use of
a roundabout has been recommended as it has been proven to improve safety and
provide better traffic performance for high traffic volumes, than all-way-stop controlled
intersections or traffic signals (Mensah & Eshragh, 2010). One such research study
had compared the roundabout performance under different control types (i.e. yield
control, two-way stop, all-way stop, or traffic signal on the roundabout). The analyses
concluded that roundabouts are recommended for high through or left turning traffic
volumes (Sisiopiku & Oh, 2001). However, this recommendation was based on two
scenarios of traffic distribution only; equal split of traffic on the four approaches or a
minor street with a very small traffic volume. Therefore, the generalization of the results
cannot be simply justified.
In recent studies, the use of signals on roundabouts has been considered as a

special case of traffic signals to determine the optimum lane marking and signal timing.
Using the problem-solving formulation, these studies aimed at maximizing the
capacity, minimizing the delay and the cycle length, as well as much needed
requirements to match real-life operation of roundabouts. The application of the
proposed formulation to a case study indicated that the proposed model can improve
the roundabout performance and provide some guidelines for their use in real-life
applications (Ma, Liu, Head, & Yang, 2013). Different evaluation techniques for
applying traffic signals to roundabouts have been discussed in several papers (Azhar
& Svante, 2011) (Chaudhary & Songchitruksa, 2008) .
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Traffic congestion is one of the transportation problems in Zamboanga City and

other urban areas both in developed and developing countries. Traffic congestion is
mainly observed in the intersection. A roundabout is proven to have greater capacity
and traffic efficiency and can lessen traffic congestion.
2
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study was to optimize a geometric design in Gov.
Camins, Zamboanga City to solve the rising problems of traffic congestion.
Specifically, this study aimed:
 To reduce the queue lengths at each approach, especially during peak hours.
 To reduce the delay time at the intersection so that the vehicles don’t have to
wait long to cross the intersection.
 To work on a model using micro simulation that does not only works during the
peak hours on a part-time basis but also during any unexpected or unpredictable
flow of traffic.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study had contributed greatly to the benefit not only of the
vehicle users but also the society considering that roundabouts play an important role
in transportation and highway engineering system. The proposed model provided a
significant and flexible way of solving traffic related issues such as reduced the queue
lengths at each approach, especially during peak hours; minimized the delay time at the
intersection for vehicles to not wait long in crossing the intersection; and simulated a
model that does not only works during the peak hours on a part-time basis but also
during any unexpected or unpredictable flow of traffic.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
This study was conducted primarily for the purpose of optimizing the geometric
design of a roundabout in Governor Camins, Zamboanga City. The study was limited
only on the design procedures and operational measures such as determining average
queuing and delay time that were used to ensure proper design and capacity of the
hypothetical roundabout specifically in Gov. Camins Intersection, Zamboanga City.
The study also limits its scope on proposing a roundabout intersection design and
compare its standard operational measures to the traffic signal-controlled intersection.
It also focused on the traffic volume of the vehicles that was used in the micro-
3
simulation, and pedestrian count was excluded. Hence, this mainly focused on the
model known as the PTV VISSIM Microsimulation software package that will estimate
the traffic movement in the said intersection providing the parameters for speed, queue
length and delay time.
1.6 Definition of Terms
1. Inscribed Circle Diameter - is the basic parameter used to define the size of a
roundabout. It is measured between the outer edges of the circulatory roadway.
2. Circulatory Roadway Width - defines the roadway width for vehicle circulation
around the central island. It is measured as the width between the outer edge of
this roadway and the central island. It does not include the width of any
mountable apron, which is defined to be part of the central island.
3. Approach width - is the width of the roadway used by approaching traffic
upstream of any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The approach
width is typically no more than half of the total width of the roadway.
4. Departure width - is the width of the roadway used by departing traffic
downstream of any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The
departure width is typically less than or equal to half of the total width of the
roadway.
5. Entry width - defines the width of the entry where it meets the inscribed circle.
It is measured perpendicularly from the right edge of the entry to the intersection
point of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.
6. Exit width - defines the width of the exit where it meets the inscribed circle. It
is measured perpendicularly from the right edge of the exit to the intersection
point of the left edge line and the inscribed circle.
7. Entry radius - is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the
entry.
8. Exit radius - is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside curb at the exit.
9. Central island - is the raised area in the center of a roundabout around which
traffic circulates.
10. Splitter island - is a raised or painted area on an approach used to separate
entering from exiting traffic, deflect and slow entering traffic, and provide
storage space for pedestrians crossing the road in two stages.
4
11. Circulatory Roadway - is the curved path used by vehicles to travel in a
counterclockwise fashion around the central island.
12. Apron - If required on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking
of large vehicles, an apron is the mountable portion of the central island adjacent
to the circulatory roadway.
13. Yield line - is a pavement marking used to mark the point of entry from an
approach into the circulatory roadway and is generally marked along the
inscribed circle. Entering vehicles must yield to any circulating traffic coming
from the left before crossing this line into the circulatory roadway.
14. Accessible Pedestrian Crossings - should be provided at all roundabouts. The
crossing location is set back from the yield line, and the splitter island is cut to
allow pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, and bicycles to pass through.
15. Bicycle Treatments - at roundabouts provide bicyclists the option of traveling
through the roundabout either as a vehicle or as a pedestrian, depending on the
bicyclist’s level of comfort.
16. Landscaping Buffers - are provided at most roundabouts to separate vehicular
and pedestrian traffic and to encourage pedestrians to cross only at the
designated crossing locations. Landscaping buffers can also significantly
improve the aesthetics of the intersection.
Note: All definitions were cited from the publication of Federal Highway
Administration (2013).
5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides an overview of previous research on knowledge sharing

and intranets. It introduces the framework for the case study that comprises the main
focus of the research described in this thesis.
2.1 Modern Roundabout
While modern roundabouts flourished in popularity overseas, some urban areas

in the United States detested them, largely due to their negative associations with the
outdated traffic circles (Zachary, 2015) and many misconceptions that exist about
roundabouts, as people are often confused with the old style traffic circles and rotaries
(Daniel, 2011). The roundabout has its significant features and differs in many
important ways from rotaries and traffic circles, and it is important to understand the
history and development of the roundabout to show these differences.
The integration of large traffic circles was introduced by city planners’ centuries
ago. Traffic circles became a part of the United States transportation system with the
construction of Columbus Circle on New York City in 1905, which was acknowledged
as the first alternative to a four-way intersection. Subsequently, the concept spread, and
similar traffic circles were built across the country as well as in Europe (Zachary, 2015)
(Robinsons, et al., 2000). While these early traffic circles added aesthetic value to
crowded cities, it was designed in such a way that enabled high-speed merging and
over-congestion which resulted to the increased frequency of collisions that led traffic
circles falling out of favor not just in United States, but internationally.
Traffic circles made a comeback in 1966 when Frank Blackmore, an engineer

in the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory, decided to revisit the concept of traffic
circles and find ways to optimize the flow of traffic at certain points. Knowing it was
flawed but had a lot of potential, he developed the “modern roundabout” which was
widely used today.
6
Modern roundabouts differ from the older traffic circles in how it is operated
and designed. Whereas entering vehicles no longer had the right of way, instead had to
“give-way” or yield to circulating traffic. This rule prevented traffic congestion, by not
allowing vehicles to enter the intersection until there were sufficient gaps in circulating
traffic. Entry speed was also significantly reduced; compared to the 25+ mph intended
speed of old traffic circles, modern roundabouts utilized curved entries that limited
speeds to 15 mph. Because of these changes, accident rates had dropped, and many
countries have adopted the use of roundabout as a common intersection form and some
have developed extensive design guides and methods to evaluate the operational
performance of modern roundabouts (Zachary, 2015) (Robinsons, et al., 2000).
2.2 Features of Modern Roundabout
Roundabouts generally have a much smaller circumference than rotaries or

traffic circles. The smaller circumferences and curved entries at roundabouts lead to
much lower operating speeds than at other circular junctions. Typically, where a rotary
or traffic circle might be designed for operating speeds of around 25 to 40 mph, the
roundabout is generally designed for operating speeds of around 15 mph (Turner,
2011).
Figure 2.2: Features of Roundabout

7
2.3 Modern Roundabout Benefits
A modern roundabout is a circular intersection with specific design and traffic

control features that have been proven to reduce the number of crashes and severity of
intersection (Shaw, 2009). Another definition from the Washington State Department
of Transportation states that modern roundabout is a circular intersection where drivers
travel counterclockwise around a center island. This study also shows that the modern
roundabout is safer than traditional stop sign or signal- controlled intersection.
These are the issues to review or considered during planning and design of
roundabout: Context, space feasibility, physical or geometrical complications,
significant traffic generators, operational considerations and delay to the major street
(Robinsons, et al., 2000).
From AARP Real Possibilities "Modern Roundabouts| A livability fact sheet" -

For modern roundabout to be effective, it's important to adopt a roundabout- first
policy, embrace public process and build support, design for speeds lower than 20mph,
keep dimensions tight and make it beautiful. The publication also states that
roundabouts harbor for fewer potential conflict points than the traditional intersection
making it safer for all users.
Roundabout also has many advantages- it is safe, efficient, and smart

