HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

6 T H E D IT ION | A G U I D E F O R M U LT IM O D A L M OBIL I T Y A N A LYS I S

VO L U M E 4 : A P P L I C AT IO N S G U ID E

T R A N SP ORTAT IO N R E S E A R C H B OA RD
WA S H I N G T ON , D .C . | W W W.T RB.O RG
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
2016 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

Chair: James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Vice Chair: Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of (ex officio)
Transportation, Ames Sarah Feinberg, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration,
Executive Director: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center;
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian
Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director,
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center,
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics,
Washington, D.C.
Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department, Little Rock
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Jennifer Cohan, Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover
Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Transportation, Sacramento
Bevan B. Kirley, Research Associate, University of North Carolina
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences
Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, and Chair, TRB Young
and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe
Members Council (ex officio)
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation,
Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,
Phoenix
U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate
Wayne Nastri, Acting Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality
School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
Management District, Diamond Bar, California (ex officio)
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation
Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Commission, Oakland, California
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag Professor of Engineering, Carnegie
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, U.S. Air Force
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida (ex officio)
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Power, Energy, and Infrastructure
Reuben Sarkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation,
Group, BMO Capital Markets Corporation, New York
U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)
S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson
Richard A. White, Acting President and CEO, American Public
Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)
Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, Michigan
Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,
Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)
School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association
Ysela Llort, Consultant, Miami, Florida
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Melinda McGrath, Executive Director, Mississippi Department of
(ex officio)
Transportation, Jackson
Paul F. Zukunft (Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast
James P. Redeker, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ex officio)
Transportation, Newington
Mark L. Rosenberg, Executive Director, The Task Force for Global
Health, Inc., Decatur, Georgia
Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation,
Lansing (Past Chair, 2014)
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid
Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering
Transit, Dallas, Texas
individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through
Pat Thomas, Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, United
the Internet at www.TRB.org, or by annual subscription through
Parcel Service, Washington, D.C.
organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library
Katherine F. Turnbull, Executive Associate Director and Research
subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information,
Scientist, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station
contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth
Dean Wise, Vice President of Network Strategy, Burlington Northern
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213;
Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, Texas
fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).
Thomas P. Bostick (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers
Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences.
and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
All rights reserved.
D.C. (ex officio)
Printed in the United States of America.
James C. Card (Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, retired), Maritime
Consultant, The Woodlands, Texas, and Chair, TRB Marine Board
ISBN 978-0-309-36997-8 [Slipcased set of three volumes]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-36998-5 [Volume 1]
T. F. Scott Darling III, Acting Administrator and Chief Counsel, Federal
ISBN 978-0-309-36999-2 [Volume 2]
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
ISBN 978-0-309-37000-4 [Volume 3]
(ex officio)
ISBN 978-0-309-37001-1 [Volume 4, online only]
* Membership as of June 2016.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress,
signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental 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
www.national-academies.org.
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 www.TRB.org.
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

CHAPTER 33
ROUNDABOUTS: SUPPLEMENTAL

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 33-1

2. SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE ........................................................................... 33-2

Variability and Uncertainty ................................................................................ 33-2
Lane-Use Assignment.......................................................................................... 33-4
Capacity Model Calibration ............................................................................... 33-6

3. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS ......................................................................................... 33-8

Example Problem 1: Single-Lane Roundabout with Bypass Lanes .............. 33-8
Example Problem 2: Multilane Roundabout .................................................. 33-13

4. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 33-19

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Contents

Version 6.0 Page 33-i
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 33-1 Observed Combinations of Entry Flow and Conflicting Flow

