Speakers

• John Beery, PE, PTOE
City Engineer, City of Noblesville, IN

• Jeromy Grenard, PE
Traffic Services Manager, 
American Structurepoint

• Mike McBride, PE
City Engineer, City of Carmel, IN

• Craig Parks, PE
Project Development Director, 
American Structurepoint

Overview Overview
• Part I • Part II
– Introduction to Roundabouts – Capacity Study in Indiana
– Roundabout Safety – Capacity Calculation Options
– Pavement Markings and Signs – Use of Simulation for Roundabout Evaluation
– Maintenance of Traffic During Construction – Roundabout Design
– Lighting – Q & A
– Q & A

Art, Engineering, or Both? History of Roundabouts
Merriam‐Webster: 1800s‐1940s Traffic circles and rotaries used
• Art: “The conscious use of skill and creative 
imagination especially in the production of aesthetic  1950s Circular intersections fall out of favor
objects.”
1966 UK institutes “yield on entry” – birth of the 
• Engineering: “The application of science and  Modern Roundabout
mathematics by which the properties of matter and 
the sources of energy in nature are made useful to  1990 First Modern Roundabouts built in US ‐
people.” Nevada
• Where does good roundabout design fit in?
1997 First Modern Roundabouts constructed 
– BOTH!
in Indiana

1
Definition – Modern Roundabout Indianapolis – Monument Circle
Yield at Entry
• Yield signs
• Yield line Not a roundabout!
• Circulating traffic has right‐of‐way
Deflection of entering vehicle path
• Accomplished using “splitter islands”
Entry flare
• Lane width is increased near 
yield line
• Not mandatory

Kingston, NY Rotary Benefits of a Roundabout
Converted to Roundabout
• Keeps traffic moving  • Safer than conventional 
(efficient) intersections
The roundabout is much smaller
– Yield instead of stop – Greater than 90% 
• Aesthetically pleasing reduction in fatalities!!
– Central island provides  – Studies performed by 
opportunity for  Insurance Institute of 
landscaping Highway Safety
• Less pollution
– Air
– Noise

(Photo by New York State DOT)

Roundabout Applications
• High‐crash locations
• Congested locations
• Freeway interchanges
• Corridor with 
multiple intersections
Where NOT to use a Roundabout
• Where widening is  • Wherever queues would back up into the 
cost‐prohibitive roundabout
• Access management • Insufficient sight distance (can’t see the 
roundabout on the approach)
• Unusual geometry • In the middle of a traffic signal system with 
good progression
• On a steep (≥ 5%) grade

2
ADA Issues ADA Issues
• Access Board of Americans With Disabilities 
• Access Board preliminary recommendations
Act (ADA) has concerns for sight‐impaired 
– Single lane roundabout:  ADA ramps
pedestrians at roundabouts
– Multi‐lane roundabout:  ADA ramps & pedestrian 
• What is the concern? signals that stop traffic
– Safety – not primarily
– Accessibility – yes
– Access Board Research ongoing

Roundabout Safety
Roundabout  • According to the IIHS, over 800 
people die and over 200,000 are 
injured in the US each year in 
crashes involving red light running

Safety • In 2000, the IIHS found 
roundabouts had 79% fewer 
accidents with injuries than 
ordinary intersections. 

• Since 2001, IIHS has issued a total 
of five reports promoting the use 
of roundabouts

Conflict Points Pedestrian Crossings
• 25’ back from 
yield line at 
roundabouts
• Splitter island 
minimum 6’
wide for refuge

3
Speed Reduction Pedestrian Fatality in 
Pedestrian/Vehicle Crash
Vehicle  Odds of Pedestrian  Odds of Pedestrian 
Speed Death, Source 1 Death, Source 2
20 mph 5% 5%

30 mph 45% 37%

40 mph 85% 83%

Source 1: Limpert, Rudolph. Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis. Fourth Edition.
Charlottesville, VA. The Michie Company, 1994, p. 663.
Source 2: Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions, Austrailian Federal Office of
Road Safety, Report CR 146, October 1994, by McLean AJ,Anderson RW, Farmer MJB, Lee
BH, Brooks CG.
Figure from FHWA Design Guide

