CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS OF

ROUNDABOUTS
M.V.L.R.Anjaneyulu
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology Calicut 673601, Kerala, India
mvlr@nitc.ac.in
Abstract: Roundabout is a form of at-grade intersection control, which accommodates
traffic flow in one direction around a central island. Roundabout is becoming more popular
due to its better operational and safety characteristics than rotaries and signals. Poor road
planning and sub-standard geometric conditions of roundabouts adversely affect the
roundabout capacity and thereby traffic flow. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the
capacity and performance of roundabouts for proper traffic operation. The empirical,
analytical and simulation approaches used for modelling capacity and performance of
roundabouts are briefly discussed along with their merits and demerits, suitability for Indian
conditions and are compared on based on experimental studies.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Road traffic congestion is a major challenge nowadays. The result of traffic
congestion is the urban streets with vehicle movements characterized by the slowness, delays
and increased fuel consumption. The rapidly growing vehicular traffic, limitations on the
construction of new infrastructure, hazardous environmental impact due to the emission of
pollutants, together with unfavourable delays suffered in congested traffic jams, are among
the basic features which necessitate the search for tools and techniques to improve the traffic
conditions by the best possible use of existing network of streets. Inevitably, this task would
not be significantly fulfilled unless a comprehensive study of different types of intersection
controls is carried out.
Intersection performance can be significantly improved by having a suitable
intersection control. Many types of traffic control are being used worldwide at intersections,
including yield sign, stop sign, rotary, and signal. Modern roundabouts have quite recently
come into play as alternatives to signalised intersections, which tend to control the traffic
flow more optimally and in a safer manner. A roundabout is a form of intersection control
which accommodates traffic flow in one direction around a central island, operating with
yield control at the entry points, and giving priority to vehicles within the roundabout
(circulating flow). The era of modern roundabouts began in the United Kingdom in the
1950s with the construction of the first yield-at-entry roundabouts. The primary
characteristics of the modern roundabout such as, yield-at-entry, deflection of the vehicle
path and entry flare, distinguish the modern roundabout from the traffic circle, which does
not have these characteristics.
Due to many advantages, like higher capacity, high fluidity, higher safety, lesser
operating cost, lesser area requirement, less vehicle operating cost, improved aesthetics,
roundabouts have become popular and also a subject of greatest interest and attention over
the last few years throughout the world. Poor planning and sub-standard geometric conditions
of roundabouts have a significant effect on roundabout capacity and traffic congestion. It is
necessary for traffic engineers to have a methodology for estimating capacity and delay at
roundabouts for the purpose of operational, design, and planning analyses. A large number of
roundabout studies have been conducted around the world. However, little attention has been
given to roundabout studies in India. Hence, there is a need to conduct studies in order to
evolve guidelines. This paper presents briefly the various methods used for capacity and
performance analysis of roundabouts around the world and their suitability to Indian
conditions based on experimental studies.
2.0 FEATURES OF ROUNDABOUT
A roundabout is a form of intersection design and control, which accommodates
traffic flow in one direction around a central island and gives priority to vehicles within the
roundabout (circulating flow). Roundabout is defined by following three basic operational
and design principles:
Yield-at-entry or priority-from-right rule - This rule requires that entering
vehicles yield to vehicles in the circulatory roadway. Vehicles in the circulatory
roadway have the priority of movement and all entering vehicles on the approaches
have to wait for a gap in the circulating flow.
Deflection on approaches - Deflection is the second design element that is unique to
roundabouts. Deflection is a design technique applied to the entries of roundabouts
that helps to smooth the transition between the straight approaches. No tangential
entries are permitted and no traffic stream gets a straight movement through the
intersection. The use of deflection in the design of roundabout helps to slow entering
vehicles and improves safety at merging points.
Flared Entries - The final design element that is sometimes applied to roundabouts
is flared entries. Flared entries are used to increase capacity of the entry by increasing
the number of lanes before the yield line, which accommodates more vehicles, there
by increasing the entry capacity.
2.1 Geometric Elements of Roundabout
Geometrics affect capacity and safety of a roundabout. The various geometric elements of a
roundabout are illustrated in Figure 1.
Fig. 1 Geometric Elements of Roundabout
3.0 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF ROUNDABOUTS
The prime indicators of the operational performance of a roundabout are the capacity
and delay. Roundabout capacity and performance characteristics are influenced by both
driver behaviour and intersection conditions such as intersection geometry and traffic control.
The important parameter that is influenced by the driver behaviour is the gap. A driver
entering a roundabout has to make a decision whether there is sufficient gap to enter the
intersection safely. The drivers in the approaching stream assess the gaps on the conflicting
stream. They decide based on their perception, if the gap is too small to cross or large enough
to safely manoeuvre their vehicle. In the former case they would reject the gap and maintain
their current position and in the latter case they would accept the gap and merge into the
circulating stream.
The different approaches available for the operational analysis of roundabouts are the
empirical approach, the analytical (gap acceptance based) approach and the simulation
approach. The empirical approach does not account for the gap acceptance behaviour of the
driver which is the major setback of it. Empirical models require an extensive amount of data
with sufficient variation of each parameter. These models are based on statistical regression
and represent driver behaviour by the relationship between geometric elements and road
performances. These methods are easy for geometric design purpose.
Methods based on gap acceptance theory represent driver behaviour based on vehicle-
vehicle interaction. Calculation of capacity using these methods requires fewer amounts of
data. These methods are easy for planning purposes. These methods are based on the
assumption that no driver enters the intersection unless the gap in the circulating stream is at
least equal to the critical gap. Certain traffic conditions (e.g.; queues that buidl over both time
and space) and variation among drivers cannot easily be analyzed by analytical methods.
Simulation models are based on the microscopic approach in which the behaviour of
individual components of the system is considered. It is possible to include many influencing
factors and conduct experiments under controlled conditions. Further, they can be used to
simulate a wide range of conditions with relative ease and without the need to collect the
costly data. It is also possible to create combinations of road and traffic conditions that are
hardly observed but which are felt necessary to be simulated by researchers. Many simulation
tools like Simtraffic, Corsim, PARAMICS, and VISSIM are available for the traffic analysis.
4.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The Highway Capacity Manual defines the capacity of a facility as the maximum
hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or
uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway,
traffic and control conditions. While capacity is a specific measure that can be defined and
estimated, level of service is a qualitative measure that characterizes operational conditions
within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. Capacity of
roundabout is measured in terms of entry capacity. The yield-at-entry rule assigns priority to
circulating vehicles. Under this rule, the roundabout can be considered as a series of T-
junctions. The entry capacity is dependent on the conflicting circulating flow and the
geometric elements of roundabout. While the capacity models used in UK and Germany are
based on regression analysis, the models recommended in Australia, US and Germany are
based on gap acceptance theory.
4.1 Regression Analysis
The UK roundabout capacity formula is based on Kimbers study
2
in 1980 and is:
Q
e
= A B Q
c