During 1-min Periods of Continuous Queuing: One-Lane Entry
Opposed by One Circulating Lane .................................................................... 33-2
Exhibit 33-2 Observed Combinations of Entry Flow and Conflicting Flow
During 1-min Periods of Continuous Queuing: Both Lanes of Two-
Lane Entry Opposed by One Circulating Lane ............................................... 33-3
Exhibit 33-3 Observed Combinations of Entry Flow and Conflicting Flow
During 1-min Periods of Continuous Queuing: Left Lane of Two-
Lane Entry Opposed by Two Circulating Lanes ............................................. 33-3
Exhibit 33-4 Observed Combinations of Entry Flow and Conflicting Flow
During 1-min Periods of Continuous Queuing: Right Lane of Two-
Lane Entry Opposed by Two Circulating Lanes ............................................. 33-4
Exhibit 33-5 Roundabout Example Problems ......................................................... 33-8
Exhibit 33-6 Example Problem 1: Demand Volumes and Lane
Configurations ...................................................................................................... 33-8
Exhibit 33-7 Example Problem 1: Adjusted Flow Rates ........................................ 33-9
Exhibit 33-8 Example Problem 1: LOS by Lane .................................................... 33-12
Exhibit 33-9 Example Problem 2: Demand Volumes and Lane
Configurations .................................................................................................... 33-13
Exhibit 33-10 Example Problem 2: Adjusted Flow Rates .................................... 33-14
Exhibit 33-11 Example Problem 2: LOS by Lane .................................................. 33-17

Contents Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-ii Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 33 is the supplemental chapter for Chapter 22, Roundabouts, which VOLUME 4: APPLICATIONS
GUIDE
is found in Volume 3 of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This chapter 25. Freeway Facilities:
presents detailed information about the following aspects of the Chapter 22 Supplemental
26. Freeway and Highway
motorized vehicle methodology: Segments: Supplemental
27. Freeway Weaving:
 Information about the large variability in U.S. driver behavior at Supplemental
roundabouts, 28. Freeway Merges and
Diverges: Supplemental
 Guidance on making an appropriate selection of a lane utilization factor, 29. Urban Street Facilities:
Supplemental
and 30. Urban Street Segments:
Supplemental
 Guidance on calibrating the capacity model to reflect local conditions. 31. Signalized Intersections:
Supplemental
This chapter also provides two example problems that demonstrate the 32. STOP-Controlled
application of the Chapter 22 methodology to single-lane and multilane Intersections:
Supplemental
roundabouts. 33. Roundabouts:
Supplemental
34. Interchange Ramp
Terminals: Supplemental
35. Pedestrians and Bicycles:
Supplemental
36. Concepts: Supplemental
37. ATDM: Supplemental

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Introduction

Version 6.0 Page 33-1
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

2. SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE

This section presents supplemental guidance on the methodology provided

in Chapter 22, Roundabouts.

VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY

The analyst should be aware of the large observed variation in driver
behavior at roundabouts. Exhibit 33-1 through Exhibit 33-4 show observed
combinations of entry flow and conflicting flow at different roundabout
configurations, along with the capacity models for the respective configuration
as presented in Chapter 22. The bulk of this variation is attributable to variations
in driver behavior, truck percentage, and exiting vehicles. As there is no external
control device regulating flow interactions at roundabouts, driver interactions
govern the operation, and they are highly variable by nature.
This variability should be considered by the analyst when evaluating a
roundabout approach.

Exhibit 33-1
Observed Combinations of
Entry Flow and Conflicting
Flow During 1-min Periods of
Continuous Queuing: One-
Lane Entry Opposed by One
Circulating Lane

Source: Rodegerdts et al. (1).

Supplemental Guidance Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-2 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 33-2
Observed Combinations of
Entry Flow and Conflicting
Flow During 1-min Periods of
Continuous Queuing: Both
Lanes of Two-Lane Entry
Opposed by One Circulating
Lane

Source: Rodegerdts et al. (1).

Exhibit 33-3
Observed Combinations of
Entry Flow and Conflicting
Flow During 1-min Periods of
Continuous Queuing: Left
Lane of Two-Lane Entry
Opposed by Two Circulating
Lanes

Source: Rodegerdts et al. (1).

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Supplemental Guidance

Version 6.0 Page 33-3
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Exhibit 33-4
Observed Combinations of
Entry Flow and Conflicting
Flow During 1-min Periods of
Continuous Queuing: Right
Lane of Two-Lane Entry
Opposed by Two Circulating
Lanes

Source: Rodegerdts et al. (1).

