Setra

service d'tudes techniques

des routes et autoroutes

Traduction de guides techniques ./ Translation of Technical Guides

Dcembre 2002

The design of interurban intersections on major roads

At-grade intersections December 1998

Produced and disseminated by the Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes Centre de la Scurit et des Techniques Routires 46, avenue Aristide Briand - BP 100 - 92225 Bagneux Cedex - France Tel : (33) 1 46 11 31 31 - Fax (33) 1 46 11 31 69

Translation : Chapters 1 et 2 : Kevin RILEY, Traductions Routes et Transports (Mrs-Erign - 49) Chapter 3 and appendices : Joe BARED, FHWA ( U.S. Washington) Note: The first chapters have been translated into European English, the third and appendices into American English.

FOREWORD
This technical guide deals with the general design and geometry of at-grade intersections on major interurban roads. It sets out detailed technical guidelines on this topic which complement the more general guidelines contained in the publication "Amnagement des Routes Principales". It replaces two SETRA technical guides: "Les carrefours plans sur routes interurbains" which dates from March 1980 and " Les Carrefours plans sur routes interurbaines - Carrefours giratoires" which dates from September 1984. It covers neither intersections in urban areas - these will be dealt with in a document to be published by the CERTU ("Guide carrefours urbains") - nor signalized intersections which should not exist outside built-up areas. "Interurban Intersection Design - At-grade intersections" is intended to be used by all bodies responsible for managing the road network. Indeed, most intersections are meeting points between different networks for which different authorities are responsible. The guidelines in this document should be considered as the rules of good practice the whole engineering community. This document was drafted by

L. DUPONT (SETRA) L. PATTE (SETRA) P. BOIVIN (SETRA) P. FLACHAT (CETE de Rhne-Alpes) B. GUICHET (CETE de l'Ouest) J.Y. GIRARD (CETE de l'Ouest) G DUPRE (CETE de Normandie Centre)

Work was coordinated by the Direction d'Etudes Conception Routire et Autoroutire (Directorate for Road and Motorway Design Studies) under the supervision of J.M. SANGOUARD. The drawings and diagrams are the work of G. LEPINE (SETRA) and J.Y. LEBOURG (CETE de Normandie Centre). This document generated wide-ranging consultation which brought in engineering departments, Directions Dpartementales de l'Equipement (Dpartement Infrastructure Directorates) and experts from the national engineering network. We would like to thank all those who provided comments and information. The term "major roads" is applied in the ARP ("Amnagement des Routes Principales") to roads which perform a structural function within the national road network or the Dpartement road networks (the daily traffic on such roads generally exceeds 1500 vehicles).

CONTENTS
u FOREWORD u CHAPTER 1: GENERAL DESIGN
1. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERSECTION DESIGN 2. PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND DATA 3. CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF INTERSECTION

5 9
10 12 16

u CHAPTER 2: STANDARD AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2. DESIGN OF THE PRIORITY ROAD 3. DESIGN OF THE NON-PRIORITY ROAD (INTERSECTIONS WITH 3 OR 4 LEGS) 4. ROAD FURNITURE AND SIGNING

25
27 37 57 63

u CHAPTER 3: ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2. GEOMETRY OF THE COMPONENTS OF A ROUNABOUT 3. SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS 4. ROAD FURNITURE AND SIGNING

67
69 79 89 94

u GLOSSARY u BIBLIOGRAPHY u APPENDICES

99 107 111

APPENDIX 1: THE SAFETY OF AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS...113 APPENDIX 2: CAPACITY AND DELAY..117 APPENDIX 3: GEOMETRIC DELAYS AT INTERSECTIONS.121 APPENDIX 4: ESTIMATE OF THE V85 SPEED.123 APPENDIX 5: MEASUREMENT OF THE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BY THE "STOPWATCH METHOD"125 APPENDIX 6: DESIGN OF THE CURBS..127

INTRODUCTION
u SCOPE
This guide deals with the design and construction of at-grade intersections on major roads outside urban areas and covers both upgrading of the existing network and the building of new roads. As at-grade intersections are not compatible with roads that are isolated from their environment, this document does not deal with the geometric design of type L roads (freeways) or type T roads (express roads)1. However, the fundamental principles and the approach to be adopted when choosing the type of intersection, which are explained in the first chapter "General Design", apply to all types of intersections on all types of roads. This guide does cover Type R bypasses2. However, it does not deal with ring roads; as the function of most of these is to link different districts they should be considered as urban roads. Where buildings are either few in number or widely spaced (perhaps constituting a hamlet but not a built-up area as defined in the Highway Code (art. R1)), the site will generally be classified as nonurban and the technical guidelines for rural areas will be applied. Cross-town routes, irrespective of the size of the built-up area they pass through, are to be considered as urban roads. For these it is necessary to refer to the texts which deal with urban roads, in particular the CERTU "Guide Carrefours Urbains". In addition, Chapter 7 of the A.R.P. states the general principles that apply to the boundary between rural and urban areas and entrances to built-up areas and contains some remarks concerning roads that pass through small towns and suburbs at the entrances to large towns and cities.
1

Apart from the very specific exception of the use of a roundabout to provide a "terminal" at the end of a Type T road.

A bypass is defined in the A.R.P. as a non-urban road passing round a town and which is mainly used by through traffic.

u CONTENTS OF THE GUIDE

This guide contains technical guidelines for the general design and the geometry of intersections and also enumerates the general principles which the designer should take into account. However, it does not give detailed descriptions of technical features that are the subject of specialized guidelines. Although they are mentioned, particularly in the first chapter, preliminary investigations and study techniques are not covered either. For these topics the text refers readers to other documents. It takes into account the most recent developments and accumulated experience with regard to level of service and the interaction between the infrastructure and road safety3. Consequently, design rules and the descriptions of the conditions under which the various types of intersection should be used have been improved or clarified. This new intersection guide has some major aspects in common with the ARP, and supplements the recommendations in this. Essentially, these are as follows: - a definition of technically coherent types of road which are clearly identifiable by drivers; - operating speeds (V85)are used, in particular to apply visibility recommendations; the "legibility" of the road and facilities are considered; - considerable importance is given to facilities with a high level of safety; - acceptance that drivers have the "right to make an error", in particular by designing roadsides devoid of obstacles and features which are likely to make the consequences of leaving the road more severe. Consequently, this document modifies the documents it replaces in many important respects (see Foreword above).
3

The SETRA-CETUR document "Scurit des Routes et des Rues" presents a survey of this knowledge.

u STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDE

A coherent design approach consists of a number of stages which can be divided into two main phases: in the first, the intersection is adapted to its surroundings. This is covered in Chapter 1, "General Design". This describes the data to be collected, the preliminary studies to be conducted and the range of facilities which are possible for each type of road. Finally, it states the factors which to be considered when deciding whether to construct a standard at-grade intersection or a roundabout; the second phase is geometric design. This is covered in the second chapter for standard at-grade intersections and in the third for roundabouts. These chapters both cover general features and the detailed design of the components which form the intersection. The principal technical terms used in intersection design are defined in a glossary. Its main purpose is to eliminate any terminological problems that readers may encounter when reading this document. Finally, the appendices contain additional information on safety, the 85th percentile speed and the design of curbs.

u HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE

Considerations relating in particular to the safety, level of service and cost of facilities have resulted in guidelines which deal with choosing the type of intersection, general configuration, sizing and detailed geometry. In practice, a flexible approach should be adopted towards these, taking account of local constraints and accident occurrence etc. In addition, the requirements for existing roads (to which extremely strong constraints may apply) cannot possibly be as strict as for new roads. For the latter, the principles and guidelines contained in this document should provide the basis for intersection design. For existing roads, the design rules which apply for new constructions are to be considered as medium-term or long-term objectives. Safety, based on a detailed analysis of accidents, should be taken into account when deciding which improvements should be given priority. However, prioritization should never interfere with an overall approach to design along a route. It is generally advisable (for the sake of homogeneity, consistency and performance) to adhere as closely as possible to the standard layouts in this guide. However, merely doing this blindly will not in itself guarantee that optimum performance will be achieved. Each intersection is a special case and specific studies will be required in order to take account of the specific features of the project.

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL DESIGN
u 1. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERSECTION DESIGN
1.1. GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH 1.2. BASIC PRINCIPLES

10
10 11

u 2. PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND DATA

2.1. DATA 2.2. PRELIMINARY SAFETY STUDIES 2.3. BASIC TRAFFIC DATA 2.4. MEASURING VISIBILITY AT AN EXISTING INTERSECTION 2.5. SPEEDS

12
12 13 13 15 16

u 3. CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF INTERSECTION

3.1. PRINCIPLES 3.2. TYPES OF ROAD 3.3. TYPES OF INTERSECTION 3.4. THE RANGE OF DESIGN OPTIONS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF ROAD 3.5. THE CHOICE BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF INTERSECTION (WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE OF ROAD)

16
16 17 17 18 21

To operate effectively an intersection must: - be appropriate for the type of road on which it is located, for the site (environment etc.) and the conditions of use (types of traffic, etc.); - have satisfactory geometric design (both of general features and detail). This chapter deals with the general design of intersections and provides an overview of the first of the above points, i.e. the main principles to be followed, and describes the process which is to be used to select the type of intersection. It gives a detailed list of data to be collected and preliminary studies to be performed. This demonstrates the importance of ensuring that an intersection1 is matched to its environment - the type of major road, the nature of the so-called secondary road or roads, the site, the types of traffic and the exchanges it is intended to accommodate.

1. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERSECTION DESIGN

1.1. GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH

A consistent design approach includes the following stages2: identifying the type of road 3 involved (or rather the types of roads involved). To make such an identification, studies (or perhaps even a planning decision) are required to establish: (i) its hierarchical position in its network; (ii) the type of road it most resembles (before construction or after upgrading). If this preliminary work at network level has not been performed, appropriate studies should be undertaken to determine the type of the major road (see 3.2.); establishing a range of design options (types of intersection or interchange). This "range of design options" includes all the solutions which are compatible with the type of road in question (see 3.4).
1 2

Sometimes, rather ambiguously, referred to in French as a local facility. This approach is not completely sequential; in particular, data collection can be performed simultaneously with several phases (data is necessary at the outset and some options or decisions can give rise to additional data collection in the course of the design process. The road typology used in this guide follows that of the ARP. In particular, it has been constructed with reference to technical rather than administrative factors.

10

 collecting and analyzing information concerning the site (topography, environment, visibility obstructions, layout of existing road or roads) etc. and its operation (accidents, traffic etc.) (see 2: "Preliminary studies and data"); choosing a type of intersection from among the range of design options; geometric design as such; this phase can be divided into three parts: - determining the general configuration (for example, provision of a left-turn lane, positioning of the legs of a roundabout, etc.); - detailed design and dimensioning; - checks on visibility, capacity and general adequacy (simplicity, compactness etc.), which can bring into question planned measures or earlier decisions.

1.2. BASIC PRINCIPLES

Furthermore, all stages of intersection design, whether relating to general design or geometry, must take account of the following basic principles: it must be compatible with the type of road and the behaviors this generates; it must fit in with the rationale of the route (uniformity of facilities, contribution to the continuity or division of the major road); the facility must be legible allowing drivers to recognize the intersection they are entering easily, quickly and with certainty; safety must be optimized for all traffic flows, including very secondary ones; it must provide free flow for priority traffic;

it must take account of specific groups of drivers (pedestrians, two-wheeled vehicles, public transport, exceptional vehicles, etc.).

11

2. PRELIMINARY STUDIES AND DATA

2.1. DATA
The data below should generally be taken into account during design work for a new intersection or upgrading an existing one. However, systematic data collection should not be conducted in all cases. Furthermore, this is not an exhaustive list. The most important data are the following: the position of the intersection on the roads involved, the position of these roads in the network to which they belong, the nature and status of these roads; the characteristics of the site: topography, road layout, environment (constructions, vegetation, crops, etc.), any visibility obstructions to be taken into account; use and operation of the intersection: traffic (volumes, nature, movements, etc.), saturation phenomena, specific activities at the site (for example a diner, service station, etc.), location of a bus stop, observable or predictable behaviors (as is the case), and, in particular, operating speeds on the approaches to the exchange zones;

accidents: number, types and processes (data only available for existing intersections). This data provides the main basis for the safety diagnosis that must systematically be conducted before intersections are modified. In the case of intersections on new infrastructure, the accident risk can be estimated using "predictive" models, on the basis of the traffic and the characteristics of the intersection. The sections which follow (2.2 to 2.5) provide additional information about the collection and analysis of some types of basic data (i.e. accidents, traffic, measurement of visibility conditions, speeds).

12

2.2 PRELIMINARY SAFETY STUDIES

In the case of modifications to an intersection which do not specifically target safety, but which nevertheless aim to improve or at least not to worsen safety, the safety objective should be clearly identified at the same time as the level of service objective (free flow, comfort, etc.). It is always advisable to conduct a preliminary safety study. This includes: (i) identifying safety measures on the basis of a diagnosis, and (ii) an a priori assessment of the anticipated effects and any side effects. In the case of adverse side effects, additional measures may be taken (for example the scale of the project can be increased) or the modification can be abandoned. With regard to this, reference will be made to the methodological guide "Etudes pralables des interventions sur l'infrastructure" (SETRA, 1992). Use can also be made of the "SECAR" software system for analyzing the safety of non roundabout at-grade intersections (SETRA; CETE de Normandie - Centre)4 .

2.3 BASIC TRAFFIC DATA

What constitutes essential traffic data depends on whether the project involves modifying an existing intersection or designing an intersection on a new road.

2.3.1. INTERSECTIONS ON EXISTING ROADS

In addition to the volume of traffic on the major road, which is generally known, the traffic volume on the minor road(s) must be measured. If accidents involving left turning traffic have occurred, or if there seems to be a high proportion of exchange movements, the volume of left turning traffic should be assessed (even if it appears to be small). However, when traffic volumes are such that capacity problems (long delays for some movements) are deemed likely, the volumes of all traffic movements must be estimated, for example when there is heavy traffic on the minor road or very heavy traffic on the major road (even with light traffic on the minor road). When the possibility of periodic congestion cannot be completely ruled out more thorough knowledge of peak hourly flows5 must be acquired.
4

See SETRA Note d'information No. 113 (srie circulation, scurit, exploitation); March 1998.

The evening peak is generally involved. In some cases the reverse peak can provide useful additional information; occasionally, a weekly peak hour, or even a seasonal peak can be considered, particularly when one or other of these is exceeded for at least thirty hours during the year.

13

The graphs below show a few criteria for determining the traffic studies that should be conducted. These are given for guidance only6, and are above all intended to warn the engineer that such studies are necessary beforehand.
Fig 1 - A few criteria for the level of traffic studies that should be performed (rural roads with 2 or 3 lanes)

Four leg intersection

5000

4000

3000 the minor ADT) 2000

3 2 1

1000

0 0 5000 10000 Traffic on major road (AADT) 15000 20000

Three leg intersection

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Traffic on the minor road(AADT) 0 0 5000

3 2 1

10000 Traffic on the major road (AADT)

15000

20000

Normally no capacity study conducted - The traffic levels may cause congestion problems; it is advised to carry out a check on the basis of the distribution of traffic flows (and perhaps also peak hourly flows). Periodic congestion is highly likely; a detailed study using directional peak hour data is essential.

2.3.2. INTERSECTIONS ON A NEW ROAD

In addition to the traffic on the major road, traffic on the roads crossed by the new road must be measured, and forecasts must be made of the future traffic on these roads once the new road section has been opened and, in spite of the difficulties involved, of all the turning movements too. More detailed investigation of peak hourly flows may be conducted, especially when daily traffic volumes mean that the possibility of periodic congestion cannot be ruled out.
6

These graphs are, in particular, based on simple hypotheses about the peak hour, the distribution of turning movements etc.

14

2.3.3. TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Essentially, the following traffic data collection methods are available for existing roads: For comprehensive counts: - counts at permanent counting stations (in particular SIREDO stations) - these techniques are usually limited to the structural network; - automatic counts using temporary counters (often pneumatic tubes) which are installed for one or more periods during a week, with the results then extrapolated for an entire year; - manual peak hour counts, extrapolated to give the annual daily average. With regard to these last two points, where traffic data is incomplete, details of the methods for estimating the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and additional information are given in the technical appendix of the "Circulaire relative aux recensement de la traffic routire". Directional traffic counts use the same techniques as comprehensive counts, but there is no method for extrapolating non-permanent hourly counts to give an average hour or an average peak hour.

2.4. MEASURING VISIBILITY AT AN EXISTING INTERSECTION

The design of a safe project generally involves checking the entry approach visibility (see 2.1.), and the crossing visibility for vehicles on the non-priority road (see Chap.2, 1.2.1). Of the two, the second generally generates the most constraints. It is expressed either in terms of a visibility distance or a crossing time. Several methods can be used to ensure that visibility conditions is satisfactory. a) The direct (or so-called "stopwatch") method This method can only be applied to existing intersections and consists of measuring the actual intersection crossing time in situ. It is convenient in that it uses the speeds and visibility distances that are involved in the problem of visibility. Instructions are given in Appendix 5. b) The indirect method The method requires knowledge of the operating (V85) speeds of vehicles approaching the intersection (see 2.5). The required sight distances depend on these (see Chap. 2, 1.2.2.) and can be compared with those actually provided (because of lateral masking, road layout, etc.). In the case of an existing road, visibility distances are measured in situ. Otherwise, they are estimated a priori, using the plans.

15

2.5. SPEEDS
In order to evaluating an intersection's operating conditions and ascertain the sight distances that are required, measurements of real speeds or forecasts of speeds are essential. Generally, speeds are measured, in accordance with international practice, using the 85th percentile speed (V85), which is the speed below which 85 percent of drivers travel under free-flow (uncongested) conditions. The V85 speed can be estimated experimentally or theoretically (see appendix 4). In the case of an existing road, the 85th percentile speed can be deduced from the distribution of observed speeds. Measurements are usually made using one of the various types of vehicle detectors or hand-held radar equipment7 . The latter offers operational flexibility and is able to discriminate easily between free-flow and impeded vehicles, but is difficult to use over long periods.

3. CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF INTERSECTION

The measurement period or periods must be representative, and a sufficient number of individual measurements (of free-flow vehicles) must be made. 8 The V85 speed can also be estimated with formulae that take account of the main features of site geometry (cross-section, horizontal alignment, longitudinal profile, etc.). The "DIAIVI software (SETRA) can also be used to estimate the operating speed at each point of a project.

3.1. PRINCIPLES
An intersection must belong to a readily identified type: the operation of an intersection whose configuration is too individual is generally poorly understood by drivers and such intersections frequently cause accidents. Following the instructions set out in Chapters 2 and 3 will generally ensure that an intersection belongs to a common, readily identified, type. The types of intersections installed on a road help to make it clear to drivers what type of road they are on. When intersections are too varied or inconsistent they are a source of harmful ambiguity. For example, the construction of interchanges on an ordinary major road generates behaviors downstream which are incompatible with the operating conditions of the road in question (because of frontage access, at-grade intersections, etc.).
7

The document "Mesure des vitesse et ses applications" (SETRA 1997) lists available methods for measuring vehicle speeds.

Irrespective of the representativeness of the measurement period (and the accuracy of measurement device), about 25 measurements are required to estimate the V85 speed to an accuracy of 10 km/h, and 70 measurement to estimate it to within 5 km/h.

16

Furthermore, drivers on a certain type of road expect certain types of intersections. For example, drivers on an express road, where there is normally no frontage access and where intersections are grade-separated, would be unprepared for frontage access or an atgrade intersection and fail to react appropriately and rapidly if a non-priority vehicle were to cross the road. Finally, the manner an intersection operates must be compatible with the operating conditions of the type of road on which it is installed. For example, the difficulty of non-priority movements (crossing or left turns) on a standard at-grade intersection is incompatible with the width and speeds that exist on some roads (for example divided highways). It is therefore necessary to ascertain that the selected type of intersection is compatible with the type of road on which it is to be installed. The type of intersection must be compatible with the specific conditions of the site and its operation (traffic, use, closeness to a built-up area, transition between two types of road, safety problems, etc.).

3.2. TYPES OF ROAD

The document "Amnagement des Routes Principales" identifies the following types of interurban road: roads which are isolated from their environment, which include - "freeways" and similar roads (type L): these are divided highways with no at-grade access or intersections; - "express roads" (type T): these have a single roadway and no at-grade access points or intersections other rural major roads: - divided type R roads ("interurban major roads"): there may be access to roadside plots, which are usually not built on (but traffic is not allowed to cross the central reservation), and at-grade intersections (roundabouts or partial intersections only); - undivided type R roads (known as "multifunctional roads"): provision of access to roadside plots, which are usually not built on, presence of at-grade intersections, single roadway; secondary roads in rural areas: the same characteristics as undivided type R roads, but with less traffic (rarely more than 1,500 v/d) and smaller width (generally less than 5 m to 5.50 m).

3.3. TYPES OF INTERSECTION

As with the types of road, the classification of intersections into homogeneous groups of designs must favor the clearest possible perception by drivers. Here too, the appearance of an intersection must suggest a mode of operation which is readily and rapidly understandable. In practice, classifying intersections into major technical families (on the basis of the shape and type of operation) means this requirement can be met satisfactorily

17

From the outset, two large groups of intersections can be identified: grade-separated intersections or interchanges, in which exchanges are separated from each other and managed away from the major roads (in order to limit secant conflicts to the maximum extent); at-grade intersections in which all the exchanges between the roads take place on the same plane. These are of two main types: standard at-grade intersections and roundabout at-grade intersections. A "partial intersection" is a standard at-grade intersection where the central reservation is physically closed. It only permits right turning movements (from the major road into a minor road or vice-versa).

3.4. THE RANGE OF DESIGN OPTIONS ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF ROAD

This results directly from the principles set out in section 3.1. Grade-separated intersections create a powerful impression of a road which is isolated from its environment; there should be no at-grade intersections on these roads and, apart from a few exceptional cases, grade-separated intersections should only be used on these roads. In contrast, atgrade intersections are the normal type of design on roads which have a close connection with their environment. The choice of the type of at-grade intersection (roundabout or standard) depends above all on the volume and distribution of traffic and the number of exchanges which exist or will be created on the roads involved.

3.4.1. TYPE L ROADS

The only possible type of intersection is an interchange (grade-separated intersection). If an interchange isnot built, the minor road may be grade-separated without any exchange, transfered to an adjacent intersection or simply closed. A type L road terminates with either a "provisional end of freeway" design or a connection with another freeway (interchange) or by a transition to an urban freeway.

3.4.2. TYPE T ROADS

"Type T roads are designed with the objective of providing a high level of service and favoring long-distance traffic. Therefore, the design of intersections and access points should attempt to limit disruption and speed loss caused by exchange movements between the road and the secondary roads or the road's environment. It is therefore logical to prohibit frontage access and grade-separate all points of exchange and crossings. The retention of a small number of standard at-grade intersections is incompatible with safety. Roundabout intersections, which are incompatible with the high level of service objective, can only be considered as a provisional or permanent "terminal" option at the end of the road, in particular at the entrance to a built-up area (the only other satisfactory arrangement at the end of such a road being a "provisional end of freeway" design with the driver leaving via a deceleration lane and a transition road before joining the ordinary road system)." (Amnagement des Routes Principales)

18

If a section of existing road is converted into a type T road, the exchange and access points must receive appropriate treatment: grade-separation (with or without exchange of traffic) or removal of the intersection and transfer to a nearby intersection, removal of frontage access, provision of access to and creation of a parallel road system (for traffic which is not authorized to use the type T road). Otherwise, if the necessary funds are not available, a possible alternative is to upgrade only a clearly marked sub-section, in a completely coherent manner, in accordance with what has been stated above (see A.R.P. 1.2.b). Under no circumstances is it acceptable to grade separate the principal access points while deferring the other measures (grade-separation or removal of other intersections, removal of frontage access, provision of access and parallel roads).