(Isebrands, 2014). Roundabouts improve safety, increases road capacity, popular with
drivers, improved aesthetics, and easier pedestrian crossing.
Roundabouts are now a growing trend. Other countries are building more and
more of it, especially in Europe. In 1993, France built its 10,000th roundabout and
totaled 20,000 roundabouts in just 5 years later. And in 2003, there were 30,000
roundabouts built on France. Agencies in America are also working to promote growth
in construction of roundabout (Fromme, 2010).
2.4 Roundabout and its type
A roundabout is a circular intersection that move traffic flow in a

counterclockwise direction around a central island without the aid of traffic signal
equipment though it utilizes yield signs, directional signs and pavement markings to
8
guide traffic through the intersection (Roundabout, 2013) The modern roundabout is
used to slow the speed of vehicles to increase capacity and improve safety. It is calmer
and safer than conventional intersections and has been deemed a “proven safety
counter-measure” by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT FHWA.) . In
2010, the Oregon Department of Transportation gave a presentation to the Oregon
Transportation Safety Conference. This presentation, titled, “Roundabouts: A Safer
Choice,” defined roundabouts as having the following characteristics: (a)Yield control
on entry; priority to circulating vehicles, (b)Slow, consistent speeds, (c) Landscaping,
(d) Pedestrian access and crossing, (e) No parking, (f) Direction of circulation
(counterclockwise).
The integration of roundabouts has significantly influenced not only today’s

transportation systems but also benefitted individuals in terms of (a) Safety; 90% of
fatalities was reduced; injury crashes was lessened by 76%; pedestrian crashes was
minimized by 30% - 40% ; and conflict points was reduced to 75% compared to a four-
way intersections, (b) Slower vehicle speeds (under 30 mph); drivers have more time
to judge and react to other cars or pedestrians, (c) Traffic flow efficiency was increased
by 30%-50%, (d) Reduction in pollution and fuel use, (e) Money saved; no signal
equipment to install and repair, savings estimated at an average of $5,000 per year in
electricity and maintenance costs and service life of a roundabout is 25 years (vs. the
10-yr service life of signal equipment); (f) Community benefits; traffic calming and
aesthetic landscaping.
Today, after many years of experience regarding roundabouts, there are still
different ideas about the ''ideal roundabout'' with little consensus about the crucial
effects of rules on how to negotiate an intersection. It needs to be stressed that the
roundabout intersection has been ''at the development phase'' since 1902, and this
development is still in progress (Modern Types of Roundabouts – Trends and
Future). One of the results of this progress is the several types of roundabouts in
worldwide usage today (mini roundabout, single lane, multi-lane…). One is considered
as a good design roundabout when it comprises the following characteristics: smooth
curvature, channelization, and deflection required to achieve consistent speeds, well-
marked lane paths, and appropriate sight distance.
9
2.5 Capacity of Roundabout
The maximum flow rate that can be accommodated at a roundabout entry

depends on two factors: the circulating flow on the roundabout that conflicts with the
entry flow, and the geometric elements of the roundabout. A roundabout brings together
conflicting traffic streams, allows the streams to safely merge and traverse the
roundabout, and exit the streams to their desired directions. The geometric elements of
the roundabout provide guidance to drivers approaching, entering, and traveling
through a roundabout (US Department of Transportation, Operation).
Like other types of intersections, approach lanes and circulations could be

theoretically added to accommodate more traffic. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) developed some guidelines that can be used for an initial
review. As MnDOT states “Table 2.4.1 is included as a guide to assist in determining
which intersection options should be evaluated based upon combined Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) volumes.” (Ficek, 2017).
Access
Approximate Non-Traditional Grade
Four-Way Stop Signal Roundabout Management
Combined ADT Intersection Separation
Treatments
7,500 – 10,000 X X X
10,000 – 50,000 X X X X X X
50,000 – 80,000 X X X X X
> 80,000 X
Table 2.5.1 – Potential Intersection Control by ADT Volume

MnDOT’s Intersection Control Evaluation, Fall 2007
These daily volume ranges are by no means an absolute value for a roundabout
or the other types of control. Additional factors besides volume are usually a factor in
choosing the intersection control method and some factors may extend (or cut short)
this volume range.
For instance, according to table 2.4.1, roundabouts could be acceptable for daily
volumes up to 80,000 vehicles per day. However, the actual volume limit of a
roundabout will depend upon the number of lanes for each approach, the number of
10
circulating lanes, amount of left turn or conflicting traffic, and even if one or more
approaches is signalized.
To further assist with roundabout evaluation, a capacity guide from the

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) was utilized. Based on
information from the Federal Highway Administration, the WisDOT Facilities
Development Manual Table 20.1 indicates the typical daily service volumes (per day)
for a 4-legged roundabout as:
 Less than 25,000 for a single-lane roundabout

 25,000 to 45,000 for a multi-lane roundabout, 2-lane entry
 45,000 or more for a multi-lane roundabout, 3-lane entry
Between this information from MnDOT and WisDOT data can be quickly
narrow down on whether a roundabout is an appropriate choice and what type of
roundabout is sufficient for the volume. However, while these guidelines are helpful,
the ultimate answer will be in regard to the individual characteristics of each
intersection.
2.6 Roundabouts versus other Types of Intersection
Compared to other types of intersection, roundabouts have the good potential

for aesthetic improvements with landscaping, public art, etc. No signals need for traffic
control also (Compassiodaho.org). No signal equipment to install or maintain which
means money can be saved. Modern roundabout is also calmer and safer than
conventional intersections and have been deemed a "proven safety counter-measure"
by the U.S. Department of Transportation. It has fewer potential conflict points
compared to the conventional intersections, making it safer (Modern Roundabout: A
Livability Fact Sheet). Roundabouts are also efficient; it can handle 30-50% more
traffic than the conventional intersection which implies it reduces traffic delays
(Geocoded National Roundabout Data Base). According to Washington State
Department of Transportation, benefits of roundabout include: reduce delay and
improve traffic flow, less expensive, and less space. There is also no light to beat in
11
roundabouts as it promotes a continuous flow of traffic. Driver must also slow down
and yield upon entering it.
2.7 Safety Benefits
One of the reasons why roundabout is safer than other types of intersection is
because of the speed. Speed of cars on roundabout decrease significantly compare to
the speed of the vehicles before the roundabout was constructed (Hayden & Varhelyi,
2000). It was supported by The United States Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration (FHA)'s "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide" in 2000 that
states that one reason roundabouts have fewer vehicular accidents compared to other
intersection is that it requires slow speed for drivers to enter the roundabout and drive
around its circle.
One of the safety benefits of roundabout is crash reductions. In a before-after

study using the empirical Bayes approach, it used 24 intersections at United States to
study. The 24 intersections were converted stop sign and traffic signal control to
roundabouts. The result shows that estimated reduction for crash severities where found
out to be 39% and 76% for all injury crashes. It was also estimated that the reductions
in the numbers of fatal and injury crashes to be 90%. The result suggests that installation
of roundabout makes the intersection safer (Persaud, Retting, Garder, & Lord, 2000).
A study for Arizona also supports that roundabout reduces accident rates. 17
roundabouts across Arizona were studied and the results showed that for both type of
roundabouts (single-lane and double-lane) severity of accidents were decreased. Single-
lane roundabout largely reduced the overall rate of accidents by 18%. All levels of
injury severities dropped by 44% for single-lane roundabout and 16% for double-lane
roundabout (Souliman, 2016).
Another research United States that also includes 24 roundabouts built in 2007
was also conducted. Three years of before and after crash data were gathered. The
research also used empirical Bayes analysis to examine the safety of benefits of the
chosen roundabouts. Mixed results were found for total crash frequency but all have
significantly decrease crash severity. There are 9.2% decrease in total crashes and
significantly 52% decrease in injury cases (Qin, Bill, Chitturi, & Noyce, 2013).
12
The safety experience was also discussed in an expo. Roundabout safety
experience includes: Fatal and injury crashes reduced significantly, the number of
conflict points is 1/4 of traditional intersection, changes in the types of crashes, and
slow speeds for all vehicles.
As for statistics, 37% were estimated for reduction in all crashes, 76% reduction
in injury/fatal crashes and 89% in reduction in injury/ fatal crashes in rural
environments
Figure 2.7.1: Standard Intersection Figure 2.7.2: Modern Roundabout
(Modern Roundabout: A Safe & Robus Intersection Alternative, 2014). The

Washington State Department of Transportation reported 37% reduction on overall
collisions, 75% reduction on injury collisions, 90% reduction on fatality collisions, and
40% reduction on pedestrian collisions.
All past researches presented above showed that conversion of traditional

intersection to roundabout increases safety for road users. Also, according to Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety Study, converting traditional intersection to a roundabout
bring significant drop in crash rates.
2.8 Efficiency of Roundabouts
A dominant advantage of modern roundabouts is their overall operational

efficiency compared to all other forms of traffic control. Unlike all-way stop
intersections, a roundabout does not require a complete stop by all entering vehicles,
13
which reduces both individual delay and delays resulting from vehicle queues. If there
is no traffic in the roundabout, they don't have to stop at all. Additionally, they operate
more efficiently than a signalized intersection because drivers are able to enter from
different approaches at the same time (National Research Council. Transportation
Research Board., 2010) (Wayne State University Transportation Research Group,
"Improving Driver's Ability to Safely and Effectively Use Roundabouts: Educating the
Public to Negotiate Roundabouts", 2011).
While traditional intersections force vehicular traffic to slow down and stop,
modern roundabouts improve traffic flow and reduce vehicle idling times at
intersections. Given that roundabouts improve the efficiency of traffic flows, they also
reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. Vehicles continue to advance slowly
rather than coming to a complete stop, resulting in reduced noise and air quality impacts
and fuel consumption (Flannery & T., 1997) (Federal Highway Administration,
"Roundabouts: Technical Summary,", 2010). As a result, roundabouts are
considered as one of the most efficient forms of intersection control that can improve
fuel economy and vehicle emissions (National Research Council. Transportation
Research Board, 2010). Furthermore, even when traffic volumes are high, vehicles
continue to advance slowly rather than coming to a complete stop, which may improve
air quality and produce energy savings by reducing acceleration/deceleration and idling
maneuvers (Wayne State University Transportation Research Group, 2011).
2.9 Construction Cost
The cost of building a roundabout is comparable to installing a digital traffic