LANE-USE ASSIGNMENT
Lane-use assignment is best determined by measuring lane use in the field
under the conditions being analyzed. In the absence of this information, default
values or estimates can be used. This section provides background on the process
by which an analyst can make an appropriate selection of a lane utilization
factor.
In general, several factors contribute to the assignment of traffic flow to each
lane:
Turning movement patterns 1. The assignment of turning movements to each lane (either as exclusive
greatly influence lane
assignments. lanes or as shared lanes) directly influences the assignment of traffic
volumes to each lane. Lane assignment is generally accomplished through
the use of signs and pavement markings that designate the lane use for
each lane. Multilane entries with no lane-use signing or pavement
markings may be assumed to operate with a shared left–through lane in
the left lane and a shared through–right lane in the right lane, although
field observations should be made to confirm the lane-use pattern of an
existing roundabout.
Dominant turning movements 2. Dominant turning movements may create de facto lane assignments for
may create de facto lanes. A
de facto lane is one designated which there is no advantage for drivers in using both lanes assigned to a
for multiple movements but given turning movement. For example, at an entry with left–through and
that may operate as an
exclusive lane because of a through–right lanes and a dominant left-turn movement, there may be no
dominant movement demand. advantage for through drivers in using the left lane. In addition, a lack of
A common example is a left–
through lane with a left-turn lane balance through the roundabout (e.g., two entry lanes but only one
flow rate that greatly exceeds downstream circulating lane or one downstream exit lane) can create de
the through flow rate.
facto lane-use assignments for a particular entry.

Supplemental Guidance Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-4 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3. Destinations downstream of a roundabout may influence the lane choice Downstream destinations may
influence lane assignment.
at the roundabout entry. A downstream destination such as a freeway on-
ramp may increase use of the right entry lane, for example, even though
both lanes could be used.
4. The alignment of the lane relative to the circulatory roadway seems to Poor geometric alignment of
the entry may cause drivers to
influence the use of entry lanes where drivers can choose between lanes. avoid the left lane.
Some roundabouts have been designed with rather perpendicular entries
that have a natural alignment of the right entry lane into the left lane of
the circulatory roadway. Under this design, the left entry lane is naturally
aimed at the central island and is thus less comfortable and less desirable
for drivers. This phenomenon of poor path alignment, documented
elsewhere (2), may result in poor use of the left entry lane. Similarly,
poorly aligned multilane exits, where vehicles exiting in the inside lane
cross the path of vehicles exiting in the outside lane, may influence lane
use on upstream entries. In either case, the effect is most readily measured
in the field at existing roundabouts, and it should be avoided in the
design of new roundabouts.
5. Drivers may be uncertain about lane use when they use the roundabout, Unfamiliar drivers may
incorrectly select lanes for their
particularly at roundabouts without designated lane assignments intended movements.
approaching or circulating through the roundabout. This uncertainty may
contribute to the generally incorrect use of the right entry lane for left
turns, for example, because of a perceived or real difficulty in exiting from
the inside lane of the circulatory roadway. Proper signing and striping of
lane use on the approach and through the roundabout may reduce this
uncertainty, although it is likely to be present to some extent at multilane
roundabouts.
The first three factors described above are common to all intersections and
are accounted for in the assignment of turning-movement patterns to individual
lanes; the remaining two factors are unique to roundabouts. The fourth factor
should be addressed through proper alignment of the entry relative to the
circulatory roadway and thus may not need to be considered in the analysis of
new facilities. However, existing roundabouts may exhibit poor path alignment,
resulting in poor lane utilization. It may be possible to reduce the fifth factor
through proper design, particularly through lane-use arrows and striping. These
factors collectively make accurate estimation of lane utilization difficult, but it
can be measured at existing roundabouts.
For entries with two through lanes, limited field data suggest drivers Multilane roundabouts
generally exhibit a bias to the
generally have a bias for the right lane. For entries with two left-turn lanes (e.g., right lane except where a
left-turn-only and shared left–through–right lanes), limited field data suggest double left-turn movement is
present.
drivers have a bias for the left lane. Although no field observations have been
documented for entries with two right-turn lanes, experience at other types of
intersections with two right-turn lanes suggests drivers have a bias for the right
lane.