Where: Q
e
= Entry Capacity, vph
Q
c
= Circulating Flow, vph
A, B = Regression coefficients
Germany uses an approach similar to that of the UK. However, an exponential
regression model has been recommended to describe the entry/circulating flow relationship.
The formula used in Germany is:

/10000
c
DQ
e
Q C e

=

Where: C, D = Regression coefficients
This empirical formulation has the following drawbacks:
The data have to be collected at saturated flow level and extensive amount of data
with sufficient variation in each parameter is required, which is a painstaking task.
It is very difficult to collect the significant amount of data to ensure reliability of
results.
This method is sometimes inflexible under extreme circumstances e.g. when the
value is far out of the range of regressed data.
Reliability of predicted values depends on the methods of sampling and sample size.
Some geometric parameters, which are in model may prove to be statistically
significant, but cannot be explained logically.
In spite of all above demerits, regression models are easy for geometric design
purposes. These models will imply the driver behavior by the relationship between geometric
elements and road performances.
4.2 Gap Acceptance Theory
Gap acceptance models have theoretical basis, which represent the driver behavior
based on vehicle interaction. An advantage of this method is that gap acceptance technique
offers a logical basis for the evaluation of capacity. Also, it is easy to appreciate the meaning
of the parameters used and to make adjustments for unusual conditions. The development of
gap acceptance based capacity formula was fundamentally based on Tanners capacity
equation for priority intersection. Gap acceptance theory relies on the size and distribution
(availability) of gaps in the major traffic stream and the usefulness of these gaps to minor
stream drivers. In the gap acceptance technique critical gap is the most influencing parameter.
Roundabout capacity models recommended by ARRB, HCM and Germany are based on gap
acceptance theory.
4.2.1 Australian Capacity Formula
Troutbeck has modified Tanners equation to account for the bunching of vehicles in
circulating stream. In this method, the bunching of vehicles in circulating stream is described
by Cowans M3 headway distribution, which assumes that a proportion, (free vehicles) of
the major stream vehicles are non-bunched and have an displaced exponential (shifted
exponential) headway distribution and the others have the same headway of A(intra bunch
headway or headway between bunched vehicles). The probability density function for the
Cowans M3 headway distribution is represented as:
( )
( )

