This PDF is available at [Link]

org/23477

Roundabout Practices (2016)

DETAILS
81 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-27208-7 | DOI 10.17226/23477

CONTRIBUTORS
Alek Pochowski, Andy Paul, and Lee A. Rodegerdts; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program; National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis
BUY THIS BOOK Program; Synthesis Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Roundabout
Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
[Link]

Visit the National Academies Press at [Link] and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Roundabout Practices

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 488

Roundabout Practices

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Consultants
Alek Pochowski,
Andy Paul,
and
Lee A. Rodegerdts
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

S ubscriber C ategories
Highways • Operations and Traffic Management

Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2016
[Link]

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 488

Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to Project 20-05, Topic 46-02
solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. ISSN 0547-5570
Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be stud- ISBN 978-0-309-27208-7
ied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with Library of Congress Control No. 2016959599
their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems
of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best
studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Associa-
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
Administration, United States Department of Transportation. or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Acad- expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research material, request permission from CRP.
practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many rea-
sons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; NOTICE
TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation
industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in Engineering, and Medicine.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are
highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessari-
directly to those in a position to use them. ly those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identi- Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.
fied by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and trans- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences,
portation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative
the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are con-
on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are
sidered essential to the object of the report.
proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies.
Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP,
and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted propos-
als. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the
responsibilities of the Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation prob-
lems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or
duplicate, other highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

[Link]
and then searching for TRB

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at [Link].

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at [Link].

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

TOPIC PANEL 46-02

ANDREA R. BILL, University of Wisconsin–Madison
WILLIAM BRITNELL, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington
JERRY CHAMPA, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
BERNARDO KLEINER, Transportation Research Board
CHRISTOPHER T. ROY, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul
BRIAN J. WALSH, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia
SCOTT ZEHNGRAFF, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta
HILLARY ISEBRANDS, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
WEI ZHANG, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)

SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF

CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications

NCHRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 20-05

CHAIR
BRIAN A. BLANCHARD, Florida Department of Transportation

MEMBERS
STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University
SOCORRO “COCO” BRISENO, California Department of Transportation
DAVID M. JARED, Georgia Department of Transportation
CYNTHIA L. JONES, Ohio Department of Transportation
MALCOLM T. KERLEY, NXL, Richmond, Virginia
JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University
CATHERINE NELSON, Salem, Oregon
ROGER C. OLSON, Bloomington, Minnesota
BENJAMIN T. ORSBON, South Dakota Department of Transportation
RANDALL R. “RANDY” PARK, Utah Department of Transportation
ROBERT L. SACK, New York State Department of Transportation
FRANCINE SHAW WHITSON, Federal Highway Administration
JOYCE N. TAYLOR, Maine Department of Transportation

FHWA LIAISON
JACK JERNIGAN

TRB LIAISON
STEPHEN F. MAHER

Cover figure: Roundabout. Courtesy: Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts via Greenman–Pedersen, Inc.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and
evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway commu-
nity, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through
the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the
Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Proj-
ect 20-5, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and syn-
thesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series,
Synthesis of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE In mid-1997, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Practice
By Jo Allen Gause in the United States identified 50 roundabouts known to have been constructed since the
Senior Program Officer beginning of the decade. As of 2013, there were an estimated 3,200 roundabouts in use
Transportation throughout the country. This synthesis documents and summarizes roundabout policies,
Research Board guidance, and practices in place within state departments of transportation (DOTs) as of
2015. The primary focus of the synthesis is on roundabout selection and design with a
secondary focus on performance analysis.
Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review and a survey
of state DOTs. Personnel from seven states were interviewed to create case examples and
more specific information.
Alek Pochowski, Andy Paul, and Lee A. Rodegerdts, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.,
collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic
panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately use-
ful document that records the practices that were acceptable with the limitations of the
knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice
continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY

3 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION
Objectives of Study, 3
Study Approach, 3
Synthesis Organization, 3

4 CHAPTER TWO   LITERATURE REVIEW

Roundabouts in the United States, 4
Roundabout Policies, 4
State Statutes, Codes, and Laws, 10
Public Outreach Efforts, 10
Roundabout Performance, 10
Roundabout Design, 13

16 CHAPTER THREE   SURVEY RESULTS

Roundabout Selection, 17
Roundabout Costs, 20
Public Outreach, 20
Roundabout Performance Analysis, 21
Roundabout Design, 22

26 CHAPTER FOUR   CASE EXAMPLES OF ROUNDABOUT PRACTICES

Roundabout Selection, 26
Modifications to Existing Roundabouts, 26
Phased Roundabout Implementation, 27
Design Vehicle Accommodation, 28
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts, 29
Effective Practices, 30

32 CHAPTER FIVE   CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

34 REFERENCES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

38 APPENDIX A Summary of Statewide Roundabout Policies

43 APPENDIX B State Agency Questionnaire

59 APPENDIX C Questionnaire Responses

76 APPENDIX D Case Examples

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to
grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at [Link])
retains the color versions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

ROUNDABOUT PRACTICES

SUMMARY Over the past 25 years, traffic roundabouts have gone from nonexistent in the United States to
being found in every state. In that time, state agencies have continued to update their round-
about policies, guidance, and practices, and this synthesis documents and summarizes these
practices within state departments of transportation (DOTs) as of 2015. The intent of the syn-
thesis is twofold: to be a useful reference to agencies that are creating or updating roundabout
and/or intersection control policies; and to provide updated information about current round-
about practices.

The synthesis was completed in three stages. The first stage comprised a comprehensive lit-
erature review of relevant published national materials and ongoing research projects, focus-
ing on the design, operational analysis, and safety analysis practices of roundabouts. During
the second stage, a questionnaire concerning the selection, performance analysis, and design
of roundabouts was sent to the 52 AASHTO member departments (50 states, plus the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico), and responses were received from 40 states, an 80% response
rate. In the final stage, state DOT personnel from seven states—California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington—were interviewed to provide case
examples and to elaborate on survey responses.

From 1990, when the first roundabout in the United States was constructed, to 2013, approx-
imately 3,200 roundabouts are estimated to have been built. In general, roundabouts have
been constructed at an increasing rate each year, and by 2010, all 50 states and the District of
Columbia had a roundabout. Single-lane roundabouts have consistently been the most common
type constructed, although the ratio of multilane roundabouts to single-lane roundabouts has
increased slightly over the last decade.

Agency policies, guidance, and practices regarding the selection and design of roundabouts
vary across the United States. Currently, 11 states formally require the analysis of roundabout
alternatives, and 19 additional states encourage the analysis of roundabout alternatives.
Although some states make reference to NCHRP Report 672 for design guidance, other states
go further than simply referencing the federal guidance and provide supplemental material or
have developed standalone guidance.

Of the 40 states that responded to the questionnaire, 38 have a roundabout in operation. Of

the two states that reported their agency has not built a roundabout on the state highway sys-
tem, one reported that a roundabout has been planned or designed but has not yet been built,
and the other is considering the construction of roundabouts. By comparison, the 1998 Syn-
thesis of Highway Practice 264: Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States identified
only nine state agencies with a roundabout in operation, under construction, or in design as of
1997; only about one-third of the states without a roundabout on their state highway system
was considering the construction of roundabouts.

The questionnaire addressed practices within state DOTs, including the primary reasons
for the selection of roundabouts, cost, public education material, and roundabout performance
analysis. In addition, questions were asked regarding the design of roundabouts, including the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

2

use of design guidance, design life, design-vehicle guidance, and illumination of roundabouts.
A brief summary of responses, detailed in chapter three, is provided here:

• The primary reason cited for the selection of roundabouts is improved safety performance
compared with other intersection options, followed by shorter vehicular delays and higher
capacity.
• Respondents provided planning-level cost estimates (screening or feasibility level esti-
mates) for mini-, single-lane, and multilane roundabouts, which range from $249,000 to
$2.05 million.
• The majority of reporting states have developed some public education materials to sup-
port roundabout projects, such as websites, videos, and flyers and/or pamphlets.
• To analyze roundabout performance, about three-quarters of the reporting states use
some form of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 model and SIDRA’s Standard Model;
about one-quarter use some form of the United Kingdom equations. (Because states were
allowed to select more than one operational performance model, there is some overlap.)
• Most of the reporting states analyze safety performance at roundabouts, using crash
modification factors, crash reduction factors, and/or the Highway Safety Manual predic-
tive methodology.
• NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd edition, is used by most
of the reporting state agencies for at least some design guidance.
• Most states use a design life of 20 years when developing the ultimate roundabout design.
However, the majority uses a phased implementation approach, and a few indicated they
would be open to an operational projection of 10 years.
• Half of the reporting states indicated that their agency had developed design-vehicle
guidance that typically conforms to large tractor-trailer trucks.
• All of the reporting states follow developed illumination guidance, with only one state
indicating it does not require the illumination of roundabouts.
To expand on the information collected in the questionnaire, and to get more in-depth
information on topics such as the selection of roundabouts, experience with using a phased
roundabout implementation approach, modifications to existing roundabouts, and the use
of accelerated low-cost roundabouts, several states were asked to participate in interviews. A
summary of information obtained from the state interviews, also provided in more detail in
chapter four and Appendix D, is provided here:
• Although interview participants cited safety as the number-one driver behind the selec-
tion of roundabouts, several of the interview participants cited challenges with evaluat-
ing roundabouts on an equal footing with other intersection control options.
• All of the interviewed early adopter states (defined as having built a roundabout before
the year 2000) had experienced the need to modify existing roundabouts resulting from
identified safety or operational problems.
• Most interview participants indicated they use a default design vehicle of a large tractor-
trailer truck for roundabout movements along state routes.
• Several interview participants reported experience with accelerated, low-cost round-
abouts, which involves roundabouts implemented at a substantially reduced cost or
time period compared with a typical roundabout installation. The early adopter states
planned for, constructed, and built roundabouts prior to any type of federal design guid-
ance, and while the interview participants indicated they experienced some challenges
and the need to modify their early designs, they indicated that their journey helped pave
the way for roundabouts to be installed throughout the United States. This synthesis
documents some of the past and present experiences of these early adopter states.

In addition, the current state of the practice at other state DOTs documented in this syn-
thesis emphasizes the lessons learned from these early adopter states. However, this synthesis
also suggests topics for further research, including the development of a third edition of
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, strategies for increasing the cost-effectiveness of
roundabout installations, and the effectiveness of intersection control policies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 3

chapter one

INTRODUCTION

In mid-1997, the Synthesis of Highway Practice 264: Mod-

Literature Review
ern Roundabout Practice in the United States (1) identified
50 round­abouts known to have been constructed since the
beginning of that decade. As of 2013, there were an estimated
3,200 roundabouts in use throughout the country (2). To deal
with the continual expansion of roundabouts in the United Survey
States, states and municipal roadway agencies now use a range
of sources and engineering judgment to establish policies
and design guidelines for roundabouts.
Case Examples

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY FIGURE 1 Study approach stages.

The purpose of this synthesis was to document and summa-

rize roundabout policies, guidance, and practices in place as STUDY APPROACH
of 2015 within state departments of transportation (DOTs).
Its primary focus was on roundabout selection and design The synthesis was completed in three stages, shown in Fig-
ure 1. The first stage included a comprehensive literature
with a secondary focus on performance analysis. The
review of relevant published national materials and ongoing
synthesis was intended to be a useful reference to agen-
research projects focusing on the design, operational analy-
cies that are creating or updating roundabout and inter­
sis, and safety analysis practices of roundabouts. During the
section control policies. The specific objectives included second stage, a questionnaire concerning the selection, per-
the documentation of roundabout growth in the United States, formance analysis, and design of roundabouts was sent to all
statewide roundabout policies, and public outreach efforts. 50 states, as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. In the
A survey sent to all state DOTs provided useful informa- final stage, state DOT personnel from seven states were inter-
tion on reasons that agencies have selected roundabouts, viewed to create case examples and more specific information.
planning-level cost estimates of roundabouts, state efforts
to quantify roundabout operational performance, the extent
SYNTHESIS ORGANIZATION
to which agencies used NCHRP Report 672 for round-
about design guidelines, whether agencies had existing This synthesis document is divided in sections based on how
standards or guidance for lighting at roundabouts, and how the material was sourced. The literature review is summarized
states accommodated design vehicles (specifically, trucks). in chapter two; the survey results are presented in chapter
Interviews with selected state DOTs addressed questions three; and the case examples are summarized in chapter four.
related to modifications to existing roundabouts, whether The report concludes with the identification of key findings
agencies were using a phased roundabout design approach and suggestions for future research. Consistent with all syn-
over the project life, and the use of accelerated low-cost thesis projects, the report does not contain policy or design
roundabouts. recommendations.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

4

chapter two

LITERATURE REVIEW

ROUNDABOUTS IN THE UNITED STATES States has increased in tandem with the development and pub-
lication of design guides and research (4).
Although the first traffic circle in the United States was built
at New York City’s Columbus Circle in 1905, with one-way
circulation, the roundabout was officially invented in 1966, Types of Roundabouts
when the off-side priority rule (meaning entering drivers yield
to circulating drivers) was adopted in Great Britain. Accord- Although the first two roundabouts constructed in the United
ing to NCHRP Synthesis 264, roundabouts were constructed States were multilane, the Kittelson & Associates website
in Australia and France in the 1970s, and were officially indicates that the majority of roundabouts constructed since
moved into practice in France in 1984. In the meantime, have been single-lane roundabouts—as of 2013, 71%. How-
however, in this country, traffic circles fell out of favor in the ever, this is a decrease from 2005, when approximately 78% of
1950s, as a result of operational and safety problems associ- known roundabouts in the United States were single-lane. The
ated with rotary intersections, including high speeds, weaving first known mini-roundabouts in the United States, 17 of them,
issues, and the tendency to lock up at higher volumes. The were constructed in 2000; However, FHWA has only identi-
first two modern roundabouts in the United States were con- fied 12 mini-roundabouts as of December 2013 (5). Figure 6
structed in 1990 in Summerlin, Nevada (1). displays the cumulative percent of roundabouts constructed
in the United States by type. (Unlike Figure 4, Figure 6 only
This chapter discusses the growth of roundabouts in the includes roundabouts where both the roundabout type and
United States since 1990, along with current statewide round- year constructed are known.)
about policies; statewide statutes, codes, and laws pertaining
to roundabouts; public outreach efforts; current research on Although all roundabouts are generally circular—Figures 7,
roundabout performance; and a snapshot of the most effec- 8, and 9 show mini-, single-lane, and multilane roundabouts,
tive practices related to the design of roundabouts. respectively—roundabouts exist that are not pure circles,
with oblong, elliptical, raindrop, and dumbbell shapes (6–8).
Examples include the oblong-shaped Rochester roundabout
Growth of Roundabouts shown in Figure 10, located in Rochester Borough, Pennsyl-
vania (10). The I-135/1st Street roundabout in Newton, Kansas,
In the first 10 years following the introduction of roundabouts shown in Figure 11, is an example of an elliptical roundabout
in Nevada, only 30 states were known to have built at least one (11). The I-70/Avon Road roundabouts shown in Figure 12
roundabout, as shown in Figure 2; and only four states were displays two examples of raindrop-shaped roundabout designs
known to have had more than 25 roundabouts. After the open­ located at the interchange ramp terminals (12). A series of
ing of two roundabouts in Fairmont, West Virginia, in 2010 dumbbell-shaped roundabouts are located on Keystone Park-
(3), every state and the District of Columbia had at least one way in Carmel, Indiana; the Keystone Parkway/E. 116th Street
roundabout, as shown in Figure 3. By 2013, approximately intersection dumbbell roundabout, as shown in Figure 13 (13).
3,200 roundabouts are estimated to have been constructed (2).

In general, roundabouts have been constructed at an increas- ROUNDABOUT POLICIES

ing rate per year since 1990, as shown in Figure 4. The data
in this figure comes from an online roundabout database from A 2010 study of existing statewide policies was reviewed to
Kittelson & Associates (3) and has been adjusted to reflect assess the status of roundabout policies in the United States
the likely number of roundabouts constructed in the United (14). The 2010 review was conducted by examining infor-
States by providing assumptions for the number of unknown mation available online, including state agency roundabout
roundabouts. These assumptions are based on the number of websites, or other state DOT web pages. The review split the
roundabouts missing from previous years’ records compared roundabout policy types into six categories. For the purposes
with the number of roundabouts that are now known to exist, of this synthesis, the two strongest roundabout categories
and does not include “nonconforming” traffic circles (2). As (“Strong” and “Justify”) were combined into a new category
shown in Figure 5, the number of roundabouts in the United termed “Preferred.” The five categories are shown in Table 1.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 5

FIGURE 2 Location of roundabouts in the United States as of 2000. Source: Rodegerdts (2014) (2).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

6

FIGURE 3 Location of known roundabouts in the United States as of 2013. Source: Rodegerdts (2014) (2).

FIGURE 4 Estimated cumulative roundabouts in the United States. Source: Rodegerdts (2014) (2).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 7

FIGURE 5 Timeline of roundabouts implementation and guidance development in the United States (4).

100%
Multilane

80%

Single-Lane
60%

40%

20%

Mini-Roundabout
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

FIGURE 6 Cumulative percent of known roundabouts by type in the United States

as of 2013. Source: Rodegerdts (2014) (2).

FIGURE 7 Mini-roundabout, Vierling Drive/County Road 79 FIGURE 8 Single-lane roundabout, 133rd Street/Lamar Avenue
intersection in Shakopee, Minnesota. Source: City of intersection in Overland Park, Kansas. Source: City of Overland
Shakopee (7). Park, Kansas (8).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

8

FIGURE 12 I-70/Avon Road roundabouts in Avon, Colorado.

Source: Google (12).

Based on the categories displayed in Table 1, each state,

FIGURE 9 Multilane roundabout, SW Stafford Road/SW Borland along with the District of Columbia, was assigned to a group.
Road intersection in Tualatin, Oregon. Source: Kittelson Information from the 2010 review and assignment was updated
& Associates, Inc. (9). for this synthesis. It can be noted that the categorization of
roundabout policy type was somewhat subjective, especially
in the division between “Allow” and “Encourage”—but was
somewhat more straightforward in the difference between
“Encourage” and “Evaluate,” which was often as simple as
the difference between “should” and “shall,” respectively. An
example of the policy text associated with each policy type
category is given in Table 2, which lists example roundabout
policy types from five states.

The number of states with each policy type was tabulated,

and is displayed in Table 3. As shown, the most prevalent
policy types were “Allow” and “Encourage,” with 13 and
18 states, respectively. Currently, 13 states formally require
the analysis of a roundabout alternative as denoted by the
“Evaluate” and “Preferred” policy type categories. The
remaining eight states have no formal or informal roundabout
FIGURE 10 Rochester roundabout, Brighton Avenue/Adams policy. The policy type categories were mapped in order to
Street (SR-68)/Rhode Island Avenue (SR-18) intersection in denote regional roundabout policy type trends (Figure 14).
Rochester Borough, Pennsylvania. Source: Whitman Requardt
& Associates, LLP (10).
The 2010 study on roundabout policies correlated the
number of roundabouts in the state to the strength of the state-

FIGURE 11 I-135/1st Street roundabout in Newton, Kansas.

Source: Burns & McDonnell (11).
FIGURE 13 Keystone Parkway/E 116th Street intersection in
Carmel, Indiana. Source: Microsoft Corporation (13).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 9

TABLE 1
TYPES OF ROUNDABOUT POLICIES
Category Description
None No policy or mention of roundabouts from the state DOT. Consequently, the state neither encourages nor discourages
roundabouts.
Allow The state allows the consideration of roundabouts.
Encourage The state encourages the consideration of roundabouts.
Evaluate The state requires the evaluation of a roundabout alternative.
Preferred The state requires the evaluation of a roundabout, and justification when a roundabout is not the preferred alternative.

TABLE 2
EXAMPLE ROUNDABOUT POLICY TYPES
Policy
Type Sample Policy Text (Source)
None N/A
Allow A modern roundabout is an alternative form of intersection control to traffic signals and [multiway] stop control
intersections. Therefore, roundabouts may be considered only when these intersection control types are warranted.
(Kentucky)
Encourage Those locations that meet or nearly meet [signal] warrants should be given consideration for roundabout installation.
Intersections that are, or proposed to be, all-way stop controlled may also be good candidate locations for a roundabout.
(Connecticut)
Evaluate Roundabouts are the preferred safety and operational alternative for a wide range of intersections of public roads. A
roundabout shall be considered as an alternative in the following instances: (1) Any intersection in a project that is being
designed as new or is being reconstructed. (2) All existing intersections that have been identified as needing major safety
or operational improvements. (3) All signal requests at intersections (provide justification in the Traffic Engineering
Study if a roundabout is not selected). (Georgia)
Preferred When the analysis shows that a roundabout is a feasible alternative, it should be considered the Department’s preferred
alternative as a result of the proven substantial safety benefits and other operational benefits. (New York)
N/A = Not Available.

wide roundabout policy (14). The study offered the following • The implementation of a roundabout policy allows for
observations: the development of uniform and simplified procedures,
standards, and regulations, thereby further increasing the
• An established policy typically indicates that a person chance for successful implementation of roundabouts.
or persons in leadership capacity are supportive of the • The establishment of roundabout policy validates round-
policy. abouts as an alternative.
• An established policy provides roundabout proponents • A policy helps to ensure the continuation of the round-
with a position of influence within the agency by having about program, especially when one of the early round-
regulatory backing. about champions leaves the agency.
• An agency with an established roundabout policy could • The formation of a policy helps to institutionalize
indicate an organization open to change and innova- roundabouts in the state DOT’s practice.
tion, which promotes an environment conducive to
implementation. Several states have adopted intersection control evalua-
• The enactment of a policy could indicate the breaking tion (ICE) policies to provide a more proactive method for
down of informal internal barriers, which otherwise
could hinder the potential implementation.
• With more states enacting policies, new and revised poli-
cies have precedents for success.

TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE
ROUNDABOUT POLICIES
Policy Type No. of States %
None 7 14
Allow 13 25
Encourage 18 35
Evaluate 8 16
Preferred 5 10
FIGURE 14 Roundabout policy type by state updated from the
Total 51 100
2010 study (14).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

10

evaluating intersection alternatives using performance-based websites, brochures, flyers, videos, and even coloring books.
design. Consequently, roundabouts are being considered (The coloring book, developed by the city of Bend, Oregon,
earlier in the project development process, alongside other educates children on the basics of roundabouts, with a goal of
intersection treatments such as all-way stop-controlled inter- demystifying the newer intersection type for a younger audi-
sections, signalized intersections, alternative intersection ence.) The Montana synthesis also provides an overview of
forms, and grade-separated forms. The ICE policies are helping education and outreach material used throughout the United
to identify short- and long-term benefits that previously were States, with recommendations for when and where different
not considered, including the evaluation of life-cycle costs (4). outreach strategies may be appropriate.

Some states are providing information on how to navigate

STATE STATUTES, CODES, AND LAWS
a roundabout: Figure 17 shows an example from the Indiana
Drivers Manual (25). States are also using websites to com-
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
(15) requires a yield sign on all approaches to a roundabout. municate to the public. The South Dakota DOT (SDDOT)
Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications reads as follows: site (26) lists information on:

A YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the 1. What is a roundabout
entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be 2. How to drive a roundabout
used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to 3. Roundabout benefits
control the circulatory roadway. 4. Pedestrians and bicyclists.
If all roundabout approaches shall have a YIELD sign and A screenshot of the SDDOT roundabout website is shown
all roundabout approaches operate under yield control, then in Figure 18, and a screenshot of the MDT roundabout web-
all entering traffic must yield to circulating traffic regardless site is shown in Figure 19.
of whether or not a state has a specific statute, code, or law.

Nevada, like many other states, includes information in its ROUNDABOUT PERFORMANCE
Driver’s Handbook (16), as shown in Figure 15.
This section documents methods used by state DOTs to deter-
mine the expected operational and safety performance of
PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS roundabouts.
Although the safety and operational benefits of roundabouts
are well documented, some states have been slow to build Operational Performance
roundabouts. “A major impediment [to the construction of
roundabouts] is the negative perception held by some drivers NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States (28)
and elected officials” (17), which has been termed “roundabout provided the first roundabout capacity model anchored to
anxiety” (18) or driver “angst” (19). In addition, confusion empirically observed performance in the United States at
about the differences between roundabouts and rotaries, along a national level. The results of NCHRP Report 572 were
with negative experience with rotaries, continues to linger (20). incorporated into the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (29).
As has been demonstrated on countless occasions, the public The HCM 2010 procedure derives approach capacity from
in most jurisdictions will have a negative opinion of round- a regression-based analysis and also incorporates a calibra-
abouts before the installation of the first one (21). According to tion procedure using gap-acceptance parameters (30). Sev-
a telephone survey of Bellingham, Washington, area residents eral jurisdictions have developed and documented calibration
prior to the construction of a roundabout, only 36% of those efforts, including the California DOT (Caltrans, 31), city of
surveyed were in favor (22); one year after construction, the Bend, Oregon (32), and the Kansas DOT (KDOT, 33). The
percentage in favor of the roundabout increased to 70% (Fig- Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) also recently completed a study
ure 16). The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) evaluating the operational characteristics of roundabouts (34),
developed a synthesis report on education and outreach related and the city of Carmel, Indiana, developed a new model with
to roundabouts (23), confirming public reluctance throughout higher capacities reflective of the local driver population (35).
the United States, and similarly finding that people remain
skeptical until they have driven a roundabout. Results from KDOT, WisDOT, and Georgia DOT (GDOT)
(36) were within data ranges reported by NCHRP Report 572.
Public outreach for roundabouts comes in many differ- However, the cities of Bend and Carmel have documented
ent formats. Some examples, though not a comprehensive results indicating higher capacities on roundabouts in their
list, are included in the Roundabout Outreach and Education communities, both of which have large concentrations of
Toolbox on the FHWA Office of Safety’s website (24), which roundabouts. Table 4 shows a sample of capacity model cali-
includes a range of options for public outreach, including bration parameters.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 11

FIGURE 15 Roundabout guidance in the Nevada Driver’s Handbook (16).

As of the writing of this synthesis, FHWA is leading a study the Appendixes to NCHRP Report 572 (38). Initial results indi-
to update the capacity equations. The results of this research cate geometric effects such as inscribed circle diameter, entry
are expected to be published in 2016. Preliminary results pre- lane width, entry angle, and splitter island width are not strong
sented at the TRB 4th International Roundabout Conference enough to include in the capacity model. Furthermore, the
in 2014 (37) indicate roundabouts are operating at greater exponential form, consistent with the model form in NCHRP
capacities than estimated by the HCM 2010 model based on Report 572, fits the same or better than other linear forms.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

12

FIGURE 16 Percent of drivers who support roundabouts—Telephone surveys of Bellingham,

Washington, area residents (22).

FIGURE 17 Roundabout explanation in the Indiana Drivers Manual (25).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 13

FIGURE 18 South Dakota Department of Transportation Roundabouts website (26).

Roundabouts in Corridors the capability of performing capacity analysis using U.S.

based models is desirable.” The report did not recommend a
NCHRP Report 772: Evaluating the Performance of Round- particular software package or packages, but instead clarified
abouts in Corridors (30), published in 2014, studied nine that “many other considerations, unique to each agency, are
roundabout corridors in the United States. As a result of the required in order to arrive at a recommendation for a soft-
study, a methodology for estimating travel speed was devel- ware package.” The report provided an evaluation matrix to
oped for inclusion in the HCM. The study identified “a need aid in decision making.
for corridor-specific evaluation to determine which form of
intersection control is preferred on a given corridor.” Lastly, a
corridor comparison document (CCD) was developed to pro- ROUNDABOUT DESIGN
vide a framework for comparing the performance of a corridor
Although the first roundabout built in the U.S. opened in
with roundabouts to a corridor with signalized intersections or
1990, the first state DOT design guidance documents were
other intersection treatments to arrive at a design solution. The
not developed for several years, with Maryland State High-
CCD includes information on different corridor users, typical
way Administration (SHA) and Florida DOT publishing
performance measures, and examples illustrating the use of
documents in 1995 and 1996, respectively. The first federal
the CCD.
design guide, NCHRP 672: Roundabouts: An Informational
Guide (40), followed in 2000. To date, there are still state DOTs
Roundabout Analysis that have not incorporated roundabout design into their design
manuals and guidance. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts:
A 2012 report, Roundabout Software Evaluation (39), eval­ An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition (6), was published in
uated software tools available for analyzing roundabout 2010, and officially adopted by FHWA as the second edition
capacity. The report found that “a software package that has of the federal guide.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

14

FIGURE 19 Montana Department of Transportation Roundabouts website (27 ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 15

TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CRITICAL HEADWAY AND FOLLOW-UP HEADWAY FACTORS
Developing
Capacity
Bend Caltrans Models for Wisconsin
NCHRP Report Roundabout Roundabout Local Roundabout
572 (28)* Guide (32) Guide (31) Roundabouts Evaluation (34) Georgia
Calibration (Nationwide (Bend, Oregon (California (35) (Carmel, (Wisconsin Calibration (36)
Parameter 2007) 2010) 2007) Indiana 2011) 2011) (Georgia 2013)
Single-Lane Roundabouts
Critical Headway 5.1 s 4.1 4.5–5.3 s 3.4–3.8 s 4.8–5.5 s 4.75 s
Follow-up 2.6–3.8 s 3.27 s
3.2 s 2.7 2.3–2.8 s 2.1–2.4 s
Headway
Multilane Roundabouts
Left 4.1–4.8 s
4.5 s — 4.4–5.1 s — —
Critical lane
Headway Right 3.4–4.4 s
4.2 s — 4.0–4.8 s — —
lane
Left 2.5–3.1 s
Follow- 3.4 s — 1.8–2.7 s — —
lane
up
Right 2.2–3.0 s
Headway 3.1 s — 2.1–2.3 s — —
lane
*Results from Kansas are similar to NCHRP Report 572 (33).
— = Not Reported.

Although some states make reference to NCHRP Report 672 of trucks at a roundabout, Washington State DOT (WSDOT)
for design guidance, other states go further than just referring guidance suggests, “Designers should also recognize that
to the federal guidance and include some material in their own among that percentage, WB-67s may only represent a small
manual or online, such as what is found in Maryland’s Round- sample of the entire truck volume on any given day.” WSDOT’s
about Design Guidelines (41): guidance allows trucks to encroach on adjacent lanes with the
intent to reduce the overall size of the intersection. Figure 20
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has adopted shows an example of this design technique for both round-
the NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, abouts and signalized intersections.
Second Edition as our Roundabout Design Guideline. The infor-
mation contained in this document is considered a Supplement
to the NCHRP Report 672 and is intended to document SHA’s
approach to the design of roundabouts. Illumination

Illumination at roundabouts is provided for safety and opera-

Other states have developed standalone design guidance. For
tions. Very few states have their own unique guidance on illu-
instance, the Kansas Roundabout Guide, 2nd Edition (42) mination at roundabouts. For instance, the Kansas Roundabout
states: Guide draws from resources including NCHRP Report 672,
which relied on the Design Guide for Roundabout Light-
This guide is intended to provide practitioners and the general
public with information and guidance related to roundabouts in
ing written by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES).
the State of Kansas and serve as a companion to NCHRP Report AASHTO also provides illumination guidance in the Road-
672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd Edition. way Lighting Design Guide.

Design Vehicle Accommodations

The type and size of vehicle that will use the roundabout affects
the design of the intersection, as with other intersection forms.
For example, the Georgia DOT Roundabout Design Checklist
(43) states:

It should be recognized that unlike conventional intersection forms

(e.g., signalization, stop control, etc.) the configuration and lay-
out of a roundabout can be dramatically affected by the results of
capacity, fastest path, and truck turning template studies and thus
often requires higher level of engineering during the concept phase.

Although accommodating larger vehicles is important, FIGURE 20 WB-65 Right-Turn Movement Over-Tracking
there are other factors to consider. Concerning the percentage Comparison (44).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

16

chapter three

SURVEY RESULTS

This chapter outlines the results of the background informa- were built as part of projects overseen by their state agency
tion collected in a survey of all state agencies across the United on the state highway system. Table 5 displays the approximate
States. The information was gathered from responses to a sur- total number of roundabouts, by type, as reported by each
vey questionnaire distributed to all members of the AASHTO state responding to the questionnaire, and Table 6 displays the
Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, which includes the approximate total number of roundabouts on the state highway
state traffic engineers from the 50 states as well as Washington, system, by type, as reported by each state. (The numbers of
D.C. and Puerto Rico. The survey was sent in February 2015, roundabouts provided by the states may differ from informa-
with follow-up reminders sent in March and April. Forty (40) tion included in the literature review in chapter two. Further,
states, or 80%, responded to the survey, as shown in Figure 21. although this survey included definitions describing each type
of roundabout, states may have interpreted terms differently.)
The survey was modeled on portions of the 1998 NCHRP
Synthesis 264 report, and where applicable, the results are com- As seen, the total number of roundabouts for all of the
pared. Although NCHRP Synthesis 264 recorded responses reporting states is approximately 2,707, with 1,997 single-
from 44 state agencies, only nine reported a roundabout in lane roundabouts (74%) and 616 multilane roundabouts
operation, under construction, or in design as of 1997. Of the (26%). Washington and Wisconsin both report having more
40 states that responded to the questionnaire for this effort, than 300 total roundabouts, while Missouri, North Carolina,
two states (Idaho and South Dakota) reported that their agency and Washington each report having more than 200 single-lane
has not built a roundabout on the state highway system. How- roundabouts. Wisconsin is the only state reporting more than
ever, SDDOT reported that a roundabout has been planned 100 multilane roundabouts, and is also the only state where
or designed, but not yet built. (As discussed in the literature the reported number of multilane roundabouts is more than
review chapter, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had half of the number of total roundabouts.
a roundabout as of 2010, but some did not have a roundabout
built under the purview of the state agency or the state highway Concerning roundabouts on a state highway system,
system.) Wisconsin is the only state reporting more than 200 in total;
North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin each report having
The data received in the NCHRP Synthesis 264 question- 100 or more single-lane roundabouts on the state highway
naire also included specific information about individual system. Wisconsin reports 147 multilane roundabouts on the
roundabouts in operation by state agencies and municipali- state highway system; the next highest reported number, 30,
ties. Because of the larger number of roundabouts now in is in Washington.
operation in the United States, this information was not rep-
licated as part of this synthesis. Approximately 45% of the total roundabouts reported
are on the state highway system. Approximately 42% of the
To assess when individual states began constructing round- reported single-lane roundabouts are on the state highway
abouts, respondents were asked the approximate year the state system, and approximately 60% of the reported multilane
agency built its first roundabout on the state highway system, roundabouts.
not the year the first roundabout was constructed in their state.
In some cases, respondents reported the year the first circular The states were asked to provide the environment (urban,
intersection was built on the state highway system. In these suburban, or rural) in which mini-, single-lane, and multilane
cases, the online database maintained by Kittelson & Associ- roundabouts were located in their states. The responses were
ates, Inc. (3). was consulted to identify the appropriate year. generalized—all, some, most, or none—in an attempt to
As shown in Figure 22, six state agencies had built round- increase the response rate; and were converted to a numeri-
abouts before 1999. By 2000, more than twice as many state cal score using a value of 1 for all, 0.67 for some, 0.33 for
agencies had built roundabouts (14 total), and by 2012, 38 of some, and 0 for none. Figure 23 is a visual representation
the 40 reporting state agencies had built a roundabout. of the proportion of mini-, single-lane, and multilane round-
abouts in urban, suburban, and rural locations. As shown,
States were asked to provide the approximate total number the most common reported environment for all roundabout
of mini-, single-lane, and multilane roundabouts in their state, types is urban, with suburban environments also common for
and the approximate number of mini-, single-lane, and multi- single-lane and multilane roundabouts. A higher proportion of
lane roundabouts that their state has jurisdiction over and/or mini-roundabouts are located in urban areas compared with
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Roundabout Practices

 17

FIGURE 21 States responding to questionnaire.

single-lane and multilane roundabouts. Rural roundabouts are always, usually, about half the time, seldom, and none—of
most likely to be single-lane roundabouts. responses:

• Aesthetic/urban design improvements

ROUNDABOUT SELECTION • Higher capacity
• Improved safety performance
States were asked to select the frequency in which they select • Lower initial capital costs
roundabouts based on a set of common reasons, items from • Lower life-cycle costs
NCHRP Synthesis 264 supplemented by reasons identified by • Lower speeds/traffic calming
the study team and the panel for this synthesis. The follow- • Responding to request from elected official
ing reasons of selection were provided, and states were asked • Responding to request from local jurisdiction
to provide the frequency using a Likert-type rating scale— • Shorter vehicular delays.

2012 North Dakota

2011 1
2010 Massachusetts Nevada West Virginia Wyoming
2009 1
2008 Arkansas Indiana
2007 Connecticut Montana New Hampshire
2006 Illinois Iowa
2005 Michigan Nebraska Pennsylvania
2004 Delaware
2003 Rhode Island
2002 Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Virginia
2001 Alaska Maine Mississippi
2000 Kansas Missouri New Mexico New York
1999 Georgia North Carolina Oregon Wisconsin
1998 1
1997 Washington
1996 Florida Texas
1995 1
1994 1
1993 California Vermont
1992 Maryland

FIGURE 22 Year state agency built their first roundabout on the state highway system.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

18

TABLE 5
APPROXIMATE REPORTED TOTAL NUMBER OF ROUNDABOUTS WITHIN EACH REPORTING STATE
Reported Total Mini- Reported Total Single-Lane Reported Total Multilane Reported Total
Roundabouts Roundabouts Roundabouts Roundabouts
Alaska 3 20 9 32
Arkansas 0 25 0 25
California No answer 253 44 297
Connecticut 2 20 2 24
Delaware 1 11 1 13
Florida 4 13 11 28
Georgia 3 130 2 135
Idaho No answer No answer No answer —
Illinois No answer No answer No answer —
Indiana 0 122 39 161
Iowa 10 37 9 56
Kansas No answer 77 34 111
Kentucky 0 10 1 11
Louisiana No answer No answer No answer —
Maine No answer 19 5 24
Maryland 10 114 37 161
Massachusetts No answer No answer No answer —
Michigan 1 50 30 81
Minnesota 2 107 32 141
Mississippi 30 20 6 56
Missouri 5 200 20 225
Montana 1 20 12 33
Nebraska No answer 6 4 10
Nevada No answer 10 4 14
New Hampshire 0 28 6 34
New Mexico No answer 15 15 30
New York 2 100 25 127
North Carolina 0 229 18 247
North Dakota 10 2 No answer 12
Oregon 0 60 10 70
Pennsylvania 0 20 1 21
Rhode Island No answer 3 3 6
South Dakota No answer 3 0 3
Texas No answer No answer No answer —
Vermont 1 12 1 14
Virginia No answer 145 15 160
Washington 9 210 85 304
West Virginia 0 5 4 9
Wisconsin 0 154 175 329
Wyoming No answer No answer No answer —
Total 94 2,250 660 3,004
The number of roundabouts shown are numbers provided by each reporting state, and may differ from information included in the Literature
Review section of this synthesis.
— = Not Reported.

States were also asked to provide additional reasons why Several respondents indicated that the two answers could
roundabouts were selected in a comment field. Figure 24 dis- be combined, but they were separated to provide a com-
plays the most frequent reasons for the selection of round- parison with NCHRP Synthesis 264, where 14% and 8% of
abouts by state agencies. To provide a visual representation respondents chose “shorter delays” and “higher capacity,”
of the frequency of selection, a weighted score was applied to respectively.
the responses using a value of 1 for always, 0.75 for usually,
0.5 for about half the time, 0.25 for seldom, and 0 for never. On the other end of spectrum, the most frequent reasons
that were cited as “seldom” (69%) or “never” (78%) for
As shown, the primary reason for the selection of round- selecting roundabouts are “lower initial capital costs” and
abouts is improved safety performance, selected with “always” “responding to a request from elected official.”
or “usually” frequency by 33 of the 37 responses (89%). By
comparison, 22% of respondents in NCHRP Synthesis 264 Several states provided written comments indicating other
indicated “greater safety” as a major reason for building reasons why roundabouts were being considered. These
roundabouts. Shorter vehicular delays and higher capacity responses included directives from the state agency to con-
were the next most frequent responses, with 68% and 51% sider roundabouts, and the ability to minimize right-of-way
of respondents choosing “always” or “usually,” respectively. impacts between intersections on narrow corridors or bridges.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 19

TABLE 6
APPROXIMATE REPORTED TOTAL NUMBER OF ROUNDABOUTS ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
WITHIN EACH REPORTING STATE
Reported Single-Lane Reported Multilane Reported Total
Reported Mini-Roundabouts
Roundabouts on the State Roundabouts on the State Roundabouts on the State
on the State Highway System
Highway System Highway System Highway System
Alaska 0 11 7 18
Arkansas 0 0 4 4
California 0 11 12 23
Connecticut 0 3 1 4
Delaware 1 11 1 13
Florida 0 11 3 14
Georgia 2 20 0 22
Idaho No answer No answer No answer —
Illinois No answer No answer No answer —
Indiana 0 5 9 14
Iowa 0 7 0 7
Kansas 0 13 7 20
Kentucky No answer 9 9
Louisiana 0 22 1 23
Maine No answer 19 5 24
Maryland 1 53 24 78
Massachusetts 0 4 2 6
Michigan 0 10 15 25
Minnesota 0 24 9 33
Mississippi 0 3 3 6
Missouri 1 55 15 71
Montana 0 10 10 20
Nebraska No answer 6 2 8
Nevada No answer 4 No answer 4
New Hampshire 0 8 1 9
New Mexico No answer 10 10 20
New York 0 65 25 90
North Carolina 0 120 16 136
North Dakota No answer 1 No answer 1
Oregon 0 1 1 2
Pennsylvania 0 17 1 18
Rhode Island No answer No answer No answer —
South Dakota 0 0 0 0
Texas No answer No answer No answer —
Vermont 0 6 1 7
Virginia No answer 110 5 115
Washington 4 80 30 114
West Virginia 0 0 4 4
Wisconsin 0 100 147 247
Wyoming 0 5 0 5
Total 9 834 371 1,214
The number of roundabouts shown are numbers provided by each reporting state, and may differ from information included in the Literature
Review section of this synthesis.
— = Not Reported.

Mini-Roundabouts Single-Lane Roundabouts Multilane Roundabouts

Urban Suburban Rural

FIGURE 23 Approximate reported proportion of roundabouts by location and type.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

20

Always Usually About half the time Seldom Never

30
Weighted Response Score
25

20

15

10

0
Improved safety

Shorter vehicular delays

Higher capacity

Lower speeds/traffic

Lower life-cycle costs

from local jurisdiction

Responding to request

Aesthetic/urban design

Responding to request

Lower initial capital costs

from elected official
performance

improvements
calming

FIGURE 24 Number of responses indicating the frequency of the use of primary reasons for the
selection of roundabouts.