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Supplemental Guidance

Version 6.0 Page 33-5
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

CAPACITY MODEL CALIBRATION

As discussed in Chapter 22, Roundabouts, the capacity model can be
calibrated by using one of two methods: using two parameters, the critical
headway tc and the follow-up headway tf, or using only the follow-up headway tf.
An example of calibration using two parameters was performed for
roundabouts in California (3). Field-measured values for critical headway and
follow-up headway were determined as follows:
 Critical headway:
o Single-lane roundabouts: 4.8 s;
o Multilane roundabouts, left lane: 4.7 s; and
o Multilane roundabouts, right lane: 4.4 s.
 Follow-up headway:
o Single-lane roundabouts: 2.5 s;
o Multilane roundabouts, left lane: 2.2 s; and
o Multilane roundabouts, right lane: 2.2 s.
By using these values and the expressions in Equation 22-21 through
Equation 22-23, the capacity equation for single-lane roundabouts can be
expressed as follows:
3,600 3,600
𝐴= = = 1,440
𝑡𝑓 2.5
𝑡𝑐 − (𝑡𝑓 ⁄2) 4.8 − (2.5⁄2)
𝐵= = = 1.0 × 10−3
3,600 3,600
−3𝑣 )
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝐴𝑒 (−𝐵𝑣𝑐 ) = 1,440𝑒 (−1.0×10 𝑐

Therefore, the model resulting from the use of California-specific data for
critical headway and follow-up time has a higher intercept, and thus higher
capacity, over its entire range than does the model based on the national study.
These equations replace the equations in Step 5 of the Chapter 22 methodology.
An example of calibration using only follow-up headway can be
demonstrated using data collected as part of a national study for the US-9/
Warren Street/Hudson Avenue/Glen Street intersection in Glen Falls, New York
(1). Field-measured values for follow-up headway for the five-legged
roundabout were determined as follows (rounded to the nearest 0.1 s):
 East leg: 2.9 s,
 Northwest leg: 2.8 s,
 South leg: 2.9 s,
 West leg: 2.7 s, and
 North leg: 2.8 s.
The mean value using unrounded values for follow-up time for the
intersection is 2.85 s. The intercept can therefore be calculated as follows:

Supplemental Guidance Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-6 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3,600 3,600
𝐴= = = 1,260
𝑡𝑓 2.85
With this value for the intercept, the resulting capacity model is
−3 𝑣 )
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝐴𝑒 (−𝐵𝑣𝑐 ) = 1,260𝑒 (−1.02×10 𝑐

The resulting model has a lower intercept than the national model. Based on
the observations of each approach of this intersection under queued conditions
from the national study, this site-specific model has a better goodness of fit than
the national model (an improvement in the root mean squared error from 164 to
126 pc/h). Variation in driver behavior between individual drivers or from
minute to minute makes eliminating prediction error impossible, but calibration
can improve the accuracy of the prediction.

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Supplemental Guidance

Version 6.0 Page 33-7
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

3. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

This section illustrates the application of the roundabout methodology

through the two example problems listed in Exhibit 33-5.

Exhibit 33-5 Example

Roundabout Example Problem Description Application
Problems 1 Single-lane roundabout with bypass lanes Operational analysis
2 Multilane roundabout Operational analysis

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT WITH BYPASS

This is an example of an
operational analysis. It uses
traffic data and geometric
characteristics to determine
capacities, control delay, and
LOS.
LANES
The Facts
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric
characteristics of this location:
 Four legs,
 One-lane entries on each leg,
 A westbound right-turn bypass lane that yields to exiting vehicles,
 A southbound right-turn bypass lane that forms its own lane adjacent to
exiting vehicles,
 Percentage heavy vehicles for all movements = 2%,
 Peak hour factor = 0.94,
 Demand volumes and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 33-6, and
 50 p/h across the south leg and negligible pedestrian activity across the
other three legs.