A <
A =
A >
=
A
t ; 0
t ; 1
t ; e
t f
t
o
o


Where = Decay constant calculated from the equation =
q
q
A 1
o

The cumulative density function of Cowans M3 headway model is represented as:
( )

A <
A >=
=
A
t ; 0
t ; e 1
) t ( F
t
o

The formula for entry capacity is given by

o
c
e 1
e Q ) 1 ( 3600
Q
) (
e
t
A t

u
=

Where Q
c
= Circulating Flow rate, veh/sec
t = Critical gap, sec; t
o
= Follow-up time, sec
4.2.2 HCM Capacity Formula
Using gap acceptance theory, Kyte proposed capacity formula that is same as for Two
Way Stop Control intersection and is given in HCM
4
as
3600 / Q
3600 / Q
c
e
0 c
c
e 1
e Q
Q
t
t

=
4.2.3 German Gap Acceptance Capacity Formula
Wu
5
modified the Tanners equation and proposed the following formula for
estimating the capacity of an entry to a roundabout.
) t ( Q
o
e
n
c
c
e
o c
c
e
n
n
Q
1 Q
A
(

A
=
t

Where: t
o
=
0
/2.
n
c
= Number of circulating lanes; n
e
= Number of entry lanes
A = Minimum headway between vehicles in the circulating flow, sec
Capacity models developed based on gap acceptance theory have following
advantages:
Under simplified assumption of gap acceptance theory, fewer amounts of data are
required.
Gap acceptance technique offers a logical basis for the evaluation of capacity and it is
easy to appreciate the meaning of the parameters used and to make adjustments for
unusual conditions.
Gap acceptance theory conceptually relates traffic interactions at roundabouts with
the availability of gaps in the circulating traffic stream.
In spite of a number of advantages, the gap acceptance theory suffers from the
following limitations
Reliability of prediction depends on the developed model and its assumptions.
When model gets complicated, method to obtain and verify data will also become
complicated.
5.0 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Performance analysis is carried out to know the quality of service provided by a
facility. Three performance measures are typically used to estimate the performance of a
roundabout: degree of saturation, queue length, average queuing delay. Each measure
provides a unique perspective on the quality of service at which a roundabout will perform
under a given set of traffic and geometric conditions. Delay is generally used as a
performance measure of roundabouts. For modeling the delay at roundabout two formulae,
one given by Highway Capacity Manual and the other given by ARRB, are available.
5.1 HCM Delay Formula
Average delay per vehicle as given in HCM is

(
(
(
(
(

+ + + =
T 450
x
Q
3600
) 1 x ( ) 1 x ( T 900
Q
3600
D
e 2
e

where: D = Average delay, sec/veh; x = Degree of saturation
Q
e
= Entry Capacity. Vph; T = Analysis time period, hr.
5.2 Australian Delay Formula
Akcelik and Troutbeck gave the following formula for calculating average delay,
which was adopted in the Australian Design Guideline (AUSTROADS, 1993)
6
( ) ( )
(
(

+ + + =
T 450
x D
1 x 1 x 900 D D
min 2
min

Where: D
min
= Adams delay given by
) ( 2
2 2 1
2 ) (
min
o o
o
o
t
+ A
A + A A
=
A
T
q
e
D
c