As with NCHRP Synthesis 264, state agencies that had not asked to limit their responses to “single-purpose” inter­section
built a roundabout were asked to provide reasons. Because projects. The planning-level cost estimate was intended to
only one state agency had not built or planned to build a provide an estimate for the total cost for opening a round-
roundabout, compared with 35 state agencies in NCHRP about. However, it is possible that states may have misinter-
Synthesis 264, the results are less meaningful. However, the preted the question, and provided only the construction cost
one state did indicate it was considering the construction of rather than the total cost including the planning, design, and
roundabouts, whereas NCHRP Synthesis 264 reported only construction of the roundabout.
30% of states without a roundabout in the state system were
considering their construction. As shown in Table 8, the states’ planning estimates for a
mini-roundabout range from $50,000 to $1 million, with
States were also asked whether their state agency had an average of $249,000. The planning-level cost estimates
installed a roundabout in a location that had previously expe- reported by states for a single-lane roundabout is higher, rang-
rienced one or more fatal crashes; as shown in Table 7, 23 of ing from $100,000 to $5 million, with an average of $1.30 mil-
the 38 (61%) responded affirmatively. lion. Highest are the costs of multilane roundabouts, estimated
at $200,000 and $6 million, with an average of $2.05 million.
Roundabout Costs
PUBLIC OUTREACH
States provided the approximate planning-level cost estimate
(for use in a screening or feasibility level estimate) for mini-, States were asked to list the types of public outreach materials
single-lane, and multilane roundabouts in their states, and they have developed, and the results are shown in Figure 25.
The question did not specify whether the public outreach
TABLE 7 material was project related or for general education pur-
STATE AGENCIES poses. As shown, 30 of the 39 reporting states (77%) have
THAT INSTALLED
developed a roundabout website, 33 (85%) have developed a
A ROUNDABOUT AT
A LOCATION THAT flyer and/or pamphlet, and 21 (54%) have developed a video.
HAD PREVIOUSLY States were also asked to list other types of public outreach
EXPERIENCED ONE OR they had developed. Several states responded by saying they
MORE FATAL CRASHES
had included guidance about roundabouts on state highway
Response Number % maps, and several also mentioned TV and radio commercials
Yes 23 61 and video animations. Lastly, one state also added newspaper
No 8 21 articles and roundabout information included in the state’s
Don’t know 7 18 commercial drivers manual, and another state added that it
Total 38 100 has used a mall kiosk, bus rides, and simulator events. Four

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 21

TABLE 8
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE (SCREENING OR FEASIBILITY LEVEL
ESTIMATE) BY ROUNDABOUT TYPE AS REPORTED BY STATE AGENCY
Roundabout Type
Mini-roundabout Single-lane roundabout Multilane roundabout
Number of Responses 10 29 25
Minimum $50,000 $100,000 $200,000
Average $249,000 $1,296,034 $2,048,000
Maximum $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

of the reporting states (10%) indicated they had not devel- 22 states using the base HCM 2010 model and 12 states using
oped any public outreach material. the HCM 2010 model calibrated to local conditions. At least
one form of the SIDRA Standard model is used by 27 of the
As shown in Table 9, nearly all the states—37 of 38—use 36 states responding to the question (75%), with 20 states
public information open houses, and over half use all of the using the SIDRA Standard model with the environment factor,
strategies listed. In particular, states that use public informa- and 13 states using the model without the environment factor.
tion open houses list “attendance from agency staff.” Over Eight of the reporting states use United Kingdom (UK) equa-
90% of the states include traffic engineers involved in the tions, with four states using equations that are not calibrated
project, and 95% of the states prepare a presentation. to local conditions, and four using UK equations that are cali-
brated to local conditions. Some form of microsimulation is
ROUNDABOUT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS used by 22 of the 36 reporting states (61%).

This section provides an overview of the methods used by The states also provided information on the software tools
state DOTs to analyze the operational performance of round- used by their state agency to determine the operational perfor-
abouts, and those used to analyze their safety performance. mance of a roundabout. The list of software tools was taken
from the Roundabout Software Evaluation (39) report, with
Operational Performance Analysis non-English language software tools removed, and new soft-
ware tools available since the report was published added.
The states provided the operational performance analysis As shown in Table 11, SIDRA is the most widely-used soft-
model(s) used or permitted by their state agencies. As shown ware tool, used by 28 of the 37 state agencies responding to
in Table 10, 26 of the 36 states responding to the question the question, followed by Synchro and HCS. In addition
(72%) use at least one form of the HCM 2010 model, with to commercially available software packages, several states

35

Flyer and/or
30 pamphlet
Website

25

20 Video

15

10

No Material
5 Developed

FIGURE 25 Number of state agencies developing types of public outreach material as reported
by state agency.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

22

TABLE 9
PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE STRATEGIES REPORTED AS USED BY STATE AGENCIES
Public Information Open House Strategy Reporting States Agencies Using Strategy %
Attendance from “high-ranking” agency official 19 50
Attendance from agency staff 37 97
Attendance from roundabout design team 34 89
Attendance from traffic engineers involved in the project 35 92
Attendance from transportation planners involved in the project 26 68
Charts, figures, etc... on display boards 33 87
Flyer and/or pamphlet 34 89
Presentations 36 95
Question and answer session (town hall meeting) 28 74
Scaled plan sets with vehicle models 21 55
Video 29 76
Video of roundabout simulation 31 82
Public information open houses not used 1 3

have developed their own tools, including spreadsheets or crash reduction factors to analyze the safety performance at
implementing HCM 2010 equations. Further, several state roundabouts, and 17 use the Highway Safety Manual predic-
representatives commented that they specify different tools tive methodology. (States were allowed to select more than
for the analysis of different time periods (existing versus one response.) Five states have also developed state-specific
future), or double-check results using a different tool if the procedures, and two use information published by the Insur-
capacity threshold is in question. ance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

Safety Analysis ROUNDABOUT DESIGN

States were asked how their state analyzes safety performance This section provides the results of the survey concerning the
at roundabouts. As shown in Table 12, five states (13%) do not use of NCHRP Report 672, the use of a phased roundabout
typically analyze safety performance at roundabouts. Of the design approach, design-vehicle accommodations, and illu-
38 responding states, 19 use either crash modification factors mination at roundabouts.

TABLE 10
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MODELS REPORTED AS USED BY STATE AGENCIES
Model Reporting State Agencies Using Model %
HCM 2010 Model 26 72
Base HCM 2010 Model 22 61
HCM 2010 Model calibrated to local conditions 12 33
HCM 2010 Model calibrated to non-local conditions 2 6
SIDRA Standard Model 27 75
SIDRA Standard Model with Environment Factor 20 56
SIDRA Standard Model without Environment Factor 13 36
UK Equations 8 22
UK Equations uncalibrated 4 11
UK Equations calibrated 4 11
Microsimulation 22 61
Other 0 0

TABLE 11
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARE TOOLS REPORTED AS USED
BY STATE AGENCIES
Software Tool Reporting State Agencies Using Software Tool %
ARCADY 3 8
HCS 19 51
RODEL 9 24
SIDRA 28 76
State Agency-developed Tool 3 8
Synchro 20 54
VISTRO 2 5
Other* 4 11
*In comments, three listed VISSIM and 1 indicated Excel Spreadsheet.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 23

TABLE 12
SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES REPORTED AS USED BY STATE AGENCIES
Reporting State Agencies Using
Safety Analysis Procedure %
Safety Analysis Procedure
Our state does not typically estimate or predict safety at roundabouts 5 13
Highway Safety Manual predictive methodology 17 45
Crash modification factors or crash reduction factors (uncalibrated) 19 50
Crash modification factors or crash reduction factors (calibrated to 9 24
local conditions)
Other Responses 7 18
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2 5
State agency-specific procedure 5 13

Use of NCHRP Report 672 states indicated they did have criteria. Although the criteria
vary, five of the 11 indicated that they will move forward with
States were asked the extent to which their agency uses a single-lane roundabout if the roundabout is projected to
NCHRP Report 672 for roundabout design guidelines. As operate “acceptably” for at least 10 years. Three others indi-
shown in Table 13, 11 states use only NCHRP Report 672, cated the determination was on a case-by-case basis.
10 use material from other sources to supplement it, and
13 have developed their own guidance to supplement it. Three
states either do not use, or rarely use, NCHRP Report 672, Roundabout Design Life
with two using materials from other sources, and one state
having developed its own guidelines. However, two of the States also provided information on the roundabout design life
three states that rarely use NCHRP Report 672 indicated that used to determine the ultimate design. As shown in Table 15,
this report had been a primary source in the development 29 of the 38 responding state agencies use a fixed duration for
of their own design guidance. the design life, with seven setting the design-life on a case-by-
case basis, and four using a practical design policy. (States were
Phased Roundabout Implementation
allowed to select more than one response.) No state agencies
cited specific criteria or a fixed design year. The states using
States provided information on the use of a phased roundabout a fixed duration were asked to provide the number of years
implementation approach over the project life (e.g., a single-lane (Figure 26). Several states indicated more than one design life
roundabout expanded to a multilane roundabout). As shown in duration, but the clear majority use 20 years for the design life.
Table 14, 23 of the reporting 37 states use a phased approach.
States indicating they use a case-by-case basis or a practi-
If state agencies indicated they used a phased implementa- cal design policy were asked to share how frequently they use
tion approach, they were asked if they had criteria for deter- various design life options. As shown in Figure 27, the most
mining when such an approach should be used. Eleven (11) common design life is also 20 years. A design life of five years,

TABLE 13
STATE AGENCY USE OF NCHRP REPORT 672 AS REPORTED BY STATE AGENCY
Use of NCHRP Report 672 to Provide Design Guidance Reporting Number of State Agencies
NCHRP Report 672 is the only source of design guidance. 11
Material from other sources supplements NCHRP Report 672 10
Our state has developed guidance to supplement NCHRP Report 672 13
Our state uses material from other sources, and does not use, or rarely uses,
2
NCHRP Report 672
Our state has developed separate guidance and does not use, or rarely uses,
1
NCHRP Report 672
Total 37

TABLE 14
REPORTED STATE AGENCY USE OF A PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
APPROACH TO MULTILANE ROUNDABOUTS
State Agency Use of a Phased Implementation
Approach to Multilane Roundabouts Reporting Number of State Agencies
Yes 23
No 14
Total 37

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

24

TABLE 15 or more than 20 years, is not common, and a design-life of

ROUNDABOUT DESIGN LIFE CRITERIA REPORTED 10 years is used by only a few state agencies.
AS USED BY STATE AGENCIES
Design-Life Criteria Reporting State Agency Responses %
Case-by-Case Basis 7 18 Design Vehicle Accommodation
Practical Design Policy 4 11
Specific Criteria 0 0
Fixed Design Year 0 0 States were asked if their agency had developed guidance
Fixed Duration 29 76 on the accommodation of large vehicles (trucks, emergency

30

25

20

15

10

0
10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years 30 years

FIGURE 26 Number of reporting states indicating roundabout design life used by state agencies
with a fixed design-life duration.

Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

7

0
5 years 10 years 20 years Over 20 years

FIGURE 27 Frequency of the use of design life duration options for reporting states using
case-by-case basis or a practical design policy.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 25

TABLE 16
ILLUMINATION STANDARD/GUIDANCE REPORTED AS USED BY STATE AGENCIES
Illumination Standard/Guidance Reporting State Agencies Using Particular
%
Illumination Standard/Guidance
AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide 20 54
NCHRP Report 672
20 54
(IES Design Guide for Roundabout Lighting)
State-Specific Standard 6 16
Other 8 22

vehicles, farming equipment, oversize/overweight vehicles, it does not require the illumination of roundabouts. States
etc.) at roundabouts. Of the 38 states responding to the ques- were asked to choose between the AASHTO Roadway Light-
tion, 19 (50%) indicated their agency had developed guid- ing Guide, IES Design Guide, NCHRP Report 672, a state-
ance. Several states simply guide designers to use a WB-67 specific standard, or other guidance. However, because NCHRP
design vehicle, and at least four states are currently in the Report 672 illumination guidance is based on the IES Design
process of developing guidance for the accommodation of Guide, responses shown in Table 16 for either choice were
large vehicles. combined.

As shown in Table 16, 20 of the 37 states that responded use

Illumination at Roundabouts the AASHTO Roadway Lighting Guide, and 20 use NCHRP
Report 672 (IES Design Guide). Six states have developed
States were asked if they follow developed standards/guidance their own state-specific standard, and eight use an alterna-
on the illumination of roundabouts, and all 38 reporting states tive approach, such as Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
indicated they do follow developed guidance. However, one (1st Edition), and AASHTO’s 1984 An Informational Guide
state indicated that although it uses the IES Design Guide, for Roadway Lighting.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

26

chapter four

CASE EXAMPLES OF ROUNDABOUT PRACTICES

Interviews were conducted with representatives of seven alternative, or a DOT employee at headquarters or a regional
state DOT, who sere selected based on the following guide- office champions the roundabout alternative. In Georgia, a
lines and feedback from the Topic Panel: roundabout can be dismissed from consideration without a
preliminary scaled aerial sketch to analyze a roundabout’s
• Known leaders in the roundabout field potential impacts.
• A mix of early adopter and more recent adoption states
• A geographic mix of states The interviews also highlighted that in addition to dif-
• Preference given to panel member states ferences among policies concerning the selection of round-
• Preference given to states who have participated in abouts, there are also differences in the enforcement of
similar interviews in the past to allow for a comparative policies. Maryland, for example, strongly enforces its policy
review. requiring the evaluation of a roundabout as part of the devel-
opment review process; because of this policy, developers
The selected states, highlighted in Figure 28, are Califor- and the transportation engineers working for them are now
nia, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, and proposing roundabouts knowing that the SHA will require
Washington. The state DOT representatives were asked about them to do so.
their responses to the survey, and additional questions were
asked about the following five topics: In Georgia. more than half of the roundabouts in the cur-
rent program were selected and funded as part of GDOT’s
• Roundabout selection
safety program. Five of the seven states profiled indicated
• Phased roundabout implementation
that cities and towns now request roundabouts, while the
• Modifications to existing roundabouts
other two have an ICE policy in place that mandates a round-
• Design vehicle accommodations
about be considered as an alternative. Although many of
• Accelerated low-cost roundabouts.
Maryland’s original roundabouts were selected because of
This chapter summarizes the discussion of each of these existing safety problems at intersections, roundabouts have
items. become the first choice for many of Maryland’s district engi-
neers, regardless of the safety record at that intersection.

ROUNDABOUT SELECTION
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING ROUNDABOUTS
As indicated in the survey, safety is still the number one factor
in the selection of roundabouts. The interviews suggest that Several interviewees discussed modifications to existing
a policy, directive, or guide suggesting or mandating that a round­abouts resulting from identified safety or operational
roundabout be considered as an option also drives the selection problems. Most of the modifications to date involved reducing
of roundabouts, as do political reasons or changes in policies. the number of lanes because of excess capacity at the round-
Before the adoption of the ICE policy in California (45), the about. In many cases, this involved converting multilane facili-
performance of roundabouts was not being evaluated because ties that were overbuilt for future traffic volumes to single-lane
of the increased degree of difficulty involved with assessing roundabouts. An example is the US-50/Connector Road round-
the feasibility of roundabouts compared with other inter­ about in Emporia, Kansas, which was opened as a multilane
sections forms. After the implementation of the ICE policy, roundabout (Figure 29) with three lanes on the east and west
the number of roundabouts considered “increased overnight.” approaches; and was later converted to a single-lane roundabout
(Figure 30) through striping and an expanded truck apron.
However, despite policies that indicate a roundabout should
be considered, some of the state officials interviewed still At two locations, WSDOT reduced the capacity of multi­
struggle to get roundabouts included in the evaluation outside lane roundabouts to minimize minor crash patterns. By reduc-
of certain situations. In Connecticut, a roundabout might only ing the number of lanes on the approach to the roundabout,
be considered if the municipality requests one, a consultant it was able to reduce the number of points where crashes can
that has experience with roundabouts proposes one as an occur.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 27

FIGURE 28 States interviewed.

Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) has modified several round- Foundation awarded ConnDOT a national roadway safety
abouts from their original design. The 20-year traffic fore- award for the rotary conversion project.
cast was used for the design, and a multilane roundabout was
installed. One location had performance issues immediately,
and it was found that traffic volumes were low enough that PHASED ROUNDABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
a single lane would be sufficient. The roundabout was con-
verted to a single-lane roundabout using pavement markings As mentioned previously, at least five of the seven states inter-
and signage, and is operating acceptably. Because of this viewed have modified roundabouts by reducing capacity.
experience, MnDOT is now considering installing single- Because of this experience, all seven DOTs are now actively
lane roundabouts if the operational analysis shows that the attempting to size their roundabouts for immediate and near-
roundabout is at the margin of requiring multiple lanes. future vehicle demand. Some state DOTS are using phased
roundabout implementation to address the issue of overbuild-
State DOTs have also updated other types of circular ing them. Kansas, for instance, is now actively promoting the
intersection to improve safety and operations. Connecticut use of a phased roundabout implementation approach through
DOT (ConnDOT) and Caltrans have modified rotaries using its recently published second edition of the Kansas Round-
roundabout design techniques. FHWA and the Roadway Safety about Guide.

FIGURE 29 As-constructed US-50/Connector Road Roundabout FIGURE 30 Modified US-50/Connector Road roundabout in
in Emporia, Kansas. Source: Google Earth Aerial (46). Emporia, Kansas. Source: Google Earth Aerial (47).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

28

FIGURE 31 As-constructed I-495/Ritchie-Marlboro Road ramp terminal roundabouts. Source: Google Earth Aerial (48).

As mentioned in the questionnaire summary, most states expanded from two to three lanes in advance of development
use a 20-year design life for their roundabout analyses, and in the vicinity.
many states, including Georgia and Maryland, will open the
roundabout as a single-lane roundabout if that configuration is
expected to be sufficient for approximately 10 years. Another DESIGN VEHICLE ACCOMMODATION
factor, as the ConnDOT respondent pointed out, is the uncer-
tainty with current forecasting methods. The Maryland SHA The selection of a design vehicle is often based on roadway
pointed out that the Towson Circle roundabout in Towson, classification, with most states using WB-62, WB-65, or
Maryland, was opened as a multilane roundabout with two WB-67s as the default design vehicles for state routes at all
entry, exiting, and circulatory lanes on all approaches, and intersections, not only roundabouts. The default design vehi-
was designed to be expanded to three lanes in the future (Fig- cle for a state route is typically the state route movements at
ure 31). However, the Towson Circle was modified in 2008 to a roundabout, such as through movements on the state route
reduce the number of lanes, and Maryland SHA indicated that at a roundabout intersection of a state road and local road.
it will likely never be expanded. The design vehicle for other movements at a roundabout is
typically based on local agency guidelines and adjacent land
Although multiple states that were interviewed said they uses. In an effort to limit the size of roundabouts and provide
have built a roundabout with a phased implementation strat- speed control, WSDOT determines the specific movements
egy, only the Maryland SHA operates a roundabout that had larger vehicles are expected to make at an intersection, and
been expanded. As shown in Figure 32, the I-495/Ritchie- designs its roundabouts to accommodate large vehicles on
Marlboro Road interchange ramp terminal intersections were those movements.

FIGURE 32 Modified I-495/Ritchie-Marlboro Road ramp terminal roundabouts. Source: Google Earth Aerial (49).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 29

Oversize/overweight vehicles, including vehicles such as

low-boys with low vertical clearance, are only used as design
vehicles on certain state highways with special freight needs.
Most of the states interviewed use four-inch truck aprons
adjacent to the central island, but some of the state agencies
are considering lower height truck aprons to accommodate
vehicles with low vertical clearance. WSDOT recently modi-
fied its truck apron height from three inches to two inches in
certain applications.

GDOT tracks the routes of oversize/overweight vehicles

statewide, and is able to determine the types of vehicles
likely to traverse the proposed roundabout, and the move-
ments the large vehicles are expected to make at the inter­
section. Alternatively, GDOT will consider parallel routes for
infrequent movements of large vehicles. KDOT only tracks
oversize/overweight vehicles, so it is unable to determine FIGURE 34 Intersection of SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church
specific movements at intersections that need to accommo- Road in Jackson County, Georgia, during first weekend of
construction of the accelerated low-cost roundabout.
date an oversize/overweight vehicle movement. Consequently, Source: Zehngraff (50).
KDOT designs the proposed roundabout to accommodate
all oversize/overweight vehicle movements.
circle diameter. Construction costs were $63,000, including
ACCELERATED, LOW-COST ROUNDABOUTS full repaving and striping.

GDOT’s District 1 used state forces to install a mini-roundabout Two additional projects were completed under the same
at the intersection of SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church Road in quick response contract, which is a contracting mechanism
Jackson County, Georgia, over several weekends in April and with a $200,000 cap. In one of the locations, the GDOT Dis-
May of 2013. Figures 33–36 show the intersection before, trict 3 maintenance staff worked with a general contractor at
during, and after construction. the intersection of Cedar Rock Road and SR-81 in Hotch-
kins, Georgia, to rebuild the intersection as a roundabout. The
Flexible curbing was used around the circumference of contractor constructed the central island and grading out of a
the central island, which was backfilled with asphalt. Since rigid plastic modular curbing system and then District 3 main-
its original construction, the district has installed a concrete tenance staff laid the asphalt overlay on all approaches. The
curb. The project included widening on three of the four cor- total roundabout construction cost was $300,000. The second
ners of the intersection to accommodate the 90-foot inscribed location was constructed of a rigid plastic modular system.

FIGURE 35 Intersection of SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church

FIGURE 33 Intersection of SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church Road in Jackson County, Georgia, during second weekend
Road in Jackson County, Georgia, prior to construction. of construction of the accelerated low-cost roundabout.
Source: Zehngraff (50). Source: Zehngraff (50).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

30

Georgia is not alone in this practice. WSDOT has installed

accelerated, low-cost roundabouts at four locations. These
compact roundabouts were interim fixes, all constructed in
a weekend. Although there is no policy in place for this type
of installation, it has been embraced as a technique for rapid
deployment of an intersection retrofit. Candidate locations
for this type of installation are at the nodes of an interchange
where there are recurring backups onto the mainline. These
projects typically include pavement markings and signs, with
a budget of $200,000 to $300,000.

In 2007, Maryland SHA installed a 75-foot diameter mini-

roundabout at an interchange off-ramp at the intersection of
US 50 and Thompson Creek Road in Stevensville, Maryland
(Figure 37). The roundabout was installed using only thermo­
plastic pavement markings. No curbing or pavement was used
FIGURE 36 Accelerated low-cost roundabout installation at the
intersection of SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church Road in Jackson
for the installation. The only additional materials used were
County, Georgia. Source: Zehngraff (50). vertical flexible posts to delineate the center island. The cost
of the installation was around $50,000, and the roundabout
has been in place since 2007.