signal. However, maintenance and electrical costs are much less expensive. Over the
life of the intersection, the cost savings are significant (Shrestha, 2002). This is very
important in areas where the budget for public works projects is lower than ever before.
Moreover, when societal costs is associated with crash incidence, roundabouts are often
less expensive than other intersection control alternatives (City of Colorado Springs,
2005). Reducing drivers speed and delays saves time and fuel.
14
2.10 Public Opinion
The introduction of the modern roundabout to the transport network is fairly

new. The rules of the modern roundabout were made law in the UK in 1966 (Hu,
McCartt, Jermakian, & Mandavilli, 2014), but it wasn't until the late 90’s that
modern roundabouts started to expand around the world (Wayne State University
Transportation Research Group, 2011). There have been several main concerns with
constructing a roundabout, which includes concerns of the ability of the public to
comprehend the new intersection rules, whether roundabouts were safe, and whether
they were effective in managing traffic. Public opinion in surveys has shown that
communities generally tend to exhibit negative perceptions toward roundabouts
particularly during the period prior to construction. Since public opinion has been a
major concern with roundabout installation, researches have focused on surveys
inquiring the opinion of the locals regarding roundabouts to each respective study.
There are many studies that inquired why drivers opposed to the roundabouts felt this
way. Often, the same reasons were cited for both that the drivers found the intersection
to be confusing, unsafe, and/or they just preferred a signalized intersection over a
roundabout (Redington, 1997) (Martens & Fox, 2007). Other reason drivers stated for
opposition was a belief that the roundabout caused more congestion, yet the study in
which this remark was made found significant reductions in delay and the number of
vehicles stopping (Martens & Fox, 2007). Generally younger drivers were most
supportive, and support was found to decrease consistently with age. Older drivers
comprised a high percentage of respondents that opposed roundabouts, where some
acknowledged they opted for alternative routes in order to avoid trying to navigate the
roundabout (Garder, 1999).
15
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methods and procedure employed in the collection,
classification and interpretation of data. It covers the details of the research design,
encompassing the methodology and procedures employed to conduct this research.
3.1 Research Design
Traffic flow data were analyzed by the researchers using the 12-hour record (7
a.m. to 7 p.m.) of all vehicles passing the Camins intersection in different turning
movements. Standard operational measures (average queuing delay and capacity) of the
intersection performance was observed for the location operating under traffic signal
control and then compared with values estimated for the same intersection operating
with a hypothetical roundabout. A PTV Vissim (Planung Transport Verkehr - "Verkehr
In Städten SIMulations) software package for traffic analysis which analyzes traffic
flow at signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections including roundabouts
were used to compute these measures.
The proposed roundabout was designed almost exactly the same with its
corresponding intersection (dimensions and number of lanes). This was done to analyze
the extent to which the proposed roundabout could affect the traffic flow and safety and
not necessarily by matching the vehicle capacity provided by the existing intersection.
A mixed method type of design was utilized to overcome the limitations of the proposed
roundabout design.
3.2 Research Locale
The proposed study was located at the Governor Camins Intersection,

Zamboanga City. Traffic survey was conducted to obtain traffic flow volume, queue
lengths and delay time at the said intersection.
16
Figure 3.2.1 Aerial View Figure 3.2.2 Skeletal View
3.3 Research Instrumentation/Tool
The study relied on traffic surveys conducted and from the existing data of traffic
survey counts from PALAFOX Company in Zamboanga City. The researchers
investigated the speed, queuing lengths and delay time in the Gov. Camins Intersection,
Zamboanga City. Another instrument used in the study was a PTV Vissim software
package (microsimulation). Microsimulation (from micro analytic simulation) is a
category of computerized analytical tools that perform highly detailed analysis of
activities such as highway traffic flowing through an intersection, financial
transactions, or pathogens spreading disease through a population. It was used to
remodel the proposed roundabout and anticipated to provide a reasonable assessment
of how the proposed roundabout may operate. It was used to present the highly detailed
analysis of average speed, queuing time, and delays of the proposed roundabout design.
3.4 Design Procedure
The process of designing roundabout more so than other forms of intersections,

required a considerable amount of iteration among geometric design, system
considerations, and safety evaluation.
17
3.4.1 Geometric Design
Geometric design of roundabout consists of selecting the number of legs,

number of entry, circulating and exit lanes, and the central island radius.
These initial parameters have been considered the drawings below describing a
method for the design of dual lane roundabout where the approach speed is less than 80
km/h.
The proposed dimensions and radii shown in the drawings were a guide for
initial selection only.
18
3.4.1.1 Design Process – Step 1 (See Appendix A page 83)
19
20
21
22
The geometric design process is an iterative one and consists of:
 Preparing a geometric layout.

 Construct and review the vehicle entry path for each leg.
 Check the swept path for the design vehicle for all movements.
 Adjust as required.
3.4.1.5 Road Inventory
PALAFOX: Road Inventory of Gov. Camins-Mayor Jaldon St.

(Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Zamboanga (2016-2025))
23
3.4.1.6 Inscribed Circle Diameter
The diameter of the inscribed circle should be chosen so that it is the smallest
possible diameter that will accommodate the design vehicle, the desired number of
lanes, the maximum desired entry speed, and the maximum desired circulating speed.
Roundabout Geometry Typical Inscribed Circle Diameter
Two Lane Roundabout 150-220 ft
Table 3.4.1.6: Diameter Range of an Inscribed Circle, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.7 Central Island Diameter
The diameter of the central island is determined after the roundabout inscribed
circle diameter, design vehicle, and circulatory roadway width are selected to
accommodate the design vehicle and minimize the fastest path speed. Pedestrians shall
not be permitted to access the central island.
Roundabout Geometry Mini Roundabout Single-Lane Roundabout Multi-Lane Roundabout

Raised Raised
Central Island Fully traversable
(may have traversable apron) (may have traversable apron)
Table 3.4.1.7: Treatment for Central Island, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.8 Alignment of Centerlines
The centerlines of approach roadways should align with the center of the
roundabout or up to 40 feet offset left of center as shown in Figure 3.4.1.8. A slight
offset left approach is typically desirable to achieve target entry speeds. Offset right
approaches should be avoided because of their tendency to increase entry speeds.
24
Figure 3.4.1.8: Acceptable Centerline Offsets
3.4.1.9 Number of Approaches
The proposed Gov. Camins roundabout intersection was permitted to have four
approaches such as (Northbound, Southbound, Westbound and Eastbound) since it is a
four-legged intersection.
3.4.1.10 Angles between Approach Centerlines
The centerlines of adjacent approaches should intersect at as close to 90 degrees

as is practicable. Centerlines intersecting at oblique angles can result in high speeds for
the right-turn movements, which may require additional design treatments.
3.4.1.11 Splitter Island
This is the raised or painted area between entering and exiting traffic at each
approach. It provides deflection for entering traffic and refuge for pedestrians to make
two -stage crossings of the approach. At the end of this study, the researchers will
provide a design of the splitter island with its corresponding dimensions of island
length, island width and the offset from entry intersection. The table below defines
minimum dimensions for splitter island components.
25
Splitter Island Attribute Minimum Dimension
Yield line to tip length 50 ft, 100 ft preferable

Crosswalk cut through width 10 ft
Crosswalk cut through length 6 ft
Yield line to crosswalk setback 20 ft
Table 3.4.1.11: Minimum Dimensions for Splitter Island Components, NCHRP 672
Figure 3.4.1.11: Illustration of Dimensions for Splitter Island Design, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.12 Entry Width
Entry width was measured from the point where the entrance line intersects the
left edge of traveled way, along a line perpendicular to the right curb line. Entry width
is chosen to control speed and accommodate design vehicles. Exceeding the
recommended entry widths can encourage higher speeds and can encourage drivers to
treat the entry as having more lanes than is intended. Recommended maximum entry
widths are shown in the table below.
Roundabout Geometry Maximum Entry Width
Two-lane Approach 32 ft
Table 3.4.1.12: Recommended Maximum Entry Width, NCHRP 672
26
Figure 3.4.1.12: Entry - Exit Radius, Entry - Circulating Width, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.13 Entry Radius
The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature along the face of the right-
hand curb at entry. It is one of the principal geometric components that create the
deflection necessary for speed control at the proposed roundabout. A range of entry
radii is frequently acceptable for a given roundabout approach; the chosen radius should
achieve the dual goals of controlling the fastest path speed and accommodating the
design vehicle.
For the Gov. Camins roundabout, a compound curve will be frequently

necessary to provide adequate deflection while minimizing entry path overlap. An
initial, small angle curve with a typical radius between sixty feet (60’) and one hundred
and twenty feet (120’) controls speed and is followed by a secondary, large angle curve
greater than one hundred and fifty feet (150’) or a tangent line that aligns the entering
vehicles to avoid path overlap.
Roundabout Geometry Typical Entry Radius
Two Lane Roundabout – Initial Radius 60-120 ft

Two Lane Roundabout – Secondary Radius >150 ft (or tangent)
Table 3.4.1.13: Typical ranges for Entry Radius, NCHRP 672
27
3.4.1.14 Exit Radius
The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature of the outside right curb at
an exit. It is typically higher than entry radius to promote movement out of the proposed
roundabout and minimize congestion. However, the higher speeds that result from
larger radius exit curves can make the road crossing difficult for pedestrians so the
desire to minimize congestion must be weighed against pedestrian needs particularly in
areas with high pedestrian volumes. Typical ranges for exit radii are shown in the table
below.
Roundabout Geometry Typical Exit Radius
Table 3.4.1.14: Typical range for Exit Radius, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.15 Circulatory Roadway
The width of the circulatory roadway will be determined through an iterative approach
that simultaneously considers the design vehicle, the inscribed diameter, entry radii,
and other geometric elements. The circulatory roadway shall be constructed with
Portland cement concrete. Typical circulatory roadway widths are shown in the table
below.
Roundabout Geometry Typical Circulatory Roadway Width
Table 3.4.1.15: Typical Circulatory Roadway Widths, NCHRP 672
28
3.4.1.16 Approach Width
Approach width is the width of approaching roads to the intersection. Approach

width value should be nearer to 4m per lane of the road.
Roundabout Geometry Two-Lane