The following sections summarise the procedure followed for data collection,
analysis, development of capacity models, performance analysis of roundabouts in three
different studies
7, 8, 9
carried out National Institute of Technology Calicut. A total of seven
roundabouts, in two different cities of Kerala, were studied and the details of six roundabouts
are presented here.
6.0 DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
Data collection and analysis plays an important role in studies of this nature. Data
required for the capacity and performance analysis of roundabouts includes the information
about flow, headways in major stream (circulating flow), critical gap and follow-up time of
entry stream vehicles. Geometric details of the roundabouts were collected by organizing
plane table or total station survey and the base map of the roundabout, as shown in Figure 2,
was prepared. Geometric details of the approaches were tabulated as presented in Table 1.
Due to its many advantages video graphic technique was adopted for the collection of
the necessary traffic data. Video camera was positioned on the top of an adjacent tall
structure and was oriented in such a way that it covers each approach of the roundabout for
sufficient length. The video recording was carried out on a clear day and under dry pavement
conditions. The traffic flow was recorded during morning and evening peak periods. During
recording the built in timer of the video camera was switched on. The following procedure
was adopted for the retrieval of the data from videocassettes.

Fig 2 Geometric Details of R2 Junction
Table 1 Geometric Details of the Modelled Junctions
Geometric
Element
R1 R2 R3 R4
Approach Approach Approach Approach
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Approach width
(m)
4.44 6.00 4.51 5.79 6.52 7.35 4.96 5.58 8.32 3.98 10.06 8.58 10.62 8.32 7.38
Entry Width (m) 4.86 6.46 5.10 6.14 7.12 7.95 5.32 5.96 8.66 4.23 10.45 8.84 10.92 8.63 7.62
Entry Angle 27.2 25.3 - 24.50 27.00 25.50 21.00 28.20 32.30 24.6 23.20 24.30 23.60 28.20 26.30
Entry Radius (m) 24.5 30.2 - 29.00 22.50 24.00 32.70 23.60 21.70 27.40 30.40 30.40 32.30 23.20 26.50
Inscribed Circle
Diameter (m)
33.00 44.80 42.50 49.60