Exhibit 33-6
Example Problem 1: Demand
Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
All input parameters are known, so no default values are needed or used.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-8 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 1: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates

Each turning-movement volume given in the problem is converted to a
demand flow rate by dividing by the peak hour factor. As an example, the
northbound left-turn volume is converted to a flow rate as follows by using
Equation 22-8:
𝑉𝑁𝐵𝐿 105
𝑣𝑁𝐵𝐿 = = = 112 pc/h
𝑃𝐻𝐹 0.94

Step 2: Adjust Flow Rates for Heavy Vehicles

The flow rate for each movement may be adjusted to account for vehicle
stream characteristics by using Equations 22-9 and 22-10 as follows (northbound
left turn illustrated):
1 1
𝑓𝐻𝑉 = = = 0.980
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1) 1 + 0.02(2 − 1)
𝑣𝑁𝐵𝐿 112
𝑣𝑁𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = = = 114 pc/h
𝑓𝐻𝑉 0.980
The resulting adjusted flow rates for all movements, accounting for Steps 1
and 2, are therefore computed as shown in Exhibit 33-7:

Exhibit 33-7
Example Problem 1:
Adjusted Flow Rates

Step 3: Determine Circulating and Exiting Flow Rates

The circulating and exiting flows are calculated for each leg. For the south
leg (northbound entry), the circulating flow is calculated by using the process
illustrated by Equation 22-11 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒
𝑣𝑐,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 21 + 190 + 21 + 304 + 206 + 54 = 796 pc/h
Similarly, vc,SB,pce = 769 pc/h; vc,EB,pce = 487 pc/h; and vc,WB,pce = 655 pc/h.
For this problem, one exit flow rate is needed: the northbound exit flow rate,
which serves as the conflicting flow for the westbound bypass lane. Because all
westbound right turns are assumed to use the bypass lane, they are excluded
from the conflicting exit flow by using the process illustrated by Equation 22-12
as follows:

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 33-9
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑣𝑒𝑥,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑅,𝑝𝑐𝑒 − 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑅,𝑏𝑦𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠,𝑝𝑐𝑒

𝑣𝑒𝑥,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 21 + 206 + 227 + 662 − 662 = 454 pc/h

Step 4: Determine Entry Flow Rates by Lane

The entry flow rate is calculated by summing the movement flow rates that
enter the roundabout (without using a bypass lane). Because this is a single-lane
roundabout, no lane-use calculations are needed.
The entry flow rates are calculated as follows, assuming all right-turn
volumes on the westbound and southbound approaches use the bypass lane
provided and not the entry:
𝑣𝑒,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑅,𝑒,𝑝𝑐𝑒
𝑣𝑒,𝑁𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 33 + 114 + 227 + 54 = 428 pc/h

𝑣𝑒,𝑆𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑅,𝑒,𝑝𝑐𝑒

𝑣𝑒,𝑆𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 21 + 190 + 103 + 0 = 314 pc/h

𝑣𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝐸𝐵𝑅,𝑒,𝑝𝑐𝑒

𝑣𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 54 + 206 + 304 + 92 = 656 pc/h

𝑣𝑒,𝑊𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑅,𝑒,𝑝𝑐𝑒

𝑣𝑒,𝑊𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 21 + 119 + 428 + 0 = 568 pc/h

Step 5: Determine the Capacity of Each Entry Lane and Bypass Lane as
Appropriate in Passenger Car Equivalents
By using the single-lane capacity equation (Equation 22-1), the capacity for
each entry lane is given as follows:
−3 )𝑣 −3 )(796)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 = 613 pc/h
(−1.02×10−3)𝑣𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 (−1.02×10−3 )(769)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,380𝑒 = 630 pc/h
(−1.02×10−3)𝑣𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 (−1.02×10−3)(487)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,380𝑒 = 840 pc/h
(−1.02×10−3)𝑣𝑐,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 (−1.02×10−3)(655)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 = 1,380𝑒 = 708 pc/h
By using the equation for a bypass lane opposed by a single exit lane
(Equation 22-6), the capacity for the westbound bypass lane is given as follows:
−3 )𝑣 −3)(454)
𝑐bypass,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 𝑒𝑥,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = 1,380𝑒 (−1.02×10 = 868 pc/h