Approach Width 23-37 ft
Table 3.4.1.16: Typical ranges for Approach Width, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.17 Departure Width
The departure width is the width of the roadway used by departing traffic
downstream of any changes in width associated with the roundabout. The departure
width is typically less than or equal to half of the total width of the roadway.
Recommended value of departure width is mentioned below.
Roundabout Geometry Two-Lane

Departure Width 23-37 ft
Table 3.4.1.17: Typical ranges for Departure Width, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.18 Weaving Length
The various factors upon which weaving length depend are the average width
of entry, width of weaving section, proportion of weaving traffic and total traffic.
Capacity of roundabout intersection depends on the weaving length. Weaving length
value may be kept at least 4 times larger than the width of the weaving section. To avoid
the high speeding of vehicles inside weaving section, the maximum weaving length is
limited to twice the values mentioned below.
Roundabout Geometry Minimum Weaving Average Weaving Maximum Weaving

Weaving Width 27 ft 38 ft 66 ft
Weaving Length 165 ft 315 ft 600 ft
Weaving Ratio 0.32 0.54 0.95
Table 3.4.1.18: Typical ranges for Weaving Length, NCHRP 672
29
3.4.1.19 Effective Flare Length
This is the distance from the entry to the halfway point in the approach.
Ranges of values for flare length are shown below.
Roundabout Geometry Measured Value

Effective Flare Length 33-180 ft
Table 3.4.1.19: Typical ranges for Effective Flare Length, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.20 Design Speed
The design speed of roundabout depends upon the number of lanes.

Recommended values are shown below.
Type of Roundabout Design Speed

Mini-Roundabout 15 to 20 mph (25 to 30 km/h)
Single-Lane Roundabout 20 to 25 mph (30 to 40 km/h)
Multi-Lane Roundabout 25 to 30 mph (40 to 50 km/h)
Table 3.4.1.20: Typical ranges for Design Speed, NCHRP 672
3.4.1.21 Design Vehicle
The design vehicle will dictate many of the roundabout’s dimensions and the
designer should consider the largest design vehicle to normally use that facility.
Because roundabouts are intentionally designed to slow traffic, narrow curb-to-curb
widths and tight turning radii are typically used. However, if the widths and turning
requirements are designed too tight, it can create difficulties for large vehicles. Large
trucks and buses often dictate many of the roundabout’s dimensions, particularly for
single-lane roundabouts. Nearly all roundabouts feature truck aprons, which provides
additional paved surface to accommodate the wide path of the trailer but keeps the
actual circulatory roadway width narrow enough to maintain speed control for smaller
passenger cars.
30
3.4.2 System Considerations
The implementation of roundabout at Gov. Camins Intersection was difficult

compared to other control types. The existence of one or more of these conditions did
not necessarily preclude the installation of the proposed roundabout. Careful
consideration has been given to roundabout at the said intersection.
3.4.3 User Considerations
For the design and planning process of roundabout various types of users are
taken into consideration as each user having unique characteristics. Motorists should
be given more time to take proper decision for crossing the junction. Pedestrian
crosswalks must be prvided at roundabout around the perimeter to be used by
pedestrians. Provisions should also be given for Bicycles and emergency vehicles to
pass the roundabout.
3.4.4 Location Considerations
Roundabouts are suitable where the approaching road design speed is less than
30 mph. It may be used to replace all-way stop control, two-way stop control or a traffic
signal. It is also suitable for the locations where limited space is available. Roundabouts
offer a low noise and low speed intersection option with very little maintenance. The
locations with very high volume of trucks are not advisable to construct roundabouts.
3.4.5 Design Considerations
 Inserting a Map
After opening the AutoCAD software go to “INSERT” tab then select the
“Attach” icon for importing an image in AutoCAD.
31
After selecting the “Attach” icon a dialogue box will appear. Select the image
(MAP) you want to import.
Next, specify an insertion point in the screen. Specify scale factor: (Input a
desired scale)
After placing a desired scale factor. The image (MAP) will appear in the screen.
32
 Designing a Roundabout
To begin with the Roundabout design, insert lines for the roundabout leg.
After placing the lines(legs), click the “Vehicle Tracking” tab then select the
“Roundabout Standard Explorer”.
A dialogue box will appear (Roundabout Standard Explorer) for you to select
your desired roundabout design. Then click proceed >> OK >> OK (after selecting
your desired scale) >> OK (after verifying roundabout details).
33
After verifying roundabout details, select a location for your roundabout near
the placed legs.
After locating the center point of the roundabout, select the following legs to
be an access road to the roundabout.
34
After selecting the leg, a dialogue box will appear for you to modify the leg
details. After modifications, select OK.
Outcome:
After modifying all leg details, your roundabout will look as shown below.
35
To move the roundabout, select the roundabout, click its center point then drag
it to your desired location.
After placing the roundabout to a desired location, select the roundabout, go to

“Vehicle Tracking” tab then select “Edit Roundabout” icon to modify the roundabout
details.
36
A dialogue box “Roundabout Properties” will appear for you to be able to edit
the roundabout central island, circulatory lanes, its individual leg properties, and
crosswalk and splitter island specifications.
 Placing a Splitter Island

Select the roundabout, go to “Vehicle Tracking” tab then select “Add Splitter Island”
icon to place a splitter island to a selected leg.
37
After selecting a location for the splitter island, select the roundabout, go to
details. A dialogue box “Roundabout Properties” will appear then select a specific leg
you want to modify. After the modifications click “Apply”.
 Placing a Crosswalk
Select the roundabout, go to “Vehicle Tracking” tab then select “Add
Crosswalk” icon to place a crosswalk to a selected leg.
38
After selecting a location for the crosswalk, select the roundabout, go to
details. A dialogue box “Roundabout Properties” will appear then select a specific leg
you want to modify. After the modifications click “Apply”.
39
FINAL ROUNDABOUT DESIGN
40
3.4.6 Software Requirement
There was a need of utilization of AutoCAD Civil 3D, Vehicle Tracking, Swept
Path Analysis and PTV Vissim to develop the design parameters and analyze the
proposed roundabout.
3.4.7 Roundabout Safety
Roundabouts were not only noted for their reduced incidence of crash
capabilities but also ensured that less severe injuries were observed when accidents
occur at the intersection. In areas with large numbers of vulnerable road users especially
in Gov. Camins Intersection, a speed management complimented with good roadside
treatments was a key strategy for limiting accident crashes.
3.5 Data Analysis
The operational performance of a proposed or existing roundabout was assessed

in terms of capacity (its ability to accommodate the traffic demand), Level of Service
(LOS) and the queue length.
41
3.5.1 Flow Rate
Table 3.5.1: Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), PALAFOX, Flow Rate Data for
AM Peak (Top) PM Peak (Below) of Gov. Carmins-Mayor Jaldon St.
3.5.2 Passenger Car Equivalent
This is essentially the impact that a mode of transport has on traffic variables
(such as headway, speed, density) compared to a single car. Typical passenger car unit
are shown in the table below.
42
Type of Traffic PCU Equivalent
Car/Pvt. Jeep/Van / SUV 1.00
Motorcycle 0.50
Tricycle 0.75
PUJ 1.50
Truck 2.00
Goods Vehicle 2.00
AUX/FX/GT Express 1.50
All Busses 2.25
Table 3.5. 2 Passenger Car Equivalent
3.5.3 Entry Capacity
This is the maximum hourly rate of flow of traffic under prevailing traffic and
geometric conditions. This must be determined for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The procedures presented here refer to the HCM method. Headways was then included
in the entry lane capacity of the proposed roundabout.
Figure 3.5.3 – Entry Capacity Adjustment Factor for Pedestrians, HCM 2010
The figure presented was based on the assumption that pedestrians have
absolute priority at roundabout crossings therefore adjustments to entry capacity
would hypothetically affect traffic movement.
43
3.5.4 Roundabout Capacity
The capacity of roundabout is determined by the capacity of each weaving

section. Transportation road research lab (TRL) proposed the empirical formula to find
the capacity of a roundabout.
𝑒 𝑝
280 [1 + 𝑤 ][1 − 𝑤 ]
𝐶= 𝑤
1+ 𝑙
Formula 3.5.4 Roundabout Capacity, NCHRP 672

Where:
w = Weaving width, m; l = Weaving length; e = average entry and exit width, m ;
p = proportion of weaving traffic to non-weaving traffic
3.5.5 Level of Service
The quality of service is how well a transportation facility or service operates

from a user’s perspective. The measure that represented that quality of service is the
level-of- service. This model assumed that there was no storage of vehicle from one 15-
minute study period to the next.
3600
3600 ( c )x
d= + 900 T [x − 1 + √(1 − x)2 + ] +5
𝑐 450T
Formula 3.5.5 Delay Time per 15-minute Study, NCHRP 672

Where:
𝐝= Average Control Delay, s/veh ; x= volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane ;

c= capacity of the subject lane, veh/h ; T= time period, h
44
Level of Service by Volume-to- Capacity Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
V/C < 1.0 V/C > 1.0
0-10 A F
> 10-15 B F
> 15-25 C F
> 25-35 D F
> 35-50 E F
> 50 F F
Table 3.5.5: Level of Service Criterion , HCM 2010
The service performance is then determined from Table 3.5.3 with the
control delay as the input value.
3.5.6 Queue Length
Queue estimates at the 95th percentile were used to determine the feasibility of
the intersection. Additionally, when acceptable delay levels are established the results
from the queue study may inform the need for bypass lanes as with other intersection
alternatives.
Formula 3.5.4: Queue Length Estimation at 95th percentile,