6.1 Traffic volume
Traffic volume data was retrieved from the recorded viedo with the help of the
programs written in C. As and when a vehicle passes the marking on the approach the
designated key depending on the type of vehicle was pressed. The program writes the vehicle
type and time of passage details to a file. This data was analyzed to get the classified volume
count for the selected time interval. For the both circulating flow and entry flow classified
traffic volume count were obtained.
6.2 Critical gap
Critical gap is defined as the minimum gap that all entering drivers will accept to
merge with the circulating flow, assuming that all entering drivers are consistent and
homogenous. In evaluating the critical gap it is apparent that a given gap must be either
accepted or rejected by a given driver. For finding out the critical gap Raffs method was
used. Gap required for the first driver, who is present in the queue at the entry to merge with
the circulating flow was used for this purpose. As the critical gap varies depending on type of
vehicle and entry angle, the critical gap values were estimated for each type of vehicle and
for each approach.
6.3 Follow-up time
Follow-up time for minor stream vehicles was found out as the headway between
vehicles utilizing the same gap in the circulating traffic flow. Headways were collected for
each type of vehicle with different types of front vehicles for minor stream flow and the
follow-up time for the aggregate data is also collected.
For follow-up time and critical gap, statistical test were conducted to check the
significance of the type of vehicle in front and the type of vehicle considered. It was found
that there is no influence of vehicle type on both follow-up time and critical gap. Hence the
weighted average, based on the composition of the stream, was taken for further analysis.
Values of critical gap and follow-up times for different approaches were tabulated as given in
Table 2
Table 2 Critical gap and Follow-up times
Parameter
R1 R2 R3 R4
Approach Approach Approach Approach
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Critical Gap (sec) 2.33 2.21 2.42 2.28 2.30 2.22 2.36 2.40 2.35 2.34 2.25 2.41 2.39 2.47 2.51
Follow up time
(sec)
1.41 1.72 1.77 1.76 1.71 1.72 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.75 1.76 1.83 1.77 1.75 1.74
6.4 Capacity data
2-minute counts of both circulating flow and entry flow were taken for all the
approaches simultaneously. This data includes classified volume count along with the
corresponding turning movement. This data was collected when saturation flow conditions
were present in all the approaches in that 2 minutes time. This data was used for the
calculation of the roundabout capacity.
6.5 Delay Data
During each 15-minutes of time period and when queue was present in entry stream,
individual delay to every vehicle in the queue was recorded. The average vehicle delay was
calculated. This average delay was used as observed delay in the performance analysis.
7.0 CAPACITY MODELS
Capacity models were developed using regression analysis, gap acceptance theory and
simulation approach.
6.1 Regression Analysis
Regression models were developed relating the entry flow and circulating flow under
saturation flow conditions. The values of regression parameters for linear and exponential
models are given in Table 3 along with R
2
values. Validation of the models was carried out
by comparing the RMS values for the validation data set. It can be observed that the
performance of exponential model is better compared to linear model.
Table 3 Comparison of regression models
Approach Linear regression model
(LRM)
Exponential regression model
(ERM)
RMSE
A B R
2
C D R
2
LRM ERM
R5-1 1533 0.451 0.576 1733 5.10 0.571 29.35 26.33
R5-2 2655 1.122 0.779 2032 7.21 0.766 34.75 37.98
R5-3 2010 0.212 0.674 2667 3.00 0.680 20.77 20.79
R5-4 756 0.211 0.450 898 6.00 0.441 70.18 34.13
R6-1 2075 0.8192 0.67 2236 6.36 0.822 29.12 26.71
R6-2 1772 0.699 0.831 1896 7.37 0.712 36.38 30.29
R6-3 2176 0.7976 0.754 2405 6.83 0.801 33.47 25.72
R6-4 1819 0.7953 0.684 1936 5.23 0.695 39.24 29.46
6.2 Models based on Gap Acceptance Theory
Capacity models were also developed based on gap acceptance theory for each of the
approaches and using the three model formulations. Figure 3 shows a sample plot of
comparison of three gap acceptance models of capacity. It can be observed that capacity
values estimated using Australian model are very closely matching the observed values.
RMSE values of gap acceptance based models are given in Table 4. It can be concluded that
among the gap acceptance theory based models of roundabout capacity the Australian
capacity model is best suited for our conditions.
Table 4 Comparison of RMSE values of Gap Acceptance theory based Capacity Models
Approach Australian
Model
HCM
Model
German
Model
Approach Australian
Model
HCM
Model
German
Model
R5-1 22.32 60.84 19.43 R6-1 9.70 27.60 22.18
R5-2 15.30 47.46 13.92 R6-2 13.23 28.77 12.80
R5-3 26.49 33.67 16.54 R6-3 11.76 23.96 10.42
R5-4 25.65 268.82 236.08 R6-4 12.41 18.85 18.27

Figure 3 Comparison of Gap Acceptance Models of Capacity

From the RMS values given in the above tables it can be concluded that Australian
gap acceptance model shows better performance than regression models.
6.3 Simulation Models
The study roundabouts were modelled in VISSIM. VISSIM is a microscopic, time-
step and behaviour-based simulation model. In terms of operations, VISSIM is extremely
flexible. With VISSIM it is possible to model any kind of intersection (or sequence/network
of intersections). VISSIM features required for simulating roundabouts are link and
connectors, routing decisions, priority rules and reduced speed zones. Two of these features,
link-connectors and priority rules, are directly related to how vehicles enter/exit the
roundabout. Two others, routing decisions and reduced speed zones, simulate lane choice and
speed within the roundabout. By properly defining each of these features any roundabout can
be simulated. Figure 4 shows the screen shots of roundabouts modelled in VISSIM.