Carmel Citywide Crash Data Accident Damage Cost Savings
2002‐2006
Cost of accident damages is less at roundabouts 
% Accidents with Injury than traditional signalized intersections
at All Intersections
Avg. Cost
29% Intersection of Damages
96th Street (signal) $13,600
116th Street (signal) $7,300
% Accidents with Injury
at Roundabouts 126th Street (RBT) $2,500
131st Street (RBT) $2,500
Single Lane 4%
Multi-
Multi-Lane 7% (Statistics from Carmel Police Dept. 2006)

Arts and Design District RBT

FHWA Advanced Signage Guide
Signing/ Locals often complain 
about sign clutter

Striping

4
Carmel Standard Approach Signage Carmel Standard Approach Signage

Roundabout Ahead Sign Assembly Multi-Lane Usage Sign

Carmel Standard Approach Signage Carmel Standard Approach Signage

Pedestrian Crossing Sign Yield Sign

Carmel Standard Approach Signage Carmel Standard Approach Signage

Center Island Sign Center Island Sign Exiting Street Name Sign

5
Standard Striping Standard Carmel Striping
Zebra Fishhook
Crosswalk Markings
Striping

Circulatory
Lane Roadway
Delineation Edge Line
Lines

“Sharks
Teeth”
Approved by NCUTCD Yield Line

Standard Carmel Striping Standard Striping
Specialty Fishhook
Lane Indication
Arrows

Spiral Pavement Markings

Standard Carmel Striping Standard Carmel Striping

Spiral Pavement Markings Spiral Pavement Markings

6
Standard Carmel Striping Early Education

Spiral Pavement Markings

Early Education
Roundabout 
Construction
Maintenance‐of‐
Traffic Options

Full Closure 45‐Day Closure
• Full intersection closure is quickest and least 
expensive
– Must have a detour route available
– Typical closure time is 45 days

141st & Towne Road

7
60‐Day Closure 30‐Day Closure

136th Street & Illinois Street Spring Mill Road & Dorset

Roundabout Construction Partial Access
• Full intersection closure is quickest and least 
expensive
– Must have a detour route available
– Typical closure time is 45 days

• Partial access can be maintained
– Extends time of construction
– Can be accomplished in many variations
Illinois Street & 131st Street

Partial Access Partial Access

Illinois Street & 131st Street Old Meridian Street & Guilford Road

8
Partial Access Partial Access

Old Meridian Street & Guilford Road Old Meridian Street & Grand Boulevard

Partial Access Developing Effective 
Standards and Guidelines 
for Roundabout Lighting

John Beery, PE, PTOE
Noblesville, IN

Old Meridian Street & Grand Boulevard

Topics of Discussion Available Resources
• Roundabout safety
• HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 2000 – Chapter 17, Part C. Roundabouts, pages 17‐
• Available lighting resources 45 to 17‐48.
– IESNA • NCHRP Synthesis 264, “Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States”, for the 
– AASTHO National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board 
– State DOT National Research Council: National Academy Press.
– Others • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
“Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”:  Publication No. FHWA‐RD‐00‐067, 
• Developing illumination strategies Copyright June 2000 by National Academy of Sciences.
– Location and placement • “Roadway Lighting” by the Illumination Engineering Society of North America.
– Luminaire selection • “Roadway Lighting Design Guide” by AASHTO.
– Spacing
– Geometrics and signage
• Examples
• Results and conclusions

9
Why Provide Lighting? Lighting Methodology
• Present guidance and resources
• Reduce nighttime accidents – AASHTO
• Aid police protection and security – IESNA
• Facilitate traffic flow – State and local standards
• Promote business and use in night hours – Proprietary methods and vendor assistance
• Provide advance warning
• Limitations and applicability
Source:  “Roadway Lighting”:  by IESNA

Traditional Roadway Lighting 
Analysis and Methodology AASHTO Guidance
“Roundabouts should be lit to a level that is 1.3 to 2 times
• Linear roadway methodology the value used on the best lit approach. Uniformity should
– Select luminaire and mounting height be 3:1 or better. The illuminance method should be
used.”[1]
– Analyze photometric contours
– Manually or by computer model
– Determine spacing and Placement
– Analyze alternatives

[1] “ROADWAY LIGHTING DESIGN GUIDE”, AASHTO, October 2005, page 41.