Both of these low-cost implementations were delivered in

less time that a typical roundabout project, which entails a rig- EFFECTIVE PRACTICES
orous review process. These projects also yielded a high rate of
return on investment. The SR-11/SR-124/Galilee Church Road This section provides a summary of effective practices and
roundabout in particular was found to have reduced crashes at lessons learned identified from the DOT interviews. Because
the intersection and shortened a quarter-mile stopped queue to each state is at a different stage in their experience with round-
an eight-to-10-car rolling queue. abouts, the primary topics and key takeaways are unique.

FIGURE 37 Accelerated low-cost roundabout installation at the intersection of US-50/Thompson Creek in Stevensville, Maryland.
Source: Jenior (51).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 31

California safety concerns. Many have been constructed at the local

level, especially in Lawrence and suburbs of Kansas City.
Roundabouts have been being built in California since the In the past, KDOT has provided peer review support to
early 1990s. Over the past decade roundabouts were primar- local jurisdictions as well, which has helped keep the qual-
ily considered through the Caltrans safety program. With the ity of roundabout designs high, even when KDOT is not
advent of the ICE policy in 2013, roundabouts have emerged officially involved.
as a preferred intersection type, consistently having the opti-
mum outcome in comparisons of different intersection types.
Hence, the ICE process has had a dramatic effect on the con- Maryland
sideration of roundabouts in California.
Maryland (SHA) established the nation’s first state roundabout
program in the early 1990s. In the early years, SHA concen-
Connecticut trated on identifying intersections with a crash history that
could be mitigated by roundabouts, and required all SHA
ConnDOT is both building roundabouts and modifying rota- districts to identify intersections. Later, SHA developed a
ries, which has led to improved safety performance. The policy requiring the evaluation of roundabouts, and because
award-winning Killingworth Rotary Modification project of Maryland’s positive experience with roundabouts and a
reduced the frequency and severity of crashes by incorporat- strict enforcement of the policy, roundabouts have become
ing elements of roundabout design. Although roundabouts the default intersection choice in the state. Many of SHA’s early
are not the preferred type of intersection control, Connecticut multilane roundabouts were later scaled back because of safety
is looking to incorporate stronger language in the upcoming or operational issues, and because of this experience, SHA
revision to the roadway design manual. ConnDOT is look- has made a strong push towards a phased implementation
ing at cost-effective ways to deliver all types of transporta- approach at roundabouts. Similar, because of its experience,
tion projects, including scaling back the design horizon to a SHA is spending much more on roundabout projects than
10-year design period. in the early 1990s by making sure that all roundabouts have
curbs, gutters, and illumination.
Georgia
Minnesota
GDOT built its first single-lane roundabout in Georgia in 1999,
but it was not until 2008 that multilane roundabouts were Since 2009, MnDOT has been using an ICE process for select-
allowed to be built in the state. GDOT has become very judi- ing intersection types. However, it was not until a few years
cious about the number of lanes they use in their roundabouts. ago that MnDOT started formally evaluating roundabouts as
When evaluating a multilane roundabout, GDOT attempts to part of the ICE process, which is the primary mechanism for
use a phased implementation approach. If a single-lane round- roundabouts selection. MnDOT has found that excess capacity
about can operate effectively for seven to 10 years, GDOT will at multilane roundabouts has resulted in an increased number
open it as a single-lane roundabout designed for future expan- of property damage only crashes. Because of this experience,
sion. GDOT has developed a checklist for roundabout designs, when the anticipated future traffic volumes dictate the need for
and it has developed its own roundabout analysis tool based on a multilane roundabout, MnDOT evaluates whether the round-
the HCM 2010 model. For future-year analyses, GDOT uses about can be opened as a single-lane roundabout with capac-
calibration factors from California and Bend, Oregon. GDOT ity added when required. Recently, two multi­lane roundabouts
has built several low-cost roundabouts that were installed in were reduced to single-lane roundabouts, and the number of
a matter of days. GDOT sees the benefit of reduced crashes crashes was reduced accordingly.
and improved operations through roundabout implementation,
which may not always require a “textbook” approach.
Washington

Kansas WSDOT has constructed more than 100 roundabouts on the

state highway system and has been building roundabouts for
KDOT has been viewed as a leader in the implementation of more than 15 years. WSDOT has developed state-specific
roundabouts in the United States. The first edition of the roundabout design guidance. Working with the trucking indus-
Kansas Roundabout Guide was adopted by several other states, try, WSDOT developed design techniques aimed at accom-
and even a Canadian province, British Columbia. In the sec- modating large vehicles while still maintaining compact
ond edition of the guide, released in 2014, KDOT developed roundabout designs, including specifying curbing details and
guidance to support the oversize/overweight vehicles that are allowing lane straddling. The combination of these design
becoming more common in Kansas. Roundabouts in Kansas, techniques helps both to accommodate larger vehicles and
especially in the more rural areas, are responses to identified keep vehicle speeds low.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

32

chapter five

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This synthesis provides state-of-the-practice information about multilane roundabouts averaging $249,000, $1.30 mil-
roundabout practices within state departments of transportation lion, and $2.05 million, respectively.
(DOTs) across the United States. Information about current • The majority of reporting states have public education
roundabout practices was taken from literature, from 40 state materials to support roundabout projects. Most have cre-
responses to a questionnaire, and interviews with state DOT ated a roundabout website and a flyer and/or pamphlet.
personnel from seven states. About half have developed videos. Only a few respon-
dents indicated they had not developed any public out-
The growth in roundabouts over the past 25 years, both in reach material.
total numbers and their broad application and use across the • To analyze roundabout performance, about three quar-
country, is notable. The 1998 Synthesis of Highway Prac- ters of the reporting states use some form of the Highway
tice 264: Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States Capacity Manual 2010 model and SIDRA’s Standard
provides a useful comparison between roundabout practices Model, and about a one-quarter of the reporting states
prior to the publication of the first FHWA roundabout guide use some form of the United Kingdom equations.
in 2000 and today. In 1997, only nine state agencies had a • Most of the reporting states analyze safety performance
roundabout in operation, and only a third of the states with- at roundabouts. About half of the reporting states use
out a roundabout on their state highway system were con- crash modification factors, crash reduction factors, and/
sidering the construction of roundabouts. Today, 38 of the or the Highway Safety Manual predictive methodology
40 reporting states have a roundabout in operation. Of the to measure safety performance. A handful of states have
two states reporting that their agency has no roundabout on also developed state-specific procedures, and a couple
the state highway system, one reported that a roundabout has of states use information published by the Insurance
been planned or designed but has not yet been built, and the Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
other is considering the construction of roundabouts. • NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational
Guide, 2nd edition, is used by most of the reporting
According to the state questionnaire responses and inter- state agencies for design guidance. About one-quarter
views, current roundabout practices can be summarized as of the states only use NCHRP Report 672, another one-
follows: quarter uses material from other sources to supplement
their use of NCHRP Report 672, and a third quarter
• Improved safety performance is the primary reason cited have developed their own guidance to supplement this
for the selection of roundabouts compared with other report. Only a few states either do not use, or rarely
intersection options. Shorter vehicular delays and higher use, NCHRP Report 672; two use materials from other
capacity were the next most frequent responses. The rea- sources, and one has developed their own guidelines.
sons least frequently reported for selection of round- • Most states use a design life of 20 years when developing
abouts were lower initial capital costs and requests from the ultimate roundabout design. However, more than half
an election official. of the states use a phased implementation approach over
• However, despite the documented safety performance the project life, indicating they prefer to open a round-
of roundabouts compared with other intersection control about in a single-lane or other smaller configuration, with
options, several interviewed states cited continuing chal- the ability to expand the roundabout when traffic volume
lenges with evaluating roundabouts on an equal footing increases. About a quarter of the state reported developing
with other options. Several states have developed poli- criteria for the use of a phased implementation approach,
cies requiring the evaluation of roundabouts to varying and a handful of states indicated they would move for-
degrees of success depending on how well the policy is ward with a single-lane roundabout if it were projected to
enforced, In other states, the use of Intersection Control operate “acceptably” for at least 10 years.
Evaluation policies has had the effect of increasing the • Many states, especially the early-adopter states (defined
number of roundabouts evaluated. as having built a roundabout before the year 2000), have
• State agencies provided planning-level costs (screening experienced the need to modify existing roundabouts
or feasibility level estimate) of mini-, single-lane, and owing to identified safety or operational problems. Most

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 33

of the modifications involved reducing the number of sis, has been developed in the interim, and several states
lanes owing to excess capacity at multilane facilities have developed their own design guidance to supple-
that were overbuilt. Largely because of this experience, ment and/or advance the information. As documented in
all seven interview participants indicated they use a the responses to survey questions and state interviews,
phased approach to roundabout implementation and there is also a need for continuing information about
are actively attempting to size their initial constructed definitions and safety issues related to roundabouts. The
configuration for the vehicle demand that will be pres- production of a third edition of Roundabouts: An Infor-
ent at the intersection in the immediate and near future. mational Guide would help to disseminate this updated
• Half of the reporting states indicated their agency had information to practitioners.
developed design-vehicle guidance. Several states sup- • Several state agencies expressed a desire to identify and
ply guidance to the use of a large tractor-trailer truck disseminate strategies for limiting the installation costs
(WB-67) design vehicle, and a few others are currently of roundabouts. Specific items identified as contributing
in the process of developing guidance for the accom- to the rising costs if roundabout implementation include
modation of large vehicles. The interview participants the maintenance of traffic during construction, the use
indicated they are using different techniques to accom- of curb-and-gutter sections, and illumination. Although
modate oversize/overweight vehicles at roundabouts, research has been conducted documenting the safety
depending on how oversize/overweight vehicles are benefits of roundabouts, limited research has been con-
tracked across their state highway system. ducted on whether individual items, such as illumination,
• All reporting states follow developed illumination guid- can be excluded from the roundabout without sacrific-
ance, with only one state indicating it does not require ing the overall safety benefits. In addition, identifying
the illumination of roundabouts. More than half of the particular applications, such as interchange ramp termi-
reporting states use the AASHTO Roadway Lighting nals where roundabouts may have additional cost ben-
Guide, about one-quarter use the IES Design Guide, and efits, would be beneficial for states looking to maximize
about one-third use NCHRP Report 672. A handful of cost-effectiveness.
states have developed their own state-specific standard. • States are searching for ways to ensure roundabouts
• Several states have installed accelerated, low-cost round- and other intersection forms are evaluated using state-
abouts, which involves roundabouts implemented at a of-the-practice methods and measures. A comparison
substantially reduced cost or time. For instance, the Geor- of rate of implementation among states with different
gia DOT installed a mini-roundabout in a rural location roundabout policies and particularly Intersection Con-
over several weekends. The Washington State DOT and trol Evaluation policies might shed more light on their
Maryland State Highway Administration also have expe- effectiveness. Furthermore, research on the enforce-
rience with accelerated, low-cost roundabouts. ment of policies and the development and use of round-
about programs at the state level may identify effective
After reviewing the responses to the questionnaire and strategies for ensuring the consideration of reasonable
interviews, some key questions still remain: What are effec- intersection control options.
tive strategies for ensuring roundabouts and other intersection • Almost all reporting states have developed public out-
forms are consistently evaluated using state of the practice reach materials related to roundabouts. However, addi-
methods and measures? What strategies can be used to reduce tional research on their effectiveness could be helpful
the total cost of a roundabout installation? Is it better to con- in identifying successful strategies and prioritizing
struct roundabouts without lighting than to not construct a resources towards them, and may help alleviate push-
roundabout at all? back against roundabouts.
• The majority of states are now using a phased implemen-
The following key topics emerged from this synthesis as tation approach in the design of roundabouts. However,
areas recommended for future research: because of the small number of roundabouts expanded to
date, before/after data related to the planned expansion
• There is a general need continually to advance the plan- of roundabouts are limited. If the number of roundabouts
ning, evaluation, and design guidance available related that are expanded to their ultimate footprint increases
to roundabouts. NCHRP Report 672, used by almost over the next few years, additional research on the most
all of the reporting states, provided the most up-to-date effective practices for planning and funding expansion,
guidance available when it was published in 2010. A sig- along with managing traffic during reconstruction, could
nificant amount of new material, including this synthe- be helpful to state agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

34

REFERENCES

1. Jacquemart, G., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice FHWA, Washington, D.C., Sept. 4, 2014 [Online]. Avail-
264: Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States, able: [Link]
Transportation Research Board, National Research intsafestratbro/[Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. 18. Editorial, The Hutchinson (Kansas) News, Nov. 9, 1999.
2. Rodegerdts, L., “Status of Roundabouts in North America: 19. Mulvany, L. and M. Phillis, “Debate Goes in Circles
A Snapshot of the Inventory Database at roundabouts.” About Benefits of Roundabouts,” July 27, 2013 [Online].
[Link], Seattle, Wash., April 2014. Available: [Link]
3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Inventory Database, Modern debate-goes-in-circles-about-benefits-of-roundabouts-
Roundabouts—The Web Site, 2015 [Online]. Available: [Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
[Link] [accessed Feb. 5, 2015]. 20. Wallwork, M., “A Traffic Circle and a Roundabout Are
4. Isebrands, H., “Implementing Modern Roundabouts in Not the Same,” Herald-Tribune, June 19, 2009 [Online].
the United States, TR News, Vol. 295, 2014. Available: [Link]
5. Zhang, W., “Design and Application of Mini-Roundabouts 20090621/COLUMNIST/906211023?p=1&tc=pg
in the United States,” ITE Mid-Colonial District & Mid- [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
Atlantic District 2014 Annual Meeting, May 19, 2014 21. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ITE
[Online]. Available: [Link] Working Group on Roundabout Accessibility Issues—
2014_05_18_2B2_Zhang.pdf [accessed Aug. 28, 2015]. Attachment 5—Roundabout Summit, FHWA, U.S.
6. Rodegerdts, L., et al., NCHRP Report 672: Round- Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Oct. 15,
abouts: An Informational Guide, 2nd ed., Transportation 2014 [Online]. Available: [Link]
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, intersection/roundabouts/roundaboutsummit/rndabt
D.C., 2010. [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
7. City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Mini-Roundabout 22. Hu, W., “Public Opinion, Traffic Performance, the Envi-
at Vierling Drive & County Road 79, Photograph, ronment, and Safety After Construction of Double-Lane
2015 [Online]. Available: [Link] Roundabouts,” 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation
residents/roads-transportation/current-projects/mini- Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2014.
roundabout-at-vierling-drive. 23. Veneziana, D., L. Ewan, and J. Stephens, Information/
8. City of Overland Park, Kansas, 133rd Street/Lamar Education Synthesis on Roundabouts, Montana Depart-
Avenue, Photograph, Oct. 2007. ment of Transportation, Helena, 2013.
9. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., SW Stafford Road/SW 24. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Roundabout
Borland Road, Photograph, 2009. Outreach and Education Toolbox, Office of Safety,
10. Whitman Requardt & Associates, LLP, Rochester FHWA, Washington, D.C., n.d. [Online]. Available: http://
Roundabout, Photograph, 2012. [Link]/intersection/roundabouts/round
11. Burns & McDonnell, “I-135 Reconstruction—Harvey abouttoolbox/ [accessed June 3, 2015].
County,” Resources, 2015 [Online]. Available: http:// 25. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Indiana Drivers
[Link]/Resource_/Project/1908/Additional Manual, Indianapolis, Jan. 2015.
Image1/[Link] 26. South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT),
[accessed June 2015]. Roundabouts, SDDOT, Pierre, 2015 [Online]. Available:
12. Google, I-70/Avon Road, Google Earth Aerial, Sept. 23, [Link]
2011. roundabout/[Link] [accessed June 3, 2015].
13. Microsoft Corporation, Keystone Parkway/E 116th Street, 27. Montana Department of Transportation, Roundabouts,
bing Maps, 2015 [Online]. Available: [Link] VisionZeroMT, Helena [Online]. Available: [Link]
1GF3T3O [accessed May 26, 2015]. [Link]/visionzero/roads/roundabouts/ [accessed
14. Pochowski, A., An Analytical Review of Statewide Aug. 28, 2015].
Roundabout Programs and Policies, Master’s thesis, 28. Rodegerdts, L., et al. NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga., 2010. in the United States, Transportation Research Board of
15. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transpor- 29. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
tation, Washington, D.C., 2009. Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
16. “Roundabouts,” In Nevada. Driver’s Handbook, July 2014 30. Rodegerdts, L., P. Jenior, Z. Bugg, B. Ray, B. Schroeder,
[Online]. Available: [Link] and M. Brewer, NCHRP Report 772: Evaluating the
[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015]. Performance of Corridors with Roundabouts, Trans-
17. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “Strategy F3. portation Research Board of the National Academies,
Provide Roundabouts at Appropriate Locations,” In Safety, Washington, D.C., 2014.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 35

31. Tian, Z., et al., Roundabout Geometric Design Guidance, 45. Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02, California
Report No. F/CA/RI-2006/13, Sacramento, Calif., June Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Aug. 13, 2013
2007. [Online]. Available: [Link]
32. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., City of Bend Roundabout policy/[Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
Evaluation and Design Guidelines, Bend, Oreg., 2010. 46. Google, US 50/Connector Road, Google Earth Aerial,
33. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Calibration of HCM Sept. 4, 2011.
Capacity Models for Kansas Roundabouts, Topeka, 47. Google, US 50/Connector Road, Google Earth Aerial,
Kans., Mar. 28, 2012. Aug. 11, 2014.
34. Zheng, D., M. Chitturi, A. Bill, and D.A. Noyce, Compre- 48. Google, I-495/Ritchie-Marlboro Road. Google Earth
hensive Evaluation of Wisconsin Roundabouts Volume 1: Aerial, U.S. Geological Survey, Feb. 28, 2007.
Traffic Operations, Madison, Wisc., 2011. 49. Google, I-495/Ritchie-Marlboro Road, Google Earth
35. Wei, T., J. Grenard, and H. Shah, “Developing Capacity Aerial, Oct. 7, 2014.
Models for Local Roundabouts,” Transportation Research 50. Zehngraff, S., Georgia DOT’s Do-it-Yourself in a
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Weekend Mini-Roundabout, June 5, 2013.
No. 2257, Transportation Research Board of the National 51. Jenior, P., US 50/Thompson Creek Mini-Roundabout,
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1–9. photographs, 2008.
36. Hunter, M., M. Rodgers, L. Schmitt, C. Barry, and 52. Roundabouts, Statewide Design & Engineering Services,
W. Suh, Capacity Calibration of Roundabouts, Georgia Design & Construction Standards, Traffic & Safety,
Transportation Institute, Atlanta, July 27, 2013 [Online]. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities,
Available: [Link] Juneau, 2011 [Online]. Available: [Link]
Calibration%20of%20the%20HCM%202010%20 gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/[Link] [accessed
Roundabout%20Capacity%20Equations%20for%20 May 25, 2015].
Georgia_Hunter%[Link] [accessed Aug. 28, 2015]. 53. Modern Roundabouts—Arizona Roundabouts, Arizona
37. Rodegerdts, L., “Reassessment of Roundabout Capac-
Department of Transportation, Phoenix, April 2015
ity Models for the Highway Capacity Manual,” TRB
[Online]. Available: [Link]
4th International Roundabout Conference, Seattle, Wash.,
ships/Roundabouts/AZ_Roundabouts.asp [accessed
April 17, 2014 [Online]. Available: [Link]
May 25, 2015].
com/RAB14/RAB1406CRodegerdts/[Link] [accessed
54. Arkansas’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Arkansas State
Aug. 28, 2015].
Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock,
38. Rodegerdts, L., et al., Appendixes to NCHRP Report 572:
2013 [Online]. Available: [Link]
Roundabouts in the United States, Transportation Research
com/planning_research/traffic_safety/strategichighway
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
2006, 197 pp.
39. DeAmico, M., A. Bill, M. Chitturi, J. Shaw, and 55. Roundabout Policy 2004, Housatonic Valley Council of
D. Noyce, Roundabout Software Evaluation, Madison, Elected Officials, Connecticut Department of Transporta-
Wisc., 2012. tion, Hartford, Aug. 26, 2004 [Online]. Available: http://
40. Robinson, B., et al., Roundabouts: An Informational [Link]/transport/[Link]
Guide, Informational Guide Book DTFH61-97-R-00038, [accessed May 25, 2015].
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va., June 56. Delaware Department of Transportation Guidelines on
2000. Roundabouts, Delaware Department of Transportation,
41. Roundabout Design Guidelines, Maryland State Highway Wilmington, June 15, 2009 [Online]. Available: http://
Administration, Baltimore, Oct. 9, 2012 [Online]. Avail- [Link]/information/pubs_forms/manuals/roundabouts/
able: [Link] roundabout_guidelines_061509.pdf [accessed May 25,
Roundabout_Guidelines.pdf [accessed June 8, 2015]. 2015].
42. Roundabouts, Kansas Department of Transportation, 57. Roundabouts and Roundabout Interchanges, Florida
Topeka, 2014 [Online]. Available: [Link] Department of Transportation, Tallahassee [Online].
Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burtrafficeng/Roundabouts/ Available: [Link]
Roundabout_Guide/KansasRoundaboutGuideSecond [Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
[Link] [accessed June 8, 2015]. 58. Modern Roundabouts in Georgia, Georgia Department
43. Roundabout Design Checklist, Office of Design Policy & of Transportation, Sept. 2009 [Online]. Available: http://
Support, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, [Link]/DriveSmart/SafetyOperation/Docu
June 2011 [Online]. Available: [Link] ments/Modern_Roundabouts_in_Georgia.pdf [accessed
PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/OtherResources/GDOT_ May 25, 2105].
Roundabout_Checklist_Concept.pdf [accessed June 3, 59. State Looks at Roundabouts to Ease Congestion—
2015]. Honolulu News Story—KITV Honolulu, [Link].,
44. Waddell, E., “Trucks in Roundabouts: Pitfalls in Design Jan. 5, 2009 [Online]. Available: [Link]
and Operations,” ITE Journal, Feb. 2009. news/18418484/[Link] [accessed Oct. 15, 2010].