Figure 4 Screen shots of roundabouts modelled in VISSIM
The maximum number of vehicles that can enter from each of the approaches were
obtained at different circulating flows and these values were compared with the observed
values. Table 5 gives a comparison of RMSE values of gap acceptance based and simulation
models.
Table 5 Comparison of gap acceptance based and simulation capacity models
Model
R1 R2 R3 R4
Approach number Approach number Approach number Approach number
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
German 24.58 31.75 35.22 24.05 24.61 21.01 19.13 20.77 23.72 25.04 31.79 28.98 24.83 23.75 17.72
HCM 18.99 25.72 28.06 20.43 20.28 17.98 19.26 17.38 18.35 22.49 25.44 24.58 18 18.94 12.66
Australia 10.46 15.99 16.44 8.68 6.15 9.06 8.75 10.55 12.33 11.42 15.97 13.42 10.63 8.35 9.83
VISSIM 7.79 3.71 6.91 7.77 6.61 6.04 7.53 7.99 6.39 13.17 6.61 7.69 6.04 6.17 4.21
The simulation model is found to be better than Australian model. These models
predict capacities fairly well at moderate circulating flows. Models based on gap acceptance
theory were found to overestimate under low flow conditions and under estimate under high
flow conditions.
7.0 PERFORMANCE MODELS
The performance analysis of the roundabouts was carried out using the average delay
as performance measure. The average delay for each of the approaches was estimated using
both HCM, Australian formulae and using the simulation model. The average delay for
intersection was computed using the average delay and volume for each approach. Figure 5
shows the plot of observed delay and delay estimated using gap acceptance delay models and
simulation model for one junction. The RMSE values of different models are estimated and
presented in Table 5 for different junctions. A comparison of the % RMSE error values and
plots reveal that Australian delay model and simulation model are having good predictive
capability of which simulation model is the better one. Among the remaining Australian
delay model is better suited for Indian conditions.

Figure 5 Estimated Vs Observed Delay - R1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-1 4 9 14
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

d
e
l
a
y

(
s
e
c
)

Observed delay (sec)
OBSERVED
VISSIM
AUSTRALIA
HCM
Table 5 RMSE values of different models
Junction HCM Australia VISSIM
R1 3.55 2.45 1.46
R2 4.79 3.25 1.33
R3 3.35 3.11 1.66
R4 6.77 3.55 1.28

8. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The geometric elements like central island diameter, circulatory roadway width and
inscribed circle diameter can be varied, one at a time, for a selected intersection and the effect
on average delay can be studied. Similar experiments were carried out at one of the
intersections and Figure 6 shows the effect of central island diameter on average delay. Other
parameters, including inscribed circle diameter, are kept constant, which means as the central
island diameter is increased, the circulatory roadway width decreases. As the central island
diameter increases the average delay goes on decreasing up to certain extent and then again
starts increasing. So, the ideal range of central island diameter for the simulated roundabout
may be fixed as 10m to 15m.


8.0 CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the various approaches for modelling capacity and level of service of
roundabouts is presented along with their advantages and limitations. The results obtained
from three studies were compared to assess the suitability of each of these approaches for
Indian conditions. Exponential regression model was found to be better suited for our
conditions when compared to linear regression capacity model. Among gap acceptance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
e
l
a
y

(
s
e
c
)

Central Island diameter (m)
models Australian gap acceptance capacity model is better suited to our conditions. The
predictive ability of the simulation model is better than other models.
For estimation of delay at a roundabout, the Australian delay model is better suited for
Indian conditions than the HCM model. Simulation model was found to estimate delay more
close to the observed values. Hence, it is recommended to adopt simulation approach for
developing standards or design guidelines, gap acceptance theory based models for
operational analysis and regression models for planning analysis.
References
1. FHWA, Roundabouts: An Informational guide, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067.Kimber, R.M.
(1980). The traffic capacity of roundabouts. TRRL Laboratory Report LR 942. Transport
and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England.
3. Troutbeck, R.J.(1998) Background for HCM section on Analysis of Performance of
Roundabouts, Transportation Research Record 1646, Transportation Research Board,
National Research council, Washington, D.C, pp.54-62.
4. Transportation Research Board. (1994). Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
5. Wu, N. (1997) Capacity of shared/short lanes at unsignalised intersections In
Proc.,Third International Symposium on Intersections without Traffic Signals (M. Kyte,
ed.),Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., University of Idaho.
6. AUSTROADS (1993), Roundabouts, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 6,
Association of Australian State Road and Transport Authorities, Sydney.
7. Sireesha B (2002), Capacity and Performance Analysis for Roundabouts, Unpublished
MTech thesis submitted to NIT Calicut
8. Raveendra P (2006), Modelling Of Capacity and Level Of Service for Roundabouts,
Simulation Modelling Of Traffic Roundabout, Unpublished MTech thesis submitted to
NIT Calicut
9. Caleb Ronald Munigety (2010), Simulation Modelling of Traffic Roundabout,
Unpublished MTech thesis submitted to NIT Calicut.