Table 1 - Suitable alternatives for type T roads and the general conditions for their use.

Alternatives Removal of intersection (transfer to a nearby roundabout or interchange) Grade separation without exchange Grade-separated intersection (interchange)
Exception: a roundabout at the end of a Type T road.

General conditions for use Low traffic on minor road, or creation of a parallel road system Mainly through traffic on minor roads Heavy traffic, considerable exchange

3.4.3. TYPE R ROADS

"Type R roads carry long-distance traffic without favoring this over shorter-distance traffic for which access and ease of exchange movements are important. Frontage access, generally to non built-up land, can be allowed (except when safety criteria are not met, for example when visibility is inadequate) and there should be a large number of exchange points. The most appropriate intersections for these constraints are at-grade, either roundabout or non-roundabout (4-way intersection or T-intersection). A grade-separated intersection can be justified in exceptional circumstances (when a roundabout is saturated, etc.), as can removing or displacing an intersection (in the event of safety problems associated with its location). " (Amnagement des Routes Principales) Furthermore, on type R divided highways, at-grade non-roundabout intersections should systematically consist of partial intersections. Roundabouts should always be installed at sites where all the exchanges are brought together.

19

Table 2 - Suitable alternatives for type R roads and the general conditions for their use.

Alternatives Roundabouts

General conditions for use Relatively high traffic on minor road, or a safety problem

At-grade intersection (4-way intersection, Tintersection

In the other situations; not acceptable on 4-lane divided highways

Specific case: partial intersection

4-lane divided highways

Exception: grade-separated intersections (with specific justifications - saturation of a roundabout etc.).

Type R bypasses (a special case)

In view of the specific problems affecting these roads as regards the safety of standard at-grade intersections (the amount of crossing traffic, frequently unfavorable location), the measures to be taken are as follows: - roundabouts should be constructed at major exchange points (terminal intersections, and possibly at a central point); - minor intersections should be modified, either by elimination and transfer to an adjacent intersection, or, if crossing traffic is relatively heavy, by grade separation with no exchange, with costs kept to a minimum; - no frontage access to ensure the road retains its primary purpose of carrying through-traffic and to avoid urbanization which would result in an ambiguous identity.9

3.4.4. MINOR RURAL ROADS (WHERE NO MAJOR ROADS ARE INVOLVED)

The recommended types of intersections are as follows: - standard at-grade intersections, with nearside priority or a "STOP" or "YIELD" priority rule.10 - roundabout intersections (generally small) for slightly larger intersections
9

In the case of a high-traffic road, this is compulsory (see article L152-1 of the "Code de la voirie routire"). The systematic (or quasi-systematic) giving of priority to a minor road is generally not recommended.

10

20

3.5. THE CHOICE BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF INTERSECTION (WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE OF ROAD) 3.5.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The type of intersection for a given site must not be chosen without reference to the general design policy for intersections along the route. 11 The consistency of the facilities along a route is important and should be achieved immediately in the case of a new road and taken into account, at least as a long term aim, in the case of existing roads. On type R major roads, the choice of a type of intersection (from among the possible options) is usually between the two types of at-grade intersections (standard or roundabout).12 However, the choice of facility only takes this form when the other possible solutions (removal of the intersection, grade separation with exchange, for example) have been rejected. The choice is based on local conditions at the site. It may be assisted by multicriteria analysis, taking not only safety into account, but also user costs, financial analysis, cost benefit appraisal, etc. 13 In the case of a new construction, the decision will frequently be based on general knowledge about how a given type of intersection affects the number of accidents, delays etc. At a site with an existing intersection, a safety diagnosis is an essential basis for decisionmaking. In particular, there is no need to transform an intersection into a roundabout when no accidents have occurred there. The safety and journey time benefits depend mainly on the traffic on the major and minor roads, in particular the nature of through and exchange traffic. This must be known in order to make an informed choice.

3.5.2. MAIN DECISION CRITERIA

a) Safety This is a priority criterion. On a major road, a roundabout is safer than a standard atgrade intersection, accidents are generally less frequent and less severe. Information concerning the performance of the two types of at-grade intersection is given in Appendix 1. It should nevertheless be noted that improving a standard at-grade intersection (by adding a left-turn lane or an island on the minor road, for example) can lead to considerable safety improvements (sometimes at moderate cost). Furthermore, there are normally very few accidents at grade-separated intersections or partial intersections.
11

This general decision may have been made already, for example in the context of the policy for a network with an established hierarchy. The choice between two types of interchange is not dealt with in this document which is concerned with atgrade intersections. See the "Instruction modificatrice provisoire" of 28 July 1995 concerning the methods for evaluating road investments in rural areas (Direction des Routes).

12

13

21

b) Cost

The costs of at-grade intersections vary greatly depending on local conditions, the extent to which the existing pavement is reutilized (in the case of reconstruction), the amount of road furniture installed, the construction of feeder roads, etc. Some aspects of design (illumination, landscaping, choice of materials, etc.) can considerably increase the cost of a project. Furthermore, operating costs (maintenance, electricity consumption if applicable) must also be considered. However, the cost of improving a standard at-grade intersection is frequently much lower than the cost of building a roundabout, but it should not be forgotten that limiting the dimensions of a roundabout considerably reduces its cost.

c) Delays This criterion is also important on roads that carry long distance or medium distance traffic (which although rarely predominant can be deliberately favored). Local traffic must also be considered on roads of secondary importance.

Delays are, basically, of two types, the relative importance of which depends on the traffic at the site: - traffic delay (also known as congestion delay). This is due to not having priority and interactions between vehicles. It can be considered as being the time spent in a queue and at the front of a queue. - geometric delay. This is the delay experienced by a vehicle when crossing the facility, when not impeded at all by traffic. This exists because an intersection forces some traffic streams to slow down. 14 Delays are usually negligible for rural roundabouts. If this is not the case there is probably a capacity problem which may be detected by the GIRABASE software.15 Figure 2 below illustrates the field of application for roundabout intersections with regard to traffic, in particular their capacity limit.
14

In the case of a roundabout too, drivers need to negotiate the central reservation which makes their trajectory slightly longer than a straight line, but the corresponding delay is small, at least for the dimensions recommended in this document (see Chap. 3). Produced by the CETE de l'Ouest. In addition, this also estimates delays.

15

22

Fig. 2 - Field of use of roundabout intersections with regard to traffic.

For a 2- or 3-lane type "R" road

AADT on minor road secondaire
14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000
0

AADT on major road

For a 4-lane divided type "R" road

AADT on minor road
1 6 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 0

AADT on major road

The light area represents a reserve capacity of more than 30%. Delays are generally low. The dark area represents a reserve capacity16 of between 10% and 30%. Delays can become very long in certain cases Above this, one entry is likely to be saturated. However, all the users passing through the roundabout are subjected to geometric delay. The duration of this will vary according to the site. Its average value is 12s for light vehicles (further information on geometric delay is given in Appendix 3).
16

See Appendix 2.

23

The delay experienced by non-priority drivers at a standard at-grade intersection is generally greater than at a roundabout. It can be estimated using the OCTAVE software17 , but only become really high when demand on the minor road approaches capacity. Under such circumstances, the traffic levels would normally justify the construction of a roundabout intersection on safety grounds. Figure 1 in section 2.3.1. gives an approximate idea of the capacity limit of a non-roundabout at-grade intersection. Geometric delay mainly affects the minor road. It is of the same order of magnitude as for roundabouts, but tends to be slightly longer (see Appendix 3). d) Overall consistency between the facilities along the road In addition, an intersection should always be examined in the context of a comprehensive consideration of an entire section of a route. Without this, genuine optimization of an investment program is impossible. It should be understood that an excessive frequency of roundabout intersections along one route may cause disruption, particularly on the largest roads, by considerably reducing the level of service provided to through vehicles. In certain specific cases, it can even be counter-productive (by causing traffic to transfer to less safe or less suitable routes, for example).

3.5.3. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA

Other site characteristics can also weigh in favor of a certain type of facility: thus, the following factors encourage construction of a roundabout: - the need to mark the boundary between two types of roads (between a divided highway and a single roadway, between a rural road and an urban or suburban road, etc.), to enable drivers to identify the type of place they are entering and modify their behavior accordingly; - a situation at the entry of a built-up zone: the "gateway" effect encourages a change in driver behaviors and attention levels which are beneficial to safety in built-up areas; in addition a roundabout provides a functional or aesthetic way of treating public space; - a large number of legs (>4) which makes it difficult to design an acceptable standard atgrade intersection; - concerns about access, as a result of which turning movements can be facilitated to the detriment of journey times on the road; - more specifically, the need to provide opportunities for turning back, in particular on 3-lane roads (where turning left towards accesses is always a difficult maneuver, particularly for trucks) or on divided highways. However, these criteria do not remove the need to consider the principle selection criteria (see 3.5.2.). On their own they are not sufficient to justify the construction of a roundabout. In particular, a roundabout is unnecessary when traffic demand on the minor road is insignificant.
17

The OCTAVE software (SETRA, 1998) deals with the capacity of unsignalized intersections.

24

CHAPTER 2

STANDARD AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS

u 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES 1.2. RULES OF PLACEMENT

u 2. DESIGN OF THE PRIORITY ROAD

2.1. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND LONGITUDINAL PROFILE 2.2 THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 2.3. FACILITIES TO ASSIST LEFT-TURNING MOVEMENTS 2.4. CROSS-SECTION WHERE THERE IS A CENTRAL FACILITY ON THE PRIORITY ROAD 2.5. SPLITTER ISLANDS (OR CENTRAL RESERVATION) 2.6. FACILITIES FOR RIGHT-TURNING MOVEMENTS FROM THE MAJOR ROAD 2.7. ACCELERATION LANES ON A MAJOR ROAD 2.8. NARROW ROADS

u3. DESIGN OF THE NON-PRIORITY ROAD (INTERSECTIONS WITH 3 OR 4 LEGS)

3.1 LAYOUT OF THE SECONDARY ROAD 3.2. SPLITTER ISLANDS ON THE NON-PRIORITY ROAD 3.3. ENTRY AND EXIT LANES 3.4. EXTREMELY MINOR NON-PRIORITY ROADS 3.5. PARTIAL INTERSECTIONS ON DIVIDED HIGHWAYS

u 4. ROAD FURNITURE AND SIGNING

4.1. SIGNING 4.2. SAFETY BARRIERS (RESTRAINING DEVICES 4.3. ILLUMINATION

25

This chapter deals with the construction and geometric design of non-roundabout atgrade intersections, known as standard at-grade intersections. Standard at-grade intersections provide a lower average level of safety than other types of intersection (roundabout, grade-separated). The priority in their design must therefore be to maximize safety - capacity problems are comparatively rare in rural areas. This chapter lays down guidelines to enable this objective to be achieved (while at the same time adapting the facility to the type of traffic) and also states the rules and parameters for constructing and sizing intersection components.
Fig 1 - Principal components and parameters of a standard at-grade intersection.
Minor leg (non priority)

Width of minor leg (l)

Exit lane Island nose Entry lane Exit radius (R s) Entry radius (Re) Nez dlot
Splitte risland

Splitter
Through lane Island tips

Major leg ( priority)

Left-turn lane

On major type R roads, standard at-grade intersections normally involve the intersection of two (or more) roads belonging to networks with different positions in the road hierarchy. 1 This means that the intersection consists of one "major" road which must have priority and one or more "minor roads" which can also be described as "non-priority" roads.
1

A roundabout is normally constructed at at-grade intersections between two major roads which belong to networks with the same position in the hierarchy.

26

1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The conceptual and geometric design phases of standard at-grade intersections must take into account the basic principles enumerated in Chapter 1. This essentially involves compatibility with the type of road, integration with the rationale of the route, legibility of the facility, optimization of safety, provision of a high rate of flow for priority flows and taking account of specific types of road users. In addition to these fundamental principles which apply to intersections of all types, the construction and design of a standard at-grade intersection requires the following specific precautions. With regard to the route: - the number of conflict points (i.e. the number of intersections on the major road) must be limited; - there must be an adequate distance between two successive intersections. If not, intersections must be grouped together to form a single facility (which means the objective in the preceding paragraph is also attained); - special attention must be given to changes in the type of intersection or the priority rule along a route. Upstream of the facility: - the geometry or the environment should be modified to encourage speeds which are appropriate for the type of facility and the priority rule; - surroundings which assist good legibility. In the approach to the intersection: - satisfactory entry approach visibility of conflict points; - visible and legible advance signing which informs drivers in the clearest possible terms of the type of facility they are about to encounter and the priority rules which apply there (directional and priority signing). Within the intersection: - satisfactory crossing visibility; - the use of certain types of intersection which are compact, straightforward, tested and rapidly identifiable and whose operation is well understood by drivers: T-intersections or 4way intersections (in addition to roundabouts); - homogeneous geometrical features along a route; with facilities which comply as closely as possible with the standard layouts described in the sections below;

27

- features which assist good legibility (it is generally only necessary to comply with the rule of simplicity to achieve this); - the simplest possible signing, which is consistent with the layout and placed where it is clearly visible (particularly in the case of directional signing).
Fig. 2- Principal recommended and not recommended layouts for non-roundabout at-grade intersections.

1. Recommended

2. Not recommended (examples)

28

Several types of intersection must be rejected because they do not comply with these principles and frequently cause accidents: - "bulb" type intersections that are too large and rather complex, in which non priority traffic flows too freely; - Y-intersections which often have similar shortcomings and which suffer from a degree of ambiguity; these should be replaced by either a T-intersection or a roundabout depending on which is more appropriate. - intersections in which there is a "left turning transition lane coming from the right", the operation of which is ambiguous (left turning movements are unusual at at-grade intersections); - many other atypical types of intersection, frequently large, where the large number of islands and transition lanes confuses drivers. In addition, intersections with a nearside priority rule must not be allowed on type R roads, because there is a risk they will not be understood by drivers on the major road, who have generally had priority for long distances upstream of the intersection. Such intersections are prohibited on roads which are classed as trunk roads. Signalized intersections, which may surprise drivers and have a poor safety record, should also be ruled out in rural areas. It is generally advantageous to replace them by roundabout intersections, even in suburban areas or on cross-town routes. To apply these principles of layout and design we need to distinguish between: new roads: the principles set out above provide the basis for the design of planned intersections; existing roads: priority should be given to facilities which improve safety, and to a lesser degree capacity. Any plan to reconstruct an intersection should be preceded by accident and traffic analysis (see Chap 1). The design rules given in the remainder of this Chapter should be considered as general guidance for improvements to existing roads.

1.2. RULES OF PLACEMENT

The four sections below set out the design considerations that apply to standard atgrade intersections. They cover visibility, legibility, the distance between intersections and the limitation of the number of intersections

1.2.1. VISIBILITY
a) Visibility requirement at an intersection For safety reasons, drivers waiting on the minor road or at an access point must have enough time to see whether there is a vehicle on the major road, decide to perform a crossing maneuver and start and complete it 2 before the arrival of a priority vehicle that was masked to begin with.
2

This includes maneuvers to cross the intersection and merge into the traffic on the major road.

29

Drivers turning left into the minor road must be provided with a similar length of time with regard to opposing traffic on the major road. The time required to cross the priority road, known as the "crossing time", naturally depends on its width.
Table 1: Crossing time3 according to the width of the crossed road and the priority rule (to be taken into account when calculating the visibility distance). Cross-section of major road 2-lanes 2 lanes 4-lane divided : merging from the + right left-turn lane at partial intersections 9s 7s 11 s 9s 8s 6s 8s 6s 9s 7s

STOP

recommended time absolute minimum

8s 6s 10 s 8s

YIELD

recommended time absolute minimum

Left-turn lane into minor road

recommended time absolute minimum

N.B. These times should be increased by 1 s when access is via an upward grade of more than 2%, which should, furthermore, be avoided (see 3.1.3.).

It must also be ensured that approaching vehicles have adequate visibility of the noses of splitter islands on the major road and the secondary legs. This generally constitutes less of a design constraint than the crossing time condition, and is set out in 2.1. for the major road. b) Provision of visibility This relates to the intersection crossing time and involves clearing a sight triangle for each conflict between two traffic streams: there must be no visual obstruction within this triangle. The triangle is located 1 m above a plane which passes through the centerline of both roads. Its corners are located as follows: (i) the conflict point between the two traffic streams in question, (ii) an assumed observation point on the non-priority road beyond which a driver must be able to see a vehicle traveling on the major road, and (iii) an observed point on the major road. These elements vary depending on the priority rule (see Fig. 4 and 5).
3

The recommended times provide a greater margin of safety and are better suited to slow-starting vehicles (trucks, twowheel vehicles).

30

The assumed observation point is 2 m from the right edge of the non-priority road, set back 4 m from the stop-line4 at a STOP-controlled intersection and set back 15 to 20 m from the YIELD line5 where this rule applies. In the case of left turns into the minor road the position of the assumed observation point is to be determined on a case by case basis depending on the configuration of the intersection. The observed point is at a height of 1 m above the centerline of the priority road,6 and at a distance from the conflict point which corresponds to the distance traveled by priority vehicles during the crossing time (f); this distance is known as the crossing sight distance (D). The 85th percentile speed (V85) is used to calculate D (see Appendix 4). 7 The distance D is given by: D = V85 x t, where the value of t is given below (Table 1) and varies according the width of the road to be crossed and the priority rule.

Fig. 3 - Crossing sight distance (D) on the basis of the 85th percentile speed on the major road and the crossing time (t).
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Sight distance ( m) . 50 0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 V85 on major road ( km/h) t =11 s t =10 s t= 9s t= 8s t= 7s t= 6s

Site triangles will be provided (4 for a 4-way intersections, 2 for a T-intersections, 1 for a partial intersections on a divided highway) on the basis of the elements described above and the priority rules which apply. The visibility for left turning maneuvers from the major road will be checked later (this generally imposes fewer constraints than left-turning movements from the secondary road).

4 5 6

This is the point where 95 % of drivers actually stop. This is the position where road users gain information when enterring an intersection where the YIELD priority rule applies. If the major road is a two-way road on which overtaking is allowed the lane in question is the left-hand lane (for traffic coming from the right) for sight triangles to the right of the observation point. In all other cases it is the right-hand lane. The V85 speed used to calculate the crossing sight distance is computed using the speeds of all vehicles, including those exceeding the posted limit.

31

Fig. 4 - Sight triangles for drivers on the minor road, depending on the priority rule.

YIELD priority rule (AB3a sign)

D (278m for example, when t=10 s and V85=100 km/h)
2m 15 to 20 m Observation point with yield priority sign

Observed point to the left

2 m 7 2 m

AB3a 2m

Observed point to the right ( overtaking allowed on the major road )

STOP priority rule

D (222m for example when t=8 s and V 85=100 km/h )

2m

Observed point to the left

AB4 2 7 2 AB4 2m Observation point with stop sign

4m

Observed point to the right ( ovetaking allowed on the major road

Fig 5 - Visibility for the left-turn maneuver into the minor road
D (222m for example, when t=8s and V85=100 km/h

32

These crossing sight distances will be used in geometric design and the management of roadsides. c) Precautions as regards horizontal alignment and longitudinal profile On a new road, intersections and access points must not be located on curved alignment.8 It is, however, acceptable to install a T-intersection or an access point on the outside of a bend whose radius is such that no more than the normal cross-fall is required, on condition that sight distances are adequate. Right turning movements from the major road must not be too tangential. Installing an intersection where there is a salient angle is inadvisable. On a new road this option is to be rejected if the longitudinal profile makes it impossible to comply with the sight conditions stated above. For an existing road, any measures required for poorly-located intersections or access points can be determined on the basis of a check on visibility and/or accident analysis (see e, below). d) Precautions concerning roadside management In the vicinity of an intersection, anything located near the road (signs or road furniture9, slopes, trees, crops or other vegetation, buildings, engineering structures, walls, parked vehicles, etc.) can potentially mask visibility. Thus, the visibility conditions set out above demand a zone that is free of lateral masking with sufficient guarantees that it will remain so. Exceptionally, localized masking may be tolerated, on condition that it does not interfere with vision. In order for traffic signs to be outside the sight triangles, they should be set back roughly 200m from a YIELD line and at least 50 m from a STOP line. 10 e) The case of an existing facility where sight distance requirements are not met On an existing road, when it is not possible to remove the masking that impairs visibility at an intersection, other measures must be considered. There are a number of ways in which the visibility requirements stated above can be attained; we shall mention the following: - realigning the minor roads - for example, this can transform a 4-way intersection into two Tintersections, known as a staggered intersection (see 3.1.2.) - in some cases with a small radius in a salient angle, it can be advantageous to move the centerline of the minor (nonpriority) road to the central point of the curve; - transferring exchanges to an adjacent intersection; - in exceptional cases, modifying the layout of the major road (horizontal alignment, longitudinal profile);
8

Apart from the adverse effects on visibility, it is more difficult to judge speeds on a bend and information gathering is more difficult when the non-priority branch joins the major road on the inside of a curve. Safety barriers can also mask visibility, particularly when there is a summit curve on the major road. If it is assumed that vehicles are 0.70 m away from the right shoulder (itself 2 m wide) and the 85th percentile speed is 100 km/h.

10

33

- in the case of partial intersections installed on 4-lane divided highways, installing or extending a acceleration lane; If, ultimately, it proves impossible to meet sight distance requirements, it is necessary to be extremely demanding with regard to the legibility of the facility (see 1.2.2). This may entail installing warning devices, in particular, to encourage drivers to obey the posted speed limits on the major road. To remain effective such measures must, of course, be exceptional. Furthermore, remedial measures of this type can never be completely satisfactory.

1.2.2. LEGIBILITY
Drivers arriving at an intersection must understand easily and rapidly how it operates , the behavior that is expected of them (for example slowing down and yielding) and what the other drivers are doing or will do. The following conditions are necessary to ensure satisfactory legibility: - compatibility of sight distances with approach speeds; - facilities or features that highlight the presence of the intersection (in particular splitter islands) - uniformity of geometric features along a route; - facilities which comply as far as possible with the "standard layouts" - the simplest possible signing, which is consistent and placed where it is clearly visible

Landscaping (or more generally a modification of roadsides) assists driver attention and may facilitate interpretation of the road. For example, it can make minor roads visible at an early stage (a transverse line of trees, see Fig. 6, etc.), emphasize loss of priority (a screen of vegetation that blocks vision at T-intersections, see Fig. 7 etc.). However, such measures are difficult to implement and must be approached on a case-by-case basis (systematization must be completely avoided). Without special precautions they might reduce primary safety (for example by masking visibility of the minor road, giving the impression that the non-priority road is uninterrupted) or secondary safety (it is essential to take account of zones of limited severity). 11 Finally, to ensure that the initial legibility provided when the facility is constructed has some durability, the following should be considered from the design phase: foreseeable changes in the use of surrounding land, the needs of residents, maintenance constraints, etc. This means involving local partners (Commune, residents, etc.) in any project.
11

See ARP, Chap 2.

34

Fig. 6 - Sighting of the crossed minor road as a result of a transverse line.

Fig. 7 Screen of vegetation blocking vision of the minor leg of a T-intersection.

35

1.2.3. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS

Excessively close spacing of intersections frequently has an adverse effect on the following factors (i) visibility, (ii) legibility - it becomes difficult for drivers to match their behavior to the situation and anticipate events on the road, the overabundance of signals lengthens the time taken to perceive and understand messages -, (iii) the placement of traffic signs (regulatory, prohibitory, priority and directional), and (iv) the conditions for overtaking. In general, such changes reduce safety. The impact on the above factors depends on the type of intersection, operating speeds (V85) on the route, etc. There is therefore no universally valid formal rule for the minimum distance between two successive intersections. However, a minimum distance of 250 m can generally be considered to be satisfactory12 , but specific site characteristics can make this very inadequate. The presence of a center lane can also lead to a minimum distance being recommended between two successive intersections, in order to allow sufficient opportunity for safe overtaking. In the case of an existing road, however, this recommendation should not mean that the possibility of a central facility is rejected if it is necessary for the safety of the intersection.