Applying Traditional 
IESNA Guidance Strategies to Roundabouts
Recommended Illuminance for the Intersection
of Continuously Lighted Urban Streets[1]
ILLUMINANCE FOR INTERSECTIONS • Issues:
Average Maintained Illumination at 
Pavement by Pedestrian Area Classification – Roundabout is non‐linear
Functional Classification lux/fc Eavg/Emin
High Medium Low – Motorist unfamiliarity
Major/Major 34.0/3.4 26.0/2.6 18.0/1.8 3.0
– Roundabout offers added flexibility over 
Major/Collector

Major/Collector
29.0/2.9

26.0/2.6
22.0/2.2

20.0/2.0
15.0/1.5

13.0/1.3
3.0

3.0
traditional intersection
Collector/Collector 24.0/2.4 18.0/1.8 12.0/1.2 4.0 – Luminaire use
Collector/Local 21.0/2.1 16.0/1.6 10.0/1.0 4.0
– Pedestrian considerations
Local/Local 18.0/1.8 14.0/1.4 8.0/.8 6.0

– Other pros and cons
[1] American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00, by the Illumination Engineering

Society of North America, June 6, 2000, Table 9, Page 15.

10
Luminaire Selection Conflict Points and 
Luminaire Placement
• Know capabilities
• Initial Locations
• Avoid glare and trespass – Crosswalks
– Don’t over illuminate – 45°, 135°, 225°, 315°
– Consider trespass stds quadrant points
• Select based on  • Accommodate luminaire
functionality capability, and illumination 
and uniformity requirements
• Consider stock and 
• Consider clear zone
standard practice
• Evaluate arm lengths

Illumination Strategy: Single Lane vs. Multiple Lanes
Single‐Lane Roundabout
• Single‐lane roundabout  • Considerations
up to 110’ in diameter
– Pedestrians
• Understand capability of 
luminaires considered – Higher Traffic Levels
• Place luminaire and  – Larger Area to Light
poles near conflict 
– Higher Speeds into Entry Lanes
points
• Light from exterior of 
roundabout

Pole

Pole

Pole Pole

Pole

11
Illumination Strategy: Summary of Methodology
Two‐Lane Roundabout
• Two lanes from 120’ to  • Evaluate geometrics
180’ in diameter • Light conflict points
• Know capability of  • Use familiar luminaires
luminaires considered
• Provide consistent lighting to comply with IESNA 
• Place luminaire and poles  requirements
near conflict points
• Light from interior of 
roundabout

Results and Conclusions Single-Lane Roundabout

136th and Brooks School Road
1. Identify and establish a standard luminaire and mounting height to provide 
consistent and cost effective illumination.  Attempt to accommodate both 
aesthetics and function.
2. Establish preliminary lighting locations adjacent to the conflict points of the 
roundabout, including crosswalks.
3. Single lane roundabouts can typically be lit from the exterior of the intersection.  
Two‐lane roundabouts typically require pole placement within the inner circle 
near the 45°, 135°, 225°, and 315° points for the inner circle conflict points.
4. Two‐lane roundabouts may require closer pole spacing or more intense
luminaires when lit from the inner circle to improve intensity and to reduce the 
number of lights.
5. Observe IES guidelines for illumination levels based on the type of intersection.
6. Adjust the type of pole, its location, and the base depending on clear zone 
requirements

Questions?
• ADA
• Safety
• Pavement markings & signage
• Maintenance of traffic during construction
• Lighting

12
 Assessing 
Roundabout Capacity 
and Project Selection

Roundabout Capacity
• Where do I put them?
• What is the capacity of a roundabout?
• Why is the most common question regarding capacity related 
to ADT?
• What is true capacity of and entry lane?
• Can capacity be quantified?
Why did the chicken cross the road? • What methods can be used to determine operational 
characteristics?
• What values for capacity are correct?
Because the available time headway in opposing  • Can simulations be accurately utilized?
traffic met his parameters for gap acceptance. • On what premise do roundabouts operate?
• Can we recognize “Garbage In/Garbage Out”?