3600
NCHRP 672
( c )x c
Q 95 =900 T [x − 1 + √(1 − x)2 + 150T ][ ]
3600
Formula 3.5.6: Queue Length Estimation at 95th Percentile, NCHRP 672
Where:
𝐐𝟗𝟓 = Average Control Delay, s/veh ; x= volume-to-capacity ratio of the subject lane;
c= capacity of the subject lane, veh/h ; T= time period, h
45
3.5.7 Signage
Signage was minimized to reduce visual clutter and focus driver concentration
on potential conflicts and the geometry of the roundabout. Advance roundabout
warning signs with cross street name signs wre required on all approaches to the
roundabout. The summarization of data for turning movements of the four approaches
will be presented in a tabular form.
3.5.8 Microsimulation Process
For more complex geometry or system wide analysis, deterministic software

PTV VISSIM simulation was employed or used to analyze the proposed roundabout.
Following the design, a microsimulation was created to evaluate and present the
expected average speed, queueing length and delay time (Level of Service) of the
hypothetical roundabout.
Figure 3.5.8: Microsimulation Model for

Signalized Intersection (Left) and Roundabout Design (Right)
The figure shown above illustrates the simulation model for Signalized
Intersection and Roundabout Design running at the same cycle time. Both models had
the same vehicle inputs with respect to the time interval. It shows that the vehicles
flowing for roundabout produced less congestion compared to signalized intersection.
46
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN
 Importing a Roundabout Design
After opening the PTV Vissim software, a map will be shown, just zoom in the
map of your desired location.
Select “Background Image” from the Network Objects tool, click the screen
then right click on your mouse and select “Add New Background Image” to place an
image layer above the map. A dialogue box will appear.
47
Select the image you want to import then click “Open”.
After importing the image, select the node to resize the image and have the scale
same with the aerial geographic map.
48
Outcome: After resizing
 Inserting a Lane
To start with the road design, select “Links” from the Network Objects tool,
click the screen then right click on your mouse and select “Add Circular Link”, to place
a circulatory lane then press the screen again, then a dialogue box will appear.
49
In the dialogue box, you can adjust the lane width and the number of lanes you
want to place. After modifying the lane properties, click “OK”. If you want to change
the lane properties, double click on the lane and the dialogue box will appear.
As for the Entry/Exit lanes, make sure that the “Links” layer is selected. Press
the “Ctrl” key + long press right click then drag your mouse for the length of you desired
lane then release. A dialogue box will appear then just modify the lane to your desired
properties.
50
To connect the Entry Lane to the Circulatory Lane, a connector must be added.
To place a connector between two lanes, press “Ctrl” key + long press right click then
drag your mouse towards the node of the circulatory lane then release. A dialogue box
will appear for you to be able to edit the properties of the connector. After modification
click “OK”.
To adjust a links curvature, just add a node by pressing “Ctrl” + right click
between the 1st and last node. Click the node, long press click on the mouse then drag
the node to your desired location.
51
Repeat the process on placing the links to finish all the leg lanes. This should
be the output:
For comparison purposes of data, a Signalized Intersection was also created.

Lane dimensions was derived from Palafox data. In placing the signalized intersection
lane, just follow the steps in making a lane from the previous steps and this should be
the outcome:
52
 Inserting Vehicle Routes
Select “Vehicle Routes (Static)” layer on the Network Objects tool to be able to
place a route along the lanes. Right click on the mouse then select the entry lane (pink
line). After selecting the route to exit lane (which is in yellow) will appear then select
the desired exiting lane (blue line). As for the 4-leg roundabout, we have 3 possible
exiting lanes for an entry lane, so it would look like this. Repeat the process for the
remaining legs.
53
 Inserting Vehicle Inputs
In the Network Objects tool, select the “Vehicle Inputs” Layer to be able to
place a vehicle composition on the lane. Right click on all entry lanes then a black line
should appear indicating that a vehicle volume would appear in that lane.
To place the vehicle volume values, double click on the black line then the
“Vehicle Inputs” pane will appear. Since we have 4 legs, we also have 4 rows and each
row corresponds to different legs (KCC, Sta. Cruz, Chowking, Mayor Jaldon St.). Place
the volume data to each legs and check all boxes to the right that is relative to its time
interval.
54
 Inserting Time Interval
In the menu click “Base Data”, then select “Time Intervals”. The Time Intervals pane
will appear then you can adjust it to your desired interval. In the “Relation Vehicle
inputs”, change it to “Vehicle inputs”. Since we use the time of 15-minutes therefore
we set it to 900 seconds. To add another the time interval, just click the “Plus” icon in
the Time Intervals pane.
 Inserting Node Results
Nodes must be placed around the roundabout to gather result within the nodes
when the simulation is played. In the Network Objects tool, select the “Nodes” layer,
press right click then locate your nodes. The same process is used for the signalized
intersection.
55
To look for the Node Results pane, go to Evaluation >> Result Lists >> Node
Results. To change the Node Results Attribute, select the settings icon “ ”.
After selecting the settings icon “ ”, a dialogue box will appear. Select all
Attributes you want to remove/add then click the / icon then press “OK”.
56
To be able to view the simulation output through “Node Results”, a dialogue
box will appear, click “Nodes” checkbox >> “OK”.
 Conflict Areas
To avoid vehicle crashing, select the “Conflict Areas” layer. Road markings
will appear in yellow color. To change the conflict areas marking (yellow, red , and
green), select the desired area then press and hold “Ctrl” key + Right click.
57
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESIGN
 Signal Heads
In the “Network Objects” tool, select “Signal Heads” layer to assign a signal
control in different lanes. On the signalized lane, press and hold “Ctrl” key + Right
click on the chosen lane. A dialogue box will appear, apply the desired modification
then press “OK”.
To assign vehicle flow with respect to time, go to “Signal Control” menu >>
“Signal Controllers”, the “Signal Controller/Signal Groups” pane will appear.
58
To change the “Signal Control” outputs, select the edit icon “ ”, a dialogue
box will appear, select the “Edit Signal Control” tab, then another dialogue box will
appear.
After selecting the “Edit Signal Control” tab, this dialogue box will appear.
After placing the time data (stop, queue, and go) and its cycle time, this should be the
output. Click the exit button, then you will be referred back to the “Signal Control”
dialogue box then click “OK”.
59
3.5.9 Feasibility of Roundabout
START
ROUNDABOUT
PER HCM, 2010))
CENTRAL
ISLAND
DIAMETER
(Minimum 1m)
DESIGN SPEED
>30 mph
MAXIMUM CAPACITY
(3000 veh/hr)
WIDTH OF
CARRIAGEWAY
(Minimum 5m)
CAN CAPACITY AND

GEOMETRIC
STANDARDS ACHIEVED?
YES NO AMEND
FINAL OTHER TYPE

DESIGN AND END OF JUNCTION
ASSESSMENT DESIGN
60
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Timing Diagram of Gov. Camins Intersection
The Timing diagram shown below are diagrams used to show interactions of
the four (4) phases of the Camins intersection. It described the flow of traffic
negotiating at the said intersection.
PHASE 1: NORTH APPROACH: GOV. CAMINS AVENUE GOING STA. CRUZ
70 3 210
PHASE 2: SOUTH APPROACH: GOV. CAMINS AVENUE GOING AIRPORT
73 85 3 122
PHASE 3: EAST APPROACH: MAYOR JALDON ST. GOING CANELAR
161 50 3 69
PHASE 4: WEST APPROACH: STA. MARIA ROAD GOING GOV. RAMOS
214 50 3 16
283
Figure 4.1: Timing Diagram of Gov. Camins Intersection
4.2 Tabulation of Volume Count at Gov. Camins Signalized Intersection
The tables below shown the summary of data conducted during the volume
count at the Gov. Camins Intersection both in vehicles per hour and passenger car
equivalent. Turning movements in each approach were recorded as the right,left and
straight turns.
NORTH APPROACH: GOV. CAMINS AVENUE GOING STA. CRUZ

VEHICLE PER HOUR TOTAL PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT TOTAL
STRAIGHT LEFT RIGHT STRAIGHT LEFT RIGHT
14023 10588
4801 2805 6417 3914 1946 4728
WEST APPROACH: STA. MARIA ROAD GOING GOV. RAMOS

11888 9560
3234 4174 4480 2638 3293 3629
61
EAST APPROACH: MAYOR JALDON ST. GOING CANELAR
11582 8657
5019 4040 2523 3626 3014 2017
SOUTH APPROACH: GOV. CAMINS AVENUE GOING AIRPORT

10033 8027
4262 3255 2516 3530 2519 1978
Table 4.2: Volume Count at Gov. Camins Intersection
4.2.1 Traffic Negotiating at Camins Signalized Intersection:
Figure 4.2.1: Traffic Negotiating at Gov. Camins Signalized Intersection
62
4.2.2 Graphical Representation of Turning Movements for Signalized
Intersection
Figure 4.2.2: Turning Movement of Gov. Camins Intersection
The bar graph illustrated above summarized the counts of vehicle movements
through the Gov. Camins intersection during the 12-hour volume count. Each turning
movements of four respective lanes of the said intersection were recorded and analyze
for computational procedures.
4.2.3 Percentage of Right Turn
Figure 4.2.3:Percentage Accumulated by Right Turn Movement
The pie chart above discussed the accumulation of the right turn movement
passing the Camins intersection. A total of 12, 352 vehicles or 34 % of the total number
of vehicles turned right approaching and leaving the intersection.
63
Turning Movement No. of Vehicle
Left Turn 10772
Through 13708
Right Turn 12352
Table 4.2.3: Summarization of Volume Count by Turning Movement
4.2.4 Calculation of Capacity of Signalized Intersection at Each Lane
The Capacity of the Gov. Camins signalized intersection is defined by the equation
shown below:
𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆

Capacity = ∗ 𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘 −Formula 4.2.4.1
𝒄𝒚𝒄𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒉
Where:
Effective Green Time = (70+85+50+50) – 1(4) = 251 seconds;
Cycle Length = 283 seconds
A v/c ratio that is greater than 1.0 predicts that the facility will fail, because it
is unable to discharge the demand arriving at the section. Usually a value between 0.85
to 0.95 is considered desirable for design purposes. Therefore, use v/c ratio of 0.90.
𝒗
𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒆∗
𝒄
Cycle length = 𝒗 𝜮𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆 − Formula 4.2.4.2
−
𝒄 𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘
Where:
Critical Volume = 2419 veh/hr; v/c ratio = 0.90;
Lost time per lane = 2(4) = 8 sec
Cycle Length = 283 seconds; Effective Green Time = 251 seconds
Solve Saturation Flow using Formula 4.2.4.2:

2(4)∗0.90
283 = 𝟐𝟒𝟏𝟗
0.90 −
𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘
Saturation Flow = 2765.97 veh/hr
64
Solve Capacity of Signalized Intersection using Formula 4.2.4.1:
251
Capacity = 283 ∗ 2765.97
Capacity of the Camins Signalized Intersection = 2482.53 veh/hr
Solve Capacity of each Lane using the formula shown above:
4.2.4.A NORTH APPROACH (From Gov. Camins Ave. (KCC)):

Effective Green Time = 70-1 = 69 seconds
69
Capacity = ∗ 2765.97
283
Capacity at North Approach = 674.39 veh/hr
4.2.4.B WEST APPROACH (From Sta. Maria Road):

49
Capacity = 283 ∗ 2765.97
Capacity of West Approach = 478. 91 veh/hr
4.2.4.C EAST APPROACH (From Mayor Jaldon Street):

Effective Green Time= 50-1 = 49 seconds
49
Capacity = 283 ∗ 2765.97
Capacity at East Approach = 478. 91 veh/hr
4.2.4.D SOUTH APPROACH (From Gov. Camins Ave. (CHOWKING)):

84
Capacity = 283 ∗ 2765.97
Capacity at South Approach = 820.99 veh/hr
(Note : In calculating the Effective Green Time, one (1) second per lane is assumed to
be lost)
65
4.2.4.1 Graphical Representation of Capacity at Each Lane for
Signalized Intersection
The bar graph illustrated below shows the capacity in vehicles per hour at each
lane. South approach which was the Gov. Camins Avenue (Chowking) have the highest
capacity among the other lanes.
Figure 4.2.4.1. Capacity at Each Lane
Figure 4.2.4.2. Distribution of Capacity of Each Lane
The pie chart illustrated above shows the distribution of the capacity of the
Camins intersection into each four lanes. The lane from the Gov. Camins Ave.
(Chowking) was evidently had the largest capacity among the other lanes, accumulating
33 % of the total capacity of the whole intersection. Lane from the Gov. Camins Ave.
(KCC) follows next, and lanes from both Sta. Maria Road and Mayor Jaldon St. shared
the same percentage or distribution of the total capacity.
66
4.2.5 Calculation of Delay of Signalized Intersection
The delay at each approach can be computed using the HCM `delay equation
mentioned below:
3600
3600 ( )x
𝐷= + 900 T [x − 1 + √(1 − x)2 + c
] +5
𝑐 450T
Where:
Time = 1 hour; Volume-to-Capacity Ratio = 0.90
3600
3600 ( )0.90
𝐷𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑇𝐻 =674.39 + 900 T(1)[0.90 − 1 + √(1 − 0.90)2 + 674.39
] +5
450(1)
𝑫𝑵𝑶𝑹𝑻𝑯 = 42.690 sec/ veh -LOS E
3600
3600 ( )0.90
𝐷𝑊𝐸𝑆𝑇 =478.91 + 900 T(1)[0.90 − 1 + √(1 − 0.90)2 + 478.91
] +5
450(1)
𝑫𝑾𝑬𝑺𝑻 = 64.920 sec/ veh -LOS F
3600
3600 ( )0.90
𝐷𝐸𝐴𝑆𝑇 =478.91 + 900 T(1)[0.90 − 1 + √(1 − 0.90)2 + 478.91
] +5
450(1)
𝑫𝑬𝑨𝑺𝑻 = 64.920 sec/ veh - LOS F
3600
3600 ( )0.90
𝐷𝑆𝑂𝑈𝑇𝐻 =820.99 + 900 T(1)[0.90 − 1 + √(1 − 0.90)2 + 820.99
] +5
450(1)
𝑫𝑺𝑶𝑼𝑻𝑯 = 49.750 sec/ veh - LOS E
(Note: Level of Service can be determined from Table 3.5.3: Level of Service
Criterion)
67
4.2.6 Graphical Representation of Delay at Signalized Intersection
The bar graph below determined the delay at all phases of the Camins
intersection. Each delay of the lanes represented in the graph was computed based on
the equation provided by the Highway Capacity Manual. Delays of Mayor Jaldon St.
and Sta. Maria Road accumulated 64.92 sec/veh and the highest delay computed for the
said lanes. Whereas, Gov. Camins Avenue (KCC) and Gov. Camins Ave. (Chowking)
follows respectively.
Figure 4.2.6: Computed Delay at Different Approach of Gov. Camins Intersection
4.2.7 Calculation of Queue at 95th Percentile of Signalized Intersection
The queuing at 95th percentile of each approach can be computed using the
HCM `queuing equation mentioned below:
3600
( )x c
Q 95 = 900 T [x − 1 + √(1 − x)2 + c
][3600]
150T
Where:
Time = 1 hour; Volume-to-Capacity Ratio = 0.90
3600
( )x 674.39
𝑄95−𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑇𝐻 =900 (1) [0.9 − 1 + √(1 − 0.9)2 + 674.39
][ ]
150T 3600
𝑄95−𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑇𝐻 = 17.700 sec/veh
68
3600
( )x 478.91
𝑄95−𝑊𝐸𝑆𝑇 =900 (1) [0.9 − 1 + √(1 − 0.9)2 + 478.91
][ ]
150T 3600
𝑄95−𝑊𝐸𝑆𝑇 = 16.130 sec/veh

3600
( )x 478.91
𝑄95−𝐸𝐴𝑆𝑇 =900 (1) [0.9 − 1 + √(1 − 0.9)2 + 478.91
][ ]
150T 3600
𝑄95−𝐸𝐴𝑆𝑇 = 16.130 sec/veh

3600
( )x 820.99
𝑄95−𝑆𝑂𝑈𝑇𝐻 =900 (1) [0.9 − 1 + √(1 − 0.9)2 + 820.99
][ ]
150T 3600
𝑄95−𝐸𝐴𝑆𝑇 = 18.590 sec/veh
4.2.8 Graphical Representation of Queuing at Each Approach
Figure 4.2.8: Queue at 95th Percentile of Each Approach
The bar graph above determined the queuing at all phases of the Camins
intersection. Each queues of the lanes represented in the graph was computed based on
the equation provided by the Highway Capacity Manual. Queue of Gov. Camins Ave.
69
(Chowking) accumulated 18.59 sec/veh and the highest queue computed for the said
lanes. Lane from the Gov. Camins Ave. (KCC) follows next, and lanes from both Sta.
Maria Road and Mayor Jaldon St. shared the same queue at the 95 th percentile.
4.2.9 Simulation Model for Gov. Camins Signalized Intersection
The figure shown below demonstrates the flow of traffic for signalized
intersection using the Microsimulation. The flow of traffic produced by the said
intersection is at Level of Service E and thus suggesting a congested flow.
Figure 4.2.9: Simulation Model for Camins Signalized Intersection
70
4.3 Traffic Negotiating at Gov. Camins Roundabout
The illustration shown below demonstrated the flow of traffic negotiating at the
Gov. Camins Roundabout. The data were obtained from the volume count conducted
for both approaching and departing lanes.
Figure 4.3.1: Traffic Negotiating at Gov. Camins Roundabout
71
Roundabout Geometry Chowking KCC Mayor Jaldon Sta.Maria
ENTRY
No. of Lanes 2 2 2 2
Lane Width 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Splitter Radius 234.84 80.7 121.4 62.87
Nearside Radius 30 49.16 47 53.97
Inter-Leg Radius 40 44.35 40 40
Taper Lane Length 20 20 20 20
APPROACH
(APPROACHING/DEPARTING) A D A D A D A D
No. of Lanes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lane Width 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Crown Line Blend Offset 69.81 24.28 43.73 54.97 31.37 49.27 43.98 37.94
Crown Line Offset (%) 33 33 33 33 22 33 33 33
EXIT
No. of Lanes 2 2 2 2
Lane Width 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Splitter Radius 52.99 332.92 87.28 243.56
Nearside Radius 83.51 190.1 29 452.09
CROSSWALK
Offset ffrom entry intersect 12.23 7.96 10.81 7.91
Crossing Width 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Crossing Angle 11.38 0 0 0
SPLITTER ISLAND
Island Length 15.72 15 17.51 13.3
Entry Curb Line
Inner Offset 1 1 1 1
Outer Offtet 0.3 0.27 0.3 0.3
Exit Curb Line
Inner Offset 0.3 0.3 0.65 0.3
Outer Offtet 0.8 0 0.1 0.72
Roundabout Curb Line
Entry Offset 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Exit Offset 1 1 0.64 1
Filet Radius
Entry Filet Radius 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Exit Filet Radius 1 1 1 1
Approach Filet Radius 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
EFFECTIVE FLARE LENGTH
Length 1.86 10.94 4.78 16.79
CENTRAL ISLAND
InscrIbed Circle Diameter 65.4
Central Island Diameter 28
Apron Diameter 32
Apron Width 2
CIRCULATORY LANES
Lane 1 Width 9.0862
Lane 2 Width 7.6143
WEAVING LENGTH
Weaving width 10.75
Weaving ratio 0.76
DESIGN SPEED
Car 30
Heavy/Goods Vehicle 15
Bicycle 15
Table 4.3.1: Design Parameters
(Note: All dimensions are in S.I. Units)
72
4.3.1 Calculation of Weaving Traffic at Gov. Camins Roundabout
The weaving traffic of the Gov. Camins roundabout is defined by the equation shown
below:
Weaving width =
𝒆𝟏+𝒆𝟐
+ 𝟑. 𝟓 − Formula 4.3.1
𝟐
Where:
𝑬𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 (𝒆𝟏) = The width of the carriageway at the Entry