Table 2 - Minimum recommended distance between successive intersections, and residual length for overtaking13, depending on operating speeds.

V85 (km/h) Minimum recommended distance (m) Length for overtaking (m)

60-70 600 300

80-90 900 40

100-110 1200 600

1.2.4. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS

Limiting the number of intersections is particularly beneficial : - for safety, as it limits the number of potential conflict zones, and grouping existing intersections together makes it possible to retain only those with the required approach and crossing sight distances; - for traffic flow and the comfort of drivers on the major road, as the number of zones where flow is disturbed by exchanges between roads is limited and there is more opportunity to overtake slow vehicles.
12 13

"Staggered" intersections should be considered as a single facility rather than two T-intersections close together. This is a theoretical distance which may be reduced by other factors (for example the layout).

36

2. DESIGN OF THE PRIORITY ROAD

2.1. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
The general rules for the installation of intersections are given in section 1.2. of this Chapter. It is particularly important for drivers traveling on the priority road to have an adequate sight distance with respect to the noses of raised traffic islands (the so-called "entry approach sight distance"). This sight distance must be at least equal to the stopping distance14 for a vehicle traveling at the V85 speed of the approaching traffic on the major road.15 For new roads this condition will usually be met at all points along the route. For improvements to intersections on existing roads, the table below shows the stopping distances used for design purposes.
Table 3 - stopping distances (d) on the basis of the V85 speed.

V85 (km/h) d on a straight section (m) d on a bend (m)16

50 50 55

60 65 72

70 85 95

80 105 121

90 130 151

100 160 187

2.2 THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES

Generally, the wider the major road, the more dangerous the intersection. This means that at the intersection the number of through lanes should be limited in both directions.

2.2.1. INTERSECTIONS ON 2-LANE ROADS

At a standard at-grade intersection, only one through lane should be retained in each direction. Widening to 3 or 4 lanes at an intersection must therefore not occur: such configurations are dangerous and result in little improvement in traffic flow on the major road.
Fig. 8 - Designs for intersections on 2-lane roads.

14

The stopping distance d is made up of the braking distance (distanced covered during braking which reduces the speed from V85 to 0 under specified wet pavement conditions) and the distance covered during the reaction time (taken as 2 s at speeds of 100 km/h and less). In order to calculate the stopping distance d, readers are referred to 4.2.b. in the A.R.P. It is also possible for only speeds below the speed limit (typically 90 km/h) to be used for calculating the 85th percentile speed. The stopping distance on a bend should be used for radii R< 5 x V85 (where V 85 is in m/s and R is the radius of the bend).

15

16

37

2.2.2. INTERSECTIONS ON 3-LANE (AND EXCEPTIONALLY 4LANE) ROADS

It is strongly recommended that the 3-lane (and even more the four-lane) configuration be abandoned at intersections. On such road links traffic should be reduced to a single lane in each direction upstream of the intersection.

Fig.9 - Designs for intersections on 3- or 4-lane roads

2.2.3 INTERSECTIONS ON 4-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAYS

On type R 4-lane divided highways, standard at-grade intersections will systematically take the form of partial intersections. Roundabouts will be systematically installed at the locations where all interchange movements are transferred (with reduction to a single lane in each direction upstream of these roundabouts).17
Fig 10 - Design principle for type R 4-lane divided highways.

2.3. FACILITIES TO ASSIST LEFT-TURNING MOVEMENTS (FROM THE MAJOR ROAD INTO THE MINOR ROAD)
The guidance given below on the choice of facilities for left turning movements (lateral widening, central facility, construction of a roundabout), are essentially the outcome of safety considerations, but also take account of driving comfort and the cost of facilities. The traffic levels which are stated should not be taken rigidly but considered in relation to local constraints and any specific traffic peaks. Furthermore, on an existing road, detailed accident analysis will reveal the relative proportion of accidents involving left turns and criss-crossing movements and evaluate whether it is appropriate to install a left-turning facility and what form this should take.
17

Opportunities for turning back must be frequent, about 5 km apart to avoid lengthening jounrneys excessively (this distance should, however, depend on real needs and whether or not access roads have been constructed).

38

2.3.1. ON A 2-LANE ROAD

The scale of design measures at a standard at-grade intersection on a 2-lane road will depend on the type of intersection (T-intersection or 4-way intersection)18 and the traffic levels. a) A shoulder at T-intersections (or access points) on a 2-lane road For T-intersections with low left-turning demand (less than 100 v/d) or for resident access points, constructing a shoulder opposite the minor road (or access point), reduces the risk of accidents caused by the left-turning movement (by providing for an avoiding maneuver to the right of the turning vehicle). In the absence of a continuous (and sufficiently wide) shoulder along the major road, local treatment as shown in the diagram below (Fig. 11) is satisfactory.
Fig. 11 - Facility to assist left-turning movements at a low-traffic T-intersection.

5 m 10 m 15 to 35 m 10 m 10 m 1,50 to 2,00 m

The aim should be to achieve a width of at least 5 m between the centerline of the road and the edge of the widened section. This generally involves widening the road by between 1.50 m and 2.00 m. A total length of less than 40 m should be avoided (a short facility of this type is likely to encourage hesitation and impede the avoidance maneuver). The total length may be increased to 65 m when there are trucks turning left. Nothing should be done which might deter drivers from using the shoulder for an avoidance maneuver: the surface must be of good quality, without special markings (normal edge marking highlights the boundary between the roadway and the shoulder, etc.). However, use of the shoulder as a traffic lane should not be over encouraged: the shoulder should not be treated as a lane (for example with marking on its outer edge, or a long entry taper), and any signing which attempts to specify a particular use of the shoulder should be avoided.
N.B. Parked vehicles do not generally cause a problem, as parking demand tends to be very low in rural areas. Where problems arise a prohibitory sign may be installed (off the usable part of the shoulder). Very occasional parking does not reduce the usefulness of this facility.
18

Staggered intersections are covered in 3.1.2.

39

b) creation of a left-turn lane Generally, the creation of deceleration lanes for left-turning movements is justified on the grounds of likely safety improvements, increased intersection capacity beyond certain traffic levels and, lastly, because such movements are difficult when no facilities are provided (in particular where traffic is heavy). Irrespective of their length, these special lanes reduce the hazards associated with left-turning movements by removing stationary left turning vehicles from the through lanes. It must, however, be stressed that they perform very much less well when there is only a ghost (as opposed to a raised) island. For a T-intersection on a 2-lane road, when left-turning demand reaches a significant level (over 100 v/d) it is advisable to construct a left-turn lane. For 4-way intersections, the construction of this type of lane reduces the accident risk for left turns but increases the risk of a collision in the second part of the maneuver between a vehicle from the minor road crossing the major road and a priority vehicle. A facility of this type is therefore only recommended when left-turning demand is quite high (more than 200 v/d), and when the traffic crossing the intersection is not too heavy. The geometric characteristics of left-turn lanes are given in 2.5.

2.3.2. ON A 3-LANE ROAD

a) On a new 3-lane road On safety grounds, the center lane must be systematically be closed at all at-grade intersections and resident access points into which left turns are possible. The central space should be converted into a (perhaps short) left-turn lane or a central refuge in the case of an access point. This means that the number of access points must be restricted in order to maintain a sufficient number of zones where the 3-lanes can be used to increase overtaking capacity. b) On an existing 3-lane road It is strongly recommended that the center lane be discontinued at all at-grade intersections. A diagnostic study should be performed for access points (analysis of accidents, left-turning demand towards the access) in order to determine whether central protection is necessary. When there is a very large number of access points (for example in suburban areas) resident access may take priority over ease of overtaking and the center lane be used almost exclusively to provide left-turning facilities. Alternatively, dual use may be maintained by converting the 3-lane road into a wide 2-lane road (with shoulders for avoiding left-turning vehicles).

40

2.3.3. CRITERIA FOR ACHIEVING THE BEST COMPROMISE

Table 4 - General rules for facilities for left-turn movements from the major road.
1. For a T-intersection or a resident access point Traffic on Resident access major road less than 100 v/d 2-lane roads < 8000 v/d > 8000 v/d no change or no change or surfacing of shoulder surfacing shoulder same or left-turn lane 3-lane roads left-turn lane left-turn lane or or removal of access point removal of intersection with (and provision of new transfer to an adjacent > 8000 v/d access road dans le cas intersection dun crneau de dpassement) 2. For a 4-way intersection < 8000 v/d Traffic on major road left turning traffic less than 200 v/d 200 to 400 v/d 2-lane roads < 8000 v/d > 8000 v/d no change same or left-turn lane left-turn lane 3 lane roads < 8000 v/d > 8000 v/d left-turn lane or removal of intersection with transfer to an adjacent intersection left-turn lane left-turn lane or roundabout left-turn lane or roundabout left-turn lane or roundabout more than 400 v/d left-turn lane left-turn lane or roundabout left-turn lane or roundabout left-turn lane left-turn lane or roundabout 100 to 400 v/d more than 300 400 v/d T-intersection or important access point (left turning traffic)

41

2.4. CROSS-SECTION WHERE THERE IS A CENTRAL FACILITY ON THE PRIORITY ROAD

Traffic lanes should generally have the same width within an at-grade intersection as in the links between intersections. However, if the roadway's typical cross-section is between 5 and 6 m wide, the traffic lanes at the intersection will be 3 m wide. Furthermore, at an intersection there is no justification for having through lanes wider than 3.50 m. The central island should be separated from the continuous line (3 u wide)19 that runs adjacent to it by an unpainted area with a width of at least 2 u: the shoulder on the left will therefore have a minimum width of 5 u, but a considerably greater width is preferable (0.50 m for a road with a width of 6 m or more wide, for example). For a roadway whose typical cross-section is 7 m wide, this would give, for each traffic direction, a minimum paved width between the edge of the central island and the line at the outside edge of the pavement of 3.80 m, which would break down as follows: 3.50 m of traffic lane + continuous line of 3 u + space of 2 u (minimum), where u = 6 cm. The right shoulder (which carries the edge marking) has the same width as it does in the road's typical cross-section (with, however, a minimum of 1 m). When there is a high level of light two-wheel traffic, it is preferable to surface a 1.25 m width of shoulder.20
Fig.12 - Cross-section at a standard at-grade intersection as a function of the width of the typical

cross-section.
1. Width of between 5 and 6 m (typical cross-section)
"LC" (3 u ) 0,30 0,40 m "T3" (3 u ) 1,00 m

3,00 m

left shoulder

carriageway (1 through lane)

right shoulder

2. Width 6 m (typical cross-section)

"LC" (3 u) 0,30 0,50 m "T3" (3 u)

left shoulder

3,00 to 3,50 m

1,00 m

carriageway ( 1 through lane)

right shoulder

3. four-lane divided highway

"LC" (3 u ) "T1" (2 u ) 7,00 m median left shoulder carriageway (2 through lanes) "T3" (3 u) 1,00 m right shoulder

A minimum 1.25 m width of the right shoulder must be paved is if there is a large amount of two-wheel
traffic. - The lane and the right shoulder should be at least as wide as in the typical cross-section of the road. The left shoulder and the median strip are the same width as in the typical cross-section of the road
19 20

u is the width unit (see 4.1.6). These features are to be considered is minima and do not remove the need to comply with the rules set out in the ARP.

42

2.5. SPLITTER ISLANDS (OR CENTRAL RESERVATION)

2.5.1. THE FUNCTIONS OF SPLITTER ISLANDS ON THE MAJOR ROAD

The main function of splitter islands on the major road is to protect vehicles turning left from rear-end collisions by physically separating the left-turn lane. Correctly designed splitter islands (in particular with advance signing of the island nose by means of stripes as laid down in the regulations) improves overall perception of the intersection for priority traffic (warning effect generated by introducing a clearly identifiable image into the "roadscape". Raised splitter islands on the major road are essential in the following situations: - on all types of roads when there is a left-turn lane, except in the specific case of narrow roads (see 2.8); - on 3-lane roads when there is a considerable amount of crossing traffic (<100 v/d); - on 4-lane roads, in order to reduce each roadbed to one lane upstream of the intersection.

2.5.2 DISPLACEMENT
A splitter island should always cause the roadbed leading to the intersection to be displaced to the right. For reasons of legibility, it is preferable for displacement to be symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the priority road. Clearly apparent displacement, which creates some visual constraints, should also be preferred to a gradual change. A displacement21 of 1/15th is satisfactory as far as safety is concerned.22 The length of the displaced zone can be reduced, but the advance signing of the island nose by means the symmetrical marking that widens upstream of the island must have a length of L/2 for the island to be clearly perceived.
21

The displacement (or "inclination of the island") is the angle formed between the curb of the island between its nose and its widest point and the centreline of the road upstream of the island's nose.

22

On narrow roads ( 5 m) a displacement of 1/10th can be considered.

43

Fig. 13 - Geometric design criteria for theapproach to splitter islands on major roads with reference to the typical cross-section of the road.

1. Roadway width < 6m (typical cross-section)

10,50 m 1/15 3m 3m 2,10 m J5
me

L/2=39 m

L/6=13 m

1,60 m

r=100 m

r=200 m

r=300 m

2. Roadway width 6m (typical cross-section)

22,50 m 1/15 3 m 3,50 m 5m 2,30 m J5
me

L/2=58,50 m

L/6=19,50 m

2,00 m

r=100 m

r=200 m

r=300 m

Table 5 - Values of L (length of advance signing; see "Instruction Ministrielle sur la signalisation routire; Livre 1 - Partie 7.".

Width of roadway >7m 5 to 7 m <5 m

L (m) 156 117 78

L/2 (m) 78 58. 39

2.5.3. WIDTH OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

A 5 m wide splitter island is always sufficient for installing a left-turn lane. Greater width has a number of disadvantages: it leads to a marked deviation in the paths of priority vehicles and can be confused with an island on a minor road, or even an island at a roundabout entry; under such circumstances the priority rule is unclear for both priority vehicles and left turning vehicles, which are provided with very good conditions of flow. In addition it increases the width of the intersection crossing, and therefore increases the risk of a criss-crossing accident. The width of the central facility should therefore be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to install a left-turn lane; reducing the width of a left-turn lane does not reduce safety. Table 6 below shows the recommended range of widths for the principal scenarios.

44

2.5.4. LENGTH OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

The length of the left-turn lane (without taper) does not affect safety, and can therefore be limited to the length required to store left-turning vehicles (generally quite short), and occasionally reduced to just a central refuge. Other factors may, however, impose greater lengths (for example the guaranteed level of comfort along a route, or the choice of a large capacity reserve). The total length (for one traffic direction) of a splitter island (including its advance marking) will be determined by the length of the displacement, the tapered lane and the leftturn lane. It can vary between 90 m in the case of intersections with low volumes of leftturning traffic to more than 170 m in the case of the largest intersections. The length of the advance marking of the splitter island nose will always be equal to L/2 when the lanes are displaced symmetrically with regard to the centerline of the road and equal to L in the case of unilateral displacement.

Table 6 - Length (in m) of the components of splitter islands, in the principal scenarios (with symmetrical displacement, depending on the width of the typical cross-section of the road and the composition of left turning traffic.

Advance marking 39 to 58,5 39 to 58,5 58,5 58,5

Displacement

Straight Taper Storage a section Roadway < 6 m (negligible left-turning truck traffic) 10,5 to 16 10 15 15 0.25 to 1.10 Roadway < 6 m (considerable left-turning truck traffic) 10,5 to 16 10 15 25 0.25 to 1.10 Roadway 6 m (negligible left-turning truck traffic) 16.5 to 22.5 > 10 20-30 20-50 0.25 to 2.00 Roadway 6 m (considerable left-turning truck traffic) 16.5 to 22.5 > 10 20 - 30 40 - 60 0.25 to 1.75

b-

3.00 to 3.85 3.25 to 4.10 3.25 to 5.00 3.50 to 5.00

Total lengh : 90 to 170 m

Advance marking L/2 39 to 58,50 m Displacement 1/15 10,5 to 22,5 m Straight section. >10 m Taper 15 to 30 m Storage 15 to 60 m a= 0,25 to 2 2,75 to 3,25 1,60 to 2,00 m b= 3 to 5

a is the width of the part of the island between the left-turn lane and the through lane for opposing traffic - b is the total width of the central island, i.e. the sum of a and the width of the left-turn lane.

45

The nomograph below (Fig. 14) shows the number of vehicles that should be considered when designing the storage zone. The storage length is obtained by simply considering the average space that vehicles occupy. The following formula, for example, could be used : Ls = (7 + 10p).Ns (where Ls is in meters, p is the proportion of trucks in the the stream in question, and Ns is the number of vehicles obtained from the nomograph. 23
Fig 14 - The storage capacity to be provided (number of vehicles) on the left-turn lane (values given by the OCTAVE software which deals with the capacity of unsignalized intersections, see Appendix 2).
400 6 350 300 250 200 3 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 2 5 4 8 10 12

Left turning traffic (v/h)

Opposing traffic on major road (v/h)

2.5.5. LONGITUDINAL POSITION OF ISLAND TIPS

The splitter islands on the major road must (i) assist vehicle guidance (to obtain an optimum path), in particular in the case of left-turning movements (from the minor road into the major road or vice-versa) and (ii) not be located in the path of straight ahead or left-turning vehicles on the minor road. In practice, the position of the island heads is given by the tangency point of the splitter island turning circles when exiting the minor road and from the left edge of the relevant traffic lanes on the major road (see 3.2 and Fig. 15).
Fig 15 - the central part of the splitter island in the case of a 5 m central reservation on a road with a 7 m wide typical cross-section.

Taper : 20 m to 30 m

Storage : 20 m to 50 m

R is

0,50*

LC (3u) T2 (5u)

2m 3m T'3 (3u)

3,50 m 5,00 m 3,50 m

T2 (5u ) 4m Rie

LC (3u )

4m
0,50*

* 0,30 mini
23

This formula can be modified to take account of specific sizes of turning vehicles.

46

2.5.6. DETAILED DESIGN OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

It is always preferable for raised islands to have mountable curbs (see Appendix 6 "Design of the curbs"). This is important because the island markings become less visible in wet conditions, and, also, some drivers do not obey continuous lines). Islands must be free from aggressive obstacles (road lighting columns, large sign poles, etc.). All singing (priority, regulatory, or directional signs, J5 markers) which is normally located on splitter islands, must be installed with a minimum distance of 0.70 m between the edge of the sign and the edge of the nearest lane. Furthermore, as far as possible, nothing which masks visibility should be installed on an island. Raised islands must be constructed from materials with a different surface from the roadway or which are painted uniformly (no striping) in order to contrast with the roadway, both during the day and at night. A mineral surface on an island is therefore much preferable to grass, not only because the latter does not comply with the above requirement but also because of maintenance related factors. If the surface of the island is permeable, the necessary drainage facilities should be provided, particularly when the island has embedded curbs. If it is not possible to construct raised islands, the use of color can provide a solution. The coloring should dissuade vehicles from crossing the part of the roadway it delineates and improve the overall legibility of the intersection (as compared with the use of painted islands, for example). When there are very strong constraints which apply to the land on which the facility is located, the part of the island which separates the storage lane for vehicles turning left and the opposing through lane can simply be painted (5 u continuous line).

2.6. FACILITIES FOR RIGHT-TURNING MOVEMENTS FROM THE MAJOR ROAD 2.6.1. ON AN UNDIVIDED HIGHWAY
The creation of "right-turn" deceleration lanes does not generally improve safety at an at-grade intersection.24 Furthermore, such lanes can indirectly reduce safety.25 The general rule is, therefore, not to provide right-turn lanes at at-grade intersections on undivided type-R roads: the transition lane for the right turning movement from the major road consists of a circular arc (see 3.3). In those cases where the right turning movement must be favored the turning radius will be considerably increased (by about 25%).
24 25

Accidents which involve right-turning movements are always rare and less serious than accidents of other types. On the grounds that a wide road encourages higher speeds at an intersection, joining the minor road at excessive speed or moving masking created by certain vehicles travelling on the highway.

47

2.6.2. THE CASE OF PARTIAL INTERSECTIONS ON DIVIDED HIGHWAYS

It is normal practice to provide deceleration lanes at major intersections on type R divided highways when justified by the volume of traffic leaving the major road (more than 200 v/d for example). This is because of the level of service requirement for divided highways, the opertaing speeds of vehicles on them and the small impact on safety (the adverse effects mentioned above for undivided type-R roads can be overcome more effectively). To achieve the greatest possible uniformity between facilities, it is recommended to follow the sequence of geometrical features given below: - a straight exit taper 80 m long (between the point where the striping that marks the exit island narrows to1 m and the start of the taper) and 4 m wide at the end; - a deceleration zone consisting of a transition lane (clothoid about 25 m long); - a circular curve with a radius of 25 m of an adequate length26 , constituting a 4 meter wide roadway, with a 2 m right shoulder and a 0.50 m left shoulder.

Fig. 16 - Standard layout for a deceleration lane on a divided type-R road

2m

R=25 m

Lb=80 m
Ld25 m

1,50 m

4m

1m

When exiting traffic demand is low, the transition for the right-turning movement from the major road will consist of a ciscular arc with a radius of 25 m, usually preceded by a clothoid with a length of approximately 25 m.
26

The change in direction imposed by the circular arc must be at least half the total change in direction (a) between the exit of the taper and the secondary road; the general condition to be satisfied is Lcl 0.44 x a (where Lcl is the length of the clothoid and a is in degrees).

48

2.7. ACCELERATION LANES ON A MAJOR ROAD

a) On an undivided road For standard at-grade intersections, the improvement in comfort and travel time is never sufficient to justify provision of a right side acceleration lane. A cost-benefit analysis for such a facility would only be positive with flow levels above those which would easily justify creation of a roundabout intersection. Furthermore, in the absence of a central facility on the priority road, right side acceleration lanes should be forbidden as they can create ambiguity in the road as perceived by drivers. b) On a divided highway Right side acceleration lanes are therefore only an option for intersections installed on divided highways (type R); these intersections are designed as partial intersections (see Chap.1.). Saturation which is partly due to delay resulting from the loss of priority, or a visibility problem due to a particular type of configuration can justify the creation of a right side acceleration lane. The geometry for the right turn movement when no acceleration lane is provided is given in 3.5. The acceleration lane must be parallel to the major road and short. It allows vehicles to join the major road with a low angle of conflict, or to stop when the non-priority vehicle does not encounter an acceptable gap in the traffic. To achieve the greatest possible uniformity between facilities, adhering to the diagram below is recommended.
Fig 17 - Design of partial intersections with right side acceleration lane on a four-lane divided type R road); this example shows a minor road with a 6 m wide typical cross-section.
6m

r=200 m r=300 m

30 m

L/2=39 m

le=4m Re=25 m 70 m 40 m 2m

2m

1,5 m 3,5 m 1m

Central reservation

49

2.7.2. LEFT SIDE ACCELERATION LANE

Generally, a left side acceleration lane should not be constructed to cater for vehicle movements turning left from the minor road into the major road. Such vehicles find it difficult to assess the opportunities for merging (an obvious difficulty due to the need for visibility behind the vehicle), and the fact that the priority rule cannot be displayed, etc. An arrangement of this type can only be considered for certain T-intersections when there are obvious merging difficulties due to heavy traffic on the major road, or for minor intersections which service particular situations (for example, works exits where most of the traffic merging into the major road consists of trucks). If need be, this left-turn lane should be considered as a refuge allowing crossing in two stages rather than as an acceleration lane. In addition, neither the simultaneous storage of several vehicles (which could impede each other), nor overtaking on the major road in the vicinity of the intersection should be encouraged. The left-turn lane should therefore be as short as possible - a length of 30 m with a taper of 30 to 40m may be adequate. This arrangement, which should only be considered when there is a central facility, lengthens the splitter island on the major road by an equivalent amount.