Guidelines for Use FHWA Roundabout Capacity
Typical Peak Flow Ranges for
Various ADTs

Est. Range ‐Peak 
AADT Major Road Hour Flow for 
Single Approach

5,000 193 to 360
10,000 385 to 720
15,000 578 to 1,080 
20,000 770 to 1,440
25,000 963 to 1,800
30,000 1,155 to 2,160
40,000 1,540 to 2,880

*For Single Lane, Urban Route

13
Summary of Capacity Resources Entry Lane Capacity vs. 
Time Headway in Inner Circle
Entry Lane Capacity vs. Rate of Flow in Inner Circle 2,000 HCM Formula -
Upperbound
HCM Formula -
2000 1,800
Lowerbound
FHWA - Urban and Rural
1800 1,600
FHWA - Urban Compact

Entry Lane Capacity (vph)

1600
Entry Lane Capacity (vph)

HCM Formula - Upperbound 1,400 NCHRP Synthesis 264

1400 HCM Formula - Lowerbound Acelik - Base Formula

1,200
1200 FHWA - Urban and Rural Acelik - 1994
FHWA - Urban Compact 1,000
1000 Study
NCHRP Synthesis 264
800 800
Acelik - Base Formula
600 Acelik - 1994 600
400 Study
400
200
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

00

20

00

14

50

00

60

27

00

77

57

40

25

12
0

0
.0

.0

.0

9.

7.

6.

5.

4.

4.

3.

3.

3.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.
Flow Rate in Inner Circle (vph)

36

18

12
Time Headway in Inner Circle (sec)

Parameters Affecting  Understanding Capacity
Flow and Capacity • Understand Differences
• Classification of Facility – Conventional Intersection
• Upstream Free‐Flow Speed • All traffic yields to through movements to the right if no other
• Geometrics controls, such as signals are present.
– Deflection causes reduction in speed • Through movements typically take precedent over other 
– Control Delay is inherent  from geometrics movements, unless movement is protected.
– Geometrics of Inner Circle – Roundabouts
• Lane Widths • Entry movements yield to inner circle, regardless of its movement.
• Driver Familiarity and Behavior • Therefore, a combinations or all movements in a certain direction 
• Peak Hour Flow and ADT can control through our entry movements.
• Upstream Flow in Inner Circle
• Turning movements within intersection

Flow Parameters Delay Study
1000
Travel Speed vs. Design Curve Radius

40
Speed vs Density

• Completed a series of delay studies in September of 2007 for 
900

800
35
same existing roundabout approach during peak hour
30

• Intent of study – To determine the point at which demand 
Radius of Horizontal Curve (ft)

700

25
600
Speed (MPH)

500

400
20

15
15
meets capacity for an entry lane approach
100
300

200
10

5
• Parameters:
–Data collected in 10 second intervals
100
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Speed (mph) Density (pc/ln/mi)

–Counted number of vehicles in queue on entry lane approach
Density vs. Flow

40
Speed vs. Flow
–Counted vehicles travelling in inner circle upstream of entry lane
–10 second vehicle counts were computed to hourly flow rates
1800

A
35
1600
1511
1400

1200
30

–Time headways for 10 second vehicle counts were analyzed 
individually
25
Speed (mph)
Flow (veh/hr)

1000
20

800

600
15
– Data was extrapolated to evaluate the effects of sustained flow 
400
10

5
B conditions over longer periods of time.
200 1511
0
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Flow (veh/hr)
Density (pc/ln/m i)

14
Study Results Study Results
Figure No. 2 Entry Flow Rate and Inner Circle Time Headway vs.
Entry Flow Rate and Inner Circle Time Headway vs.
Inner Circle Flow Rate in Roundabout
2000
Inner Circle Flow Rate in Roundabout 40.00 2000 40.00
10 Second Opposing Flow Rate Data Point
Entry Lane Flow Rate, ve = 1800 - {vi2/(3600/t c)} - {(hmin/tc ) x vi}
1800 Capacity Boundary Where:
35.00 1800
t c = Critical Time Gap For Entry Into Inner Circle from Entry Lane 35.00
Time Headw ay
1600 vi= Conflicting Flow Rate In Quadrant of Roundabout Inner Circle
1600
30.00 hmin= Miminum Headway for Maximum Flow in Inner Circle