𝑬𝒙𝒊𝒕 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 (𝒆𝟐) = The carriageway width at Exit
From the design parameter shown in Table 4.3.1:
Approaching width = 7m; Entry width = 7m; Exit width = 7.5m
Solve Weaving width using Formula 4.3.1:

7+7.5
Weaving width = + 3.5 = 10.75 m
2
Solve Weaving length using Formula 4.3.2:

Weaving length = 4 (Weaving width) − 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎 4.3.2
Weaving length = 4 (10.75) = 𝟒𝟑. 𝟎 𝐦
Solve Proportion of Weaving Traffic using Formula 4.3.3:

𝒃+𝒄
Proportion of Weaving Traffic = − Formula 4.3.3
𝒂+𝒃+𝒄+𝒅
4.3.4.A Proportion of Weaving Traffic from East to South Approach:

5019+2523+4480+4801
𝑝 E-S= 5019+2523+4480+4801+6417+4040 = 0.62
4.3.4.B Proportion of Weaving Traffic from West to North Approach:

3234+4480+2523+4262
𝑝 W-N= 3234+4480+2523+4262+4174+2516 = 0.68
73
4.3.4.C Proportion of Weaving Traffic from North to East Approach:
4801+6417+3234+2516
𝑝 N-E= = 0.70
801+6417+3234+2516+4480+2805
4.3.4.D Proportion of Weaving Traffic from South to West Approach:

4262+2516+5019+6417
𝑝 S-W= 4262+2516+5019+6417+3255+2523 = 0.76
4.3.4 Calculation of the Capacity of Gov. Camins Roundabout
The Capacity of the Gov. Camins roundabout is defined by the equation

shown below:
𝒆 𝒑
𝟐𝟖𝟎𝒘 [ ][𝟏− ]
𝒘 𝟑
Capacity of Roundabout = 𝒘 − Formula 4.3.4.1
𝟏+
𝒍
Where:
𝒘 = 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟕𝟓𝒎; 𝒍 = 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝟒𝟑𝒎
𝒆 = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟓𝒎
𝒑 = 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑛 − 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟔
Solve capacity of roundabout using Equation 1:

7.25 0.76
280(10.75)[ ][1− ]
10.75 3
Capacity of Roundabout = 10.75
1+
43
Capacity of Roundabout = 3010.56 veh/hr
74
4.3.5 Simulation Model for Gov. Camins Roundabout
The figure shown below demonstrates the flow of traffic for signalized
intersection using the Microsimulation. The flow of traffic produced by the said
intersection is at Level of Service A and thus suggesting a free flow motion.
Figure 4.3.5: Simulation Model for Gov. Camins Roundabout
75
4.4 Graphical Representation of the Capacity of Roundabout vs Signalized
Intersection
Figure 4.4: Microsimulation Capacity of Signalized Intersection and Roundabout
The bar graph shown above illustrates the capacity of both signalized
intersection and the proposed roundabout. The results were recorded using the
Microsimulation for about 3600 seconds or 1-hour traffic movement. It is evident that
the capacity of the proposed roundabout is greater than that of the signalized
intersection. Two hundred seventy-seven (277) more vehicles per hour can pass through
the roundabout intersection.
4.4.1 Calculation for the Percentage Advantage of the Capacity of Roundabout
The percentage advantage of the capacity of roundabout can be calculated using

the equation below:
From the data accumulated using Microsimulation and with the graph shown in
Figure 4.4:
𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑹𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 − 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
%A= 𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
2433−2156
%A= 𝑥100
2156
% 𝐀 = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟖𝟓 %
76
4.5 Level of Service, Queue and Delay at Gov. Camins Roundabout
The Level of Service of the proposed roundabout, as gathered from the

simulation made was at LOS A. Queueing was also very low. LOS A means free flow.
Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and motorists have complete mobility
between lanes. The average spacing between vehicles is about 550 ft (167 m) or 27 car
lengths. Motorists have a high level of physical and psychological comfort. The effects
of incidents or point breakdowns are easily absorbed.
4.6 Advantages of Roundabout
The optimization of roundabout was based on its corresponding intersection. A

computerized analytical tool was used to assess and model the proposed design of
roundabout. Vissim software package was used as a tool in microsimulation. The result
showed that the capacity of roundabout was 2433 veh/hr. It is higher and better than the
accumulated capacity of the signalized intersection which is at 2156 veh/hr. In the graph
comparing the capacity of the proposed roundabout and the traditional intersection, it
was evident that the capacity of the roundabout was greater than that of the traditional
intersection. According to Washington State Department of Transportation, benefits of
roundabout include: reduce delay and improve traffic flow, less expensive, and less
space. There is also no light to beat in roundabouts as it promotes a continuous flow of
traffic. Driver must also slow down and yield upon entering it (Geocoded National
Roundabout Data Base).
The result also showed the average speed of the vehicle in the roundabout. The
speed was lower compared to the speed of the vehicle needed in the traditional
intersection. The driver anticipates before entering the roundabout and thus, reduces its
vehicle’s speed. One of the reasons why roundabout is safer than other types of
intersection is because of the speed. Speed of cars on roundabout decreases significantly
compared to the speed of the vehicles before the roundabout was constructed (Hayden
& Varhelyi, 2000). It was supported by The United States Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHA)'s "Roundabouts: An
Informational Guide" in 2000 states that one reason roundabouts have fewer vehicular
accidents compared to other intersection is that it requires slow speed for drivers to
enter the roundabout and drive around its circle.
77
One of the safety benefits of roundabout is crash reductions. In a before-after
study using the empirical Bayes approach, it used 24 intersections at United States to
study. The 24 intersections were converted stop sign and traffic signal control to
roundabouts. The result shows that estimated reduction for crash severities where found
out to be 39% and 76% for all injury crashes. It was also estimated that the reductions
in the numbers of fatal and injury crashes to be 90%. The result suggests that installation
of roundabout makes the intersection safer (Persaud, Retting, Garder, & Lord, 2000).
A study for Arizona also supports that roundabout reduces accident rates. 17
roundabouts across Arizona were studied and the results showed that for both type of
roundabouts (single-lane and double-lane) severity of accidents were decreased. Single-
lane roundabout largely reduced the overall rate of accidents by 18%. All levels of
injury severities dropped by 44% for single-lane roundabout and 16% for double-lane
roundabout (Souliman, 2016).
The safety experience was also discussed in an expo. Roundabout safety

experience includes: Fatal and injury crashes reduced significantly, the number of
conflict points is 1/4 of traditional intersection, changes in the types of crashes, and
slow speeds for all vehicles. As for statistics, 37% were estimated for reduction in all
crashes, 76% reduction in injury/fatal crashes and 89% in reduction in injury/ fatal
crashes in rural environments (Modern Roundabout: A Safe & Robus Intersection
Alternative, 2014). The Washington State Department of Transportation reported 37%
reduction on overall collisions, 75% reduction on injury collisions, 90% reduction on
fatality collisions, and 40% reduction on pedestrian collisions.
Overall, converting the existing signalized intersection into roundabout at

Camins Intersection means that the intersection can handle 12.71 % more traffic volume
and can work more efficiently since the level of service of the proposed roundabout is
at LOS A. Traffic Delay and Queuing time was also greatly reduced.
78
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
The researchers were able to optimized a geometric design in roundabout at

Gov. Camins Intersection. The design was based from the characteristic of the existing
signalized intersection and the standard design for roundabout published by the
Highway Capacity Manual. AutoCAD Civil3D, Vehicle Tracking, Swept Path Analysis
and PTV Vissim were used during the designing and analyzing process of the designed
roundabout. Micro-simulation was used to analyze the roundabout and the existing
Camins Signalized Intersection. The results showed that the capacity of roundabout was
12.85 % greater than the signalized intersection. The level of service of the roundabout
also fell under the LOS A. If the signalized intersection is to be converted into the
proposed roundabout, delay and queueing will be reduced greatly.
5.2 Recommendations
The present study “ Optimizing Geometric Design of Roundabout Intersection

in Gov. Camins, Zamboanga City using Microsimulation” has following scopes for
future research work.
1. Validation of proposed formula with more data accumulations of existing

signalized Camins intersection.
2. To verify the suitability of new design guidelines by applying to new
roundabout intersection.
3. Other shapes of Central Island except circular need to be considered for
intersection design.
4. More attention should be given to study the Level of Service (LOS) of
roundabout intersection for avoiding congestion.
5. Use other transportation engineering software to assess a suitable roundabout
design that adheres to Highway Capacity Manual standards.
79
REFERENCES:
(n.d.). Retrieved from compassiodaho.org.
“What is Roundabout?”. . (n.d.). Michigan Department of Transportation.
Roundabout. (n.d.). Safety Circuit Rider Center for Transportation Research and
Education Iowa State University. Roundabouts.
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/ltr_roundabout.pdf.
Akçelik, R. &. (1996). SIDRA 5 user guide. ARRB Transport Research.
Akcelik, R. (1997). Lane-by-Lane Modelling of Unequal Lane Use and Flares at

Roundabouts and Signalised Intersections: The SIDRA Solution. Traffic
Engineering & Control, London, 388-399.
Azhar, A., & Svante, B. (2011). Signal Control of Roundabout. Proceedings of 6th
International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service.
Stockholm, Sweden.
Chaudhary, N., & Songchitruksa, P. (2008). Traffic Adaptive Signal Control at

Roundabouts. Proceedings of the 4th International Gulf Conference on Roads,
(pp. 141-150).
City of Colorado Springs. (2005). Roundabout Design Standards: A Section of the

Traffic Engineering Policy & Design Standards. Colorado Springs, CO, USA .
Country Roads Board, C. (1979). Guidelines for the Design and Installation of
Roundabouts. Technical Bulletin No. 30, Sydney, Australia.
Daniel, T. (2011). Roundabouts: A Literature Review.

http://www.danielrturner.com/home/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/Roundabouts.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration, "Roundabouts: Technical Summary,". (2010).