2.8. NARROW ROADS

On particularly narrow existing roads (less than 5 m wide); priority-controlled intersections should be exceptional. However, safety considerations can justify local upgrading (for example topographical constraints impeding visibility in the intersection approach). In such a situation, the geometrical characteristics for at-grade intersections that are specified for wider roads must be reduced. For T-intersections, the provision of extra width, making an avoidance maneuver possible to the right of stationary left-turning vehicles, is generally sufficient to reduce accident risk (see 2.3.1.a). In exceptional cases, when it finally proves to be preferable to upgrade the intersection, project design should be based on the general principles of simplicity, compactness, uniformity, legibility and perpendicularity of flow intersections. No standard layout is imposed, but the following minimum conditions must be met: - islands on the priority road should only be painted; - left-turn lanes should be as small as possible (length 10 m, width 2 m ); - where there is displacement this should be as little as possible (with a maximum angle of 1/10th). - the total width of the cross-section at the intersection should be at least 7 m (two 2.50 m wide traffic lanes and a 2 m wide left-turn lane)27

27

However, if trucks will be making the left turn a minimum width of 2.0 m is required.

50

Fig. 18 - Minimum characteristics for intersection design on secondary roads with a narrow roadway (less than 5 m).

R=7 m
2 ou 2,50 m27
L/6

2,5 m

L/6

L=39 m (mini)

6,5m

10 m

10 m

10 m

10 m 5 m 10 m

6,5m

L=39 m (mini)

Fig 19 Detailed features of painted islands at intersections on secondary roads with narrow roadways (less than 5 m).
"CL" (3u) Painted island (striped) "LC" (3u) 2,50 m to 3,00 Central island Pavement

Right shoulder*

* At least 1 m of the right shoulder must be paved if there is a large amount of two-wheel traffic.

51

3. DESIGN OF THE NON-PRIORITY ROAD (3-WAY OR FOUR-WAY INTERSECTIONS)

To improve the safety of intersections (in particular as regards crossing movements and merging into the main traffic stream from the left), the design of the non-priority road should primarily facilitate perception of the intersection and the loss of priority, improve information gathering for non-priority drivers and reduce the width of road to be crossed. The fundamental design measures are therefore to ensure that movements which cross the priority road do so at right angles (or almost) and to install a raised island.

3.1 LAYOUT OF THE SECONDARY ROAD 3.1.1. HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

Whenever possible, the alignment of the non priority road should be such that its angle of skew ()28 with the priority road is as small as possible. If the angle of skew of the secondary road deviates significantly (more than 20) from the perpendicular of the major road, this must be rectified by realignment. Under these circumstances, one of the solutions below should be selected, depending on the constraints but bearing in mind the order of efficacy, which is given in decreasing order from 1 to 3 on the basis of the resulting approach conditions, cost, feasibility etc.
Fig 20 - Possible options for obtaining an angle of incidence close to 90.
>0 <0

(1) (1) (2) (3)

(2)

(3)

N.B. the solutions numbered (3) transform a 4-way intersection intersection into a staggered intersection and replace through movements by a right-turning movement onto followed by a left-turning movement off the major road (see 3.1.2.).
28

The angle of skew is measured with respect to the perpendicular of the axis of the major road, and is therfore zero for a perpendicualr intersection.

52

3.1.2. PLACEMENT OF STAGGERED INTERSECTIONS

There are two configurations of staggered intersections, depending on the order in which the major road intercepts the legs of the secondary road: a right-turning movement onto followed by a left-turning movement off the major road and the other way round. The first configuration is the only one that assists the continuity of the secondary road link, and thus the only one that should be considered;29 there is no benefit in installing the second type over retaining a 4-way intersection. The main geometrical characteristics of a staggered intersection depend on the dimensions of the central islands of the two T-intersections that form it (see 2.5.4.).
Table 7 - Distance between centerlines depending on the width of the typical cross-section of the major road. Width of the typical cross-section of the major road >6m 6m

distances between roads

70 to 100 m

90 to 150 m*

* Longer staggered intersections can be constructed when two T-intersections or a 4-way intersection do not meet the distance conditions set out in 1.2.3. Fig. 21 - Distance between the centerlines of the two minor legs of a staggered intersection.

distance between centerlines

3.1.3. LONGITUDINAL PROFILE

Before it joins the major road, the longitudinal profile of the non-priority road should contain a zone with a sufficient length (10 to 20 m) with a low grade (maximum 2%) in order to make it easier for vehicles to start and considerably improve visibility of the priority road. On topographically difficult roads, 30 constructing a short level section may be considered (at least 5 or 6 m). Steep downgrades must be avoided where a minor road intersects with a major one, particularly when the former is used by trucks.
29

This configuration has the advantage that vehicles cross the intersection in two stages, the first movement being a rightturn (which is generally safe) and the second a left turn which is protected by a central facility. However, nothing proves that it is better than a properly designed crossroads. "A section of road can only be considered as a "topographically difficult road" if problems occur continuously or frequently over a distance of at least 10 kilometres. Local difficulties should not cause a road to be considered as belonging to this category." (A.R.P.)

30

53

3.2. SPLITTER ISLANDS ON THE NON-PRIORITY ROAD

A raised splitter island will help improve safety for crossing movements and merging movements into the main traffic stream from the left. An island of this type constitutes the main feature on each leg of the non priority road.

3.2.1. THE FUNCTIONS OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

The principal functions of splitter islands are as follows: - to interrupt the continuity of the non-priority road so as to warn approaching traffic (in other words, to improve driver perception of the intersection and loss of priority); - to play a role in slowing considerably (or stopping) the non-priority traffic stream, so it complies with the priority signing; - to guide vehicles in the non-priority road towards an optimum position at the STOP or YIELD line; - to improve perception of the intersection by drivers on the major road; - to guide vehicles leaving the major road to join the minor road. The shape the splitter island on the secondary road is determined by these functions. In particular, it should apply a considerable constraint on vision and vehicle path.

54

3.2.2. GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Drivers should be able to identify easily the various types of facility they encounter and the manner in which exchanges operate. It is therefore advisable to introduce some standardization of the components of standard at-grade intersections, in particular the splitter islands on the non-priority road, in view of their vital function. Conventionally, the size of the island is defined as the space between the lanes carrying each movement, i.e. the so-called "envelope" of the painted island. The island thus includes the edge markings of the lanes it separates. Its dimensions depend on the characteristics of the cross-section of the non-priority road and the specific features of the major road. However, the constructional arrangements are identical for STOP and YIELD signs (decisions based on the crossing visibility).
Fig. 22 - Definition of the dimension of an island
Dimension of island Marking Curb Centre of island Curb

The geometric construction of the splitter island is based on a triangle, known as a construction triangle, on which are inscribed the radii of turning (left side) and the radii of construction. The position of the construction triangle for a standard island is obtained from the centerline of the minor road (which gives the direction the island points) and the edge of the roadway of the major road (which gives the location of its base). Its dimensions depend only on the width (l) of the roadway approaching the intersection.
Fig. 23 - Effect of the angle of skew of the minor road on the general shape of the splitter island.
=0 = -20 = +20

55

It is not advisable to place channelization islands beside the splitter island, except if there are deceleration or acceleration lanes (which are, furthermore, generally discouraged on undivided type R roads). On extremely minor secondary roads, splitter islands still have an important safety function. However, in order to make cost savings,31 very much smaller islands can be constructed (see 3.4.). Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that a certain minimum width is required in order to install any new signing: a 500 mm J5 marker cannot be installed on an island which is less than 1.90 m wide. In the light of this, raised islands that are smaller than standard islands (defined below) are acceptable, so long as the minimum dimensions are exceeded: below these minimum dimensions a painted island or a traversible island must be constructed (no traffic signs can be installed on these).

3.2.3. THE DESIGN OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

To be effective (as regards perception and compliance etc.), the island must be raised and surrounded by low beveled curbs whose shape renders them less aggressive (see Appendix 6). It must not contain any aggressive obstacle (lighting columns, small walls, large sign poles, etc.). All signing (priority, regulatory, or directional signs, J5 markers) which is normally located on splitter islands must be installed with a minimum distance of 0.70 m between the edge of the sign and the edge of the nearest lane and also in a manner which does not impair visibility on the minor road. Raised islands must be constructed from materials with a different surface from the roadway or which are painted uniformly (no stripes) to create a contrast with the roadway by both day and night. A mineral surface on an island is therefore much preferable to grass, not only because the latter does not satisfy this objective but also because of maintenance related factors. If the surface of the island is permeable, the necessary drainage facilities should be provided, particularly when the island has embedded curbs.

31

Intersections of this type considerably outnumber large intersections.

56

3.2.4. GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTION OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

a) Construction triangle The axis of the triangle is parallel to the centerline of the secondary road. It is offset 0.50 m from the centerline of the pavement, in order to be aligned with the center of the island nose where a J5 marker is installed. In addition, the base of the triangle is aligned with the edge of the roadway of the major road.
Fig. 24 - The island construction triangle (see Table 8)
L/2 b1

Centerline of the minor road

0,50m B b2

H = 2 B

b) Standard layout of a splitter island The diagram below (Fig 25) shows how a splitter island should be designed on the basis of the construction triangle. It should be noted that: - the left-turn radii at the entry(Rie ) and exit (Ris) depend on the width (l) of the minor road, but also on the width of a central facility (if any) on the major road; - the tip of the island will be set back 1 m from the right edge marking of the major road. The design of the raised island will be based on this drawing, with a set back of at least 5 u (preferably 0.50 m), except that the part which is tangential to the right edge of the roadway of the major road which will be set back 1.50 m from this edge.

57

Fig 25. Splitter island and minor road entry and exit lanes (see Table 8).

l le
Re J5 R is R ie Rre Rrs Rs

l R is

l e rn=1m

R ie Rs

Re 1,50m a b

58

Table 8 shows the parameters for splitter island design, with reference to the approach speed, the characteristics of the priority road and the width of the roadway of the non-priority road (l). The input parameter for this table is the width l. To simplify matters, it has been assumed that the approach speed on the minor road depends on this width. An advance signing distance Lp can therefore be given for each shape of island (see 4.1.6.).
Table 8 - Summary of the main construction parameters for a splitter island and the entry and exit lanes on the minor road (values in meters). Notation Parameters
l 7 3L/2

Typical values
5 40-50 58,5 6 60-70 117 7 8090 175, 5

Width of minor road roadway32

Approach speed (conventionally measured)) Length of advance signing of island

l V85 Lp

Island parameters
Height of construction triangle Base of construction triangle Length of triangle base intersected by perpendicular from apex on exit side Length of triangle base intersected by perpendicular from apex on entry side Radius of island to the left of the exit Radius of island to the left of the entry radius of island nose Radius of transition to island on entry side Radius of transition to island on exit side (*) H B b1 b2 Ris Rie rn Rre Rrs 4l H/2=2l 0,55 l 1,45 l 2l + a 2l + b 8l 16l 20 10 2,75 7,25 10+a 10+b 1,00 40 80 24 12 3,30 8,70 12+a 12+b 1,00 48 100 28 14 3,85 10,1 5 14+a 14+b 1,00 56 110

Entry/exit lane parameters Exit radius onto the minor road on right side Entry radius onto the major road on right side(*) Width of exit lane Width of entry lane Rs Re ls le 4l 2l l/2 + 0,5 sup(l/2 ; 3) 20 10 3 3 24 12 3,5 3 28 14 4 3,5

* where entry radii are small, it is necessary to ascertain that trucks on the minor road have appropriate turning conditions (turning movement template) and take any necessary measures to assist them (in particular a wider paved area, or moving the raised splitter island nearer the major road).

3.3. ENTRY AND EXIT LANES

Except in the special case of partial intersections on divided highways, there is no need to construct speed change lanes (see 2.6. & 2.7.).

32

However, a standard at-grade intersection should not normally be installed at the meeting point between two roads whose link sections are 7 m (or more) wide. A roundabout will normally be constructed at the intesection between two major roads occupying the same position in the road hierarchy.

59

The splitter island marks the farside (left edge) of the entry and exit lanes. The position of the outside edges will be established by drawing a line parallel to the inside edge. The transition to the major road which widens the end of the lanes is the arc of a circle that is tangential to this line and the right edge of the major road. Where approach speeds on the major road are high, the exit radius (Rs) can be introduced gradually (using a clothoid) with a length Lcl = 6 Rs0.4. The geometry of the exit of the minor road must not allow side-by-side storage of vehicles at the STOP or YIELD line, as this would be detrimental to visibility. The entry lane should be the same width as lanes in the typical cross-section of the road (l/2), with a minimum value of 3 m. Where the width l exceeds 5 m, it is strongly recommended to make the transition to 5 m gradually, by a lateral displacement of one thirtieth the longitudinal distance" from the beginning of the island approach (which could be reduced to a minimum of 20 m). The installation of stabilized, possibly also paved, 1 m wide edge strips, is encouraged. These do not need curbs.

3.4. EXTREMELY MINOR NON-PRIORITY ROADS

Small islands are to be reserved for extremely secondary non-priority roads (whose roadway is stricly limited to 5 m). Their characteristics do not meet the turning circle requirements for all types of public transport vehicles and trucks. Such roads will have a 1 raised splitter island which is 1.5 m wide and 4 m long, inclined at an angle of 10 (to the centerline of the secondary road) to make it more perceptible, and set back 3 m from the major road. It will be designed so as to be occasionally traversible by vehicles with large turning circles and must therefore be free from signs or markers.
Fig 26 - Standard layout for small islands on extremely secondary roads.

10

20 m

3m 1,50 m

3m e=7,50 m 3m

R s=15

4m

60

3.5. PARTIAL INTERSECTIONS ON DIVIDED HIGHWAYS

The situation regarding speed change lanes on divided highways is dealt with in 2.6.2. and 2.7.2. b. In addition to the functions described in 3.2.1., in partial intersections the splitter island on the secondary road must also reduce the danger of "wrong-way" entry onto the divided priority road. However, the desire to achieve this should not give rise to excessively tangential paths which hamper information gathering and perception of loss of priority. The construction principles for the splitter island are similar to those at a conventional T-intersection, except for the tip of the island $this case the island has a $concave tip p61. In practice the curves which widen the island are parallel to the outer edges of the corresponding roadway - these are circular arcs which are tangential to the edge of the major road with a radius of 2 l (minimum 12 m) for the entry and 25 m for the exit. The diagram below shows the construction principles for the splitter island at a partial intersection using the construction triangle as a basis. The following points should be noted: - the noses of the raised islands are rounded (radius between 0.50 and 1.50 m) and set well back from the points of divergence and convergence; - the raised island is set back 1.50 m from the right edge of the major road; - the exit lane is 4 m wide; to the right of this is a 2 m paved shoulder. The width of this shoulder is rapidly reduced to the normal width for a secondary road, in practice at the point where the alignment becomes straight; - the entry lane has the same width as on the typical cross-section (with a minimum value of 3 m), but widens to 4 m at its end.

61

Fig 27 - Standard layout for a splitter island and the minor road entry/exit lanes at a partial intersection.
l

Rre ls=4m le
0,50

Rrs

2m

Re

Rs*=25 m
1,50 m

mdian

* The transition to the circular arc can be made by a clothoid approximately 25 m in length.

62

4. ROAD FURNITURE AND SIGNING

In the case of both existing roads and new roads, traffic management devices (signing, restraint devices, road furniture, etc.) should be considered at the earliest possible stage of project design to ensure the layout is compatible with requirements and the performance of the equipment.33 The main considerations that apply to road furniture and signing at standard at-grade intersections are stated below; more detailed explanations (concerning nomenclature, conditions for use, etc.) are to be found in instructions, circulars and other technical documents (Guide des Equipements des Routes Interurbaines, etc.).

4.1. SIGNING

4.1.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Traffic signs must be installed with a minimum distance of 0.70 m between the edge of the sign and the right shoulder or, in the case of signs on raised islands, the edge of the nearest lane. All signing (priority signs, regulatory, or directional signs, J5 markers) which is within the intersection or on roadsides or splitter islands in its approach must be installed in a manner which does not impair visibility. To ensure that the signs on the major road are outside the sight triangles they must be set back roughly 200m at a YIELD sign and at least 50 m at a STOP sign.34 The size of islands should take into account the constraints affecting the installation of signs and the rules that apply to road markings. In particular, a minimum width is required in order to install a given sign: a 500 mm J5 marker cannot be installed on an island less than 1.90 m wide, for example.
33

The interdependence between layout and road furniture at or in the vicinity of intersections frequently means that design work on signing (horizontal, vertical and directional) and road furniture must be conducted at the same time as general design work on layout. Where they are set back 0.70 from the edge of the right shoulder (which is itself 2,00 m wide) and the 85th percentile speed is 100 km/h.

34

63

4.1.2 PRIORITY SIGNING

A STOP or YIELD priority rule applies at non-roundabout intersections on interurban sections of major roads as the nearside priority rule and traffic signals are to be avoided in rural areas. The choice between the STOP or YIELD priority rule depends on the visibility conditions on the minor legs of the intersection (see 1.2.1).35 The STOP rule is the most constraining for drivers on the minor road who must halt for a time. Also, in order for the STOP sign not to become discredited, the YIELD rule must be that which applies generally. In particular, when the visibility conditions for a YIELD sign are satisfied it would be unjustifiable to impose a STOP rule. On roads which are classed as trunk roads, an AB6 sign (PRIORITY ROAD) should not be installed systematically after each intersection, but nevertheless one should be installed after a large intersection (with large numbers of exchange movements and therefore, normally, a central facility). When the major road does not have trunk road status an AB2 (LOCAL PRIORITY) sign is compulsory upstream of the intersection. The AB3a or AB4 signs must be installed "as close as possible to the transverse line", on condition that this does not mean they become visibible too late. Thus, in view of the widening of the minor road when it joins the major road it may occasionally be helpful to move them a few meters forward. Furthermore, these signs should not repeated to the left on splitter islands: this would be superfluous and could adversely affect the visibility of drivers on the minor road.

4.1.3 REGULATORY SIGNING

The only regulatory sign which is permissible on a raised splitter islands is a type B21a1 (PASS ON RIGHT SIDE) on the minor road islands. All other types of sign are prohibited (B1, other types of B21, etc.). 36

4.1.4 DIRECTIONAL SIGNING

The placement of directional signing, advance signing (type D40), flag type signs (type D20) and confirmation signs (type D60) depends on the configuration of the intersection and, in particular, the number of exchanges taking place in it. When levels of exchange are low there is no need to install advance through lane signs (D40) on the major road. In order for drivers to be able to process all the messages the receive in the approach to an intersection, these should be as few as possible ( always less than, with maximum of four of a given color).
35 36

A different priority rule may apply on different minor legs of a given intersection. In the specific case of a partial intersection on a divided highway, recommendatory signing can also include B2a and B2b signs.

64

4.1.5 MARKERS
A J5 marker must be placed in the center of the nose of raised islands on both major and minor roads. The regulations do not make this compulsory in the strict sense, but it is recommended to install one systematically because it improves perception of the island. In order not to interfere with the visibility of left turning vehicles, the J5 markers installed on the tips of splitter islands on the major road should not be more than 1 m in height. J3 markers may be of value when the intersection is not sufficiently perceptible to drivers on the major road. However, there is normally no need to install one when design measures have already been implemented at the intersection (splitter island on major road, etc.).

4.1.6 ROAD MARKINGS

Road markings should comply with the "Instruction interministrielle sur la signalisation routire, Livre 1, 7ime partie : marques sur chausses". Island marking: this outlines the shape of the raised island. It is continuous, with a width of 3 u,37 and should be located a minimum of 2 u away from the curbs. Island approach: whenever possible the island nose should be preceded by striping and this striping preceded by a continuous centerline (width 3 u) while retaining a roadway width of 5 u or more. As regards center marking of a minor road between intersections, the continuos line shall be preceded by a type T3 broken line with a width of 3 u interspersed with warning arrows The total length of this advance signing Lp will depend on the approach speed V85. Lateral marking: this has a very useful guidance function, particularly in ensuring that left turning trucks negotiate the central island; A type T2 broken line with a width of 5 u is therefore recommended adjacent to the central island.
Fig. 1 Location of road markings (the case shown is a minor road with marking between intersections).
Lp Lp2 = 2Lp1 Lp1

V85

T3 (3u) T3 (3u)

LC (3u) T2 (5u)

37

u is the width unit. It differs according to the type of road: 7.5 cm for divided highways, 6 cm for major roads, 5 cm for all other roads.

65

4.2. SAFETY BARRIERS (RESTRAINING DEVICES)38

Safety barriers are obstacles in themselves (their supports and rails are particularly aggressive for the riders of both light and heavy two-wheel vehicles. Thus, as far as is practicable, standard at-grade intersections should be designed in a way that avoids safety barriers. Eliminating obstacles, moving them back or making them fragile are all preferable safety solutions that should always be considered before deciding to protect them with barriers.39 Particular attention needs to be paid to the ends of safety barriers (highly aggressive "fish tail" or "quarter circle" arrangements are prohibited). The rails should be lowered or buried in an embankment, in compliance with the instruction concerning the approval and utilization of restraint devices. When lowering the barrier along the leg on which it is installed means that certain obstacles or hazardous configurations cannot be protected, the barrier may be extended to the adjacent leg using a large radius (> 10 m) circular arc; the barrier will then be joined to the next leg, or if there is none lowered a few tens of metres further down the branch. Readers should nevertheless be aware that this arrangement is not really satisfactory.

4.3 ILLUMINATION
In general, roads in rural areas are not illuminated, and this applies to their intersections to, even when these have raised islands (retroreflective curbs and J5 markers in particular provide adequate visibility). Indeed, except when there are illuminated zones in the vicinity, there is no proof that illumination improves night-time safety.40 In fact, illumination has certain drawbacks: high capital, maintenance and energy costs, poles that are agressive obstacles which are difficult to isolate adequately at intersections. Furthermore, it is important for illumination to be clearly associated with the urban environment, in particular to improve the legibility of urban entries. However, in suburban areas in particular, it can be beneficial to illuminate certain intersections because of their proximity to other illuminated areas which might hinder their perception. In such a situation, lighting may be installed so long as the columns are outside the hazard zone or protected by safety barriers when located near shoulders.
38 39

Safety barrier is the term employed in French standards (and this document) to designate all restraining devices. It must be considered that generally it is not possible to protect obstacles in the immediate vicinity of the intersection to a satisfactory degree from all the possible paths of a vehicle that leaves the roadway (on its own or after colliding with another vehicle). Illumination does not make vehicles more visible to each other.