Step 6: Determine Pedestrian Impedance to Vehicles

The south leg (northbound entry) has a conflicting pedestrian flow rate, nped,
of 50 p/h. The pedestrian impedance factor is calculated by using Exhibit 22-18 as
follows:
𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = 1 − 0.000137𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑑 = 1 − 0.000137(50) = 0.993
Because the other legs and bypass lanes have negligible pedestrian activity
(nped = 0), they have fped = 1.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-10 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 7: Convert Lane Flow Rates and Capacities into Vehicles per Hour
The capacity for a given lane is converted back to vehicles by first
determining the heavy-vehicle adjustment factor for the lane and then
multiplying it by the capacity in passenger car equivalents (Equation 22-14). For
this example, because all turning movements on each entry have the same fHV,
each entry will also have the same fHV, 0.980. The capacities for each of the entries
are also adjusted by the pedestrian impedance factor.
𝑐𝑁𝐵 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑁𝐵 𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = (613)(0.980)(0.993) = 597 veh/h
𝑐𝑆𝐵 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑆𝐵 𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = (630)(0.980)(1) = 618 veh/h
𝑐𝐸𝐵 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝐸𝐵 𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = (840)(0.980)(1) = 824 veh/h
𝑐𝑊𝐵 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = (708)(0.980)(1) = 694 veh/h
𝑐bypass,𝑊𝐵 = 𝑐bypass,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑑 = (868)(0.980)(1) = 851 veh/h
Calculations for the entry flow rates are as follows (Equation 22-13):
𝑣𝑁𝐵 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = (428)(0.980) = 420 veh/h
𝑣𝑆𝐵 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑆𝐵 = (314)(0.980) = 308 veh/h
𝑣𝐸𝐵 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝐸𝐵 = (656)(0.980) = 643 veh/h
𝑣𝑊𝐵 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑊𝐵 = (568)(0.980) = 557 veh/h
𝑣bypass,𝑊𝐵 = 𝑣bypass,𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑊𝐵 = (662)(0.980) = 649 veh/h

Step 8: Compute the Volume-to-Capacity Ratio for Each Lane

The volume-to-capacity ratios for each entry lane are calculated from
Equation 22-16 as follows:
420
𝑥𝑁𝐵 = = 0.70
597
308
𝑥𝑆𝐵 = = 0.50
618
643
𝑥𝐸𝐵 = = 0.78
824
557
𝑥𝑊𝐵 = = 0.80
694
649
𝑥bypass,𝑊𝐵 = = 0.76
851

Step 9: Compute the Average Control Delay for Each Lane

The control delay for the northbound entry lane is computed from Equation
22-17 as follows:
3,600
3,600 ( ) 0.70
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [0.70 − 1 + (0.70 − 1)2 + 597
√ ]
597 450(0.25)

+5(min[0.70,1])
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = 22.6 s/veh

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 33-11
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Similarly, dSB = 14.0 s; dbypass,SB = 0 s (assumed); dEB = 22.0 s; dWB = 26.8 s; and
dbypass,WB = 20.2 s.
Step 10: Determine LOS for Each Lane on Each Approach
From Exhibit 22-8, the level of service (LOS) for each lane is determined as
shown in Exhibit 33-8:

Exhibit 33-8 Lane Control Delay (s/veh) LOS

Example Problem 1: Northbound entry 22.6 C
LOS by Lane Southbound entry 14.0 B
Southbound bypass lane 0 (assumed) A
Eastbound entry 22.0 C
Westbound entry 26.8 D
Westbound bypass lane 20.2 C

Step 11: Compute the Average Control Delay and Determine LOS for
Each Approach and the Roundabout as a Whole
The control delays for the northbound and eastbound approaches are equal
to the control delay for the entry lanes, as both of these approaches have only one
lane. On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, these approaches are both assigned LOS C.
The control delay calculations for the westbound and southbound
approaches include the effects of their bypass lanes as follows (Equation 22-18):
(26.8)(557) + (20.2)(649)
𝑑𝑊𝐵 = = 23.3 s/veh
557 + 649
(14.0)(308) + (0.0)(617)
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = = 4.7 s/veh
308 + 617
On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, these approaches are respectively assigned LOS
C and LOS A.
Similarly, intersection control delay is computed as follows (Equation 22-19):
(22.6)(420) + (4.7)(925) + (22.0)(643) + (23.3)(1,206)
𝑑intersection =
420 + 925 + 643 + 1,206
𝑑intersection = 17.5 s/veh
On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, the intersection is assigned LOS C.