FHWA - SA. 10-006, Washington, D.C., USA, 2010.
Ficek, B. (2017). Maximum Volumes for Roundabouts.
Flannery, A., & T., D. (1997). Operational Performance Measures of American

Roundabouts. Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board vol. 1572, 68-75.
Fromme, V. (2010). Roundabout Winter 2010. Neihoff Studio.
Garder, P. (1999). Little Falls, Gorham: Reconstruction to a Modern Roundabout.

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, vol. 1658, 17-24.
80
Geocoded National Roundabout Data Base. (n.d.). Retrieved from
rounabouts.kittkeson.com.
Hayden, C., & Varhelyi, A. (2000). The effects on safety, time consumption and
environment of large scale use of roundabouts in an urban area; A Case Study.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 11-23.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Behind-theWheel/195322/Lost-in-a-roundabout, ].
(n.d.).
Hu, W., McCartt, A. T., Jermakian, J. S., & Mandavilli, S. (2014). "Public Opinion,
Traffic Performance, the Environment, and Safety after Construction of
Double-Lane Roundabouts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 47-55.
Isebrands, H. N. (2014). 2014 Design Training Modern Roundaboutsand Country Road

Commission for oak Expo.
Ma, W., Liu, Y., Head, L., & Yang, X. (2013). Integrated Optimization of Lane
Markings and Timings for Signalized Roundabouts. Transportation Research
Part C, 36, 307-323.
Martens, M. H., & Fox, M. R. (2007). Do Familiarity and Expectations Change

Perception? Drivers' Glances and Response to Changes. Transportation
Research Part F, vol. 10, 476-492.
Mensah, S., & Eshragh, S. (2010). Use of Roundabouts as Alternatives to All-Way

Stop . Delaware Center of Transportation, DCT 199, University of Delaware,
Nerwark, Delaware.
Modern Roundabout: A Safe & Robus Intersection Alternative. (2014).
Modern Roundaboutl A Livability Fact Sheet. (n.d.). AARP Real Possibilities.
Modern Types of Roundabouts – Trends and Future . (n.d.).

https://www.absrs.org/sajt/doc/File/B-01.pdf.
National Research Council. Transportation Research Board. (2010). Highway Capacity

Manual. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. .
Persaud, B. N., Retting, R. A., Garder, P. E., & Lord, D. (2000). Crash Reductions
Following Installation of Roundabout in the United States. Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety.
Pochowski, A. (2010). An analytical Review of Statewide Roundabout Programs and

Policies. Civil and Environment Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Qin, X., Bill, A., Chitturi, M., & Noyce, D. A. (2013). Evaluation of Roundabout
Safety. 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
81
Redington, T. (1997). Montpelier's Modern Roundabout at Keck Circle, Neighborhood
Opinion Survey. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier.
Robinsons, B.W., Rodegerdts, L., Scarbrough, W., W. Kittelson, Troutbeck, R., . . .

Jacquemart, G. (2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. . Report FHWA-
RD-00-067. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. (n.d.). Federal Highway Administration.

Report No. FHWARD-00-067. 2000, 2.
Shaw, J. (2009). Roundabouts: A Proven Safety Solution that reduces the number and
severity of Intersection crashes.
Shrestha, S. K. (2002). Benefits of Urban Roundabouts in the State of Maryland.

Compendium: Papers on Advanced Surface Transportation Systems, Vols.
SWUTC/02/476700-00003-4.
Sisiopiku, V., & Oh, H. (2001). Evaluation of Roundabout Performance Using SIDRA.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 127,2, 143-150.
Souliman, B. (2016). Effect of Roundabouts on Accident Rate and Severity in Arizona.

Arizona State University.
Tanner, J. (1962). A Theoretical Analysis of Delays at an Uncontrolled Intersection.

Biometrika, 163-170.
U.S. DOT FHWA. (n.d.). safety.fhwa.dot.gov. Proven Safety Countermeasures.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_005.htm.
US Department of Transportation. Operation . (n.d.). 86.
Wayne State University Transportation Research Group. (2011). Improving Driver's

Ability to Safely and Effectively Use Roundabouts: Educating the Public to
Negotiate Roundabouts. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI,
USA.
Wayne State University Transportation Research Group, "Improving Driver's Ability

to Safely and Effectively Use Roundabouts: Educating the Public to Negotiate
Roundabouts". (2011). Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI,
USA.
Zachary, C. (2015). Priceonomics. The case for more traffic roundabouts.

https://priceonomics.com/the-case-for-more-traffic-roundabsouts/.
82
APPENDIX A: DESIGN PROCESS
Notes for Design Process-Step 1:
1. Define the through alignment of each road

2. Locate the inner and outer roundabout circles. The center point is normally
centrally located within the two roads. This may vary depending on land
constraints, services issues, road width or approach angles.
3. Define the approach and departure curves on the verge side as shown. The
departure curve radius should be more generous than the approach radius.
4. Repeat for all legs.
1. Add the turning radius connecting the approach and departure curves. Ensure
that there is at least a 10m gap between the outer roundabout circle and the
turning radius. The maximum gap should not exceed 3m.
2. Add the approach curve on the median side. Ensure that the carriageway width
at the nose of the median is 8m minimum. The approach curve must be offset
from the inner circle by minimum of 1m and maximum of 3m. If the approach
is a straight of at least 10m in length, a tangent can be formed with the inner
circle.
3. Add the departure curve on the median side. Ensure that the carriageway width
at the nose of the median has a minimum of 8m. The departure curve should be
tangential to the inner circle.
4. Repeat for all approaches and departures.
1. Define median kerb line with offsets as shown for all legs.
2. Create sealed shoulder where required and add the lane marking.
3. Plot the turning path of the design vehicle for all movements using a computer
program such as VISSIM simulation and ensure a minimum of 0.5m clearance
from the swept path to the kerb line.
4. Check the entry path radius for all legs.
83
5. Define the median ramps first then add the pedestrian ramps.
6. Complete the vertical design.
1. Dimension all sign locations from known points, such as median noses.
2. Review speed controls on approaches and provide reverse curve geometry.
3. Start exit line from a line drawn tangentially from the central island to the
splitter island exit edge line at the previous exit.
4. End exit line a minimum of one-line module (12m) past the exit median kerb
nosing.
84

Optimizing Roundabout Design to Reduce Traffic Congestion

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Optimizing Roundabout Design to Reduce Traffic Congestion

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER I

1.1 Background of the Study

Traffic congestion is a normal phenomenon associated with transportation,

As demand approaches the capacity of a road or of the intersections along the

Usually, urban planners cannot recommend the use of a roundabout or a traffic

In recent studies, the use of signals on roundabouts has been considered as a

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Traffic congestion is one of the transportation problems in Zamboanga City and

1.4 Significance of the Study

1.5 Scope and Limitation

1.6 Definition of Terms

This chapter provides an overview of previous research on knowledge sharing

2.1 Modern Roundabout

While modern roundabouts flourished in popularity overseas, some urban areas

Traffic circles made a comeback in 1966 when Frank Blackmore, an engineer

2.2 Features of Modern Roundabout

Roundabouts generally have a much smaller circumference than rotaries or

Figure 2.2: Features of Roundabout

A modern roundabout is a circular intersection with specific design and traffic

From AARP Real Possibilities "Modern Roundabouts| A livability fact sheet" -

Roundabout also has many advantages- it is safe, efficient, and smart

2.4 Roundabout and its type

A roundabout is a circular intersection that move traffic flow in a

The integration of roundabouts has significantly influenced not only today’s

The maximum flow rate that can be accommodated at a roundabout entry

Like other types of intersections, approach lanes and circulations could be

Table 2.5.1 – Potential Intersection Control by ADT Volume

To further assist with roundabout evaluation, a capacity guide from the

 Less than 25,000 for a single-lane roundabout

2.6 Roundabouts versus other Types of Intersection

Compared to other types of intersection, roundabouts have the good potential

2.7 Safety Benefits

One of the safety benefits of roundabout is crash reductions. In a before-after

Figure 2.7.1: Standard Intersection Figure 2.7.2: Modern Roundabout

(Modern Roundabout: A Safe & Robus Intersection Alternative, 2014). The

All past researches presented above showed that conversion of traditional

2.8 Efficiency of Roundabouts

A dominant advantage of modern roundabouts is their overall operational

2.9 Construction Cost

The cost of building a roundabout is comparable to installing a digital traffic

The introduction of the modern roundabout to the transport network is fairly

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Research Locale

The proposed study was located at the Governor Camins Intersection,

3.3 Research Instrumentation/Tool

3.4 Design Procedure

The process of designing roundabout more so than other forms of intersections,

Geometric design of roundabout consists of selecting the number of legs,

 Preparing a geometric layout.

3.4.1.5 Road Inventory

PALAFOX: Road Inventory of Gov. Camins-Mayor Jaldon St.

Roundabout Geometry Typical Inscribed Circle Diameter

Two Lane Roundabout 150-220 ft

Table 3.4.1.6: Diameter Range of an Inscribed Circle, NCHRP 672

3.4.1.7 Central Island Diameter

Roundabout Geometry Mini Roundabout Single-Lane Roundabout Multi-Lane Roundabout

Table 3.4.1.7: Treatment for Central Island, NCHRP 672

3.4.1.8 Alignment of Centerlines

3.4.1.9 Number of Approaches

3.4.1.10 Angles between Approach Centerlines

The centerlines of adjacent approaches should intersect at as close to 90 degrees

3.4.1.11 Splitter Island