40

66

CHAPTER 3

RURAL ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS

u 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................69
1.1. DESIGN PRINCIPLES................................................................................................ 69 1.2. ADAPTATION TO TYPES OF TRAFFIC ................................................................... 70 1.3. RULES OF PLACEMENT .......................................................................................... 72 1.4. GENERAL GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION............................................................. 74

u 2. GEOMETRY OF THE COMPONENTS OF A ROUNDABOUT ..........79

2.1. THE CENTRAL ISLAND............................................................................................. 79 2.2. THE CIRCULATING ROADWAY................................................................................ 81 2.3. ENTRANCES ............................................................................................................. 82 2.4. EXITS.......................................................................................................................... 83 2.5. SPLITTER ISLANDS .................................................................................................. 84 2.6. RIGHT-TURN SLIP LANES ........................................................................................ 86 2.7. SPECIAL CASES OF DIFFICULT APPROACHES ................................................... 88

u 3. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS .......................................................................89

3.1. FACILITIES FOR SPECIFIC USERS......................................................................... 89 3.2. MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................... 92 3.3. ROAD SURFACES .................................................................................................... 93

u 4. AMENITIES AND SIGNING.................................................................94

4.1. SIGNING ..................................................................................................................... 94 4.2. SAFETY BARRIERS (RESTRAINING DEVICES) ..................................................... 97 4.3. ILLUMINATION ........................................................................................................... 98

67

This chapter deals with the construction and geometric design of roundabout intersections, commonly known as "roundabouts." A roundabout is an at-grade intersection that provides the highest level of safety. However, its performances can be degraded if precautions are not taken, be it during the design phase (selection of the size and location of the roundabout, attention given to its comprehensibility and visibility, trajectories of the various legs, layout of all the elements that make up the facility, etc.), or during the actual implementation phase (construction of the central island, selection and positioning of the signing, etc). The adherence to a certain number of guidelines will ensure a good level of security and optimize the capacity of the planned intersections, even if the conditions that favor safety and capacity are not always compatible with each other. First of all, because it forces a major slowdown, if not a complete stop, a roundabout must be well perceived by all users who approach it. It must be rapidly identified as such, well before reaching the area where calculating stopping distance is needed. This chapter describes the principles that must be observed in order to obtain both a good level of safety and a concurrence with the features of the types of traffic. It also specifies the rules and parameters required for the construction and sizing of the various components of the facility.4
Figure 1: The Major Components and Parameters of a Roundabout

Spliter island Radius of the Roundabout (Rg ) Central island Radius of entrance (Re) Branche

"Y IELD" LINE Circulating Roadway

Radius at the exit(Rs) Inscribed radius (Ri)

Exit lane

Entry lane

The radius of a roundabout intersection (Rg) consists of the radius of the marking on the outer perimeter of the circulating roadway, namely the radius at the right curb of the circulating roadway. Defining a roundabout according to its outside radius provides a much better notion regarding the intersection's footprint, and offers a better understanding of what the actual turn movement constraints on the most disadvantaged vehicles will be (trucks, especially).
4

In the case of the adaptation of an existing intersection, it might sometimes be quite difficult to confirm some of the recommendations in this chapter. This does not mean that the roundabout concept should be abandoned when it does turn out to be necessary, particularly from a safety standpoint (as other types of at grade intersections generally don't perform any better). As the case may be, special attention must be given to all the aspects of the facility and to its special features (e.g., illumination and signing).

68

1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.1. DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The conceptual and geometric design phases of roundabout intersections must take into account the basic principles enumerated in Chapter 1. Beyond that, as with any other type of intersection, the construction of a roundabout must abide by the following guidelines: Choose a simple design, small in size, circular in shape, without any unnecessary transition lane--direct right-turn lanes that bypass the intersection should generally be avoided--over a complex design that is too large, oblong or unusual in shape; pseudo-roundabouts, such as pierced roundabouts, should be rejected; Exclude all road hazards from the likely trajectories of vehicles that could accidentally leave the roadway. In particular, the central island should not include any obstacle or device that could aggravate the impact of an out-ofcontrol vehicle at the intersection's entrance; Provide the user with a good perception during the approach of the intersection: i.e., appropriate geometric design, visible and legible advance signing that states as clearly as possible the type of facility that one is approaching; Introduce a certain degree of constraint on the trajectories at the entrance and during the crossing of the intersection, to prevent excessive speeds in those sections, which would be incompatible with the rules of safety and right of way; Confirm that the capacity of the facility is adequate to manage the type of traffic involved. Saturation of a roundabout (i.e., of one its entrances) is rarely reached in rural areas. A cursory analysis can be performed when traffic flow is low; a more accurate analysis is required in cases of higher traffic flows (See 1.2.); Avoid oversizing the components of the facility: regarding most parameters, any enlargement aimed at increasing a roundabout's capacity (extra lanes at the entrance or exit, widening of the circulating roadway, etc) will reduce its safety; Do not hesitate to make the central island modest in size in case of footprint or topographical constraints; even when the inscribed radius of the central island is down to a few meters, safety is not adversely affected.

69

1.2. ADAPTATION TO TYPES OF TRAFFIC 1.2.1. OPTIMIZATION OF THE LEVEL OF SAFETY IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRAFFIC TYPES.
For this purpose, one should always seek nothing more than an adequate capacity reserve, calculated according to realistic traffic data. Facilities aimed at improving capacity should only be built if one entrance is saturated (by adding special lanes or a second entrance lane for example); these facilities generally tend to reduce safety. Traffic flow forecasts may eventually force the consideration of capacity changes. A phasing-in process conceived at the design stage (transition from 1 to 2 lanes at the entrance, for example) can help to optimize safety conditions at each evolutionary stage of the facility. In this case, the initial sizing will match the existing traffic flows at the time of commissioning, and long-term traffic forecasts will be used to reserve the footprint required to implement the later phases, as well as other possible arrangements. Planning a roundabout with the option of grade separating it at a later date is not recommended: for whatever dubious savings may be made, this solution is excessively large and may cause safety problems in the long run. Even roundabouts with moderate radii can allow enough room for trucks to complete their turns (See 1.4.4.). However, if there are severe footprint constraints or extremely cumbersome vehicles, special accommodations (traversable sections) offer an acceptable tradeoff (safety vs. cost vs. turning conditions).

1.2.2. VERIFICATION OF THE CAPACITY5

General Considerations

As part of its operation, a roundabout must be seen as a succession of T intersections, each possessing its own capacity. This explains why it is not the overall capacity of a roundabout intersection that is calculated but rather, the capacity of each leg taken separately. Under the rule of "right of way to the circulating roadway," there is (theoretically) no longer any interaction between the entrances. On the other hand, a disruption downstream from the roundabout can always cause a dysfunction of the intersection by blocking traffic on the circulating roadway. In order to perform a capacity analysis, the traffic at peak hours must be evaluated; regular peaks should preferably be chosen over exceptional peak hours. In some configurations tied to extreme swings in the traffic flow, the traffic flow of the so-called reverse peak must also be taken into account. Strong seasonal variations must also be factored in.
2

Appendix 2 features more information on capacity.

70

Evaluation of the Studies to be Conducted A brief observation of the traffic entering the roundabout during the peak hour (QTE ) will make it possible to determine the required level of research into the facility's capacity: QTE < 1,500 v/h: no special capacity study is required; QTE between 1,500 and 2,000 v/h: a flow distribution analysis is required. In this case, if the sum of the entering and turning traffic flows on the most frequented leg exceeds 1,000 v/h, a capacity test is recommended; QTE > 2,000 v/h: a capacity study will be required. A simplified, manual method is included in the Appendix. It provides a rather good estimate for intersections with single-lane entries and a central island with a radius (Ri ) equal to or greater than 15 m. Otherwise, for a more accurate estimate, which is needed when perfunctory estimates may predict capacity problems, the GIRABASE software should be used. Elements that Support the Decision Making Process Generally, a capacity reserve greater than 30% (for the entry under consideration) can be deemed adequate. 3 A high capacity reserve (> 80%) on a major entrance should cause one to verify if its width (especially its number of lanes) is not excessive. If the capacity reserve of all the entrances is suitable (between 30% and 80%), the width of the circulating roadway may possibly be reduced (within the limits specified in 2.2.). If the capacity reserve is low (between 5% and 20%), the focus will be on the wait times (for a possible cost-benefit study), the length of the queues (proximity of other intersections, loss of visibility during the approach) and on the evolution of the traffic flow in the years to come. In this case, weekly or seasonal peaks will have to be studied. If the capacity reserve is under 5%, all the more so if it is negative, major disruptions can to be expected: one therefore has to develop solutions aimed at improving capacity: widening of the entrance (without deviating from the values listed in 2.3.); widening of the splitter island, if it is narrow; widening of the circulating roadway (within the limits specified in 2.2.); creation of a direct right-turn lane (see 2.6.)

71

1.3. RULES OF PLACEMENT 1.3.1. PERCEPTION AND LEGIBILITY

The facility must produce a break in any excessively linear trajectory of the road, as soon as it is built. The screen produced by the intersection and its landscaping must be effective by day and by night. Furthermore, the D42b directional sign (diagrammatic advance directional sign) is a fundamental component of the intersection's identification process. It is not mandated by law, but its placement as a matter of course is recommended (except on extremely secondary legs). It must be perfectly visible, and located at least 150 m from the entrance to the roundabout on two-way roads, and at least 200 m away on roads with two lanes in each direction (See 4.1.3.). The components of the roundabout (splitter island of the leg involved implemented by a J5 marker, as well as the central island) should become visible at a distance of 250 m, according to the standard methods of calculation of the visibility of an obstacle (line of sight at a height of 1 m and at a distance of 2 m from the right curb, object observed at a height of 0.35 m). At any rate, the rules of stopping distance must be observed (See chapter 2, Table 3). If it is absolutely impossible to provide an adequate sight distance, and if the roundabout solution is not reconsidered, a lengthening of the islands may constitute a remedy. The geometry of the roundabout must be legible. After having become aware of the presence of a roundabout, the user must be able to quickly recognize its various components: the central island, the splitter island at the entrance, the outside curbs, the circulating roadway, as well as other entrance and exit lanes. There are some aspects of the design of a roundabout that can impair its perception or legibility. They should be avoided (), or excluded (1): 1 if the intersection is located on a curve or at the end of a curve, m if the radius is less than the non-slanted radius (See 1.4.3.); if the axes of the legs are off-center (m to the right) in relation to the central island (See 1.4.3.); if the approaches in a "curve/reverse curve" configuration; if the intersection is on a convex curve along one of the roads, even if it has a very large radius in an outward projection,6 especially after a crest. If this configuration cannot be avoided, placement at the crest is often preferable, and special attention must be given to conditions of visibility during approach (See above); trees in alignment with one of the roundabout's nearby legs--all the more so on either side--giving the impression of a continuous trajectory; a non-circular central island; a central island lacking in volume; if the circulating roadway has an irregular width;
6

1 1 1

What's more, a very large radius with an outward projection would not be suitable for a small facility.

72

slanting the circulating roadway toward the inside of the roundabout.7 the presence of a direct right-turn lane; an unlit roundabout located right next to an illuminated area or in continuity with an illuminated area. However, roundabouts in rural areas do not generally need to be illuminated.

1.3.2. VISIBILITY
Drivers approaching a roundabout must see the vehicles that have the right of way soon enough in order to yield or even stop. A large sight triangle is however not required; a complete view over the left quadrant of the circulating roadway at a distance of 15 m (approximately) from the entrance, is enough.8 Furthermore, the central island must not include any visual obstacles (high plants) within less than 2 m of its peripheral curb (or, if there is no curb, at 2.50 m from the edge marking surrounding the central island). In general, similar sight triangles should be designed on all the legs of a same roundabout (in order to induce consistent behaviors).
Figure 2: Sight Triangle at the approach of a roundabout

2,50 m

Left quadrant of the circulating roadway for a user approaching from leg A
10 m

4m

Leg A

Except perhaps, on certain areas of the circulating roadway, in the very special case of a roundabout located on a road with strong grade (See 1.3.6.)--a solution which, by the way, is not recommended. Too much visibility to the left can even be harmful to the facility's safety. Indeed, drivers approaching the roundabout may focus their attention on the open spots on the entrance directly to their left, while neglecting other movements that are not so visible (if there is heavy masking from the central island, for example).
8

73

1.4. GENERAL GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION 1.4.1. NUMBER OF LEGS

In a rural area, a roundabout can have between three and six legs. Furthermore, it is always preferable to add a leg to the roundabout rather than maintain or create a secondary intersection nearby.

1.4.2. DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEGS

A regular distribution of the legs around the circulating roadway is preferable (this issue however is not crucial, considering item 1.4.3.): a well-designed distribution can markedly improve the facility's legibility.

1.4.3. ARRANGEMENT OF THE LEGS

The central island is optimally located when all the axes of the legs cross through the center of the roundabout. Since this configuration isn't always possible, the island should first be centered on the main axis and then, as much as possible, on the axis of the secondary legs. Although it is always desirable to have the axes of the secondary legs pass through the center of the island, a slight offset to the left is acceptable. However, the direction of the secondary leg should never produce an excessively tangential entrance. Figure 3: The Direction of a Leg's Axis

To be avoided

Always desirable

Never

74

On a new facility, a radial alignment over a length of approximately 250 m should be sought (350 m in the case of a 2X2 entry lane). When converting an existing intersection into a roundabout, this distance can be reduced to 150 m (250 m in the case of a 2X2 entry lane). Figure 4: Radial alignement of the legs

Alignment

Alignment

Unlike standard at-grade intersections which require maintaining the horizontal alignment, the design of a roundabout can always allow for a deviation of the axis of the road. Figure 5: Deviation of the road's axis at the level of a roundabout
A

P1 : the position of a standard at-grade intersection located on the AB axis P2: the position of an "equivalent" roundabout intersection.
P1

B P2

In the case of a three-legged intersection in a T arrangement, if the available footprints make it utterly impossible to position the island as listed above, the intersection must be transformed into a "Y" or "offset-Tee" shaped roundabout. The latter configuration has the advantage of allowing the placement of large visual screens. However, for roundabouts with radii (Rg) greater than 15 m, this solution produces approach configurations of the "curve/reverse curve" type, likely to impair the facility's perceptibility. Figure 6: Configuration of the legs of a roundabout in a "Y" shape
Adequate visual screens

75

Figure 7: Configuration of the branches of an offset "T" shape

Adequate visual screens

1.4.4. OVERALL SIZE

Designing a very large facility is seldom useful. Experience shows that large roundabouts do not provide greater safety than small ones (for often minute improvements in capacity and much higher costs). In general, the size of a roundabout intersection must be designed in accordance with the horizontal alignment of the main road, the site, the overall traffic flow, the presence of trucks, the available footprints (or that can be readily opened up), the terrain, the number of legs, etc. Furthermore, the features of the entry islands, the width and the radius of the entries and exits must be consistent with the radius of the central island in order to prevent excessively direct entry and transverse trajectories (See 1.4.5.), and to allow vehicles to complete their turns.
a) On a single-lane road: -

an outside radius (Rg) of the circulating roadway between 15 and 25 m is generally recommended: a radius (Rg) equal to or greater than 15 m offers adequate room for trucks to turn, even the most constrained ones (tractor trailers with semi-trailers), except for some special convoy situations; however, on secondary roads with very little truck traffic, a radius (Rg) between 12 and 15 can be considered; an outside radius of the circulating roadway (Rg) of less than 12 m is always discouraged due to the crossing difficulties that trucks encounter; on more important roads, and if the constraints of the project make it possible, a value of approximately 20 m should be sought for the extra level of comfort they provide to trucks; if there are many legs (> 4), radii in the range of 20 to 25 m may considered, but rarely higher, considering that some minor legs do not require much space (See 2.3. and 2.5.2.).

b) On a road with two roadway beds: a radius (Rg) of 25 m (no more) is generally advisable. In all cases, the width of the circulating roadway cannot be less than 6 m.

76

1.4.5. DEFLECTION
The deflection of vehicles' paths through a roundabout (the trajectory traced by two opposing or two adjacent arms of the roundabout) is a major factor determining the safety of the facility. Indeed, the overall geometric design should not allow the most stretched out trajectories to be taken at speeds in excess of 50 km/h. A trajectory's deflection is the radius of the arc that passes at a 1.5 m distance away from the edge of the central island and at 2 m from the edges of the entry and exit lanes. The radius of such an arc should be less than 100 m.

Figure 8: Deflexion

R < 100 m

2m

2m 1,50 m

2m

If a project's radius turns out to be excessive, it can be reduced by modifying the radius of the central island or, depending on the arrangement of the legs, the radius of the entry or exit lanes. However, a sudden inflection should be avoided at the exits. The positions of the legs around the circulating roadway and the shape of the splitter islands can also be improved in order to produce a satisfactory deflection. The standard intersections listed in this document feature deflections of approximately 30 m, a value preferable to the upper limit listed above.

77

1.4.6. GRADES
Installing a roundabout on a roadway with a grade lower than 3% is generally not a problem. Between 3% and 6%, some designs can adversely affect safety, notably by impairing the stability of trucks (steep banking, high entrance speed, etc.). If the grade is higher than 6%, it is generally acknowledged that this type of facility can create some serious problems. However, under the same conditions, another type of atgrade intersection does not always perform better and offers a lower level of safety. The use of a roundabout can therefore not be excluded in principle at grades of 6% or higher, through the modification of existing roads. In the case of a new facility, giving up the roundabout solution should not lead to the acceptance of another type of intersection, but to the elimination or relocation of the intersection, or to a modification of its vertical profile. In all cases, at no point should the banked areas on the outside of the circulating roadway or the normal banked areas on the entry and exit lanes exceed a grade of 3%, including the merge lanes to the left. For roundabouts on a sloped plane, no slope should be added to the normal transverse grade of the circulating roadway (1.5% to 2%). For steep grades, (5% to 6%), the slope may change around the circulating roadway, for example between +2% at the crest of the circulating roadway (road tilted toward the inside) and -2% at the low point (road tilted toward the outside). If the intersection is located on the slope, or at the low point of the vertical profile of the roads involved, a smaller facility can reduce the slope of the circulating roadway by about 1 to 2%.

78

2. GEOMETRY OF THE ELEMENTS OF A ROUNDABOUT

2.1. THE CENTRAL ISLAND 2.1.1. SHAPE
The central island must be circular; if it has another shape (oblong shapes or shapes made up of arcs of circles and connecting segments), its level of safety is oftentimes seriously degraded.

2.1.2. SIZES
There is no maximum recommended radius for the central island, but designing it too large is unnecessary; it does not improve the intersection's operation (no or only minor capacity gains) and oftentimes produces negative effects (higher speeds on the circulating roadway, higher costs...). In fact, moderate length radii should be chosen (See 1.4.4.). However, a central island with an inscribed radius of about ten meters is generally desirable if there is major semi-trailer traffic (always the case on main rural roads), to ensure a decent comfort level for the movements of these vehicles.

2.1.3. TRAVERSABLE AND NON-TRAVERSABLE STRIP

The central island always includes a so-called non-traversable section with a minimum radius of 3.50 m and, for roundabouts with a radius (Rg) between 12 and 15 m, a traversable strip between 1.5 and 2 m wide. Traversable segments can also be included on roundabouts with radii above 15 m (such as intersections located on trajectories of special convoys, See 3.5.). The traversable strip allows, among other things, to enhance the trajectories of trucks, whose rear wheels could damage the facility or simply the curbs of the central island, and provides improved turning conditions for more cumbersome vehicles. The traversable strip is tilted toward the outside of the circulating roadway at a grade between 4% and 6%. It is recommended that this strip be separated from the road by a relatively substantial and inconvenient raising (low, half-buried curbs, of which 3 cm at most are visible, for example. See Appendix 5, "Curb Design"). Very light dynamic effects or visual devices do not offer lasting improvements on trajectories or safety. It must also be covered (with a "coated" material, concrete cement or cobblestones, etc) and offer contrast against the circulating roadway that is perceptible by day as well as by night. The non-traversable section must be surrounded by curbs no more than 6 cm high. A ring 2 meters wide surrounding this section must be devoid of any bushes or decorations that could conceal it from vehicles advancing through the circulating roadway (See 1.3.2.)

79

2.1.4. LANDSCAPING
In general, the purpose of landscaping is to differentiate the roundabout from the "road environment" and the immediate surroundings. The landscaping of the central island can improve the perception of the roundabout from a distance, and block the perspective of the incoming user on the circulating roadway. It may also help to beautify the road environment, and underscore the transition process of the arrival into town, etc. On the other hand, the nature or position of some types of vegetation can degrade the facility's perception. The central island may be slightly elevated, but the slopes of the landscaped area should not exceed 15%. In rural areas, no obstacle that is aggressive or likely to cause the sudden stop of an out-of-control vehicle (tree, massive sculpture, stone block, pole, lighting fixture, little wall, earthen wall, embankment at a grade above 15%, ditch, etc) should be located on the central island. This does not prohibit the use of non-hazardous materials (shrubs, flowers, water fountains,9 sculptures made out of fragile and low-mass materials, etc). The maintenance requirements of the central island are discussed in paragraph 3.2.
Figure 2: standard cross section 1. for Rg = 15 m (To the right of the splitter islands)
6 cm

2m 15 % 6,50 m

46% 1,5 2 %
6 cm 3 cm

1m
<14 cm

1,50 m R g=15m

7,00 m (Circulating roadway)

0,50 m

2. for Rg = 20 m
To the right of the splitter islands
6 cm

1m

2m 15%
6cm

1,5 2 % 0,50 m (ou 5 u )

<14cm

0,50 m

12,50 m R g =20 m
9

7,00 m (circulating roadway)

Translator's note: footnote cropped from photocopied page.

80

2.2. THE CIRCULATING ROADWAY

2.2.1. OPERATION
The circulating roadway should not be seen as a one-way road with 2 or 3 lanes separated by lane markings responsible for their allocations, but as a single lane, wide enough to allow trucks among others to complete their turns.

2.2.2. WIDTH OF THE CIRCULATING ROADWAY

The width of the circulating depends on the Rg radius, and on the width and the number of lanes at the widest entrance. The width must be consistent (no extra wide areas between two legs should be allowed). It is 20% wider than the widest entrance, with 6 m as a minimum width and 7 m being the standard width. A width of 8 m is justified for roundabouts that are highly used by semi-trailers. In the case of two-lane entries, the width of the circulating roadway shouldn't even exceed 9 m,10 the standard value being 8.50 m.

2.2.3. BANKING OF THE ROAD

The circulating roadway must feature a consistent banking between 1.5 and 2%. The slope is tilted toward the outside of the intersection for three main reasons: to improve the perception of the circulating roadway, to avoid breaks in the slopes on entrance and exit lanes (a cause of discomfort and even instability to some vehicles), and to help the drainage of surface water.11 These provisions do not apply to the special case of a roundabout located on a highly sloped road (See 1.4.6.)-- a situation which should be avoided in all cases. However, at no point on the circulating roadway should the transverse slope exceed 3%.

2.2.4. MARKINGS
In general, lane markings are not recommended; they should only be used for circulating roadway widths in excess of 9 m or more, as long as the Rg radius is at least 20 m. Therefore, the circulating roadway is most often delineated, on the inside as well as the outside, by a continuous line (except at the entry and exit lanes).
This width can sometimes be higher on existing roundabouts in high traffic areas located in the outskirts of a town, where there are often 3 lanes on the circulating roadway: these very special cases (such as a site listed as a historical landmark on which grade-separating is not allowed) can be tolerated.
11 10

The aforementioned grade is entirely adequate for surface water drainage.