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

36

60. Benekohal, R. and V. Atluri, Roundabout Evaluation and Available: [Link]

Design: A Site Selection Procedure, ICT-R27-21, Illinois [Accessed May 25, 2015].
Center for Transportation, Champaign–Urbana, 2009. 74. Roundabouts, Nevada Department of Transportation,
61. The Indiana Design Manual: Chapter 51, Indiana Depart- Carson City, 2015 [Online]. Available: [Link]
ment of Transportation, Indianapolis, April 2013 [Online]. [Link]/roundabout/ [accessed May 25, 2015].
Available: [Link] 75. NH DOT Supplemental Design Criteria, New Hampshire
Ch51_2013.pdf [accessed Aug. 26, 2015]. Department of Transportation, Concord, Feb. 18, 2009
62. Roundabouts, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, [Online]. Available: [Link]
2014 [Online]. Available: [Link] development/highwaydesign/roundabouts/documents/
roundabouts/[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015]. [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
63. Kansas Department of Transportation: Kansas Round- 76. Roadway Design Manual, New Jersey Department of
about Guide, Kansas Department of Transportation, Transportation, Trenton, June 18, 2014 [Online]. Available:
Topeka, 2014 [Online]. Available: [Link] [Link]
burtrafficeng/roundabouts/roundabout_guide/round RDM/[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015]. 77. New Mexico Department of Transportation—Driving in
64. Congestion Toolbox—Division of Planning—KYTC, Roundabouts, New Mexico Department of Transporta-
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfurt, Jan. tion, Santa Fe, Dec. 2012 [Online]. Available: http://
2008 [Online]. Available: [Link] [Link]/content/dam/nmdot/D5/roundabout
Congestion-Toolbox/Documents/KYTC%20Roundabout [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
%[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015]. 78. Highway Design Manual: Chapter 5—Basic Design,
65. Engineering Directives and Standards—EDSM No: New York State Department of Transportation, Albany,
VI.1.1.5, Office of Highways, Louisiana Department of April 13, 2011 [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-
Transportation & Development, Baton Rouge, May 14,
repository/chapt_5_final.pdf [accessed May 25, 2015].
2015 [Online]. Available: [Link]
79. Traffic Engineering: Policies, Practices and Legal Author-
Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/EDSM/EDSM/
ity Resources, North Carolina Department of Transporta-
EDSM_VI_1_1_5.pdf [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
tion, Raleigh, Mar. 20, 2010 [Online]. Available: https://
66. MaineDOT Roundabout Analysis Requirements,
[Link]/resources/safety/Teppl/TEPPL%20
MaineDOT, Augusta, June 25, 2015 [Online]. Avail-
All%20Documents%20Library/R38_br.pdf [accessed
able: [Link]
May 25, 2015].
[Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
80. Location & Design Manual 1, Ohio Department of Trans-
67. Myers, E. and A. Pochowski, Maryland Roundabout
portation, Columbus, Jan. 16, 2015 [Online]. Available:
History. Kansas City, Mo., 2008. [Link]
68. Massachusetts Highway Design Guide, Massachusetts way/DesignStandards/roadway/Location%20and%20
Department of Transportation, Boston, Jan. 2006 [Online]. Design%20Manual/Section_400_Jan_2015.pdf [accessed
Available: [Link] May 25, 2015].
docs/designGuide/CH_6_a.pdf [accessed May 25, 2015]. 81. Fischer, E., Intersection Control Using Roundabouts,
69. “MDOT Roundabout Guidance Document,” Michi- Nov. 10, 2008.
gan Department of Transportation, Lansing, Nov. 2007 82. Guide to Roundabouts, Pennsylvania Department of
[Online]. Available: [Link] Transportation, Harrisburg, June 2007 [Online]. Available:
Details_Web/mdot_roundabout_guidance_document.pdf [Link]
[accessed May 25, 2015]. [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
70. MnDOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 12 Design Guide- 83. Roundabouts, Rhode Island Department of Transporta-
lines for Modern Roundabouts, Minnesota Department tion, Roundabouts, Providence, 2015 [Online]. Available:
of Transportation, St. Paul, Jan. 2009 [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
=1062365 [accessed May 25, 2015]. 84. Stantec, CDM Smith, “Technical Memorandum: Safety
71. MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide, Missouri Depart- and Security,” Charting a Course to 2040: Multimodal
ment of Transportation, Jefferson City, Nov. 14, 2012 Transportation Plan, June 2013 [Online]. Available:
[Online]. Available: [Link] [Link]
title=233.3_Roundabouts [accessed May 25, 2015]. safety&[Link] [accessed Aug. 26, 2015].
72. VisionZeroMT: Roundabouts, Montana Department of 85. Roundabouts, South Dakota Department of Transporta-
Transportation, Helena [Online]. Available: [Link] tion, Pierre, 2015 [Online]. Available: [Link]
[Link]/visionzero/roads/roundabouts/ [accessed com/transportation/highways/planning/roundabout/
May 25, 2015]. [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
73. Nebraska Department of Roads: Roundabouts, Nebraska 86. Instructional Bulletin No. 10-07, Tennessee Department
Department of Roads, Lincoln, Aug. 2005 [Online]. of Transportation, Nashville, July 23, 2010.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 37

87. Texas Roundabout Guidelines: Final Report, University 90. Roundabout Facts—Week 14, Virginia Department of
of Texas: Center for Transportation Research, Knoxville, Transportation, Richmond, July 2008 [Online]. Available:
Oct. 2011 [Online]. Available: [Link] [Link]
research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6414_1.pdf [accessed May 25, Facts_-_Week_14.pdf [accessed May 25, 2015].
2015]. 91. WSDOT Design Manual M22-01.11 Chapter 1300,
88. Saito, M. and M. Lowry, Evaluation of Recent Traffic and Washington State Department of Transportation,
Safety Initiatives, Volume I: Developing Guidelines for Olympia, July 2014 [Online]. Available: [Link]
Roundabouts, UT – 04.10, Provo, Utah, 2004. [Link]/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/
89. State of Vermont. No. 141. An Act Relating to the State’s [Link] [accessed May 25, 2015].
Transportation Capital Program and Project Develop- 92. Facilities Development Manual, Chapter 11, Section 26,
ment Plan, Vermont General Assembly, Montpelier, 2002 Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, Dec.
[Online]. Available: [Link] 2008 [Online]. Available: [Link]
2002/ACTS/[Link] [accessed May 25, 2015]. fdm/[Link]#fd11-26. [accessed May 25, 2015].

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

38

APPENDIX A
Summary of Statewide Roundabout Policies

State Policy Type Policy Text Policy Source

Alabama None N/A N/A
“Roundabout First” policy. Requires designers to Alaska DOT&PF
Alaska Preferred provide a written justification of any decision to install roundabout website (52)
a traffic signal instead of a single lane roundabout.
After ADOT assesses the input from the first two items ADOT roundabout website
Arizona Allow above, ADOT staff will then determine whether or not (53)
to "consider" roundabouts.
Arkansas’ Strategic
Arkansas Allow Implement… roundabouts, as appropriate.
Highway Safety Plan (54)
Proposals to employ full control at state highway Traffic Operations Policy
intersections (i.e. to control all approaching traffic via Directive (TOPD) 13-02
us of signal, stop or yield control) must consider all (45)
California Evaluate
three intersection control strategies and the supporting
design configurations during the ICE screening
process.
Colorado Encourage Inferred N/A
Those locations which meet or nearly meet [signal] Use of Roundabouts on
warrants, should be given consideration for roundabout State Highways
Connecticut Encourage installation. Intersections that are, or proposed to be, Memorandum (55)
all-way stop controlled may also be good candidate
locations for a roundabout
The potential benefits of reductions in injuries and Delaware Department of
costs associated with crashes are sufficient alone to Transportation Guidelines
Delaware Encourage recommend modern roundabouts as a first option when on Roundabouts (56)
safety, capacity, or traffic calming are chief reasons for
intersection projects
District of N/A
Allow Inferred
Columbia
Roundabouts shall be evaluated on new construction, Florida Roundabout Guide
reconstruction and safety improvement projects, as (57)
Florida Evaluate well as anytime there are proposed changes in
intersection control that will be more restrictive than
the existing conditions.
Roundabouts are the preferred safety and operational Modern Roundabouts in
alternative for a wide range of intersections of public Georgia (58)
roads. A roundabout shall be considered as an
alternative in the following instances: (1) Any
intersection in a project that is being designed as new
Georgia Evaluate
or is being reconstructed. (2) All existing intersections
that have been identified as needing major safety or
operational improvements. (3) All signal requests at
intersections (provide justification in the Traffic
Engineering Study if a roundabout is not selected).
[Roundabouts] should be considered as alternatives to News Article (59)
Hawaii Encourage
stop lights and stop signs
Idaho None None N/A
Illinois Center for
Transportation:
Roundabouts [should] be considered as an alternative
Illinois Encourage Roundabout Evaluation
intersection during all intersection improvements.
and Design: A Site
Selection Procedure (60)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 39

State Policy Type Policy Text Policy Source

A roundabout should be considered as one potential The Indiana Design
intersection option within an INDOT-sponsored or Manual (61)
-funded planning study or project since it offers
improved safety, cost savings, and enhanced traffic
operations. This includes a proposed freeway
interchange where an at-grade intersection currently
exists or will be created at the ramp terminals. A
Indiana Encourage comparison of roundabout practicality or feasibility
versus other intersection types should be conducted,
considering safety, traffic operations, capacity, right-
of-way impacts, and cost. Other factors as described
below can also be included in the evaluation if desired
and deemed appropriate. In conducting such
comparisons, a roundabout is not always the optimal
solution, but it can often offer significant benefits.
The Iowa Department of Transportation and other Iowa Comprehensive
communities in Iowa have started using roundabouts in Highway Safety Plan
Iowa Encourage
certain situations to enhance safety and reduce delays (CHSP) (62)
encountered by the motoring public.
While KDOT does not have a formal policy at this time Kansas Roundabout Guide
dictating the use of roundabouts, KDOT prefers that (63)
Kansas Encourage roundabouts be considered as an intersection
alternative for potential operations and safety
improvements.
A modern roundabout is an alternative form of Highway Design:
intersection control to traffic signals and multi-way INTERSECTION—At
Kentucky Allow stop control intersections. Therefore, roundabouts may Grade Intersections:
be considered only when these intersection control Modern Roundabouts (64)
types are warranted.
Roundabout shall be justified by a benefit cost safety EDSM VI.1.1.5—
analysis or a capacity analysis comparison. There must Roundabout Safety and
Louisiana Allow
be sound engineering reason to justify the installation Approval (65)
of a roundabout.
MaineDOT will generally allow implementation of a Maine DOT Roundabout
roundabout provided that over a 20-year design life, Analysis Requirements
basic safety standards are met and the roundabout (66)
performs equal to or better than the no build
alternative. In the event that mobility is reduced
Maine Allow
compared to the no build alternative, MaineDOT will
consider whether reduced mobility is part of the
Purpose and Need along with posted speed limits,
Highway Corridor Priorities and Customer Service
Levels.
SHA has adopted a policy that roundabouts will be Maryland Roundabout
Maryland Evaluate considered at all intersections where improvements are Program: Early Years and
being considered. Program Growth (67)
Roundabouts can be appropriate design alternative to Massachusetts Highway
both stop-controlled and signal-controlled Design Guide (68)
intersections. … At higher combinations of major
Massachusetts Encourage
street and minor street volume, traffic signals become
the common traffic control measure. Roundabouts
should also be considered in these situations.
Roundabouts should be considered as one potential MDOT Roundabout
intersection option within MDOT-sponsored or funded Guidance Document (69)
Michigan Encourage planning studies/design projects since they offer
improved safety, cost savings, and enhanced traffic
operations in many situations.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

40

State Policy Type Policy Text Policy Source

In general terms, any intersection—whether in an MnDOT Road Design
urban or rural environment—that meets the criteria for Manual: Chapter 12:
additional traffic control beyond a thru stop condition, Design Guidelines for
also qualifies for evaluation as a modern roundabout. Modern Roundabouts (70)
Therefore, in any planning process for an intersection
improvement where a traffic signal or a 4-way stop is
Minnesota Evaluate
under consideration, a modern roundabout should
likewise receive serious consideration. Additionally,
roundabouts should always be considered as an
improvement strategy for existing 4-way stop or signal-
controlled intersections with safety or operational
problems.
Mississippi None N/A N/A
The process of selecting a roundabout as the preferred MoDOT Engineering
form of traffic control for a given intersection has three Policy Guide (71)
Missouri Allow stages. If a roundabout is not “preferred” at any one of
these stages, it will cease to be considered as a viable
form of traffic control at the given location.
Roundabouts are installed at selected state roadway MDT Roundabouts
Montana Encourage
intersections to improve safety and mobility. Website (72)
The Traffic Engineering Division conducts an Nebraska Department of
engineering study to evaluate the operation of an Roads: Roundabouts (73)
Nebraska Allow
intersection and to determine the appropriate traffic
control to be provided.
In a continual effort to provide the safest roadways, the Nevada DOT Roundabout
Nevada Department of Transportation installs Website (74)
Nevada Encourage
roundabouts at selected State roadway intersections to
improve safety and mobility.
Roundabouts can be placed at an intersection under any NH DOT Supplemental
type of operational control. Due to the improved safety, Design Criteria (75)
operation and capacity benefits of roundabouts it shall
New Hampshire Evaluate
be standard procedure at the NH DOT to evaluate any
intersection considering signal control to see if a
roundabout would be beneficial.
A roundabout is a circular, raised traffic island placed NJDOT Roadway Design
within the intersection of two or more streets. It Manual, Section 15 Traffic
operates on the “yield-on-entry” principle. Drivers Calming (76)
circumnavigate the island in a counter-clockwise
New Jersey Allow
direction. Roundabouts limit speeds by horizontally
deflecting vehicles as they pass through an intersection.
They reduce crashes by separating movements and
reducing speeds.
New Mexico Department
of Transportation—
New Mexico Allow Inferred
Driving in Roundabouts
(77)
When the analysis shows that a roundabout is a feasible Highway Design Manual
alternative, it should be considered the Department’s (78)
New York Preferred
preferred alternative due to the proven substantial
safety benefits and other operational benefits.
The choice of using a roundabout is made on a case- Traffic Engineering:
by-case basis. NCDOT evaluates traffic volumes and Policies, Practices and
North Carolina Encourage crashes at each candidate intersection individually to Legal Authority Resources
determine if a roundabout would be the most effective (79)
solution.
North Dakota None N/A N/A

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 41

State Policy Type Policy Text Policy Source

Roundabouts can be placed at an intersection under any Design Manual (80)
type of operational control. Due to improved safety,
operation and capacity benefits of roundabouts, a
Ohio Encourage
roundabout may be evaluated at any intersection
considering signal control to see if a roundabout would
be beneficial.
Oklahoma None N/A N/A
Asks everyone to give serious consideration to Intersection Control Using
Oregon Encourage intersection control alternatives beyond merely traffic Roundabouts (81)
signals.
When planning for intersection improvements, a Pennsylvania Guide to
variety of improvement alternatives should be Roundabouts (82)
Pennsylvania Encourage evaluated, in addition to roundabouts, to determine
whether a roundabout is the most appropriate
alternative.
Using modern roundabouts in place of traditional Roundabouts for Rhode
Rhode Island Preferred intersections is a safer solution we're looking to employ Island (83)
wherever we can.
Use of roundabouts is recommended at locations with Charting a Course to 2040;
major safety or operational issues where the higher Multimodal Transportation
South Carolina Encourage
costs for the construction can be justified by the crash Plan; Safety and Security
reduction or operational improvements. (84)
The South Dakota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (pp. South Dakota DOT
29–31) provides information on intersection crashes Roundabouts website (85)
South Dakota None and proposals for several types of improvements and
preventative measures to reduce crashes, injuries and
fatalities - including roundabouts.
Instructional Bulletin No.
Tennessee Allow Inferred
10-07 (86)
Texas Roundabout
Roundabouts can be appropriately implemented in
Texas Allow Guidelines Final Report
Texas
(87)
Developing Guidelines for
Utah Encourage Inferred
Roundabouts (88)
The general assembly finds that the installation of Vermont Legislature (89)
roundabouts at dangerous intersections in the state has
been cost-efficient, and has enhanced the safe
operation of vehicles at these locations. The agency of
Vermont Preferred
transportation is directed to carefully examine and
pursue the opportunities for construction of
roundabouts at intersections determined to pose safety
hazards for motorists.
VDOT recognizes that Roundabouts are frequently Road Design Manual (90)
able to address the above safety and operational
objectives better than other types of intersections in
both urban and rural environments and on high-speed
and low-speed highways. Therefore, it is VDOT policy
that Roundabouts be considered when a project
includes reconstructing or constructing new
intersection(s), signalized or unsignalized. The
Engineer shall provide an analysis of each intersection
Virginia Preferred
to determine if a Roundabout is a feasible alternative
based on site constraints, including right of way,
environmental factors and other design constraints. The
advantages and disadvantages of constructing a
Roundabout shall be documented for each intersection.
When the analysis shows that a Roundabout is a
feasible alternative, it should be considered the
Department’s preferred alternative due to the proven
substantial safety and operational benefits.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

42

State Policy Type Policy Text Policy Source

If warrants are met, evaluate multi-way stop, Design Manual (91)
roundabout, and signal. If warrants are not met,
Washington Evaluate
evaluate yield, two-way stop, multi-way stop, and
roundabout.
West Virginia None N/A N/A
If an intersection warrants a signal or a four-way stop Roundabout Guide (92)
within the design life of the proposed project, the
modern roundabout shall be evaluated as an equal
alternative. Where there is an existing four-way stop or
signal and there are operational problems with the
current control, then the roundabout shall be
Wisconsin Evaluate
considered as a viable alternative. As stated above the
roundabout may be a viable alternative for a two-way
stop control in certain circumstances. In either case,
roundabouts are a potential intersection control strategy
until such time that the evaluation indicates that the
roundabout alternative is not appropriate.
Wyoming None N/A N/A

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 43

APPENDIX B
State Agency Questionnaire

NCHRP Synthesis 46-02: Roundabout Design,

Operations and Safety Practices - State Agency
Questionnaire

Instructions
Dear AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering Member:

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis on Roundabout Design, Operations and Safety
Practices - Synthesis Topic 46-02. This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration.

This questionnaire is being sent to the voting members of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering. Your
cooperation in completing the questionnaire will ensure the success of this effort. If you are not the appropriate
person at your agency to complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the correct person.

Please complete and submit this survey by February 9, 2015. We estimate that it should take approximately 15 minutes
to complete. If you have any questions, please contact our principal investigator, Alek Pochowski, at
apochowski@[Link] or (202) 642-2916. Any supporting materials can be sent directly to Alek Pochowski by email.

QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
1. To view and print the entire questionnaire, Click on the following link and print using "control p". NCHRP Synthesis
Topic 46-02 Questionnaire
2. To save your partial answers and complete the questionnaire later, click on the "Save and Continue Later" link in
the upper center of your screen. A link to the incomplete questionnaire will be emailed to you from
SurveyGizmo. To return to the questionnaire later, open the email from SurveyGizmo and click on the link. We
suggest using the “Save and Continue Later” feature if there will be more than 15 minutes of inactivity while the
survey is opened, as some firewalls may terminate due to inactivity.
3. To pass a partially completed questionnaire to a colleague, click on the on the "Save and Continue Later" link in
the upper center of your screen. A link to the incomplete questionnaire will be emailed to you from SurveyGizmo."
Open the email from SurveyGizmo and forward it to a colleague.
4. To view and print your answers before submitting the survey, click forward to the last question, and print using
“control p.”
5. To submit the survey, click on "Submit" on the last page.

Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

44

Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY).

Calendar

Contact Information
Please provide your contact information so we can contact you if we have questions or would like clarification about any
of your responses. If more than one person helped with the questionnaire, please provide the information for the best
person to contact with questions.
First Name * Last Name *

Title *

State Agency *

Street Address

Apt/Suite/Office

City State Zip Code

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 45

Minnesota
Mississippi
State Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Email Address *

Phone Number *

Roundabout Definition
The exhibit below provides an example of what is considered a roundabout for the purposes of this questionnaire. This
definition is from NCHRP Report 672.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

46

Exhibit 1-1 from NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition

Number of Roundabouts
1. Approximately what year did your state agency build its first roundabout? *

Our agency has not built a roundabout

Our agency has planned or designed a roundabout, but not yet built a roundabout

Year *

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 47

Roundabout Categories
The figure below provides the design characteristics of the three roundabout categories. This definition should be used
for the following questions.

Please note that mini-roundabouts are defined as "small roundabouts with a fully traversable central island," and are
unique from neighborhood traffic calming circles. For more information on the difference between mini-roundabouts and
neighborhood traffic calming circles, please see NCHRP Report 672.

Exhibit 1-9 from NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition

2. By roundabout category, approximately how many roundabouts have been opened within your state and/or by your
state agency (roundabouts that your state has jurisdiction over and/or were built as part of projects overseen by your
state agency)?

Single-Lane
Mini-Roundabouts Roundabouts Multilane Roundabouts

Within your state

By your state agency

(roundabouts that your state
has jurisdiction over and/or
were built as part of projects
overseen by your state
agency)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

48

Roundabout Category by Developed Envrionments

3. By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of mini-roundabouts are in urban, suburban and rural
areas of your state?

Mini-Roundabouts

None
Some
Urban
Most
All

None
Some
Suburban
Most
All

None
Some
Rural
Most
All

4. By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of single-lane roundabouts are in urban, suburban and
rural areas of your state?

Single-Lane Roundabouts

None
Some
Urban
Most
All

None
Some
Suburban
Most
All

None
Some
Rural
Most
All

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 49

5. By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of multilane roundabouts are in urban, suburban and rural
areas of your state?