Time Headway in Inner Circle (sec/veh)

= 3600 / 1800 veh/hr = 2.0 sec 30.00

Time Headway in Inner Circle (sec/veh)

1400
Entry Lane Flow Rate (veh/hr/ln)

1400

Entry Lane Flow Rate (veh/hr/ln)

Volume in Inner Circle at Which Time Headway 25.00
1200 25.00
Begins to Allow Only One Vehicle Enter and Follow-
1200
Up is Inhibited. 10 Second Opposing Flow Rate Data Point
1000 20.00 Capacity Boundary
1000 20.00
Formula
800
Time Headway in Inner Circle that is 15.00 Time Headw ay
Minimum Acceptable Gap for Entry 800
15.00
600 Flow

10.00 600
400 10.00
400
5.00
200
5.00
200
0 0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0 0.00
Flow Rate in Inner Circle (veh/hr)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Flow Rate in Inner Circle (veh/hr)

Comparison to MUTCD  Comparison to MUTCD 
Signal Warrant #1 Signal Warrant #2
Flow Average 
(vph) Headway 
(sec/veh)
1,000 3.60
1,100 3.27

Flow (vph) Average Headway (sec/veh)
900 4.0
750 4.8

ADT Evaluation Roundabout Usage
AADT Major Road Est. Range Peak Hour  Comment
Flow for Single Approach *For Single Lane, Urban Route

5,000 193 to 360 Single Lane

10,000 385 to 720 Double Lane

15,000 578 to 1,080  Maximum Upper Threshold of Single Lane Roundabout with 

Low Minor Road Flow
20,000 770 to 1,440
25,000 963 to 1,800
30,000 1,155 to 2,160 Upper Limit of Two‐Lane Roundabout with Significant Minor 
Road Flow 
40,000 1,540 to 2,880 Good luck

15
HCM 2000 Conclusions on Capacity
• The flow in the entry lane is directly related to available gaps in flow within the 
inner circle and the acceptance of those gaps.
• Flow in the inner circle is not a direct function of flow‐through ADT.
• Entry lane flow is reduced when the time headway of opposing flow in the inner 
circle is approximately 5 sec/veh.
• Entry lane flow is shut down at flow rate of approximately 1,100 vph in the inner 
circle upstream of the subject entry lane.
• Don’t believe recommendations from Urban Planners when dealing with the 
selection of the appropriate traffic control.
• Future consideration of warrants for roundabouts should range from and overlap 
the warrants for two‐way stops, through four‐way stops, to at least the minimum 
warrants for traffic signals (depending on the volume and classification of facility).
• Hierarchy of Flow Parameters that Affect Capacity
– Movements in Inner Circle
– Flow Through ADT
– Geometrics
• Each entry lane approach acts as a TWSC governed by HCM 2000.

Computer  Capacity Analysis Options
• Macroscopic Software Models
Applications for  – RODEL and ARCADY (empirical data)
– aaSIDRA (gap theory + some empirical data)

Capacity Analysis and  – Many others
• Non‐software Options

Simulation – FHWA Roundabout Guide Equations (based on empirical 
data from UK)
– NCHRP 572 Equations (underfunded + not enough 
roundabouts at capacity in the US)

Simulation Applications Microscopic Simulation Models
• Analyze each individual vehicle
• Simulation is a valuable tool for roundabout 
• Can give delay, number of stops, queue 
evaluation, especially in the following conditions:
lengths, etc.
– Close interaction with nearby intersection
– Unique geometry
• Based on gap acceptance theory
– Complex transportation system • VISSIM, PARAMICS, Etc.
– Macro analysis shows high v/c ratio
– Visual presentation for public education