81

2.3. ENTRANCES
At each leg, the entry lane must be separated physically from the exit lane by a projecting splitter island. Simple pavement markings are not enough (except perhaps to delimitate extremely secondary legs). Entries are generally single-lane, except when the capacity calculated at the time of commissioning requires the creation of two-lane entries. If the capacity study shows the need to build more than two lanes on one entrance, the choice of a roundabout for the purpose of solving the problems of exchanges between lanes may have to be reconsidered. Nonetheless, under these conditions, it is generally not acceptable to chose a standard atgrade intersection or one with traffic lights, which would be more unsafe than a roundabout. Grade-separated solutions must then be contemplated, with one roundabout on each axis: the good thing about them is that they don't encourage high speeds, and avoid transferring safety problems to intersections located downstream. Otherwise, the roundabout solution can be chosen in spite of the periods of saturation it will generate. The recommended entry widths (le) (measured between pavement markings) are as follows: for single-lane entries, le = 4 m (minimum 2.20) for extremely secondary entries; for two-lane entries, le = 7 m (6 m if truck traffic is very low).12

The entrance radii (Re) must always be less than or equal to the outside radius of the roundabout (Rg). They generally range between 10 and 15 m (depending on the configurations of the legs around the circulating roadway). The entrance lanes are delineated by pavement markings (T3 type on the outside perimeter) and by (traversable) curbs on the inside, located most often at the edges (See Appendix 5). For the smallest entry radii (Re 12 m), the outside curb can be replaced with cobblestones abutting the road surface, whose surface properties will act as a deterrent against crossing. On two-way, four-lane roads, it is always recommended to narrow the profile down to one lane upstream from the roundabout (via a merger of the fast lane into the slow lane). However, and if it is justified by the amount of traffic, the second lane can be restored at approximately 40 m from the circulating roadway (See Figure 11). If the level of incoming traffic onto the roundabout could exceed the capacity of a parallel-running lane, the overall capacity of the intersection itself will have to be verified: otherwise the decision as to the type of intersection will have to be entirely reconsidered.
Figure 3: Standard configuration of one leg ( where Rg= 20 m.)
Rg Re le =4 m la =7 m 3,75 m
1,0 m

Rr 3,50 m 4 Rs Rr 3,50 m

Ri

ls =4,50

To obtain the maximum benefit from two-lane entries, it should be recalled that the circulating roadway should be at least 20% wider than the widest entry lane, with a limit of 9 m.

12

82

2.4. EXITS
Exits are always designed with one lane, except in the following cases: the exiting traffic (Qs) is higher than 1,200 uvp/h;13 the exiting traffic (Qs) is higher than 900 uvp/h, as well as 3 times higher than the circulating traffic (Qt).14

The width of the exits (ls) is set at 4 or 5 m for one lane (depending on the value of (Rg); it is also quickly reduced to the width of the roadway in a typical cross section, in actuality at the connection point with the alignment on the right. For two-lane exits, the ls width is usually set at 7 m. When the road includes on its main roadway only one lane per direction, the merge from two lanes down to one lane is done in the tangent section, in accordance with standard practices and at a speed of 60 km/h. The exit radius (Rs) should be greater than the inscribed radius of the roundabout (Ri ), with a minimum of 15 m and a maximum of 30 m. There are some special configurations of the legs that may justify greater exit radii. Furthermore, the placement, right after an exit, of a counter-curve with a smaller radius than the exit radius (Rs), should be avoided due to safety and fluidity concerns.
Table 1 -- Summary of the Construction Parameters of Entrance and Exit Lanes

Notatio n Roundabout Radius Width of the Circulating Roadway Traversable Extra Width Inscribed Radius Entrance Radius* Width of the Entry Lane Exit Radius* Width of the Exit Lane Connecting Radius Rg la

Parameters

Values (in m)

12 m Rg 25 m 6 m l a 9m

Rg = 12 7

Rg = 15 7

Rg = 20 7

Rg = 25 7

slf Ri Re le Rs ls Rr

1.5 m if Rg 15 m Rg -l a - slf 10 m Re 15 m and Rg le = 4 m 15 m Rs 30 m and > Ri 4 m ls 5 m Rr = 4 Rg

1.5 3.5 12 4 15 4 48

1.5 6.5 15 4 20 4 60

-13 15 4 20 4.5 80

-18 15 4 20 5 100

* If these radii generate major modifications to the path of a secondary leg (which can occur when the axes of two consecutive legs produce a sharp angle), they can be reduced down to the minimum listed values (Re = 10 m and Rs = 156 m), or even lower. In this case, the turning maneuvers of trucks that use the facility must be verified and, as the case may, specials arrangements must be made for them (excess paved width area).
13

UVP: French acronym for "units of private vehicles" In both cases, traffic is measured at peak hours.

14

83

Figure 4: Case of a four-lane road with two roadbeds: typical treatment of the exit, and example of the restoration of the second lane after a merge.
Between 35 and 40 m from the circulating roadway 20 m 20 m Li =234 m

Between 40 and 50 m from the circulating roadway

Ld=90 130 m

2.5. SPLITTER ISLANDS 2.5.1. FUNCTIONS

Splitter islands perform six major functions: they enhance the perception of the intersection to approaching traffic; they serve as a refuges for pedestrians, allowing them to cross a roadway in two stages; they prevent collisions between the two directions of travel (especially where the exiting radius is small) by separating entry and exit movements; they increase capacity, by allowing drivers waiting at the entry yield line to ascertain earlier which other vehicles are exiting and which ones they must yield to; they create space for signs; they prevent wrong-way left turns onto the roundabout.

2.5.2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

As is the case with other types of at-grade intersections, the size of the island represents, by definition, the neutralized space located between the roadways of the lanes for the various directions of travel (namely the "envelope" of the painted island). The splitter island is generally triangular and tapered at the base; its shape is generated by a so-called construction triangle.

84

The position of a construction triangle of a standard island is derived from the axis of the leg (which indicates the direction that determines the height of the triangle) and the edge of the circulating roadway (which determines the base of this height). For a roundabout radius (Rg) greater than 15 m, the construction triangle is slightly offset to the left, in order to allow the axis of the road to pass through the center of the island's nose. Whenever possible, the height (H) of the triangle should be greater than 15 m. In actuality, the construction triangle can be assigned a height equal to the radius of the roundabout. An island width (li ) of 4 m is adequate for small roundabouts. The lowest acceptable width of a splitter island is 2 m. In reality, the construction triangle can have a base (B) equivalent to a quarter of the radius of the roundabout. These recommendations do not apply to extremely secondary legs which require much smaller dimensions, or even the complete elimination of any island.

2.5.3. DESIGN OF THE SPLITTER ISLAND

The splitter island should be surrounded by low edges, preferably retroreflective. The curb markings on the entry and exit lanes follow the edges of the splitter island at a distance of 0.50 m (5 u at least), including the marking of 3 u. It should not feature any objects (for decoration, marking or superfluous signing) in the sight triangle area defined under 1.3.2. The surfaces of the splitter islands should preferably be light in color, and create enough of a contrast (by day as by night) against the road surface. With extremely secondary legs, the splitter island can be implemented just through markings.

Figure 5: Construction of the splitters islands on the legs of a roundabout with a radius (Rg) 15 m (extremely secondary legs excepted)
H=Rg

*
Rg B=Rg/4 d=(r+0,5)/2

R=Re +le 0,50 m (ou 5 u )

r=Rg/50

Rr =4Rg
r=Rg/50

1,0 m
r=Rg/50

Rr =4Rg

Rg/16

l R=Rs+ s

85

Figure 6: Construction of the splitter islands on legs of roundabouts with a radius ( Rg) < 15 m (extremely secondary legs excepted).
H=Rg R=Re+ le

*
Rg B=Rg /4
r=Rg /50 1m r=Rg/50

0,50 m (ou 5 u)

Rr=4Rg
r=Rg /50

Rr=4Rg

R=Rs +ls

* The curves that allow a tapering of the base of the island are respectively parallel to the right edges of the entry and exit lanes.

Table 2 -- Summary of the Construction Parameters of Splitter Islands

Notatio n Roundabout Radius Height of the Construction Triangle Base of the Construction Triangle Offset of the Island from the Axis Radius at the Curbs Rg H

Parameters

Values (in m)

Rg < 15 H = Rg 12 to 15

Rg = 15 15

Rg = 20 20

Rg = 25 25

B d r

B = Rg / 4 d = (0.5 + Rg/50)/2 or 0 r = Rg / 50

3 to 3.75 0 0.25

3.75 0.40 0.30

5.00 0.45 0.40

6.25 0.50 0.50

2.6. RIGHT-TURN SLIP LANE 2.6.1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In general, right-turn slip lanes should not be provided on roundabouts. They diminish the drivers' understanding of the intersection and installing directional signs is more complicated. They can also reduce safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Slip lanes alongside the circulating roadway should be excluded. But a right-turn slip lane can be justified if there is a heavy right-turn demand, and if this movement could lead to saturation, even if two lanes are provided (See 1.2.1.). In this case, the right-turn lane eliminates the need to provide an extra entrance lane, but it is important to pay particular attention to the spread of traffic movements at reverse flow times. Traffic in the right-turn lane should yield to traffic in the leg which the slip lane merges. The connection is generally achieved by a merge lane. However, if this axis includes two lanes per direction in a typical cross section, the slip lane can be kept parallel to the roundabout's exit, in order to create the rectilinear lane on the right, whereas the lane

86

emanating from the roundabout will be allocated to the left.

87

2.6.2. GEOMETRY
The slip lane is made up of: a diagonal deceleration lane featuring a straight exit transition at least 80 m in length (measured from the tip of the bevel and the exit island's head reduced down to 1 m), as well as a progressive transition lane (clothoid); a circular arc of adequate length15 and with a radius of at least 40 m (inside edge of the lane), but less than 75 m, if possible16; a parallel merge lane with an acceleration section at least 70 m long and a tapered area of 70 m.

The lane should be 4 m wide, from the straight exit transition to the entrance of the merge lane. It includes a 2.00 m paved shoulder on the right, and a 0.50 m paved shoulder on the left.

2.6.3. SPECIAL SIGNS

The signs used for this situation should include modified D42b signs: type 1 or 2, as seen in Figure 15. The choice of one of these two signs will depend on the geometry assigned to the right-turn lane, and especially the length of the deceleration lane.
Figure 7: Standard diagrammatic signing of a right-turn slip lane

R 40 m R.P.

L i = 70 m

70 m

L b = 80m

D42b TYPE 1 si L b = 80m

ou

D42b TYPE 2 si L b > 80 m

The condition that must be assured is Lcl 0.017xRxa, whereby Lcl is the length of the easement, R is the radius of the circular arc, and a is the overall angle variation (in degrees). It is not recommended to design trajectories that would be so easy and direct that they would encourage excessive speeds by vehicles on the way out that should be attentive to the right of way of vehicles exiting the roundabout.
16

15

88

2.7. SPECIAL CASES OF DIFFICULT APPROACHES

In general, the slight inflection to the right caused by the presence of the splitter island is sufficient. In some difficult cases (subsequent to a long, tangent alignment or if visibility is reduced), two trajectory inflections can be included, more to warn the user than to slow him down (See Figure 15). However, when visibility during approach of the roundabout is inadequate, lengthening the splitter island generally remains a preferable corrective solution (See Figure 16). Designing the entry lane in a reversing curve shape is therefore generally not necessary; it even reduces the facility's safety if the roundabout's center is not located on the axis of its roads.

Figure 85: Example of a difficult approach with landscaped central median and two inflexions

30 m

60 m

3 m 6 m

R=100 m

R=200 m

Figure 96: Example of a difficult approach treated with an elongated splitter island

~2 m

The installation of slowing devices (such as rumble strips) on the braking areas is generally not recommended due to the loss of adhesion they may produce.

89

3. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS
3.1. FACILITIES FOR SPECIFIC USERS 3.1.1. PEDESTRIANS
For the sake of pedestrian safety, wide and rapid entrances (and exits) should be avoided. Furthermore, the intersection should be designed compact in size in order to reduce out-of-direction travel. It may be desirable, especially in suburban areas, to bring special attention to the crosswalks on one or several of the legs of a roundabout. In this case, the crosswalks are placed 4 m upstream from the transverse "YIELD" lines. At the entrance of the crosswalks, the sidewalk curb should be lowered and a refuge should be designed on the splitter islands involved. The crosswalk markings end at the splitter island; there are no markings at the splitter island. No signs or special lights for the crosswalks are required.

3.1.2. TWO-WHEEL VEHICLES

When passing through a roundabout, two-wheel vehicles are clearly those exposed to the highest accident risk (even though it is still lower than at other types of at-grade intersections). No specific facility for two-wheel vehicles is completely satisfactory. In rural areas, two-wheel vehicles merge into the general flow of traffic. In suburban areas, in order to maintain the continuity of existing or planned bicycle lanes, various facilities for two-wheel vehicles can be designed (See the "Guide to Urban Intersections" published by CERTU).

3.1.3. PUBLIC TRANSIT

The positioning of bus stops must be consistent with the routes' requirements; accesses must always be designed in a way that minimizes the number of crossings and the lengths of the trajectories. A bus stop can be located: on the entry lane (on the roadway), immediately upstream from the crosswalk, if traffic is moderate and stops are short in duration. This design cannot be used if there are two entry lanes (a vehicle cannot be allowed to overtake a stopped bus); at the entrance, 20 m upstream from the crosswalk, as a bus pullout ; on the exit lane, as a bus pullout immediately after the crosswalk.

90

As a general rule, stops right in the circulating roadway should be avoided; however, on the largest roundabouts in existence, a complete bus pullout can be considered in the periphery of the circulating roadway, as long as no disruptions are generated (such as by pedestrians crossing the circulating roadway).
Figure 10: Two possible bus stop locations

3 m

10 m

20 m

10 m

1 m

1 m

20 m 2,50 m

4 m

4 m

3.1.4. SPECIAL CONVOYS

a) General Provisions

By their very definition, special convoys exceed the regulatory limits defined in the Vehicular Code. Through a special exemption,17 convoys are authorized to travel over predetermined itineraries, that can "handle" their special features. The presence of roundabouts can cause problems on the itineraries of special convoys. All roundabout facilities should be preceded by in-depth research (needs assessment, turn movement templates, special operating procedures). However, Category 1 convoys can generally negotiate the standard roundabouts described in this document, even the smallest ones: Rg radii of 15 m, circulating roadway of 8 m, and traversable width of 1.50 m. For Categories 2 and 3 convoys, direct or right-turn movements rarely cause problems as long as certain features are modified (creation of appropriate traversable zones) and special precautions are taken with respect to vertical devices.

17

Regulated under the terms of the Memorandum No. 97-48 of May 30, 1997.

91

Finally, for left-turns, when the convoys are escorted, traveling against the flow of traffic can be considered; in this case, the convoys slightly overlap the traversable splitter islands (which will therefore require removable amenities). Due to safety considerations, long convoys should be kept away from large roundabouts that do not provide trajectories that are any better than those of small roundabouts unless they feature a large entrance radius and a wide circulating roadway-these provisions would allow regular traffic to travel at high speeds. The construction of a "pierced" roundabout cannot be excluded, closed off through the use of removable equipment, which represents, in some instances, an attractive solution for direct movements. In this case however, the passage should be (a) sufficiently slanted in relation to the axis of the legs,18 in order to prevent a poor perception of the facility upon approach, and (b) without any hazardous devices or obstacles on the central island (See 2.1.4.). b) Method There is no standard approach for taking into account the traffic constraints caused by special convoys. The facilities have to be designed on a case by case basis, according to the characteristics of the convoys, the turn movements, the configuration of the intersection, etc. However, the following method can be applied: 1. 2. chart a roundabout that meets the facility's requirements and conforms to standard design practices, without concern for special convoys; identify the technical features of the convoys that follow the particular itinerary, by going beyond their administrative classification in order to inquire about their sizes, their turn radii, etc, as well as the turns executed in the intersection;19 represent the trajectories of special convoys and the areas covered by the wheels and the overlapping sections (turn movement template); include traversable areas on the central island, the entrance and exit splitter islands, and the edges; identify areas without elevated equipment or removable components for the areas covered by the overlapping sections.

3. 4. 5.

c) Extra-wide traversable areas The extra-wide (semi)-traversable areas of the central island and possibly at the edges (entrance and exit of the circulating roadway) make up the basic facility aimed at improving the turns of special convoys. However, these areas should be treated in such a way as to dissuade light vehicles from driving over them. To make the most out of the available space without jeopardizing the safety of other users, the following precautions must be taken: 18

on the central island, a slope tilted to the outside of the circulating roadway, at a grade between 4% & 6%; a counter-slope, at the level of the traversable areas at the edges (as the case may be); a raising of the extra-wide areas above the roadway (not to exceed 3 cm);

In this case, convoys pass on the left of the entrance splitter island and on the right of the exit splitter island. A useful resource is "Transports exceptionnels - Dfinition des convois-types et rgles pour la vrification des ouvrages d'art" (SETRA - DR; October 1983).
19

92

a rough surface that provides a noticeable contrast, by day and by night, against the circulating roadway;

separation of these areas from the circulating roadway via regular, retroreflective markings. The traversable area of the central island need not be circular; lenticular shapes, for example, can be considered.
Figure 11: Example of the treatment of the circular island and the edges in order to facilitate the turns of special convoys moving directly or executing turns.

Traversable extra-wide areas on the edges

Traversable section of the central island

Non-traversable area of the central island

3.2. MAINTENANCE
Due to the fundamental role of maintenance (upkeep of the appurtenances, enhancement of safety and comfort, preservation of the vegetation and planted areas, etc), this aspect must already be included at the design stage. Since the rules governing maintenance remain basically the same as those for the rest of the path, the reader should refer to the ARP and to the specialized literature. However, the central islands of roundabouts, which are often landscaped, do invite special comments. Safety and accessibility problems are tied to the maintenance of these central islands (in addition to the induced costs and limitations). Everything should therefore be done to reduce and optimize the tasks involved (grass-cutting, watering, pruning, etc). In this regard, plant species that are similar in appearance, slow growing, rustic and sober looking should be chosen. Furthermore, one should bear in mind that the maintenance of a grassy area requires regular cutting (in particular to meet the visibility requirements stated in 1.3.2.). When the landscaping requires regular watering, automatic sprinklers should be included, as well as a system to dispose of excess water. A treatment in stone of the central island can be considered. Furthermore, the durability and the sustainability of the landscaped areas must be ensured, to prevent changes in their functions (safety, embellishment, etc) over time or at certain periods of the year (in the winter).

93

Finally, during maintenance work, steps must be taken to ensure access to the central island by maintenance vehicles and protect the safety of the workers. Potential stoppage areas reserved on central islands reserved for maintenance vehicles must take into account visibility at time of pull-out and should not be located facing entrances.

3.3. THE ROAD SURFACE

Surface deterioration is often observed on the circulating roadway, but also at the roundabout's connector legs (entrances and exits) over a distance of approximately fifty meters. This deterioration can be superficial (cracking and pumping of the upper layer), or structural. It can be explained by the specific demands made by trucks on roundabout intersections (reduced speed, uneven load distribution, heavy tangential efforts) and the unsuitability of the base or the wearing surface. The complexity of the construction methods (small construction sites unsuited for optimal use of equipment) increases the risk of poor workmanship. As the publication of specific technical recommendations is yet to come, one should, in the meantime, take the following precautions to reduce surface damage:20 The type of pavement used for the circulating roadway and the entrance and exit legs should be chosen according to the types of demands exerted upon it. The juxtaposition of different types of pavement should be avoided. The upper layer should be at least 4 cm thick: its formulation should be suited to the demands: stability and tear resistance should be top priorities.
Note: Research laboratories in the area should be consulted in order to determine the best technical solutions (base and wearing surface), based specifically on local conditions.

All professional standards must be observed during construction, and particular attention must be given to the following issues: - favorable weather conditions (avoid "borderline" situations); - the smoothness of an appropriate wearing surface; - full-width construction, with two parallel road pavers, so the edge joint is finished while hot;21 - transverse joints should be limited to an absolute minimum--if they cannot be avoided, they should be placed in the least used areas (generally in the axis of the main lane); - high quality compacting (effective and consistent).

Plans should be made for the disposal of the water used on the plants of the central island (as necessary). Plans to limit tangential efforts should not lead to the increase of other parameters (entry radius, inscribed radius of the central island, etc.); such measures would reduce safety and could increase the cost of the facility. The aforementioned precautions are generally adequate and do not produce negative effects. However, by choosing a connecting geometry in accordance with standard designs (radial alignment, no " reverse curves," etc), one can reduce some of demands made on the facility. Moreover, the slope must be regular and moderate (1.5 to 2%).
20

These precautions should be modulated according to the amount of truck traffic.

This rule should be applied only if possible on existing roads. Construction work in [[text missing]... doesn't always make it possible.

21

94

4. AMENITIES AND SIGNING

Regardless of whether the facility involves a new or an existing road, the study of the project's design must anticipate, and as far upstream as possible, what measures will be taken to manage the road (signing, protective barriers, equipment, etc), to ensure that the facility's geometry will be compatible with the needs and performances of the amenities.22 The issues related to amenities and signing are listed below; for greater details (nomenclature, usage conditions, etc), please refer to the published instructions, memoranda and other technical guides.

4.1. SIGNING 4.1.1. RIGHT OF WAY

A roundabout intersection is announced by A2523 signs (ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTION) located at approximately 150 m from the intersection, on each of its legs. The addition of the M9 sign with the statement "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY" was a temporary measure; it is no longer required. Although not required by current regulations, the placement on each access lane of an AB3a sign (YIELD) and the marking of its transverse line--T'2 type, 50 cm--is strongly recommended. The AB3a signs are only repeated on the splitter islands if the entrances include 2 lanes. We remind the readers that adding blinking lights to the AB3a signs is not allowed. On major traffic roads, the placement of an AB7 sign (END OF THROUGH ROAD) upstream from the roundabout is unnecessary. However, this does not prevent one from placing AB6 signs (THROUGH ROAD) downstream from the roundabout, on the legs leading to the major transit route.

4.1.2. REGULATORY SIGNING

It is neither useful nor desirable to overload the approaches of a roundabout with various regulatory signs indicating the speed limit or prohibiting overtaking, etc. However, on single-direction roadbeds with a speed limit of 110 km/h, the speed limit should be reduced to 90 km/h upstream from the narrowing down to one lane.

The strong interdependence between geometry and the proximate or interchange amenities often requires special studies on signing (road signs, pavement markings and directional signs) and amenities, concurrently with the general trajectory studies.
23

22

In accordance with the Ministerial Order of February 16, 1984.

95

On the central island, the only regulatory sign that must be placed in front of each entrance is the B21-1 sign (MANDATORY DIRECTION), to the exclusion of any other sign (J4, B1, B21f, etc). The B21-1 sign is placed on the axis of the direction of the entry lane at approximately 20 m from the YIELD line (See Figure 19). The B1 sign (WRONG WAY) is only useful on legs made up of one single entrance (such as a roundabout as part of an interchange).
Figure 19: Placement guidelines for signs and markings
AB3a+ M9c : YIELD A25

B21-1 J5 Between 100 et 150m AB6 (as needed)

4.1.3. DIRECTIONAL SIGNING

The advance directional signing of roundabouts is provided by D42b signs (known as diagrammatic). Although not mandated by current regulations, these signs are appreciated by drivers (they are highly visible by day and by night and they provide all the major information before the roundabout is approached). They should preferably be located before the A25 signs to avoid obscuring them, at a distance of at least 50 m. As is the case for the A25 sign, it is recommended that the D42b sign be placed when the work begins, as soon as the central island has been created and forces a trajectory constraint. When the D42b sign is used twice (green and white color-coded), a placement interval of at least 100 m is required.
Figure 12: Placement guidelines for directionnal signs
D42b (white) E42 D21A (green) D21A (white) D42b (green)

between 150 and 200 m

between 200 and 300 m

if D42b is used twice)

D61 (green) + D 61 (white)

E42

96

The diagram should attempt to provide the best possible representation of the layout of the intersection. If there are more than four legs, or if they are very irregularly arranged around the circulating roadway, the legs of the diagram should be separated by 45 angles or by multiples of 45. Around the circulating roadway, exits should be announced by D21 signs. These signs are placed on posts located on the splitter islands. The positions of connecting roads should not be mentioned (indications such as "OTHER DIRECTIONS" are prohibited). Furthermore, the position of direct right-turn lanes is indicated via a D31 sign.

4.1.4. DELINEATORS
The splitter islands are announced by J5 delineators, located at the center of the island heads. The use of any other warning device (such as J4 delineators, delineations, J11 delineators, etc) could reduce the intersection's comprehensibility. These devices should not be used on new facilities.