Step 12: Compute 95th Percentile Queues for Each Lane

The 95th percentile queue is computed for each lane. An example calculation
for the northbound entry is given as follows (Equation 22-20):
3,600
( ) 0.70 597
597
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 900(0.25) [0.70 − 1 + √(1 − 0.70)2 + ]( )
150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 5.7 veh

For design purposes, this value is typically rounded up to the nearest
vehicle, which for this case would be six vehicles.
Similarly, Q95,SB = 2.8 veh; Q95,EB = 7.9 veh; Q95,WB = 8.2 veh; and Q95,bypass,WB = 7.4
veh.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-12 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Discussion
The results indicate the overall roundabout is operating at LOS C. However, The analyst should be careful
not to mask key operational
one lane (the westbound entry) is operating at LOS D. If, for example, the performance issues by
performance standard for this intersection was LOS C, this entry would not meet reporting overall intersection
performance without also
the standard, even though the overall intersection meets the standard. For these reporting the performance of
reasons, the analyst should consider reporting volume-to-capacity ratios, control each lane, or at least the
worst-performing lane.
delay, and queue lengths for each lane, in addition to the aggregated measures,
for a more complete picture of operational performance.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: MULTILANE ROUNDABOUT

Example Problem 2 is also an
The Facts example of an operational
The following data are available to describe the traffic and geometric analysis, despite the fact that
lane utilization data are
characteristics of this location: unknown and must be
assumed.
 Percentage heavy vehicles for eastbound and westbound movements =
5%,
 Percentage heavy vehicles for northbound and southbound movements =
2%,
 Peak hour factor = 0.95,
 Negligible pedestrian activity, and
 Volumes and lane configurations as shown in Exhibit 33-9.

Exhibit 33-9
Example Problem 2: Demand
Volumes and Lane
Configurations

Comments
Lane use is not specified for the eastbound and westbound approaches;
therefore, the percentage flow in the right lane is assumed to be 53%, as specified
in Exhibit 22-9.

Step 1: Convert Movement Demand Volumes to Flow Rates

Each turning-movement demand volume given in the problem is converted
to a demand flow rate by dividing by the peak hour factor. As an example, the
eastbound-left demand volume is converted to a demand flow rate by using
Equation 22-8 as follows:

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 33-13
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

𝑉𝐸𝐵𝐿 230
𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿 = = = 242 veh/h
𝑃𝐻𝐹 0.95

Step 2: Adjust Flow Rates for Heavy Vehicles

The heavy-vehicle adjustment factor for the eastbound and westbound
movements is calculated by using Equation 22-10 as follows:
1 1
𝑓𝐻𝑉 = = = 0.952
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1) 1 + 0.05(2 − 1)
Similarly, the heavy-vehicle adjustment factor for the northbound and
southbound movements is calculated as follows:
1 1
𝑓𝐻𝑉 = = = 0.980
1 + 𝑃𝑇 (𝐸𝑇 − 1) 1 + 0.02(2 − 1)
This factor is applied to each movement by using Equation 22-9 as follows
(eastbound left turn illustrated):
𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿 242
𝑣𝐸𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = = = 254 pc/h
𝑓𝐻𝑉 0.952
The resulting adjusted flow rates for all movements, accounting for Steps 1
and 2, are therefore as shown in Exhibit 33-10:
Exhibit 33-10
Example Problem 2:
Adjusted Flow Rates

Step 3: Determine Circulating and Exiting Flow Rates

For this problem, only circulating flows need to be calculated for each leg.
For the west leg (eastbound entry), the circulating flow is calculated by using the
process illustrated by Equation 22-11 as follows:
𝑣𝑐,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑁𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑊𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑇,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝐿,𝑝𝑐𝑒 + 𝑣𝑆𝐵𝑈,𝑝𝑐𝑒
𝑣𝑐,𝐸𝐵,𝑝𝑐𝑒 = 0 + 442 + 0 + 64 + 258 + 0 = 764 pc/h
Similarly, vc,WB,pce = 372 pc/h; vc,NB,pce = 976 pc/h; and vc,SB,pce = 772 pc/h.