16
VISSIM VISSIM Advantages for 
• Many transportation applications: 
Roundabouts
– Signalized intersections – Ability to model actual geometry
• Links and connectors can be configured to any 
– Roundabouts geometry – from simple to complex
– Freeway corridors – Ability to model traffic interactions between 
– Transit facilities adjacent approaches or intersections
– ITS – Seeing is Believing
– Etc. • Public Education
– Good estimate of US roundabout capacity

VISSIM Advantages for  VISSIM Advantages for 
Roundabouts Roundabouts
Quoted directly from the paper:
– “(VISSIM) Simulated capacities of single‐lane 
roundabouts are noticeably lower than RODEL 
and aaSIDRA; however, they are comparable to 
fitted US field capacity data.”
– “Similarly, capacities of dual‐lane roundabouts as 
simulated by VISSIM are significantly lower than 
RODEL and aaSIDRA, and are comparable to US 
field capacity data for a certain fitted regression.”

VISSIM Advantages for  Simulation Limitations
Roundabouts Limitations of Simulation
– Model parameters can be changed by the user 
that affect results
– Steep learning curve
– Extensive inputs required to build a model

17
Links and Connectors Priority Rule 
(Yielding Behavior)
Right Turn

Connector

Lin
k
k
Lin

• Typically determined by engineering judgment 
and driving behavior in that region

Reduced Speed Area Speed Decisions

Route Decisions Project Experience:
Roundabout vs. Signal

SB LEFT‐TURN 
MOVEMENT

NB LEFT‐TURN 
MOVEMENT

18
Project Experience: Project Experience:
Roundabout/Signal Intersection Vehicle/Pedestrian Interaction

Project Experience:
Roundabout Interchanges
Roundabout 
Design

Design Considerations Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
• Vehicle speeds Basic Definitions using photo
– Entry and exit radii
– Circulatory roadway diameter Roundabout
bypass Lane
• Design vehicle negotiation of roundabout Inscribed
• Vehicle path overlap (multi‐lane roundabouts) Diameter Circulatory
• Capacity (RODEL, aaSIDRA, or simulation) Roadway Width
• Lighting
• Signs and pavement markings
• Vehicle sight distances Truck Apron
• Pedestrian crossing locations and refuges
• Bicycle facilities

19
Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Basic Definitions Using Photo
Geometric Basics
• Inscribed diameter Splitter Island
• Can range from 100’‐150
• Typically start with 130’ and adjust based on existing conditions
• Dependent on your design vehicle
• Circulatory roadway width Entry Width
• Dependent on your design vehicle
• Typically start with 15’‐16’ for a single lane roundabout Exit Radius

• Truck apron width
• Dependent on your design vehicle tracking
• Typically start with a minimum of 5’
Approach
Radius

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Geometric Basics FHWA Recommendations
• Entry width
• 18’ practical maximum

• Approach Radius
• Can range from 80’‐120’
• Typically start with 100’
• Affects your roundabout capacity and speeds

• Exit Radius
• Can range from 400’‐800’
• Typically start with 600’
• Affects your roundabout capacity and speeds

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Our Recommendations Benefits of Left Offset

• Desired deflection is easier to achieve

• Can utilize a smaller circle without reducing deflection

• Results in slower entry speeds

PREFERRED ACCEPTABLE AVOID

20
Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Roundabout Speeds – Circulating vs. Entering Roundabout Speeds – Fastest Path
• Definitions of paths 
• Conflicting speeds are optimally separated by no more than 6 mph
per FHWA Guide
• 6 mph is rarely achievable • R1‐R2‐R3 movement 
is typically fastest 
• A maximum speed difference of 12 mph is suggested path

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Roundabout Speeds – Fastest Path Getting Started
• Easy 5‐step process with a foundation of designing pavement marking 
• FHWA Guide provides this illustration to 
create these paths and graphs to 
alignments
measure the resulting speeds • Multiple iterations of these five steps will need to be completed to achieve 
• HOWEVER, these paths do not  the best geometric design
necessarily predict your speeds.
• Curbs and edges of pavement are derived by the pavement markings in 
• Proper deflection in advance of  accordance with the FHWA Roundabout Guide.
roundabout will negate the ability to 
reach R1 speed based on radius/speed 
tables  Disclaimer: There are many approaches to achieve a sound geometric roundabout 
• Actual speed should be measured by  design.  Our approach is just one simple method we have found to work.
acceleration calculations based on 
speeds where entry is the limiting factor