4.1.5. PAVEMENT MARKINGS

On the feeder lanes, the edge, approach and surrounding markings of the islands must adhere to the "Instruction ministrielle sur la signalisation routire, Livre 1, 7me partie: marques sur chausses." [National guidelines on road signs, Book 1, Part 7: Pavement Markings.] On the circulating roadway, lane markings are generally not necessary; they should even be avoided when the width of the circulating roadway is under 9 m or when the roundabout's radius (Rg) is under 20 m. Indeed, users do not follow the guided pathways, especially truck drivers who are restricted by the turning capabilities of their vehicles. On the other hand, axial markings on the circulating roadway (T3 - 2u type) can be useful on some very large existing roundabouts (not recommended for new facilities) in order to provide adequate guidance to users in merge areas. The markings of the edges lines of the circulating roadway are continuous, with a width of 3 u.
Figure 13: Placement guidelines for pavement markings

T2 (0,50 m)

Continuous (3u)

T3 (3 u)

L/2=58,50 m Continuous (3 u)

L = 117 m (for V85 = 90 km/h)

97

4.1.6. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS

When construction begins, and as soon as the central island is created and generates trajectory constraints, as well as during the months following the creation of the roundabout, we recommend the placement of KC1 type temporary signs bearing a message such as "WARNING: MODIFIED INTERSECTION", in addition to the D42b and A25 signs. The provisional use of temporary K8 type signs (red chevrons) can be useful to reduce the risks of accidents associated with driver habits that persist after the transformation of an at-grade intersection. This problem is mostly relevant to the legs that had right of way prior to the intersection's transformation. After a few months however, the signs and delineators must remain unostentatious in order to remain credible. For projects involving existing roundabouts, the various modes of operation and their related temporary signs are described in the document entitled "Manuel du chef de chantier: Routes bidirectionnelles" [Two-way roads: A construction site manager's guide]. (SETRA; 1993).

4.1.7. TRAFFIC LIGHTS

We remind our readers that three-colored traffic lights should not be located in rural areas. In addition, a roundabout whose traffic conflicts are managed by traffic lights calls upon two distinctive modes of operation. However, for the sake of understanding, it is important that in the user's mind the roundabout in an interurban area be associated with a single mode of operation.

4.2. SAFETY BARRIERS (RESTRAINING DEVICES)24

Safety barriers are obstacles in and of themselves (especially hazardous to two-wheel vehicles). Furthermore, the geometric configuration of roundabouts makes their use quite difficult. Moreover, the design and construction of a roundabout should be done such in such a way that, insofar as possible, one could forego the use of safety barriers--bearing in mind that obstacles at a roundabout (or in the immediate vicinity) generally cannot be adequately isolated. Eliminating obstacles, moving them back or making them fragile are all preferable safety solutions that should always be considered before any decision to protect them with barriers. In particular, the illumination of roundabouts, a process requiring hazardous devices (luminaires), should only be considered if it is indispensable (See 4.3.). Ditches and embankments should already be assigned low grades at the design stage,25 be shallow or even leveled--in addition to the aforementioned solutions: distancing and elimination.
frontal 24 Safety barriers should never be placed on the central island and the splitter islands: they are very hazardous due to the almost completely trajectories likely to be followed by out-of-control vehicles.

Safety Barrier is the term employed in French to designate all restraining devices. See ARP, 2.2.g.

25

98

4.3. ILLUMINATION
In general, roundabout intersections in rural areas do not require illumination (similarly to other at-grade intersections). Indeed, except when illuminated areas are in the immediate vicinity, illumination has not made any positive impact on the nighttime safety of roundabouts. In fact, illumination has some drawbacks: the investment costs can be high (varying according to the chosen solution, the size of the roundabout and the proximity of a power source); maintenance and power costs are high (over 15 years, these add up to between 1 and 1.5 times the initial investment costs);26 poles are obstacles that are both hazardous and difficult to isolate (See 4.2.).

However, the roundabout must be illuminated if at least one of its legs is illuminated or if a brightly lit area is near the roundabout. If the goal is to improve the roundabout's nighttime visibility, one can consider a "staging" of the facility (indirect lighting of the approaches or, most often, of the central island).27 In any event, lighting poles located on the central islands of roundabout intersections should be avoided (just like any other hazardous obstacle or device). If, however, for some special reason, the lighting cannot be placed on the outside of the circulating roadway, a central pole may be considered,28 as long as the radius of the central island (Ri ) is at least 10 m.29 This arrangement is also discouraged for Ri values greater than 20 m (poles too high, requiring excessive illumination power). Furthermore, luminaires should never be placed on the edges of the central island or on the splitter islands.
26

For costs, please refer to "The Illumination of Roundabout Intersections" SETRA - CETUR; 1991

In case of doubt, a wise and safe thing to do is to make room, at the construction stage, for conduits to accommodate possible inside lighting from the central island. Sometimes, the placement of a central pole causes fewer problems than several luminaires around the circulating roadway, so close to the road that they would have to be protected by safety barriers (See 4.2.).
29 28

27

This distance should not lead to an oversized facility.

99

GLOSSARY
This glossary provides simplified definitions of the main technical terms used in this guide. It is not intended to be exhaustive and, for the sake of clarity, it has been limited to the specific meanings of the terms found in this publication. These definitions are aimed mostly at eliminating all ambiguities due to terminology, and pertain essentially to terms related to the design of intersections. Acceleration lane A supplementary lateral lane allowing vehicles joining the road to accelerate into the main flow of traffic. An intersection were all traffic exchanges occur at the same level. The maximum flow that can go through a traffic corridor, a lane, a leg, etc, considering its characteristics and the intersecting directions of traffic with the right of way.1 A geometric design in a standard at-grade intersection for the purpose of implementing the storage and left turns of vehicles. An island that separates two lanes used by merging or exiting vehicles, generally triangular in shape with a concave curb.

At-grade intersection

Capacity

Center Lane

Channelization island

Channelization (divergence)The splitting of two flows coming from the same direction into two separate directions. Conflict An at-grade crossing of two flows of traffic. This includes merging conflicts (or criss-crossing), as well as convergence and divergence conflicts. The merging of two flows of traffic coming from different directions and moving in the same direction. All the parallel, equi-directional and contiguous lanes of a road adding up to a flow of traffic.2 A merging conflict (at a sensitive angle).

Convergence

Corridor

Criss-crossing

Criss-crossing accident

A collision between a vehicle on the right of way axis and a vehicle obligated to yield that is crossing or making a left turn. The sight distance needed by a vehicle forced to yield to safely cross an intersection, given the speeds driven on the main axis. A concrete section that is elevated above the roadway and

Crossing sight distance

Curb
1

This is therefore not an inherent feature of the leg.

Within an interurban at-grade intersection, a traffic corridor generally only includes one traffic lane and therefore becomes undistinguishable from it.

100

separates it from the sidewalk or surrounds the non-traversable islands. Deceleration lane A tangent and slightly oblique geometric component, prior to some exit lanes, and allowing vehicles to decelerate outside of the main axis. A supplementary lateral lane allowing vehicles exiting the road to slow down away from the main axis. A change in the at-grade trajectory of a vehicle in order to bypass a roundabout's central island. By extension: the measurement of the change. The time spent in a queue or at the head of a queue, in a stopped condition or slowly moving, upstream from the point where the right of way has been yielded (stop or yield lines, in particular). On some special roundabouts, a transition lane allowing the vehicles of a given leg to avoid having to enter the circulating roadway to make a right turn. A measurement of the inflection to the trajectory produced by a splitter island. It is identified with the "slope of the island:" the angle made up of the area surrounding the curb, from the point of the island up to its widest area, and the axis of the road upstream from the head of the island. All the directions of the flow of traffic between two axes of an intersection.

Deceleration lane

Deflection (of a trajectory)

Delay time

Direct right-turn lane

Displacement

Entering and exiting traffic

Entry approach sight distance The sight distance needed by drivers to see the facility they are approaching (splitter island of the main or secondary lane). It should be at least equal to the stopping distance for an obstacle. Entry radius (Re) The radius of the arc of the circle connecting the outside curbs of the entry/exit lane of a secondary leg and the roadway of the main axis.3 The extremity of a leg allowing vehicles to enter an intersection. [Translator's note: definition missing in French document).

Entry lane Exit Radius (Rs)

3

[Translator's note: text illegible in photocopy]

101

Exit lane

The extremity of a leg allowing vehicles to exit an intersection in a specific direction. An at-grade intersection with four legs, aligned 2X2 (or almost).

Four-way intersection

Geometric delay

The delay experienced by a vehicle crossing a facility when there is no traffic congestion, caused exclusively by the slowdown and/or lengthening of the trajectory generated by the loss of right of way and/or the geometric delays.

Grade-separated intersection or interchange An intersection where the exchanges are separated from each other and processed away from the main axes (in order to reduce conflicts along intersecting paths). Graded shoulder A section on the roadway's edge, lacking any obstacle, with pavement markings, that includes the extra width of the roadway and possibly an additional section that may or not be paved. A graded shoulder to the right of the roadway.

Graded shoulder (right side)

Graded shoulder (left side)

A graded shoulder to the left of one-way roadways.

Incidence angle (written as Q) The angle created by the axis of a secondary leg and the perpendicular of the main leg. It is also the complementary angle of the angle created by the two axes. In particular, the incidence angle is zero when the two axes are perpendicular. Inscribed radius (Rg) The radius at the curb of the outside edge of the circulating roadway (i.e., the radius at the inside curb of the circulating roadway). See "grade-separated intersection."

Interchange

Intersection

A road crossing that allows traffic to change axes.

Intersection or crossing angle

The angle created by the two directions of traffic.

Intersection

The at-grade meeting point of two flows of traffic creating a sensitive angle. This term also refers to the meeting point of two traffic corridors, or two roads, A rounded area made up of the ends of the projecting splitter islands or the tips of the channelization islands.

Island tip

102

Island tip

A special top of an island implementing the channelization of two flows of traffic (directional islands) or the entrance into the intersection (splitter island of two opposite flows of traffic). A lane at the entrance of an intersection, reserved for vehicles turning to the left or right. Any section of road that is connected to an intersection. The ability of a road and its environment to provide to any user, through all its components, an image that is accurate, easily and readily understandable of the nature of the facility and its surroundings, of its uses, of the likely or possible movements of other users, as well as indicate to that user what he is supposed to do. (Definition taken from "Scurit des routes et des rues" [Road and Street Safety]. 1. A road that supports and feeds into a national road system or regional road systems. They generally carry a daily traffic flow in excess of 1,500 vehicles (According to the "ARP"). 2. In the case of a standard at-grade intersection, the most important road (assuming it is possible to ascribe a hierarchy among directions of traffic). At an intersection with a STOP or YIELD sign, the axis with the right of way usually is the main road.

Left or right slip lane

Leg Legibility

Main road

Marks (u.v.p.)

A unit to establish equivalencies among vehicles, taking into account the constraints caused by the footprints of the various categories of vehicles through the application of equivalency coefficients. FYI: the coefficients often applied are: 1 for passenger vehicles, 2 for trucks, 0.5 for motorcycles, and 0.3 for mopeds. Section of a raised landscaped median between the graded shoulders to the left of each of the two roadbeds. A phenomenon whereby a moving vehicle conceals another vehicle. At an intersection, this case often involves a vehicle turning onto a secondary road that will fleetingly conceal the same flow of traffic on the main axis.

Median strip

Moving mask

Partial intersection

An at-grade intersection physically closed at the landscaped central median that only allows for exchanges comprised of right turns (from a main road to a secondary road, or vice versa).

103

Peak thirtieth hour traffic The thirtieth highest hourly flow observed over a period of one year. This flow is oftentimes used to calculate the size needed for an intersection's components.

Point of exchange Reserved capacity

Synonymous with intersection. The difference between the traffic "offer" (capacity) and traffic "demand" at the entry leg under consideration. It is expressed in uvp/h. It is often (wrongly) associated with the coefficient of reserved capacity, which is the ratio of this differential demand. A tangential urban infrastructure connecting radial lanes together for the purpose of channeling traffic away from the center of town. A ring road provides most of the connections between the various neighborhoods of a city. The circular roadway that makes up the roundabout intersection, delineated on the inside by the central island. The portion of the roadway between the edge markings.

Ring Road

Ring

Roadway width

Roundabout intersection

An at-grade intersection featuring a central island (usually circular) that is physically non-traversable, surrounded by a one-way roadway to the right, onto which several roads arrive, announced by specific signs (A25).

Secondary road

1. A road with mostly local traffic, with a low traffic volume (generally under 1,500 vehicles per day), with all types of users, and without the right of way at intersections. 2. At a standard at-grade intersection, a road that does not follow the main direction of traffic (assuming it is possible to rank the directions hierarchically). At an intersection with a STOP or YIELD sign, this road usually yields to the main axis.

Shy distance

A space alongside a traffic lane, lacking any visual obstacle. An imaginary triangle located in parallel to the two intersecting axes, at a height of one meter above them, inside of which no obstacle should hinder the sight of a user onto another traffic lane. An intersection where the at-grade exchanges between directions of traffic are regulated by traffic lights.

Sight triangle

Signalized intersection

Splitter island

An island that splits the lanes used by cars going in opposite directions.

104

Staggered T intersection An at-grade intersection with four legs, but whose two secondary legs are offset (but still close enough to operate as a single facility) in such a way that the direct movements of the secondary road are transformed into two consecutive, reverse turns (to the right and to the left, or the opposite).

Standard at-grade intersection

An at-grade intersection that is not a roundabout.

Storage Capacity

The maximum number of stopped vehicles that a roadway section can hold (a special left-turn lane, for example).

Storage lane

A lane with a determined capacity, allowing vehicles traveling in directions without the right of way, to wait to cross the intersection in a storage lane that does not constrain the vehicles traveling on the main lane.

T-shaped intersection

A standard intersection with three legs, with a single, perpendicular (or almost: 20) secondary leg in relation to the main axis.

Through traffic

The direct flow of traffic on the main axis.

Topographically difficult road A road whose topography features major inherent problems, for which abidance by the standard rules of design would generate prohibitive costs (According to the "ARP"). Traffic delay Delay caused by the lack of right of way and the interactions between vehicles. It is often associated with the wait time at the rear and front of a queue.

Traffic flow

All the vehicles going from an intersection's entrance direction to one exit direction. A geometric component aimed at implementing the transition between two road axes or two legs of the same intersection (generally grade separated). The standard speed under which 85% of vehicles travel under fluid traffic conditions (so-called "free" vehicles). A road segment between intersections.

Transition lane

Traveling speed (V85)

Typical Cross section

105

Vehicle off-tracking

The geometric swept path of a vehicle during a change of direction. A standard intersection with three legs, with a single secondary leg at an oblique angle of incidence in relation to the axis (greater than 20 from the perpendicular).

Y-shaped intersection

106

107

BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL DESIGN AND GEOMETRY
C.1. Dossier pilote "Carrefours sur routes interurbaines". Carrefours dnivels. SETRA, octobre 1976. (Pilot case "Intersections on Interurban Roads." Grade-separated intersections. 1976.) C.2.

SETRA, October

I.C.T.A.A.L : Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d'Amnagement des autoroutes de Liaison . SETRA., octobre 1985. (I.C.T.A.A.L.: Instruction on the Technical Standards for the Development of Connecting Highways. SETRA, October 1985). C.3. Le traitement des tourne--gauche: gnralits et revue des diffrentes solutions. Note d'information, srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation", n 41. SETRA, mai 1987. The treatment of left turns: generalities and overview of the various solutions. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 41 SETRA, May 1987. C.4. Carrefours giratoires : evolution des caractristiques gomtriques. Note d'information , srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation", n 60. SETRA, mai 1988. (Roundabout Intersections: Evolution of their Geometric Features. Memorandum in the series "TrafficSafety-Operation," No. 60 SETRA, May 1988.) C.5. Traitement des tourne--gauche; les amnagements faible cot. Note d'information , srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation", n 70. SETRA, novembre 1989. (The treatment of left turns: Low-cost facilities. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 70 SETRA, November 1989.) C.6. Dports en carrefours plans sur routes interurbaines volution des caractristiques gomtriques. Note d'information , srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation", n 71. SETRA, novembre 1989. (Displacements on at-grade intersection on interurban roads - evolution of their geometric features. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 71 SETRA, November 1989.) C.7. Giratoires 92 . Actes du sminaireinternational 14-16 octobre 1992. Nantes. SETRA-CETUR, fvrier 1993. (Roundabouts '92. Minutes of the international workshop of October 14-16 1992. Nantes. SETRACETUR, February 1993.) C.8. A.R.P.: Recommandations techniques pour l'Amnagement des Routes Principales. SETRA. Aot 1994 (A.R.P.: Technical recommendations for the Development of Main Roads. SETRA, August 1994.) C.9. GIRATION. Dfinition, calcul, dessin d'pures de gyration [logiciel]. CERTU- SETRA. (GIRATION. Definition, calculation of turn movement templates (software). CERTU.)

INVESTMENT EVALUATIONS
1.1. Instruction relative aux mthodes d'valuation des investissements routiers en rase campagne et en milieu urbain. D.R., juillet 1995. (Guideline regarding the methods of evaluation of roadwork investments in rural and in urban areas. D.R., July 1995.)

108

 EQUIPMENT AND SIGNING

E.1. Instruction interministrielle sur la signalisation routire. Arrt du 24 novembre 1967, modifi, parties 1 8, edition 1987, et supplements. (Governmental guideline on road signs. Guideline of November 24 1967, amended, Parts 1 to 8, Edition of 1987, with Appendices.) E.2. Instruction interministrielle 82-31 du 22 mars 1982 relative la signalisation de direction. (Governmental guideline on directional signs, Mo. 82-31 of March 22 1982.) E.3. Les dispositifs de retenue- o les mettre? Note d'information srie " circulation-scuritexploitation" n 04. SETRA, fvrier 1986. (Restraining devices - Where to put them? Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 04 SETRA, February 1986.)

E.4.

Instruction relative l'agrment et aux conditions d'emploi des dispositifs de retenue des vhicules contre les sorties accidentelles de chausse. D.S.C.R. ; mai 1988 (Guideline regarding the upgrade and conditions of use of safety barriers to protect vehicles against accidental exiting of the roadway. D.S.C.R. May 1988.) E.5. L'clairage des carrefours sens giratoire . Guide technique . SETRA - CETUR; 1991. (The Illumination of Roundabout Intersections. A Technical Guide. SETRA - CETUR, 1991.) E.6. Guide de l'quipement des routes interurbaines. SETRA ( paratre) (Guide to amenities for interurban roads. SETRA (upcoming).) u

ROADWAY

Ch.1. Nf P 98-302. Chausses. bordures et caniveaux prfabriqus en bton. AFNOR, juin 1992. (NF P 98-302. Roadways. Curbs and prefabricated concrete gutters. AFNOR, June 1982.) u CROSSINGS U.1.

OF CITIES AND URBAN ROADS

I.C.T.A.V.R.U.: Instruction sur les conditions Techniques d'Amnagement des Voies Rapides Urbaines. CETUR, 1990. (I.C.T.A.V.R.U.: Instructions on the Technical Conditions for the Construction or Urban Thoroughfares. CETUR, 1990.) U.2. Ville plus sre, quartier sans accidents. Savoir-faire et techniques. CETUR, 1990. (A safer city, accident-free neighborhoods. Know-how and technologies. CETUR, 1990.) U.3. Guide technique des carrefours urbains. CERTU ( paratre). (Technical guide on urban intersections. CERTU (upcoming).) u CITY D.1.

BYPASSES

Conception des dviations d'agglomration : prise en compte de la scurit. SETRA., juillet 1986. (The design of city bypasses: safety issues. SETRA, July 1986.)

u TRAFFIC T.1. Temps d'attente et longueur de queues en carrefour interurbain sans feux ( le logiciel OCTAVE. Note d'information srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation" n 44. SETRA, septembre 1986. (Wait times and queue lengths at interurban non-signalized intersections (with the OCTAVE Software). Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 21 SETRA, September 1986.) T.2. Capacit des carrefours giratoires interurbains, premier resultants. Note d'information srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation" n 44. SETRA., aot 1987. (The capacity of interurban roundabouts, preliminary data. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-

109

Operation," No. 44 SETRA, August 1987.) T.3. Circulaire relative au recensement de la circulation routire : Annexe technique. DSCR, d. annuelle. (Bulletin on the collection of traffic data: Technical appendix. DSCR. Annual edition.) T.4. Guide des etudes de traffic interurbain. Guide mthodologique. SETRA, mai 1992 (Guide to interurban traffic studies. Methodological guide. SETRA, May 1992.) T.5. Les capteurs de traffic routier. Guide technique. SETRA, dcembre 1995. (Traffic sensors. Technical guide. SETRA. December 1995.) T.6. GIRABASE (capacit des carrefours giratoires) [logiciel]. CETE de l'Ouest. (GIRABASE (The capacity of roundabout intersections) (software). CETE de l'Ouest.) T.7. OCTAVE ( capacit des carrefours sans feux) [logiciel] SETRA. (OCTAVE (The capacity of non-signalized intersections) (Software). SETRA.) u SPEED V.1.

AND VISIBILITY

Vitesse pratique et gomtrie de la route. Note d'information srie "circulation-scuritexploitation" n 10. SETRA, avril 1986. (Traveling speed and road geometry. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 10 SETRA, April 1986.) V.2. Mesures de vitesse et ses applications . Guide. SETRA, 1997. (Speed measurements and their applications. Technical guide. SETRA, 1997) V.3. DIAVI [logiciel]. SETRA (DIAVI (Software). SETRA.)

u SAFETY S.1. Scurit des routes et des rues. SETRA- CETUR, septembre 1992. (The safety of roads and streets. SETRA-CETUR, September 1992.) S.2. Etudes pralables des interventions sur l'infrastructure. Guide mthodologique, SETRA, septembre 1992. ( Preliminary studies for infrastructural projects. Methodological guide. SETRA, September 1992.) S.3. T. Brenac. Accidents en carrefour sur routes nationales. Modlisation du nombre d'accidents prdictibles sur un carrefour et exemples d'application. Rapport INRETS n 185. INRETS, aot 1994. (T. Brenac. Accidents at intersections on national roads. Modelling of the predictable number of accidents and examples of applications. INRETS Report No. 185. INRETS, August 1994.) S.4. Accidents en carrefours: utilisation des modles donnant le nombre moyen d'accidents prvisible. Note d'information srie "circulation-scurit-exploitation" n 116. SETRA, mars 1998. (Accidents at intersections: the use of models to predict the average number of accidents. Memorandum in the series "Traffic-Safety-Operation," No. 113 SETRA, March 1998.) S.5. SECAR [logiciel]. SETRA-CETE de Normandie-Centre. (SECAR (Software). SETRA-CETE de Normandie - Centre.) S.6. La scurit des giratoires en rase campagne. Club d'changes d'exprience sur les routes dpartementales rgion Normandie, dcembre 1995. (The safety of rural roundabouts. Discussion club on departmental roads - Normandy Region, December 1995.) S.7. Amnagement des carrefours en rase campagne et scurit. DDE de Seine-Maritiime CETE

110

de Normandie-Centre SETRA, dcembre 1996. (The construction and safety or rural intersections. DDE de Seine-maritime - CETE de Normandie Centre - SETRA, December 1996.)

SPECIAL TECHNICAL ISSUES

P.1. Transports exceptionnels Dfinition des convoies types et rgles pour la verification des ouvrages d'art. SETRA DR, octobre 1982. (Special convoys: definition of convoys. Types and verification guidelines for projects. SETRA - DR, October 1982.)