Multilane Roundabouts

None
Some
Urban
Most
All

None
Some
Suburban
Most
All

None
Some
Rural
Most
All

Roundabout Database
6. Do you maintain a database listing roundabouts in your state? This could refer to either all roundabouts in your state,
or only roundabouts built by or under the jurisdiction of your state agency.

Yes

No

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

50

Reasons for selection

7. Please describe the primary reasons why your agency builds roundabouts. Consider each reason and indicate the
approximate frequency with which roundabouts are built.

Never Seldom About half the time Usually Always

Improved safety performance
Shorter vehicular delays
Higher capacity
Lower initial capital costs
Lower life-cycle costs
Aesthetic/urban design improvements
Responding to request from local jurisdiction
Responding to request from elected official
Lower speeds/traffic calming
Other, please explain in the comments box

Comments

8. Has your state agency installed a roundabout at a location that previously involved one or more fatal crashes in the
before condition?

Yes

No

Don't know

Roundabout Considerations
9. Please indicate the types of public outreach materials that have been developed by your state agency. Please select
all that apply.

Website
Flyer and/or pamphlet
Video
Our state agency has not developed public outreach material
Other, please specify *

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 51

10. Please indicate the strategies typically used by your state agency at public information open houses:

Presentations
Charts, figures, etc... on display boards
Scaled plan sets with vehicle models
Attendance from agency staff
Attendance from roundabout design team
Attendance from "high-ranking" agency official
Attendance from traffic engineers involved in the project
Attendance from transportation planners involved in the project
Question and answer session (town hall meeting)
Flyer and/or pamphlet
Video
Video of roundabout simulation
Our state agency does not typically use public information open houses for roundabout projects
Other, please specify *

11. Does your state have state statutes, codes, or laws that regulate traffic rules at roundabouts? More specifically, does
your state have state statutes, codes, or laws that are only applicable to roundabouts?

No

Yes

Roundabout Costs
12. What is the approximate planning-level cost estimate (screening or feasibility level estimate) of a mini roundabout in
your state? Please limit your responses to "single-purpose" intersection projects.

Approximate Planning-Level Cost Estimate

Mini Roundabout

13. What is the approximate planning-level cost estimate (screening or feasibility level estimate) of a single-lane
roundabout in your state? Please limit your responses to "single-purpose" intersection projects.

Approximate Planning-Level Cost Estimate

Single-Lane Roundabout

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

52

14. What is the approximate planning-level cost estimate (screening or feasibility level estimate) of a multilane
roundabout in your state? Please limit your responses to "single-purpose" intersection projects.

Approximate Planning-Level Cost Estimate

Multilane Roundabout

Roundabout Performance
15. What delay/capacity model is used or permitted by your state agency to determine the operational performance of a
roundabout? Please select all that apply.

HCM 2010 Model

HCM 2010 Model calibrated to local conditions
HCM 2010 Model calibrated to non-local conditions
Sidra Standard Model with Environment Factor
Sidra Standard Model without Environment Factor
UK Equations uncalibrated
UK Equations calibrated
Microsimulation
Other *

16. What software tools are used by your state agency to determine the operational performance of a roundabout?
Please check all that apply.

Arcady
HCS
Rodel
Sidra
State Agency developed tool (excel spreadsheet or other, please specify)
Synchro
Vistro
Microsimulation
Other, please specify in the comments box

Comments

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 53

17. How is the design year determined?

Case-by-case basis
Practical Design policy
Specific criteria, please specify the criteria *

Fixed design year, please specify the design year *

Fixed duration (e.g. 20 years), please specify the number of years *

18. Please provide us an approximation of how often the following design-year options are used.

Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Always

5 years
10 years
20 years
Over 20 years

19. How does your state estimate or predict safety at roundabouts?

Our state does not typically estimate or predict safety at roundabouts

Highway Safety Manual predictive methodology
Crash Modification Factors or Crash Reduction Factors (uncalibrated)
Crash Modification Factors or Crash Reduction Factors (calibrated to local conditions)
Other, please specify *

Roundabout Design
20. Please indicate the extent to which your state agency uses NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts an Informational
Guide, Second Edition to provide roundabout design guidance.

Our state uses NCHRP Report 672 as the only source of design guidance.

Our state has developed guidance to supplement NCHRP Report 672. Please provide this supplemental
guidance in the following question.

Our state uses NCHRP Report 672 supplemented by material from other sources to provide design guidance.
Please indicate what other material is used in the following question.

Our state has developed separate guidance and does not use, or rarely uses, NCHRP Report 672. Please
provide this guidance in the following question.

Our state uses material from other sources, and does not use, or rarely uses, NCHRP Report 672. Please
provide this material in the following question.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

54

21. Please upload the guidance developed by your agency, or if the material is available online, please provide the URL
in the comment box.

Browse... Choose File No file selected Upload

Comments

22. Please indicate the sources used for design guidance. If the material is available online, please provide the URL
(optional) of the website as well.

Source URL (optional)

Source
1
Source
2
Source
3
Source
4

Phased Implementation
23. Does your state agency typically try to use a phased implementation approach to multilane roundabouts? (This could
include opening a roundabout with fewer entry, circulating or exit lanes than is ultimately determined to be necessary for
future conditions.)

Yes

No

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 55

24. Do you have criteria for determining when a phased-implementation approach should be used?

Yes, please explain in the comments box

No

Comments

25. Have one or more roundabouts in your state (built by your state agency or others) designed with a phased approach
in mind been expanded from its opening-year configuration?

Yes, please provide intersection(s) in comment box

No

Comments

26. Have one or more roundabouts in your state (built by your state agency or others) been modified from its original
design to address safety or operational issues?

Yes, please provide intersection(s) in comment box

No

Comments

Design-Vehicle Guidance
27. Has your state developed guidance on the accommodation of large vehicles (trucks, emergency vehicles, farming
equipment, oversize/overweight vehicles, etc...) at roundabouts?

Yes

No

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

56

28. Is the design-vehicle accommodation guidance provided in the material uploaded in question 19?

No

Yes, please provide the document name where we can find the information *

29. Please upload the design-vehicle guidance developed by your agency, or if the material is also available online,
please provide the URL in the comment box.

Browse... Choose File No file selected Upload

Comments

30. Please upload the design-vehicle guidance developed by your agency, or if the material is also available online,
please provide the URL in the comment box.

Browse... Choose File No file selected Upload

Comments

Illumination Guidance
31. Does your state follow developed standards/guidance on the illumination of roundabouts?

Yes

No

32. What is the basis for your state's illumination standard/guidance? Please select all that apply.

AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide

IES Design Guide for Roundabout Lighting
NCHRP Report 672
State-specific standard
Other, please specify

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 57

33. Is the illumination guidance provided in the material uploaded in question 19?

No

Yes, please provide the document name where we can find the information *

34. Please upload the illumination guidance developed by your agency, or if the material is also available online, please
provide the URL in the comment box.

Browse... Choose File No file selected Upload

Comments

35. Please upload the illumination guidance developed by your agency, or if the material is also available online, please
provide the URL in the comment box.

Browse... Choose File No file selected Upload

Comments

States Without Roundabouts

36. What are the major reasons why your agency has not built roundabouts on the state system?

They are not part of design standards used by our agency

Not sure they work efficiently
Not sure they are safe
Not sure that the drivers will get used to them
Concerned about liability issues
Other, please explain *

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

58

37. Is your agency considering the construction of roundabouts?

Yes

No

Thank You!
Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to us. If you have additional questions or would like to
follow-up on the questionnaire, please contact the Principal Investigator, Alek Pochowski at:

E-mail: apochowski@[Link]
Phone: 202-642-2916
Mailing Address: c/o Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; 300 M ST SE, Suite 810; Washington D.C. 20003

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 59

APPENDIX C
Questionnaire Responses

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 Roundabout Practices
By roundabout category, approximately how many roundabouts have been opened by your state
By roundabout category, approximately how many roundabouts have been opened within your
Approximately what year did agency (roundabouts that your state has jurisdiction over and/or were built as part of projects
state.
State your state agency build its first overseen by your state agency)?
roundabout?
Mini-Roundabouts Single-Lane Roundabouts Multilane Roundabouts Mini-Roundabouts Single-Lane Roundabouts Multilane Roundabouts
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Alaska 2001 3 20 9 0 11 7
Arkansas 2008 0 25 0 0 0 4
California 1993 No answer 253 44 0 11 12
Connecticut 2007 2 20 2 0 3 1
Delaware 2004 1 11 1 1 11 1
Florida 1996 4 13 11 0 11 3
Georgia 1999 3 130 2 2 20 0
Idaho A No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer
Illinois 2006 No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer
Indiana 2008 0 122 39 0 5 9
Iowa 2006 10 37 9 0 7 0
Kansas 2000 No answer 77 34 0 13 7
Kentucky 2002 0 10 1 No answer 9
Louisiana 2002 No answer No answer No answer 0 22 1
Maine 2001 No answer 19 5 No answer 19 5
Maryland 1992 10 114 37 1 53 24
Massachusetts 2010 No answer No answer No answer 0 4 2
Michigan 2005 1 50 30 0 10 15
Minnesota 2002 2 107 32 0 24 9
Mississippi 2001 30 20 6 0 3 3
Missouri 2000 5 200 20 1 55 15
Montana 2007 1 20 12 0 10 10
Nebraska 2005 No answer 6 4 No answer 6 2
Nevada 2010 No answer 10 4 No answer 4 No answer
New Hampshire 2007 0 28 6 0 8 1
New Mexico 2000 No answer 15 15 No answer 10 10
New York 2000 2 100 25 0 65 25
North Carolina 1999 0 229 18 0 120 16
North Dakota 2012 10 2 No answer No answer 1 No answer
Oregon 1999 0 60 10 0 1 1
Pennsylvania 2005 0 20 1 0 17 1
Rhode Island 2003 No answer 3 3 No answer No answer No answer
South Dakota B No answer 3 0 0 0 0
Texas 1996 No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer No answer
Vermont 1993 1 12 1 0 6 1
Virginia 2002 No answer 145 15 No answer 110 5
Washington 1997 9 210 85 4 80 30
West Virginia 2010 0 5 4 0 0 4
Wisconsin 1999 0 154 175 0 100 147
Wyoming 2010 No answer No answer No answer 0 5 0
A: Our agency has not built a roundabout
B: Our agency has planned or designed a roundabout, but not yet built a roundabout
 Roundabout Practices
By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of mini- By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of single By roundabout category, approximately what proportion of
Do you maintain a
roundabouts are in urban, suburban and rural areas of your lane roundabouts are in urban, suburban and rural areas of your multilane roundabouts are in urban, suburban and rural areas of
database listing
State state? state? your state?
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

roundabouts in your
state?
Urban Suburban Rural Urban Suburban Rural Urban Suburban Rural
Alaska All None None Most Some Some Some Some None Yes
Arkansas Most Some Some All None None Yes
California None None None Some Most Some Some Most None Yes
Connecticut All None None Some Most Some None All None Yes
Delaware All None None Some Some Most All None None Yes
Florida Some Most None Most Most All Most Most All Yes
Georgia Most Some Some Some Some Some Some Yes
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana None None None Some Most Some Some Most Some No
Iowa Some Most None Some Most Some Some Most None Yes
Kansas Most Some Some Most Some None Yes
Kentucky None None None Some Most Some None All None No
Louisiana None None None Some Most Some None None All Yes
Maine None None None Some Most Some Most Some Yes
Maryland Most Some None Some Most Most Some Most Some Yes
Massachusetts None None None Some Some None Some Some None No
Michigan None Most Some Some Some Some Most Some Some Yes
Minnesota Most Most None Most Some Some Most Some Some Yes
Mississippi Some Most Most Some All No
Missouri Most None Some Most Some Some Most Some None No
Montana All None None Some Most Some All None None Yes
Nebraska All None None Some Some Some Some Some None No
Nevada None None None Some Some Some None None None No
New Hampshire None None None Some Most Some Some Some None Yes
New Mexico Most Some None Most Some None All No
New York None All None Some Most Some Some Most Some Yes
North Carolina None None None Some Most Some Some Most None Yes
North Dakota Some Some Some Most None None None No
Oregon None None None Some Most Some None All None No
Pennsylvania None None None Some Some Most None None All No
Rhode Island All None None All None None None All None Yes
South Dakota None None None All None None None None None No
Texas No
Vermont All None None Some Some Some All None None No
Virginia Some Most Some Some Most Some Yes
Washington Some Some Some Most Some Some Some Most Some Yes
West Virginia Most Some None Most Some None No
Wisconsin None None None Some Some Most Some Most Some Yes
Wyoming None None None Some Some Some None None None Yes
 Roundabout Practices
Has your state
agency installed a
Please select the frequency in which your state agency selects roundabouts based on the following set of common reasons for selecting roundabouts. roundabout at a
location that
State previously
involved one or
Aesthetic/urban Responding to Responding to Lower more fatal crashes
Improved safety Shorter vehicular Lower initial Lower life-cycle
Higher capacity design request from local request from speeds/traffic Other Other Note in the before
performance delays capital costs costs
improvements jurisdiction elected official calming condition?
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Alaska Usually Usually About half the time About half the time Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom No
Arkansas Seldom About half the time About half the time Never About half the time About half the time Usually About half the time Seldom No
California About half the time Usually About half the time Seldom Never About half the time Seldom Never Seldom Yes
Connecticut Always About half the time Seldom Seldom About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time Usually Yes
Delaware About half the time About half the time About half the time Never Never About half the time Never Never About half the time A Don't know
Florida Usually About half the time Seldom About half the time Seldom About half the time About half the time Seldom About half the time Always B No
Georgia Usually About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time Usually About half the time About half the time Yes
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana Usually About half the time About half the time Seldom About half the time Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Don't know
Iowa Usually About half the time About half the time Seldom Seldom Seldom Never Never About half the time Yes
Kansas Always Usually Usually Always Always About half the time Always Always Always Always C Yes
Kentucky Usually About half the time Usually About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time Usually Yes
Louisiana Usually Usually Usually Seldom About half the time Seldom Usually Usually Usually Yes
Maine Usually Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom Usually Seldom Usually Yes
Maryland Usually Usually Usually Never About half the time About half the time Seldom Seldom Never Yes
Massachusetts Always Usually Usually Usually Usually Seldom About half the time Seldom Usually Don't know
Michigan Usually Usually Usually About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time Seldom Seldom Yes
Minnesota Usually Usually Usually Seldom About half the time About half the time Seldom Seldom Usually Yes
Mississippi About half the time Usually About half the time Seldom About half the time Seldom Never About half the time No
Missouri Usually Seldom About half the time Seldom About half the time About half the time About half the time About half the time Seldom Yes
Montana Always Usually Usually Seldom Usually About half the time About half the time Seldom Seldom Yes
Nebraska Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Yes
Nevada Usually Seldom Seldom Never Seldom Never Never Never About half the time Don't know
New Hampshire Usually Usually Usually Seldom About half the time About half the time About half the time Seldom Usually Yes
New Mexico Usually Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom Usually Usually Usually Don't know
New York Usually Usually Usually Seldom Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Usually About half the time D Yes
North Carolina Always Usually Seldom Seldom About half the time Seldom About half the time Seldom Seldom Seldom E Yes
North Dakota Always Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom About half the time Never Usually Don't know
Oregon Usually Usually Usually Seldom Usually Usually Usually Usually Usually Yes
Pennsylvania Usually About half the time About half the time Never Seldom Never Seldom Seldom Seldom Yes
Rhode Island Always Always Always Seldom Seldom About half the time About half the time Seldom About half the time No
South Dakota Always Always About half the time Never Always Never Seldom Seldom About half the time F No
Texas G Don't know
Vermont Always Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom Never Never Never Usually Never Yes
Virginia Always Always Always Always Always Always Always Always Always Yes
Washington Usually Usually Usually Usually Usually Usually Usually H Yes
West Virginia Usually Usually Usually Never About half the time Seldom Seldom Seldom No
Wisconsin Usually Usually Usually Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Seldom Yes
Wyoming Usually Usually Seldom Never Never Never Never Never Never No
A: Lower off-peak delays than a traffic signal
B: FDOT directive to consider roundabouts when doing a project
C: Our primary goal is improved safety.
D: Quite a few of our roundabouts come to be once a project has been started for a safety or capacity concern - we typically don't have "roundabout" projects.
E: Design decision - roundabouts at intersections next to a bridge that can eliminate a turn lane on the bridge (both in retrofit and new installations). Likewise on corridors to eliminate turn lanes (narrower corridor).
F: These are reasons roundabouts have been proposed or designed, as we have not actually constructed any yet.
G: Unknown
H: "Usually" for All of the reasons with the exception being lower initial costs
 Roundabout Practices
Please indicate the types of public outreach materials that have been developed by your state agency. Please select all that apply.
State
Our state agency has not developed
Website Flyer and/or pamphlet Video Other Other Note
public outreach material
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Alaska X X
Arkansas X X X
California X X X
Connecticut X X
Delaware X X X
Florida X X
Georgia X X
Idaho
Illinois X
Indiana X X X
Iowa X X
Kansas X X X X A
Kentucky X X
Louisiana X X
Maine X X X
Maryland X X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X X X
Minnesota X X X X B
Mississippi X
Missouri X X X
Montana X X
Nebraska X X X X C
Nevada X
New Hampshire X
New Mexico X X X
New York X X X D
North Carolina X
North Dakota X X
Oregon X X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X
South Dakota X
Texas X
Vermont X X X
Virginia X X X
Washington X
West Virginia X X X
Wisconsin X X X X E
Wyoming X X X
A: Public meetings with displays
B: Roundabout mat (scale model); roundabout guidance on state highway map
C: Radio and TV public-service announcements
D: VISSIM simulations
E: Wisconsin Motorist Handbook, TV & radio commercials, video animation, roundabout driver simulator, DVD's, state maps, Commerical Driver's Manual, newpaper articles
 Roundabout Practices
Please indicate the strategies typically used by your state agency at public information open houses

Our state
Attendance agency does not
Attendance
Charts, Attendance Attendance from Question and typically use
State Scaled plan Attendance from traffic Video of
figures, etc... from from "high- transportatio answer Flyer and/or Other public
Presentations sets with from agency engineers Video roundabout Other
on display roundabout ranking" n planners session (town pamphlet Note information
vehicle models staff involved in the simulation
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

boards design team agency official involved in the hall meeting) open houses for
project
project roundabout
projects
Alaska X X X X X X X X
Arkansas X X X X X X X X X X X X
California X X X X X X X X X X
Connecticut X X X X X X X X
Delaware X X X X X X X X X X X
Florida X X X X X X X X X X X
Georgia X X X X X X X X X
Idaho
Illinois X
Indiana X X X X X X X X X X X
Iowa X X X X X
Kansas X X X X X X X X X X X
Kentucky X X X X X X X X X
Louisiana X X X X X X X X X X X
Maine X X X X X X X X X X X
Maryland X X X X X X X X X X X X
Massachusetts X X X X X X
Michigan X X X X X X X X X X X
Minnesota X X X X X X X X X X X A
Mississippi X X X X X X X X
Missouri X X X X X X X
Montana X X X X X X X X X X
Nebraska X X X X X X X X X X X
Nevada X X X X X
New Hampshire X X X X X X X X X X X
New Mexico X X X X X X X X X X X
New York X X X X X X X X X X X
North Carolina X X X X X X X X
North Dakota X X X X X X X X X
Oregon X X X X X X X X X X X
Pennsylvania X X X X X X X X X X X X
Rhode Island X X X X X X X X X
South Dakota X X X X X X X X X X X X
Texas X
Vermont X X X X X X X
Virginia X X X X X X X X X X X
Washington X B
West Virginia X X X X X X X X X X
Wisconsin X X X X X X X X X X X X
Wyoming X X X X X X X X X
A: Roundabout mat, mall kiosk, radio & newspaper ads, bus rides, simulator events
B: Design Visualization
 Roundabout Practices
Does your state have state statutes, codes, or laws What is the approximate planning-level cost estimate (screening or feasibility level estimate) of a roundabout by category in your state? Please limit your
that regulate traffic rules at roundabouts? More responses to "single-purpose" intersection projects.
State specifically, does your state have state statutes,
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

codes, or laws that are only applicable to Mini-Roundabouts Single-Lane Roundabouts Multilane Roundabouts
roundabouts?
Alaska Yes No answer $1,500,000 $3,000,000.00
Arkansas No No answer $500,000 $1,250,000.00
California No No answer $1,500,000 $3,000,000.00
Connecticut No No answer $1,500,000 $2,000,000.00
Delaware No No answer $2,000,000 No answer
Florida Yes $50,000 $500,000 $1,200,000.00
Georgia No $200,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000.00
Idaho No answer No answer No answer
Illinois No answer No answer No answer
Indiana Yes No answer $635,000 $1,400,000.00
Iowa No No answer No answer No answer
Kansas Yes No answer $2,500,000 $4,000,000.00
Kentucky No No answer $100,000 $200,000.00
Louisiana No No answer $1,600,000 $3,000,000.00
Maine Yes No answer $1,300,000 $2,500,000.00
Maryland Yes $400,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000.00
Massachusetts No No answer No answer No answer
Michigan No No answer No answer No answer
Minnesota Yes $160,000 $1,050,000 $1,500,000.00
Mississippi No $250,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000.00
Missouri No $50,000 $600,000 $800,000.00
Montana Yes No answer $2,000,000 $2,500,000.00
Nebraska No No answer No answer No answer
Nevada No No answer $1,500,000 $6,000,000.00
New Hampshire No No answer $1,000,000 $2,000,000.00
New Mexico No No answer $750,000 $750,000.00
New York Yes $50,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000.00
North Carolina No $250,000 $600,000 $1,000,000.00
North Dakota No $1,000,000 $2,000,000 No answer
Oregon Yes No answer No answer No answer
Pennsylvania No No answer No answer No answer
Rhode Island No No answer No answer No answer
South Dakota No No answer $1,000,000 No answer
Texas No No answer No answer No answer
Vermont Yes No answer No answer No answer
Virginia Yes No answer $1,500,000 $2,500,000.00
Washington No $80,000 $1,250,000 $1,750,000.00
West Virginia No No answer $400,000 $600,000.00
Wisconsin No No answer $100,000 $1,250,000.00
Wyoming No No answer $5,000,000 No answer
 Roundabout Practices
What delay/capacity model is used or permitted by your state agency to determine the operational performance of a roundabout? Please select all that apply.