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Situation
• Simple 90‐degree 
intersection Step 1
• Both roadways are  • Draw center circle
2‐lane roads • Offset for circulatory 
roadway width
• Draw exits

21
Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 2 Step 3
• Fillet centerline to  • Fillet inside of exit 
inside of circulatory  lane with inside circle 
roadway for exits to create inside 
approach lane

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 4 Step 5
• Offset inside of exit  • Fillet with outside 
lane to match  edge of circulatory 
approaching lane  roadway
width

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Deflection Check
• Tangent to outside 
edge of approach 
Step 6 should line up close 
• Trim and review  to point where 
your geometrics inside edge of 
approach intersects 
circulatory roadway

22
Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Step 1
• Draw center circle to 
Situation 2 maximize deflection on 
• Offset  higher speed approach
intersection • Offset for circulatory 
• Higher speed  roadway width
on east‐west  • Draw exits
road

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 3
Step 2
• Fillet inside of exit lane 
• Fillet centerline to  with inside circle to 
inside of circulatory  create inside approach 
roadway for exits lane

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 4 Step 5
• Offset inside of exit  • Fillet with outside edge 
lane to match  of circulatory roadway
approaching lane width

23
Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 6 Splitter Islands
• Trim and review  • Once you are happy with 
your geometrics the geometrics of your 
roundabout, create 
splitter islands as 
illustrated Exhibit 6‐7 of 
the FHWA Guide

Single‐Lane Geometric Layout Single‐Lane Geometric Layout
Splitter Islands Alterations to Geometric Layout
• Where pedestrian  • Can decrease exit radii to avoid R/W impacts or slow exiting traffic due to 
facilities exist, the splitter  crosswalk.  
island should be at least 
50’ • Be careful not to reduce exit radii too much

• Additional modifications  • Can offset centerline in Step 4 additionally to create a longer splitter island
to your geometrics may  • When a median is involved, in Step 4 you can offset the line to match the 
be necessary to develop  inside approach edge of the existing median
required splitter island 
length

Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout
Multi‐Lane  Geometric Basics
• Inscribed diameter

Geometric Layout • Can range from 150’‐200’
• Typically start with 160’ and adjust based on existing conditions
• Dependent on your design vehicle
• Circulatory roadway width
• Dependent on your design vehicle
• Typically start with 30’‐31’ for a 2 lane roundabout

• Truck apron width
• Dependent on your design vehicle tracking
• Typically start with a minimum of 5’

24
Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout

Situation
Step 1
• Skewed 
• Draw center circle
intersection
• Offset for circulatory 
• East‐west roadway 
roadway width
is a 4‐lane facility
• Draw exits
• North‐south 
roadway is a 2‐lane 
facility

Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout
Step 3
Step 2
• Fillet inside of exit 
• Fillet inside of exit  lane with inside 
lanes to inside of  circle to create 
circulatory  inside approach lane.
roadway
• ONLY DO THIS FOR 
SINGLE LANE 
ENTRIES!

Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout
Step 4
Step 5
• Offset inside of exit 
lane to match  • Fillet with outside 
approaching lane  edge of circulatory 
width roadway
• Only do this for the  • Only do this for the 
single lane entries! single lane entries!

25
Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout Unacceptable Vehicle/Path Overlap

Desired Path of Vehicles Entry Path Overlap

Speed & Trajectory of vehicle at

yield point determines natural path

Striping and proper geometric design is crucial to achieve proper lane use!

No Vehicle Path Overlap Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout

Step 6
• Create tangents 
on two‐lane 
approaches to 
prevent entry 
path overlap.

Multi‐Lane Geometric Layout Questions?
• Capacity Study in Indiana
• Capacity Calculation Options
Step 7
• Trim and review  • Use of Simulation for Roundabout Evaluation
geometrics
• Roundabout Design

26