111

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: THE SAFETY OF AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS.............................113 APPENDIX 2: CAPACITY AND WAIT TIME.................................................................117 APPENDIX 3: GEOMETRIC DELAYS AT INTERSECTIONS ..................................121 APPENDIX 4: ESTIMATE OF THE V85 SPEED ..........................................................123 APPENDIX 5: MEASUREMENT OF THE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BY THE
"STOPWATCH METHOD" ....................................................................................................125

APPENDIX 6: DESIGN OF THE CURBS .....................................................................127

112

113

APPENDIX

1:

THE SAFETY OF INTERSECTIONS

AT-GRADE

This appendix examines the comparative performances of different types of at-grade intersections and the relations between their features and road hazards.1 Outside of urban areas, approximately one fifth of all accidents occur at at-grade intersections, mostly on standard (non-roundabout) intersections. The levels of risk vary greatly according to types of intersections (for identical traffic configurations), due in part to their differences in operating principles. Furthermore, the lowest levels of risk must be associated with the highest exposures.

1. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HAZARDOUSNESS OF STANDARD ATGRADE INTERSECTIONS AND ROUNDABOUTS

Table 1. The number and seriousness of accidents at at-grade intersections on main roads outside of urban areas.
Standard at-grade intersections Number of injury accidents N=J. 2.73 10-5 Ts0.62TP0.51.F bra*F voie*F c where: J Ts Tp F bra = number of years in the period secondary traffic (v/d) (*) main traffic (v/d) (*) 2.18 for an intersection with 4 legs 1 for an intersection with 3 legs 1.63 for a main road with 2X2 lanes 1 in other cases adjustment coefficient for the period under consideration = average ratio over the period under consideration/24
2

Roundabout intersections

N = J. 0.15 10-5.QTE.F c where: J QTE Fc number of years in the period total incoming traffic adjustment coefficient for the period under consideration4

F voie = Fc

Application: at-grade intersection equipped with STOP or YIELD signs, where the main traffic(*) ranges between 3,000 and 25,000 v/d, and the secondary traffic (*) ranges between 500 and 8,000 v/d.3

Application: roundabout intersection where the total incoming traffic ranges between 3,200 and 40,000 v/d.

The values of the annual ratios for the calculation of Fc are as follows (in accidents/108 v.km): 1991: 18.8; 1992:17.9; 1993:17.0; 1994: 15.9; 1995: 15.0; 1996: 14.1

(*) both directions included

1

For more information on this issue, refer to "Road and Street Safety" (SETRA, CETUR, 1992).

See the SETRA Memorandum (Traffic/Safety/Operations Series) "Accidents at intersections: the use of models to predict average accidents rates" (to be published in 1998), whose results are excerpted from the INRETS report No. 185 (T. Brenac; 1994). In the absence of any other formula, its use can be admitted (as a first approximation) for a wider range: between 2,000 and 40,000 v/d on the main axis, and 0 to 13,000 on the secondary axis. There is no adjustment coefficient available in relation to a studied time frame specific to a roundabout. The coefficient used for standard at-grade intersections can however be used: this will result in an excessive approximation of the number of predictable accidents.
4 3

114

Seriousness of Accidents Fatalities: Serious injuries: Light injuries: 10 per 100 accidents 45 per 100 accidents 126 per 100 accidents Fatalities: Serious injuries: Light injuries: 6 per 100 accidents 33 per 100 accidents 106 per 100 accidents

2. STANDARD AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS (WITH STOP OR YIELD SIGNS)

This type of intersection features a rather poor structural level of safety (See 1.), that increases in proportion to the traffic on main and secondary roads. The traveling speed of the direction with the right of way is one of the main reasons behind the inherent lack of safety of these types of intersections. Configurations that accommodate high speeds on the legs with the right of way are those that include more than one direct lane per direction or special right-turn lanes. Intersections that are complex, atypical, ambiguous (left turn via the right, for example), or that offer excessively fluid trajectories to vehicles obligated to yield (Y-shaped intersections, for example), are not very safe. In these instances, lack of visibility, usually associated with lateral screens or with objects on the path (convex horizontal alignment), is often a cause of accidents. Two main types of accidents have been observed: criss-crossings (right-angle collisions); and accidents involving left turns on the main road. On the other hand, injury accidents associated with right turns are neither as frequent or serious. Criss-crossings Criss-crossings involve collisions between vehicles on the lane with the right of way and vehicles on the secondary lane in the process of crossing or making a left turn. There are several phenomena that can lead to these types of accidents: inaccurate perception of the intersection or of the need to yield the right of way on the secondary road, poor visibility, misunderstanding of the configuration and the workings of a complex intersection, the large width to be crossed. The incorporation of channelization islands on the secondary legs will help drivers perceive the intersection, understand that they will have to yield and reduce their speeds. Channelization islands also reduce the risk of criss-crossing accidents by 30 to 50%. Left-turn accidents (on the main lane) These accidents involve vehicles performing a left turn on the main lane that are impacted by a vehicle moving straight through the same road. Rear collisions occur if the two vehicles are moving in the same direction, and frontal or comparable collisions if they are traveling in opposite directions.

115

A left turn refuge (possibly very short in length) is a very effective solution to reduce rear collisions. In the case of T-shaped intersections or their accesses, the shoulder on the opposite side of the secondary leg can be used by the vehicle coming from the rear, that was surprised to see the vehicle making the left turn, to make an emergency avoidance maneuver by shifting to the right. However, this should only be seen as a partial solution, less effective than a dedicated left-turn slip lane. Raised islands (with traversable curbs, painted in white and featuring the J5 marker at the front, but usually unlit) provide greater safety than merely painted islands, by offering an improved perception of the intersection and a real protection to left-turning vehicles. These types of accidents can thus be reduced by 50 to 80%. Collisions with raised islands are still very rare.

3. ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS
In general, roundabouts are quite safe (See 1.). However, some configurations can markedly reduce their safety levels. This is the case for oblong roundabouts, or pseudo-roundabouts and, to a lesser degree, for roundabouts made more complicated by the addition of transition lanes. Furthermore, large roundabouts are not as safe as smaller roundabouts. As a general rule, the inclusion of medium width entries producing trajectory constraints5 will improve safety by reducing speeds upon entering and on the circulating roadway. The major types of accidents that occur on roundabouts involve entering vehicles losing control, landing on the central island, collisions at the entries and, to a lesser extent, losses of control on the circulating roadway. Losses of control Loss of control upon entering a roundabout is the most common and by far the most lethal type of accident occurring on roundabouts outside of urban areas. Among the contributing factors to these accidents we often find a poor perception of the approach to the facility (strong reversing curve, for example), high approach speeds, as well as other factors, such as the absence of a clear break in the outline of the path of the road (i.e., an impression of continuity produced by trees or luminaires aligned on one the roundabout's legs). Most of these losses of control only cause property damage, but the consequences are always more serious if the central island features hazardous obstacles or devices. Most roundabouts experience these types of accidents. Risks are increased in rural areas, at night--although there apparently aren't more nighttime accidents on unlit roundabouts than on illuminated roundabouts--and especially during the first few months after the commissioning of a new facility.
This constraint must be located at the leg's termination onto the circulating roadway, and not upstream: otherwise, arrangements such as "reversing curves" will often reduce safety.
5

116

Losses of control on a roundabout's circulating roadway are often associated with excessively large entry radii, wide entries (2 lanes or more), or with non-circular central islands. Many of these accidents involve overturned trucks. When motorcycle riders lose control of their vehicles, poor road maintenance (loose gravel, oil and gasoline spots, etc) should be added to the aforementioned causes. Loss of control accidents upon exiting roundabouts remain very rare. They are most often caused by insufficient exit radii. Once in a while, these radii are responsible for frontal collisions with approaching vehicles (especially when the intersection has no splitter islands). Collisions Nowadays, accidents involving conflicts over the right of way remain common in spite of a generalization of the so-called "yield to the circulating roadway" rule, in effect for quite some time now. The major causes of collisions are high entry speeds and poor visibility in the area before the transverse YIELD line (such as obscuring vegetation on the splitter islands). Entries with wide radii or that are excessively tangential are often blamed. In the case of multi-lane entries, there are some configurations of vehicle positions that can create moving masks. Other types of generally rarer collisions can occur: rear-end collisions, when perception of the roundabout--or, at times, perception of the queues produced by the facility--occurs too late; criss-crossing accidents on a very wide circulating roadway (3 lanes, physically defined or not); criss-crossing accidents at the exits, mostly on 2-lane exits where the amount of traffic does not justify such a wide size; frontal collisions on the circulating roadway (with a vehicle traveling the wrong way). Although deliberate violations are hard to prevent, these types of accidents are often caused by the misunderstandings generated by highly complex facilities (inclusion of special lanes, for example).

Two-wheel vehicles and pedestrians Two-wheel vehicles are especially vulnerable to refusals to yield at the entries and, to a lesser extent, to other types of collisions. All the measures aimed at increasing a facility's capacity (and accessorily its speed) are harmful to them. In fact, no modification specifically intended for them is truly effective. Pedestrians are not especially affected by roundabouts; they are, however, particularly disadvantaged on large roundabouts. Most pedestrian accidents occur during crossings of wide (multi-lane) and fast moving entries or exits.

117

APPENDIX 2: CAPACITY AND WAIT TIMES

1. OVERVIEW
The calculation of the capacity (as well as the wait times6) is generally based on rush hour traffic. Regular rush hour peaks should preferably be used over exceptional peaks. Indeed, choosing exceptional peaks may lead (for the sake of just a few hours of saturation per year) to solutions (capacity enhancements, improved roundabout features) that will markedly increase the facility's cost and footprint, and could adversely affect its safety. It is also useful to factor in reverse flow peaks in the case of some configurations that feature swinging hourly peaks and, as the case may be, extreme seasonal variations. The regular traffic of the so-called "peak thirtieth hour" is sometimes used to determine the size of an intersection. But applying this method requires prior knowledge of the distribution of hourly flows over a period of one year. The axes involved must therefore be fitted with permanent recording stations (which are generally only located on major roads). In fact, the selection of the reference period will depend on the developer's design policy and on the level of the service he wants to offer the user. Regardless of the method and the type of intersection, the calculation of the capacity and of the wait times must take into account the main and secondary traffic flows: it is therefore important to know the traffic flow distribution translated in the form of an "origindestination" matrix.

2. STANDARD AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS

On a "R" type single-lane road, the increases in comfort and travel time will never be sufficient to justify the inclusion of a merge lane on the right for yielding vehicles. In fact, a facility of this type begins to make economic sense only upon reaching traffic flows that already clearly justify the creation of a roundabout. On the other hand, on two-lane roads, a merge lane on the right may be justified. Other arrangements aimed at improving an intersection's capacity will also reduce its overall level of safety. For example, any arrangement encouraging the side-by-side storage of several vehicles coming out of secondary legs (via widening of the entry lanes or their destinations through increased entry radii) should be excluded due to the mutual hindrances it would produce. On a "R" type single-lane road, the location of a dedicated left turn lane to exit the main lane is the only arrangement that can be recommended in order to decongest the main axis when the flows are heavy enough (100 v/d) for a T-shaped intersection, 200 v/d for a four-way intersection). This will not have a major impact on the capacity of secondary legs.
Out of concern for creating a facility that is suited to the existing traffic, and not as part of a cost evaluation, which is supposed to the add up all the lost times in all directions over an entire year.
6

118

 2.1. THE "MANUAL" METHOD

In the absence of an updated manual method of estimation of the capacity and wait times at a standard at-grade intersection, one can use, to make a preliminary estimate, the old guidelines developed in the late 60s. By applying probabilities, these guidelines come in the form of a series of formulas and nomographs. As a reference on this subject, we particularly recommend the document entitled "Carrefours sur routes interurbaines, 1re partie: carrefours dnivels" (SETRA; 1976) [Intersections on interurban roads, Part 1: gradeseparated intersections]. When a more accurate estimate is required, especially when a delicate balance with another type of intersection must be achieved, we recommend using the OCTAVE software.

2.2. The OCTAVE software

The OCTAVE software (SETRA; 1998) is a simulation program dealing with the capacity of unsignalized intersections. The simulation is based on a discrete and per-event microscopic model, displaying the behaviors of the vehicles in the various queues that may develop. The shape of the intersection and the traffic rules can be specified with great accuracy. Thanks to OCTAVE, one can estimate the capacity, the wait times and the length of the queues of the various directions of traffic. However, one must bear in mind that the estimates of the wait times and the lengths of queues are highly assumptions-dependent and should only be seen in terms of orders of magnitude.

3. ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS
3.1. FACTORS IMPACTING CAPACITY
The geometric design of a roundabout will have an impact on the capacity of its various legs. Some geometric features can be mutually combined, positively or negatively. These are the most important features: the width of the entry (le) (and not the number of entry lanes); the impact of a widening of the entrance is however restricted by the width of the circulating roadway (la); the width of the circulating roadway (la), that must be restricted out of safety concerns; the width of the splitter island (li ), which influences the friction caused by the outgoing traffic from the leg with the island; the width of the exit (ls), only in some extreme cases; the configuration of the legs around the circulating roadway; the radius of the central island (Ri ), which can impact capacity positively or negatively, particularly when the values are small.

119

The impact on capacity produced by the angle and the radius of the entry (Re) is generally negligible if one remains within acceptable safety limits. Moreover, the size of a roundabout only has a minimal impact on the capacity of its entries. To summarize, the only frequently applicable parameters to increase the capacity of an entry are its width and, to a lesser extent, the width of the splitter island (li ).

3.2. QUICK CAPACITY ESTIMATE (SIMPLIFIED METHOD).

This method can be applied to roundabouts in rural or suburban areas with central islands with a radius (Ri ) equal to or greater than 15 m, and with single-lane entries. Its results are quite accurate (it is actually quite conservative because the measurements that were used to establish it are now quite old). The method of calculation (for each leg) is as follows: 1. Determine the entering flows Qe, the exiting flows Qs, and the turning flows Qt, based on the origin-destination matrix (in uvp/h, applying a coefficient of 2 for trucks, and of 0.5 for two-wheel vehicles); Determine the corresponding exiting flow Qs' according to the width of the splitter island: Qs' = Qs (15 - li )/15, where Qs' = 0 if li > 15 m; 3. Determine the Qs obstructing traffic, based on Qt, Qs' and the width of the circulating roadway (la); Qg = (Qt + 2/3 Qs') (1 - 0.085 [la - 8]); 4. Factor in the entry width (le) in order to determine the capacity C; C = (1330 - 0.7 Qg)(1 + 0.1 [le - 3.5]); 5. The capacity reserve is equal to C - Qe (expressed in uvp/h); the relative capacity reserve, expressed as a percentage of the entering traffic, is equal to: (C - Qe) / Qe

2.

3.3. PRECISE EVALUATION OF THE CAPACITY VIA THE GIRABASE SOFTWARE

The GIRABASE software takes into account all the factors that have an impact on capacity. Its algorithm was developed after numerous observations of existing roundabout intersections. It can come up with results that are markedly different from those produced by the aforementioned "quick" method, especially when it is applied to roundabouts whose sizing deviates from old, and rather broad, standards.

120

121

APPENDIX

3:

GEOMETRIC DELAY INTERSECTIONS

AT

Table 2 -- Estimate of the geometric delay according to the type of intersection and maneuvers, light vehicles. Maneuver: Standard at-grade Intersection main road direct left turn 12s right turn 7s

main road Roundabout Intersection 12s (on average)

15s

11s

Geometric delays for trucks should be increased by 75% compared to the figures for light vehicles. These values should be understood as orders of magnitude. For two intersections belonging to the same category, the average geometric delay will vary considerably depending on the approach speed, the design of the intersection, the right of way hierarchy on the secondary road, as well as the context and the types of movements, etc. To calculate the aggregate geometric delay (RGC) over a period of one year, the following simplified formulas can be applied: for a roundabout intersection: for a standard at-grade intersection: where: - RGC is expressed in hours; - traffic flows are expressed in u.v.p. with a coefficient of 1.75 for a truck; - Qs is the TMJA (both directions combined) on the secondary axis; - Qech is the exchange TMJA between the two axes, defined as the sum of the turning traffic directions; - QTE is the roundabout's overall entering daily traffic. RGC = 1.2 QTE RGC = 1.4 Qs + 0.4 Qech

122

123

APPENDIX

4:

ESTIMATE OF THE PERCENTILE) SPEED

V85

(85

"In order to take into account the actual traveling speeds of users, and in accordance with international standards, the V85 speed is generally applied, namely the speed under which 85% of all users drive, under fluid (unimpeded) traffic conditions. This speed can be estimated on the basis on the functions or the nomographs below, which translate the results of studies on the relations between geometry and speed. The "DIAVI" software can also be used to estimate the traveling speeds at each position of a facility." Excerpted from the ARP document.
Figure 1 -- The V85 speed as a function of the radius.
V(km/h) 120
1,5

V(m/s) 2x2v 30

V 85=120/(1+346/R

)
100

3v et 2v (6 et 7m)

V 85 =102/(1+346/R

1,5

)
80

25 2v (6 m ) 20

V 85 = 92/(1+346/R

1,5

)
60 15 40

10

20

R(m) 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Figure 2 -- The V85 speed as a function of the ramp (> 250 m).
V(km/h) 140 35 V(m/s)

V85 = 120 - 0,31p V85 = 102 - 0,31p

120 30 100 2x2v 25 80 3v et 2v (6 et 7m) 20 2v (5m) 60 15 40

V85 =

92 - 0,31p

10

20

P(%) 0 2 4 6 8 10

124

125

APPENDIX 5:

MEASUREMENT OF THE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BY THE "STOPWATCH METHOD"

This method can be applied quite easily--all it requires is an operator and a stopwatch-and be completed quite rapidly (seldom more than 3 to 15 minutes per intersection, if the traffic on the main axis is low).

GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE MEASUREMENT

Visibility is verified for each direction of the main road and for each leg of the secondary road(s), namely for each sight triangle. Stopwatch in hand, the operator directs his eyesight to the edge of the right shoulder of the secondary road (such as the position of a driver in a vehicle parked on the shoulder), at a height of 1 m, and with a 4 m setback from the STOP bar, or 15 m behind the YIELD line. The operator measures the elapsed time between the moment he sees a vehicle on the main road and the moment it reaches his position, for 12 unimpeded light vehicles (moving straight through). The times are ranked in increasing order; the third time (t3) is then compared to the recommended crossing time (t) for the configuration involved (the values of t are listed in Table No.1 of Chapter 2).

PRACTICAL CONDITIONS
While observing, the operator can refrain from measuring times if the conditions of visibility are clearly adequate (visibility of more than 300 m, for example) or inadequate (visibility of less than 100 m). Whenever t3 is less than t for one of the sight triangles, the intersection can be found not to meet the visibility requirement; the operator can therefore limit himself to the most unfavorable measurement if he is able to measure it a priori. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the measurement of the visibility times can be stopped after the third insufficient time. If the visibility is satisfactory at the point of observation (at 4 or 15 m), one must ensure that, as one approaches the line, no visual obstacle will markedly disrupt the sight triangle that was created. The measurement must be sufficiently discrete to avoid producing major changes in the behaviors of drivers on the main axis.

ACCURACY OF THE MEASUREMENT

The accuracy of the measurement produced by this method is of approximately 2 seconds. This is another argument in favor of using the recommended values of t instead of the absolute minimums. Furthermore, a value for t3 close to the required threshold must be supplemented by additional measurements (sixth time of 24 measurements, for example), and possibly by the use of a more accurate method (such as the measurement of the actual sight distance and the V85 speeds traveled on the axis by using a hand-held radar).

126

127

APPENDIX 6: DESIGN OF THE CURBS

OVERVIEW
The curbs mostly include the raised splitter islands and, in the case of a roundabout, the central island and (as the case may be), the edges of the entries and exits of the circulating roadway. To avoid aggravating the impact of losses of control by light vehicles or motorcycles, non-hazardous curbs should be chosen. Furthermore, all special operating conditions that can occur must be taken into account, especially maintenance work (accessibility to the central island, for example), wintertime practicability (high curbs could impede snowplows) and drainage requirements. Note: The design of the islands per se is covered in the main section of this document, in Chapters 2 ( 2.5.6. & 3.2.3.) for the splitter islands, and 3 ( 3.1.4. & 3.2.) for the central islands of roundabouts.

THE CURBS OF SPLITTER ISLANDS

Low bevelled curbs (type I) are used, as seen in Figure 3. The height of the visible vertical face (hv) must not exceed 6 cm on the secondary branches of the intersection7, and 3 cm on the main legs. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid placing unnecessarily hazardous obstacles on the roadway. Furthermore, a good level of visibility must be provided at the fronts of islands, as well as sufficiently large (in height and width) advance directional markings. To improve nighttime visibility8, the extending sections should be painted in white or dyed concrete curbs should be used.
Figure 3 -- Detail of the construction of the curbs of splitter islands (embedded curbs)

0,10

0,20 0,07 h v =0,03

0,10

0,20 0,07 h v 0,06

0,18

Curb Roadway

0,18

Curb Roadway

For a small island on a very secondary leg (See Chapter 2.3.4.), this height should not exceed 3 cm. In rural areas, intersections generally do not require illumination.

128

Embedded curbs (Type 12 or 14, for example) are preferred on splitter islands, because they are more resistant to the possible demands made by turning trucks. Grouted or extruded curbs could be used, as long as they are not too high to the eye (hv) (See above).

EDGE CURBS
For standard at-grade intersections, the inclusion of edge markings is generally unnecessary (except when the continuity of a sidewalk must be ensured); stabilized lateral stripes which may be coated over a width of 1 m9 are enough. The placement of edge curbs therefore pertains mostly to rural roundabouts. Although not always necessary, edge curbs are generally recommended. One should be sure to: maintain, as the case may be, the continuity of crosswalks by implementing the sidewalk via T type curbs (which are normally reserved for these types of cases). They should be lowered at a perpendicular angle if there are marked crosswalks on the road; maintain the integrity of the shoulder10 (to prevent the digging of ruts by trucks) by including, if there is no curb, a lowered coated strip 2 m wide, in connection with a widening of the structure at the entrances and exits. When the curbs are (semi)traversable, these arrangements can also be useful; avoid interrupting the curb around the circulating roadway, due to the short distance between one entry and the exit of the next leg (for standard sized roundabouts); limit their height to a maximum of 14 cm, although less hazardous shoulder curbs, of which only 6 cm are visible, are preferable; take into account water drainage, by creating a gutter or, if there is no curb, a swale between the pavement and the shoulder; take into account (in parts of the country where this may apply) constraints connected with wintertime practicability, by limiting the height of the curbs, to avoid impeding snowplows.

At the entries of the roundabout, it is recommended to have the edge curbs begin (as applicable):
-

in normal cases: at the H distance (height of the construction triangle of the splitter island = Rg) of the YIELD line; if there is an extended island (See Chapter 3.2.7. "Special case of difficult approaches"): at the distance corresponding to the theoretical H height;; in the case of a leg with 2X2 lanes, at the front of the splitter island (widening of public transit lines and end of the railings); when the entry includes inflected trajectories (See Chapter 3.2.7.): at the end of the alignment to the right.

Up to 2 m, for some entry and exit lanes of divided intersections on 2X2 lane roads. Experience shows that in some areas, curbs feature tire marks or signs of unintentional crossings.

10

129

Furthermore, the starting point of the curbs at the entries should be lowered or offset. Edge curbs at the exits are generally interrupted at the same point as the entry edge curbs, but it is unnecessary to extend them beyond H.

CENTRAL ISLAND ( AT A ROUNDABOUT)

The curbs to be placed around the non-traversable section of the central island are low, bevelled and preferably embedded. Their sight level should not exceed 6 cm. The traversable strip (as the case may be) is surrounded by low curbs of a maximum height of 3 cm.

130

131

NOTES

technical guide for designing grade intersections on main roads outside urban areas. It follows the more general guidelines given in the document "Main Road Development" and provides further principles to be taken in account when developing projects for new infrastructure or the improvement of the existing network, together with the method to be used for selecting the junction type. It makes recommendations for defining the geometric aspects of the projected developments and improvements.

The document "Interurban junction design grade intersection" is a