State HCM 2010 Model HCM 2010 Model Sidra Standard Sidra Standard
UK Equations UK Equations
HCM 2010 Model calibrated to local calibrated to non- Model with Model without Microsimulation Other Other Note
uncalibrated calibrated
conditions local conditions Environment Factor Environment Factor
Alaska X X X
Arkansas X X X X X A
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

California X X X X X
Connecticut X
Delaware X X
Florida X X X X B
Georgia X X X X X X X C
Idaho
Illinois X
Indiana X X X D
Iowa X X
Kansas X X X X
Kentucky X X X E
Louisiana X X
Maine X X
Maryland X X X
Massachusetts X X
Michigan
Minnesota X X X X X F
Mississippi X X X X X
Missouri X X
Montana X X X
Nebraska
Nevada X
New Hampshire X X X
New Mexico X X X
New York X X X
North Carolina X X
North Dakota X X
Oregon X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X
South Dakota X X
Texas X X X X X
Vermont X X
Virginia X X
Washington X X X G
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X X X X X H
Wyoming X X
A: RODEL
B: Synchro
C: Model used depends on build year or future vs. year evaluation
D: Vissim traffic simulation, Synchro SimTraffic
E: Equations provided in NCHRP Report 572
F: Rodel, Arcady
G: Sidra Standard with no environment factor in design year
H: HCM 2010 model calibrated for statewide roundabout analysis based on observed headways
 Roundabout Practices
What software tools are used by your state agency to determine the operational performance of a roundabout? Please check all that apply.

State Agency
State
developed tool (excel Other, please specify
Arcady HCS Rodel Sidra Synchro Vistro Microsimulation Comments
spreadsheet or other, in the comments box
please specify)
Alaska X X X X
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Arkansas X X X X
California X X X X X
Connecticut X X X A
Delaware X X
Florida X X X X X X A
Georgia X X X X B
Idaho
Illinois X
Indiana X
Iowa X X X
Kansas X X X X
Kentucky X X X X X C
Louisiana X X A
Maine X X X X
Maryland X X X
Massachusetts X X
Michigan X
Minnesota X X X X X D
Mississippi X X X
Missouri X X X
Montana X X X
Nebraska
Nevada X
New Hampshire X X
New Mexico X X X X
New York X X
North Carolina X X E
North Dakota X X X
Oregon X X X X F
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X
South Dakota X X
Texas X X
Vermont X X X
Virginia X X A
Washington G
West Virginia X X X
Wisconsin X X X X X H
Wyoming X X X X
A: Vissim
B: GDOT Roundbout Analysis tool is almost always used, so HCS is not used much since the GDOT tool uses the same formulas. Arcady is approved, but rarely used. Sidra is the most common software used. Vissim has been used.
C: HCS is main software used.
D: Our Road Design Manual recommends use of the UK model (Arcady, Rodel). However, when capacity threshold is in question, we also check and compare with HCM and microsimulation/Vissim results.
E: We currently only accept SIDRA analysis for determining LOS or capacity. We will use SimTraffic to see how a roundabout may work in a road network, but do not accept Synchro analysis (v. 7, we are evaluation v. 9.) We did not accept HCM2000, but are evaluating HCM2010. VISSIM
and Trans-Modeler have been used for LOS and capacity decisions.
F: Excel spreadsheet
G: Rodel and Sidra. We don't accept Synchro
H: Synchro used in combination with Microsimulation. Rodel has been used in the past.
 Roundabout Practices
How is the design year determined?

State Case-by-case basis: Please provide us an approximation of how often the following design-year options are used. Fixed design year, Fixed duration (e.g. 20
Specific criteria, please
Practical Design policy please specify the years), please specify
specify the criteria:
Case-by-case basis 5 years 10 years 20 years Over 20 years design year: the number of years:
Alaska 20
Arkansas 20
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

California C D
Connecticut 20
Delaware 20
Florida 20
Georgia X Never Sometimes Usually Seldom 20
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana 20
Iowa 20
Kansas E
Kentucky 25
Louisiana 15-20
Maine 20
Maryland 20
Massachusetts X Never Sometimes Sometimes Never
Michigan 20
Minnesota Usually Always X A
Mississippi F
Missouri 20
Montana 20
Nebraska 20
Nevada X Seldom Seldom Usually Seldom
New Hampshire 20
New Mexico Usually X
New York G
North Carolina X Seldom Sometimes Usually Never
North Dakota Never Never Always Never X
Oregon H
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island X Seldom Seldom Usually Sometimes
South Dakota 20
Texas X
Vermont Always X
Virginia 30
Washington B I
West Virginia X Always Usually Usually Seldom 20
Wisconsin 20
Wyoming 20
A: 20 year design life; then a phased approach based on 10 year increments
B: 20 years for Federal or Interstate projects
C: Current year for safety & operational projects; build-out year for local development mitigation projects
D: 20 years from construction for new facility or reconstruction (intersection and interchange)
E: 20 years or full buildout (30-40 years)
F: Typically 20 years for new construction; 10 years for 3R (Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation) projects
G: 10 and 20 - phased in design. 30 if bridge involved.
H: 20 years, 10 years for development
I: Usually 20 years however with Practical Design, are looking at 10 year windows
 Roundabout Practices
How does your state estimate or predict safety at roundabouts?

State Crash Modification Factors or Crash

Highway Safety Manual predictive Crash Modification Factors or Crash Our state does not typically estimate
Reduction Factors (calibrated to Other Other, please specify
methodology: Reduction Factors (uncalibrated): or predict safety at roundabouts
local conditions):
Alaska X
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Arkansas X
California X A
Connecticut X B
Delaware X
Florida X X X
Georgia X X X C
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana X D
Iowa X X
Kansas X X E
Kentucky X
Louisiana X
Maine X X
Maryland X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X
Minnesota X X X
Mississippi X X
Missouri X
Montana X X
Nebraska X X X X F
Nevada X
New Hampshire X
New Mexico X X
New York X X G
North Carolina X
North Dakota X
Oregon X X
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Dakota X X
Texas X
Vermont X
Virginia X
Washington X H
West Virginia X
Wisconsin X X X I
Wyoming X
A: Via "collision rate groups" established from our collision database, adjusted for traffic volumes and development conditions (i.e. rural, suburban, urban)
B: IIHS study
C: The FHWA clearinghouse is typically used
D: Our own highway safety analysis program
E: Before/After Study
F: State evaluation
G: Developing crashes per million entering vehicle rates
H: In addition to HSM predictive methology, we will rely on early IIHS work for rural locations
I: Roundabout safety analyses, phase 1 and 2 (completed; phase 3 forthcoming)
 Roundabout Practices
Please indicate the extent to which your state agency uses NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts an Informational Guide, Second Edition to provide roundabout design guidance.

State Our state uses NCHRP Report 672 Our state has developed separate Our state uses material from other
Our state uses NCHRP Report 672 as Our state has developed guidance to Please indicate the sources used for
supplemented by material from other guidance and does not use, or rarely sources, and does not use, or rarely
the only source of design guidance. supplement NCHRP Report 672. design guidance.
sources to provide design guidance. uses, NCHRP Report 672. uses, NCHRP Report 672.
Alaska X A
Arkansas X B
California X
Connecticut X
Delaware X
Florida X
Georgia X C
Idaho
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Illinois
Indiana X D
Iowa X E
Kansas X F
Kentucky X G
Louisiana X H
Maine X
Maryland X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X I
Minnesota X J
Mississippi X
Missouri X K
Montana X L
Nebraska
Nevada X M
New Hampshire X
New Mexico X
New York X N
North Carolina X
North Dakota X O
Oregon X P
Pennsylvania X
Rhode Island X
South Dakota X Q
Texas X R
Vermont X
Virginia X
Washington X S
West Virginia X T
Wisconsin X U
Wyoming X
A: MUTCD; Memo on design from regional pre-construction engineer
B: Kansas Roundabout Guide
C: Chapter 8 of the Georgia DOT Design Policy Manual ([Link]
D: Indiana DOT - 2013 Design Manual, page 84 ([Link]
E: Iowa DOT Design Manual, Chapter 6, Section 6A-3 ([Link]
F: Kansas Roundabout Guide - 2nd Edition ([Link]
G: NCHRP Report 672; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Design Guidance ([Link]
H: Louisiana DOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 6, Section 6.9 ([Link]
I: Michigan DOT Roundabout Guidance Document ([Link]
J: Minnesota DOT Road Design Manual Chpter 12 - Guidelines for Modern Roundabouts ([Link]
K: Missouri DOT Engineering Policy Guide - 233.3 Roundabouts ([Link]
L: NHCRP Report 572 Roundabouts in the United States; Roundabout Design Guidelines, Ourston Roundabout Engineering; Synthesis of North American Roundabout Practice, Transportation Association of Canada
M: Roundabouts, An Informational Guide, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067; MUTCD, Part 2b & Part 3; NCHRP Report 674, Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians With Vision Disabilities; Roundabout Design Guidelines, Wisconsin DOT
N: Chapters 5, 8, 11, and 18 of the New York State DOT Highway Design Manual ([Link]
O: FHWA; AASHTO
P: Oregon DOT Highway Design Manual ([Link] Oregon DOT Roundabout Directive DES-02 ([Link]
Oregon DOT Traffic Manual, Section 6.26 ([Link] Oregon DOT Analysis Procedure Manual ([Link]
Q: South Dakota DOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 12 ([Link]
R: Texas Roundabout Guidelines: Final Report ([Link]
S: Washington DOT Design Manual, Chapter 1320 ([Link]
T: AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Desgin of Highways and Streets "Green Book"
U: Wisconsin DOT Facilities Development Manual, Chapter 11, Section 26 ([Link]
 Roundabout Practices
Phased implementation approach to multilane roundabouts

Does your state agency typically try to use a

Have one or more roundabouts in your state Have one or more roundabouts in your state
phased implementation approach to multilane
State Do you have criteria for determining when a Please indicate the criteria used for (built by your state agency or others) (built by your state agency or others)
roundabouts? (This could include opening a
phased-implementation approach should be determining when a phased-implementation designed with a phased approach in mind designed with a phased approach in mind
roundabout with fewer entry, circulating or
used? approach should be used. been expanded from its opening-year been expanded from its opening-year
exit lanes than is ultimately determined to be
configuration? configuration?: Comments
necessary for future conditions.)
Alaska Yes No No
Arkansas Yes Yes A No
California Yes Yes No
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Connecticut No
Delaware No
Florida Yes No Yes
Georgia Yes Yes B No
Idaho N/A
Illinois N/A
Indiana No
Iowa Yes No No
Kansas Yes Yes C No
Kentucky Yes No No
Louisiana Yes Yes D No
Maine No
Maryland Yes Yes E Yes M
Massachusetts No
Michigan Yes Yes F No
Minnesota Yes Yes G No
Mississippi No
Missouri Yes No No
Montana Yes No H No
Nebraska No
Nevada No
New Hampshire Yes No No
New Mexico Yes No No
New York Yes Yes I No
North Carolina Yes Yes J No
North Dakota No
Oregon Yes No No
Pennsylvania No
Rhode Island No
South Dakota N/A
Texas No
Vermont No
Virginia Yes No No
Washington Yes K Yes N
West Virginia Yes Yes L No
Wisconsin Yes
Wyoming No
A: It's a case-by-case basis. Modeling is used to project traffic volumes for opening date and 20 year design. Implementation of lane geometry is phased accordingly.
B: If the roundabout will work as a single-lane roundabout for approximately 10 years or more (based on capacity analysis), Georgia DOT opens it as a single-lane roundabout with removable portions for the future multi-lane configuration.
C: Documented in Section 6.1.3 of the Kansas Roundabout Guide, 2nd Edition
D: Analysis output from software.
E: If a single-lane configuration will be sufficient for five years or less Maryland SHA will proposed a multilane configuration. If the single-lane configuration is sufficient for more than ten years, SHA will open as a single-lane roundabout. In between five and ten years is decided on a case-by-case basis.
F: Evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the expected traffic volume growth between the opening and design years.
G: If the roundabout will work as a single-lane roundabout for approximately 10 years or more (based on capacity analysis), Michigan DOT opens it as a single-lane roundabout, and waits for future phased construction. Michigan DOT also coordinates the single-lane and multilane designs to minimize
future reconstruction.
H: Depends on future capacity needs, and is determined on a case-by-case basis.
I: The roundabout is opened as a single-lane roundabout designed with expansion in mind when New York State DOT predicts a single-lane roundabout will get ten years of acceptable operations, but fail before 20 years
J: For long-range projects, a design year (currently 2040) analysis is done to determine ultimate design. If this design calls for multi-lane approaches or slip lanes, North Carolina DOT will conduct an interim analysis to see if fewer lanes will work for at least ten years or so.
K: The use of a phased-implementation approach is site specific and left up to the judgment of the traffic engineers working with the expected traffic volumes in collaboration with program or project offices involved in developing the project footprint.
L: The use of a phased-implementation approach is sometimes based expected traffic volumes (opening-year volumes versus subsequent future-year volumes) or could be to align future expansion with other roadway work
M: I-495/Ritchie Marlboro Road interchange ramp terminals
N: SR 166/ Bethel Avenue - Port Orchard; SR 501/45th Street - Ridgefield; Boulevard Road/Log Cabin - Olympia
 Roundabout Practices
Roundabouts modified from its original design to address safety or operational issues
State
Have one or more roundabouts in your state (built by your state agency or others) been modified from its original Have one or more roundabouts in your state (built by your state agency or others) been modified from its original
design to address safety or operational issues? design to address safety or operational issues?: Comments
Alaska Yes A
Arkansas No
California Yes B
Connecticut No
Delaware Yes C
Florida Yes D
Georgia Yes E
Idaho
Illinois
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Indiana No
Iowa Yes F
Kansas Yes G
Kentucky Yes H
Louisiana No
Maine Yes I
Maryland Yes J
Massachusetts Yes K
Michigan Yes L
Minnesota Yes M
Mississippi No
Missouri No
Montana No
Nebraska Yes N
Nevada No
New Hampshire No
New Mexico No
New York Yes O
North Carolina Yes P
North Dakota No
Oregon Yes Q
Pennsylvania No
Rhode Island No
South Dakota No
Texas No
Vermont No
Virginia Yes R
Washington Yes S
West Virginia Yes T
Wisconsin Yes U
Wyoming Yes V
A: Dowling/New Seward Highway intersection in design
B: State Highway Route 1/Simpson Lane intersection in Mendocino County was modified from a "hybrid" to a single-lane configuration.
C: A roundabout was modified becaues of issues with oversized farm vehicles in a rural area. The roundabout was significantly modified with larger/less steep apron, more clear area on the outside of the roundabout, and less steep curbs
D: Clearwater, Florida
E: Georgia DOT added a truck apron to a roundabout near Gainesville College and modified truck aprons on roundabouts in Culloden and Carrollton due to design vehicle issues
F: US 34/US 63 in Ottumwa
G: US-50/I-35 interchange in Emporia, Kansas
H: The signing and pavement markings of a multilane roundabout were modified by a local jurisdiction
I: The first roundabout built by the Maine DOT did not have a raised truck apron which was added in subsequent years
J: Many early roundabouts have been modified
K: Rotaries have been retrofit with roundabout-style markings to improve safety and reduce delays.
L: M-53/18 ½ Mile Road intersection had revisions to the central island and signing. Other roundabouts have had slight modifications, typically including signing and pavement markings
M: TH61/Broadway Ave, Forest Lake, MN; CR13 (Radio Dr)/CR18 (Bailey Rd), Woodbury, MN; I-35/CR12 (69th ST NW) interchange
N: Multilane roundabout with three lanes at the intersection of 14th Street/Superior Street built by the City of Lincoln was reduced to two lanes.
O: So far just signing, striping, and lane assignment modifications. New York State DOT will likely start reducing lanes based on growth rate predictions not coming to fruition.
P: Hillsborough St. at Pullen/Oberlin intersection in Raleigh. Built as a multi-lane roundabout, within 12 months after opening, over 120 crashes occurred. An evaluation was made, and volumes were not as high as originally planned. Lanes were then changed (to right-turn lanes, or eliminated) so
that only single through lanes were provided, along with some minor alignment changes. Other roundabouts have had minor adjustments (for instance, outside curbs installed instead of shoulders to reduce rutting.)
Q: Striping and signing modifications have been made to the multi-lane roundabout near Astoria at the intersction of US 101/OR 202 to improve sight lines and driver behavior.
R: US 50/US 15 intersection (Gilbert's Corner) in Loudoun County
S: SR 510/Pacific Avenue intersection was striped to reduce capacity; SR 16 Southbound Ramp/Borgen Blvd intersection was restriped and the capacity reduced to correct a design flaw involving back to back double left movements
T: The lane configuration was adjusted on one approach at the roundabout at the intersection of WV 705/US 119 in Morgantown
U: Broadway Street (STH 32/57) roundabout in De Pere was modified to accommodate dual northbound left-turns and lower volume eastbound through and left movements
V: Paved the inner circle to allow Oversize/Overweight loads to navigate the intersection on a hard surface
 Roundabout Practices
Guidance on the accommodation of large vehicles (trucks, emergency vehicles, farming equipment, oversize/overweight vehicles, etc...) at roundabouts?
State
Has your state developed guidance on the accommodation of large vehicles (trucks, emergency vehicles, farming Yes, please provide the document name where we can find the information:Is the design-vehicle accommodation
equipment, oversize/overweight vehicles, etc...) at roundabouts? guidance provided in the material uploaded in question 19?
Alaska Yes
Arkansas No
California Yes A
Connecticut No
Delaware Yes
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Florida No
Georgia Yes B
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana Yes C
Iowa Yes D
Kansas Yes E
Kentucky Yes F
Louisiana Yes
Maine No
Maryland No
Massachusetts No
Michigan No
Minnesota Yes G
Mississippi No
Missouri Yes H
Montana No
Nebraska Yes
Nevada No
New Hampshire No
New Mexico No
New York Yes I
North Carolina No
North Dakota No
Oregon Yes J
Pennsylvania No
Rhode Island No
South Dakota Yes K
Texas No
Vermont No
Virginia Yes L
Washington Yes M
West Virginia No
Wisconsin Yes N
Wyoming Yes
A: California Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400
B: Information included in Chapter 8 of the Georgia DOT Design Policy Manual ([Link]
C: Indiana DOT - 2013 Design Manual, page 115 ([Link]
D: Iowa DOT Design Manual, Chapter 6, Section 6A-3 ([Link]
E: Kansas Roundabout Guide - 2nd Edition ([Link]
F: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Design Guidance, page 6&7 ([Link]
G: Minnesota DOT Road Design Manual Chpter 12 - Guidelines for Modern Roundabouts ([Link]
H: Accommodating Small and Large Users at Roundabouts ([Link]
I: Draft Highway Design Manual 26.4.5 tells designers to determine appropriate design vehicle. If Oversize/Overweight, designers will need to contact Main Office for assistance
J: Oregon DOT Roundabout Directive DES-02 ([Link] soon in the ODOT Highway Design Manual, Chapter 8
K: South Dakota DOT typically designs for the WB-67, however, they have designed roundabouts to accommodate longer combination vehicles (LCVs). See page 12-15 ([Link]
L: WB-67 vehicle
M: Washington DOT Design Manual, Chapter 1320 ([Link]
N: Wisconsin DOT Facilities Development Manual, Chapter 11, Section 26, Sections 10.2 & 30.5.4 to 30.5.7 ([Link]
 Roundabout Practices
Illumination standard/guidance

Does your state follow What is the basis for your state's illumination standard/guidance?
State
developed standards/guidance
on the illumination of AASHTO Roadway Lighting IES Design Guide for
NCHRP Report 672 State-specific standard Other Other, please specify
roundabouts? Design Guide Roundabout Lighting
Alaska Yes X X X X A
Arkansas Yes X X X
California Yes X B
Connecticut Yes X X
Delaware Yes
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Florida Yes X X
Georgia Yes X X X X X C
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana Yes X X D
Iowa No
Kansas Yes X E
Kentucky Yes X
Louisiana Yes X F
Maine No
Maryland Yes X
Massachusetts Yes X X
Michigan Yes X
Minnesota Yes X X X G
Mississippi Yes X X
Missouri Yes X X H
Montana Yes X X
Nebraska
Nevada Yes X X X
New Hampshire Yes X
New Mexico Yes X X X
New York Yes X X X I
North Carolina Yes X J
North Dakota Yes X
Oregon Yes X
Pennsylvania Yes X X
Rhode Island No
South Dakota Yes X K
Texas Yes X X L
Vermont Yes X
Virginia Yes X
Washington Yes X M
West Virginia Yes X X
Wisconsin Yes X X
Wyoming Yes X
A: AASHTO's "An Informational Guide for Roadway Lighting" 1984
B: California Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400
C: Chapter 8 of the Georgia DOT Design Policy Manual ([Link]
D: Indiana DOT - 2013 Design Manual, page 134 ([Link]
E: Kansas Roundabout Guide - 2nd Edition ([Link]
F: Louisiana DOT uses the IES Design Guide for Roundabout Lighting. They do not require roundabouts to be lit.
G: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide 1st Edition; Roadway Lighting Design Manual ([Link]
H: [Link]
I: Draft Highway Design Manual 26.6.2.
J: The Roadway Lighting gropu uses AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide solely in roundabout lighting design in TIP projects and in roundabout lighting design encroachments review. For roundabouts located in continuously illuminated roadways, the roundabout should be lit to a level that is 2
the value used on the best lit approach. This design light level is in general agreement with NCHRP 672. For roundabouts with unlit connecting roadways, the roundabout should be lit to a level that is 1.3 times the value of the connecting roadway with highest roadway classification.
K: South Dakota DOT Road Design Manual, Chapter 12, page 15-29 ([Link]
L: ANSI RP-8-00
M: Washington DOT Design Manual, Chapter 1320 ([Link]
N: Wisconsin DOT Facilities Development Manual, Chapter 11, Section 11, ([Link]
 Roundabout Practices
What are the major reasons why your agency has not built roundabouts on the state system?

Is your agency
State They are not part of
Not sure they work Not sure that the drivers Concerned about liability considering the
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

design standards used by Not sure they are safe Other Other, please explain
efficiently will get used to them issues construction of
our agency
roundabouts?
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho X X A Yes
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
A: Tradition
Roundabout Practices

76

APPENDIX D
Case Examples

California (Caltrans) Implementation and Effectiveness of Policies

Roundabout Selection • Since the ICE policy went into effect there has been a
dramatic change in the number of roundabout alternatives
• Caltrans uses an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) being evaluated and selected, and a reduction in the time to
policy for selecting intersection control determine if the roundabout is a viable alternative.
• The Caltrans ICE policy was published in 2013 and applies • The policy requires the consideration of roundabouts, which
to all project types on intersections and interchanges on the was inconsistent and infrequent prior to ICE.
State Highway System. • There are no examples of ICE where the optimum outcome
• The motivation for the ICE policy was originally systematic was not a roundabout.
implementation of roundabouts and was expanded to refer • In the ICE process, a well-conceived roundabout alternative
to other intersection types. is very competitive.
• For the past 7 or 8 years the Caltrans Safety Management
Program was promoting roundabouts as a countermeasure.
• Most (approximately 95%) of roundabouts on the ground Quality Control
in California are a result of local agency desire, action and
funding, and occurred before the ICE was put in place. • Review process within Caltrans is not formal.
• Case-by-case review.
• Help municipalities access the technical assistance through
Modifications to Existing Roundabouts FHWA.
• Relying on consultant reviews through an informal process.
• One state highway roundabout was originally constructed • Caltrans encouraging project managers to utilize peer review
as a partial multilane roundabout was converted to a single- in the design contracts for more complex locations.
lane roundabout.
• In Long Beach, a redesign of a multilane roundabout/traffic
circle hybrid is planned to reduce capacity but not reduce
the diameter of the existing circle. The project will reduce Connecticut (ConnDOT)
the width of the roundabout approaches and circulatory
roadway, and was motivated by a high number of property Roundabout Selection
damage only crashes. While the modifications will increase
vehicle delay, the expectation is to see a reduction in the • Most roundabout proposals are coming from municipalities
number of crashes. but ConnDOT also proposes them.
• The request from municipality is usually made by the town
engineer or public works director but just was just recently
Design Vehicle approached by a town planner.
• Most exposure to roundabouts in Connecticut came through
• The design vehicle is dictated by the Surface Transportation word of mouth or engineering publications.
Assistance Act (STAA). • Connecticut differs from other states because there is no
• The design vehicle depends on which “network” the inter- county government, and the two major stakeholders are the
section or interchange is on, and the classification of the road. state and the municipality.
• Four STAA vehicle types are: STAA 53, STAA 48, STAA • If there is strong support from the town it makes the process
Double, STAA ELLN (Extralegal Load). go quicker.
• This varies slightly from other state DOT nomenclature • Initial installation faced strong opposition; there were 300+
but the vehicles are similar sizes. people at the public hearing, but strong political support to
• The design vehicle accommodation is customized based deliver the project. In the end, crashes were reduced and
on intersection traffic conditions. congestion went away, accomplishing the major goals of
• Some effort to accommodate extra sized loads. the project.
• Three roundabout rodeos have been conducted, and all were • ConnDOT is focused on installing roundabouts where they
highly successful. can be successful.

Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts Phased Implementation Approach

• Caltrans is open to the learning more about opportunities • ConnDOT is interested in a phased approach, but have not
but it seems to be something that may be more interesting done so yet.
to municipalities. • The last roundabout that was built was designed for 20 years
• Los Angeles completed an overnight implementation of a out and it was built with excess capacity. ConnDOT has
roundabout. seen that the roundabout could have been opened up as a
• City of Modesto implemented a temporary roundabout over single-lane roundabout.
the course of a few days using channelizers and markings • ConnDOT has six multilane roundabouts and three could
that has been in service for seven years. open as single lane roundabouts for the first ten years,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 77

eliminating the ability for drivers to cross over lanes and Knowledge Gaps
taking the fastest path through the roundabout.
• ConnDOT is starting to question the traffic volume projec- • ConnDOT’s implementation strategy is working out well.
tions, and instead making the roundabout work for ten years. • On the technical side ConnDOT is learning as they get more
experience. For instance, ConnDOT is now using granite
on the truck apron.
Modifications to Existing Roundabouts • ConnDOT has expanded some of the information regard-
ing roundabout design, but they mostly point to NCHRP
• ConnDOT has not modified any roundabouts in Connecticut. Report 672 for details.
• ConnDOT has modified older rotaries.
• First rotary modification was in was in Killingworth,
Connecticut. Quality Control
• There was no deflection so ConnDOT installed a truck apron
to improve safety. • All the roundabouts built in Connecticut have gone through
• ConnDOT received a National Roadway Safety award from in-house design at ConnDOT.
FHWA for the Killingworth rotary modification. • ConnDOT has spent a lot of time observing post construction.
• A rotary in Seymour, Connecticut is being modified now • So far there has been a small pool of designers able to design
for less than $700,000 as opposed to $2,000,000 for a new roundabouts, but the pool of designers is growing.
roundabout. • ConnDOT has identified additional details needed in the
• Because of the reduced cost the Seymour project is getting highway design manual.
a lot of support. • ConnDOT used an external reviewed for the first proposed
roundabout in the state.

Design Vehicle
Other
• WB-50 used to be the default design vehicle, but now a
WB-62 or WB-67 is most commonly used. • ConnDOT is interested in seeing how phased implementation
• WB 62 for most of the movements in the intersection and works.
WB-67 for landscaping. • A roundabout proposed in Manchester, Connecticut will
• Low clearance truck trailers (lowboys) have been chal- have rail going right through the middle of the intersection.
lenging. • There are potentially 20 to 25 planned roundabouts on
• For lowboy accommodation ConnDOT keeps the same state roads.
cross-slope for the circulatory roadway and truck apron. • The roundabouts that have been built, work!
• One roundabout has an 11% slope on the approach to the
roundabout and there have been no issues with plowing.
• Splitter islands have a hole cast for installing a rod in the Georgia (GDOT)
winter, which serves as a warning device to the alert the
plow driver to the location of the splitter island. Roundabout Selection
• The center island truck apron must be at least as wide as
the snow plow wheel base width. • The majority of roundabouts are identified through the safety
• One concrete truck apron was chipped by a plow so ConnDOT program.
now uses a granite curb detail with a chamfer. • Many in design or construction have been identified by
particular needs in the field, for example difficult intersection
geometry or crash pattern.
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts • 1999 was the first roundabout in Georgia. A draft policy
was developed in 2001 that was formally adopted in
• Because of rotary retrofits, this is not as applicable. 2004.
• Some towns are trying minis. In one case the center island • In 2008 the language changed from encourage to “preferred”
was developed using only paint that hasn’t been as effective. and allowed multilane roundabouts.
There could be some challenges with implementing Mini • GDOT is now getting local municipalities asking for
roundabouts in in Connecticut. round­abouts.
• ConnDOT is putting extra emphasis on making sure fastest • The policy requires consideration of a roundabout during
paths are checked at mini-roundabouts. signal permit or any other type of project, which has triggered
a lot of proposed roundabouts.

Implementation and Effectiveness of Policies

Phased Implementation Approach
• ConnDOT was initially focused first on single-lane
roundabouts but is now branching out toward multilane • If traffic volumes in the future-year analysis warrant a multi­
roundabouts. lane roundabout GDOT recommends a phased approach.
• The highway design manual is currently being rewritten • Most have been built with the outside footprint, circle, and
and will have additional guidance on roundabouts. splitter island geometry of the ultimate multilane roundabout.
• ConnDOT is interested in putting in language specifying a • One roundabout was supposed to be phased but GDOT
preference for roundabouts. ended up building the full multilane roundabout due to an
• ConnDOT is not able to influence consultant design. uptick in volumes prior to construction.
• Consultants and municipalities now propose roundabouts • Most projects use a 20 year design horizon to meet federal
which is a change from a few years ago. requirements.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

78

• GDOT uses a ten year window for considering a phased • GDOT is procuring rigid modular curb, as most locations
approach. are on roadways that do not have curb and gutter.
• GDOT prefers opening roundabouts as a single-lane round- • This practice has been effective at reducing queues and
about. If the roundabout will operate acceptably as a single- crashes.
lane roundabout for at least seven to ten years, GDOT will
open as a single-lane roundabout.
Implementation and Effectiveness of Policies

Modifications to Existing Roundabouts • The policy reads as a “shall” condition, but there is some
room to get around the policy.
• So far GDOT has only modified roundabouts in the design • The policy could be stronger and require a clearer statement
process. Because of the restriction on building multilane of why the roundabout was not chosen.
roundabouts lifted in 2008, GDOT doesn’t have a lot of • An ICE policy would help.
multilane roundabouts to modify.

Knowledge Gaps
Design Vehicle
• There is not a lot of flexibility in available roundabout
• The design vehicle for roundabouts in Georgia is WB-67 design guidance.
truck. • With a decent design and good speed control, roundabouts
• GDOT has aided municipalities with roundabouts not on have proven safety and operational benefits.
the state highway system. • Without ICE, GDOT engineers have to convince the GDOT
project manager and highway design folks to get a round-
• In cases where a smaller design vehicle was used, GDOT
about to the concept level. Otherwise, a signal will be
encouraged hardscape on the center island. installed with the safety benefits of a roundabout ignored.
• Depending on the routes GDOT can design for oversize- • Some consultant peer reviews have made it difficult
overweight (OSOW) vehicles, with a focus on over-length to implement due to increased costs due to consultant
vehicles. comments.
• GDOT knows the over-length vehicle routes but not the • GDOT would like know what design requirements could
vehicle axle spacing. GDOT is now requiring the axle spac- be relaxed (curb and gutter or illumination, for instance) to
ing to be able to model potential truck turning movements. increase the cost-effectiveness.
• The GDOT OSOW office tracks the over-length history
and determines, based on the routes, if there is a need to
accommodate OSOW vehicles, otherwise GDOT looks to Quality Control
use parallel routes.
• GDOT does a peer review on most roundabouts.
• One example is a Kia plant being built; once the factory is
done there is no longer a need to accommodate over-length
vehicles. Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
• GDOT does not design to accommodate side by side (PROWAG)
truck movements, nor does GDOT design to allow full
straddling. • We provide conduit under the road where the signal would
• GDOT designs to allow a truck in the right lane to over-track go. Just the piece of conduit.
but still leave room for a car in the adjacent lane.

Kansas (KDOT)
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts
Roundabout Selection
• In District 1 GDOT used state forces to install a mini round-
about. Modular curbing was used to define the center island • Roundabout selection has been strictly based on crashes,
and was backfilled with asphalt. but operations are considered.
• If GDOT was to repeat the installation, GDOT would have • Requests from municipalities for gateway treatments are
used a more rigid curbing system. fairly frequent.
• Project included widening on three of the four corners and • From a local perspective, cities have used roundabouts as
a 90 foot inscribed circle diameter roundabout. a traffic calming device in locations with less frequent and
• The cost was $63,000 including full repaving and striping. less severe crashes.
• GDOT has conducted two or three “quick response” projects • Many roundabout locations are off of the highway system.
that have $200k budget cap. Kansas has a reputation for roundabouts partially because
• GDOT used district maintenance resources and a general of many local examples.
contractor. • Lawrence, Kansas, has a roundabouts first policy because
• Contractor built central island and set the intersection grades of the positive impacts of roundabouts.
and then GDOT did asphalt overlay on all approaches.
• Challenges were coordination between forces, and actual
costs may have been higher, overall costs were probably Phased Implementation Approach
closer to $300K.
• Another location is more temporary, using just rigid modular • For a phased approach KDOT builds the outside geometry
curb for the roundabout layout, and no paving. and allows for expansion to the inside.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 79

• Partially because of recent experience with a multilane • Consultants working on development projects know SHA is
roundabout in Emporia, Kansas, multilane roundabouts going to require the evaluation of a roundabout, so they’re
are not viewed as favorable at the moment. proposing them as part of development project as well.
• Maryland has had their policy requiring evaluation for a
while now. The policy is strictly enforced which has led
Modifications to Existing Roundabouts to roundabouts becoming the default intersection choice.

• A multilane roundabout in Emporia, Kansas was reconfig-

ured to a single lane roundabout. A number of trucks were Phased Implementation Approach
over turning, and confusion with navigation was identified
as issues. Since the capacity was reduced, there haven’t been • The Towson Circle and I-495/Ritchie-Marlboro Road
further problems (converted 18 months ago). interchange ramp terminal roundabouts were all built as
• Agency has shifted focus to be supportive of the community’s two-lane multilane roundabouts, but planned to be expanded
desires. to three-lanes. Towson Circle was reduced to a hybrid
single-lane/multilane roundabout a few years ago, and will
never be expanded, and the Ritchie-Marlboro Road round-
Design Vehicle abouts were expanded to three lanes due to development
pressure.
• The design vehicle for roundabouts matches the design vehi- • Because of SHA’s experience with modifying many of
cle for the highway network in which the roundabout exists. the early multilane roundabouts, SHA attempts to open a
• Most roundabout designers are well aware of oversize/ roundabout as small as possible.
overweight vehicle concerns as it is mentioned throughout • If a roundabout will get at least five to ten years of service
the KDOT roundabout design guide. with a smaller configuration, SHA will open the roundabout
• There is no standard super-load vehicle. smaller.
• WB-67 was the design vehicle in Lyndon, Kansas, but KDOT
tweaked the design to allow rear-steer for larger loads, and
to broaden the range of roundabouts. Modifications to Existing Roundabouts
• Wind energy has loads that are big and bulky but not heavy.
These vehicles must obtain a permit for transport of the • The Towson Circle was reduced from a two-lane multilane
130–150 foot loads. roundabout to a hybrid single-lane/multilane roundabout.
• The roundabout at an interchange ramp terminal in Arundel
Mills, Maryland was removed to allow a diverging diamond
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts interchange to be constructed.
• Roundabouts near Fort Meade and in Odenton were both
• KDOT is not doing this, but there might be some local modified by reducing capacity.
examples within Kansas.

Knowledge Gaps Design Vehicle

• KDOT used shoulders on a couple roundabouts, but believes • SHA uses a WB-67 design vehicle as the default for all state
curbing provides positive guidance for drivers. routes.
• Most roundabouts are concrete pavement, and KDOT would • Many of the early roundabouts used a WB-50 design vehicle.
like more information on the best ways to stage reconstruc- While WB-67s can get through these roundabouts, markings
tion of concrete roundabouts. around the intersections indicate they are not doing so with-
• Experience in Emporia reinforced a phased approach. out off-tracking on curbs or outside shoulders. (Although
• OSOW and wind energy vehicle accommodation are the outside shoulders were used at many of Maryland’s early
two biggest design needs at the moment. roundabouts, Maryland uses curb and gutter for all new
roundabouts, and roundabout retrofit projects).

Other
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts
• KDOT hears from other states that the KDOT guide is
being used for their design guidance. • SHA built a mini-roundabout using thermoplastic and tape
• KDOT is still building dumbbell roundabouts because at the intersection of US 50/Thompson Creek Road in
they are better with speed control than ovals and the cost Stevensville, Maryland.
of bridges is less. • The roundabout cost about $50 thousand, and has been in
place for five to ten years.
• SHA hasn’t made a habit out of building more low-cost
Maryland roundabouts, and credits the successful implementation of
the roundabout in Stevensville to a low-speed environment,
Roundabout Selection and an intersection without any real through movements.

• Roundabouts have become the default intersection form

in Maryland. Knowledge Gaps
• Roundabouts are mostly proposed for safety reason, but
a few are capacity driven, and one in Mount Rainier, • Maryland acknowledges some early mistakes made in
Maryland, was economic driven. regards to roundabout design.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

80

• In particular, Maryland did not understand the potential for • MnDOT is rethinking the truck apron height, for now, it is
path overlap at multilane roundabouts, and has attempted still four inches.
to restripe or reduce the number of entering lanes to cor-
rect the issue.
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts

Roundabout Cost • No implementations from MnDOT so far, but in Minneapolis

modular curbing was used for a temporary installation.
• All roundabouts in Maryland now have curb and gutter and
illumination. This wasn’t the case at many early roundabouts.
• In particular, maintenance of traffic is driving up the project Implementation and Effectiveness of Policies
cost at many roundabouts.
• Per the engineering community, existing policies are pretty
solid. The engineering community has not had any problems
Quality Control with implementing the policies from an engineering and
technical point of view.
• All roundabout designs are reviewed to ensure compliance • One challenge is when a community wants a roundabout
with design guidelines (NCHRP Report 672). and a four way stop or traffic signal is proposed. There can
be a lot of political will for a roundabout, but a four way stop
may be practical and is a fraction of the cost.
Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG)
Knowledge Gaps
• Maryland is attempting to “do the right thing” and at a
minimum installing conduit at all multilane crossings. • How does MnDOT better design the roundabout for the
opening year? How does MnDOT design something that
works when it is opened and can be easily converted to
Minnesota (MnDOT) accommodate future year volumes?
• A few instances where a signal was implemented 15 years
Roundabout Selection ago and a roundabout is being considered. There are prop-
erty damage only (PDO) crashes but how can we capture
• MnDOT uses an ICE process at every intersection project. the existing value of the asset?
An ICE process has been used for six years in Minnesota.
• The intersection control is not pre-determined; the ICE
process drives the selection. However, sometimes there Quality Control
are other reasons that drive the selection process, primarily
safety. • Most proposed roundabouts go through a roundabout review
• The process previously only had a signal warrant report team made up of persons involved with designs. They
but was later broadened to include roundabouts. make sure it is a sound design and this functions as a quality
control check.

Modifications to Existing Roundabouts

Washington (WSDOT)
• Two roundabouts were modified from their original design.
They were built using a 20-year traffic forecast for the design Roundabout Selection
and a multi-lane roundabout was needed to accommodate
the projected traffic. One location had performance issue • Most roundabouts are brought forward because of local or
immediately, the other had issues over the course of a DOT preference for roundabouts.
few years. The traffic volumes at both locations were low • Chapter 13 Intersection “type” requires why a designer
enough that a single lane could have worked acceptably. chose the intersection type: life cycle, mobility, and safety.
One location was converted to a single-lane roundabout Section 1300 is the policy, chapter 1320 is the roundabout
with striping and signing. At the other location, curbs were design chapter. These both provide a lot of flexibility.
on two quadrants. • Seeing the obvious benefits; WSDOT needed to legitimize
• There have been a few other instances of striping and the roundabout as an alternative, so the process was formal-
signing changes. ized. It was developed at the project traffic and operations
• MnDOT is now considering more closely if a roundabout sections.
only marginally meets the threshold for multiple lanes, if so • Roundabouts continued to be implemented because WSDOT
then MnDOT builds a single lane roundabout. had the right folks weighing in on the process. WSDOT
learned that it was important to implement roundabouts
when opportunities presented themselves.
Design Vehicle

• Design vehicle type varies based on the type of roadway Modifications to Existing Roundabouts
facility. The design vehicle for trunk highways is a WB-62
truck and a low clearance trailer (lowboy). • WSDOT has taken capacity out of multiplane roundabouts
• MnDOT verifies that the sign placement doesn’t fall within to minimize minor crash history: most are entering vehi-
the path of the vehicles. cles not yielding to circulating vehicles. These crashes are

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

 81

typically property damage only (PDO) and modification • Primarily striping and signing, and the cost have been
involved reducing entry capacity. This was done at two about $200,000 to $300,000 for the three county owned
locations. intersections.
• WSDOT rebuilt roundabouts at an interchange that was –– These are good examples of interagency coordination.
built in the late 1990s. Reconstruction included re-striping
and semi-permanent curb. These locations had mostly PDO
crashes. Implementation and Effectiveness of Policies
• Not many modifications compared to the 105 WSDOT
roundabouts that have been constructed. • In the near term WSDOT has been focused on the imple-
• A roundabout was located on a bridge collapse detour route, mentation of roundabouts. Despite other successful projects,
and handled thru and left turns. there is still resistance.
• Moving ahead, WSDOT is looking at life-cycle costs, espe-
cially considering that signals require ongoing maintenance
Design Vehicle and retiming.

• WSDOT first looks at the facility type, and then drills down
to the individual movements within the intersection. Knowledge Gaps
• WSDOT allows straddling of lanes as permitted by state
law in its original form. • Knowledge gaps within WSDOT exist between Planning
• With advent of practical design a WB-67 is not always and Design.
needed, instead WSDOT looks at the individual movements. • Design plans that are on the shelf are outdated in a year.
• WSDOT recently modified the detail for the truck apron • Understanding that nodes are more important than the links.
height from three inches to two inches. • Speed is the not the defining factor of mobility.
• WSDOT engages region operations and traffic personnel. • Access management could play a stronger role in transporta-
Section 1329 of the WSDOT design guidance references tion planning.
vehicle accommodations.

Quality Control
Accelerated, Low-Cost Roundabouts
• All projects have a regional level review supported with
• WSDOT has done this at four locations, and all involved headquarters supplied expertise.
interim fixes in a weekend.
• These are typically done at compact roundabouts.
• No policy regarding this application but the traffic section Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines
has embraced them. (PROWAG)
• They have been used at interchanges that are backing up on
to the mainline. Local agencies are picking up on the idea • WSDOT is working to make sure there is an active warning
as well. system at multi-lane crossings.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundabout Practices

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
[Link] United States Department of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
500 Fifth Street, NW U.S. POSTAGE
Washington, DC 20001 PAID
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

90000
ISBN 978-0-309-27208-7

9 780309 272087
Roundabout Practices