Step 4: Determine Entry Flow Rates by Lane

The entry flow rate is calculated by summing up the movement flow rates
that enter the roundabout. This problem presents four unique cases.
 Northbound: The northbound entry has only one lane. Therefore, the entry
flow is simply the sum of the movements, or 54 + 64 + 129 = 247 pc/h.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-14 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

 Southbound: The southbound entry has two lanes: a shared through–left

lane and a right-turn-only lane. Therefore, the flow rate in the right lane is
simply the right-turn movement flow, or 429 pc/h, and the flow rate in the
left lane is the sum of the left-turn and through movements, or 258 + 64 =
322 pc/h.
 Eastbound: The eastbound entry has shared left–through and through–
right lanes. A check is needed to determine whether any de facto lanes are
in effect. These checks are as follows:
o Left lane: The left-turn flow rate, 254 pc/h, is less than the sum of the
through and right-turn flow rates, 464 + 88 = 552 pc/h. Therefore,
some of the through volume is assumed to use the left lane, and no de
facto left-turn lane condition is present.
o Right lane: The right-turn flow rate, 88 pc/h, is less than the sum of the
left-turn and through flow rates, 254 + 464 = 718 pc/h. Therefore, some
of the through volume is assumed to use the right lane, and no de
facto right-turn lane condition is present.
The total entry flow (254 + 464 + 88 = 806 pc/h) is therefore distributed
over the two lanes, with flow biased to the right lane by using the
assumed lane-use factor identified previously:
o Right lane: (806)(0.53) = 427 pc/h, and
o Left lane: 806 – 427 = 379 pc/h.
 Westbound: The westbound entry also has shared left–through and
through–right lanes, and so a similar check is needed for de facto lanes.
The left-turn flow rate, 442 pc/h, is greater than the sum of the through
and right-turn flow rates, 276 + 100 = 376 pc/h. Therefore, the left lane is
assumed to operate as a de facto left-turn lane. Therefore, the left-lane
flow rate is equal to the left-turn flow rate, or 442 pc/h, and the right-lane
flow rate is equal to the sum of the through- and right-turn-movement
flow rates, or 376 pc/h.

Step 5: Determine the Capacity of Each Entry Lane and Bypass Lane as
Appropriate in Passenger Car Equivalents
The capacity calculations for each approach are calculated as follows:
 Northbound: The northbound entry is a single-lane entry opposed by two
circulating lanes. Therefore, Equation 22-3 is used as follows:
−3 )(976)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = 1,420𝑒 (−0.85×10 = 619 pc/h
 Southbound: The southbound entry is a two-lane entry opposed by two
circulating lanes. Therefore, Equation 22-4 is used for the right lane, and
Equation 22-5 is used for the left lane:
−3 )(772)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵,𝑅 = 1,420𝑒 (−0.85×10 = 737 pc/h
(−0.92×10−3)(772)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑆𝐵,𝐿 = 1,350𝑒 = 664 pc/h

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 33-15
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

 Eastbound: The eastbound entry is a two-lane entry opposed by one

circulating lane. Therefore, the capacity for each lane is calculated by
using Equation 22-2 as follows:
−3)(764)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑅 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝐿 = 1,420𝑒 (−0.91×10 = 709 pc/h
 Westbound: The westbound entry is also a two-lane entry opposed by one
circulating lane, so its capacity calculation is similar to that for the
eastbound entry:
−3)(372)
𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑊𝐵 = 1,420𝑒 (−0.91×10 = 1,012 pc/h
There are no bypass lanes in this example problem.

Step 6: Determine Pedestrian Impedance to Vehicles

For this problem pedestrians have been assumed to be negligible, so no
impedance calculations are performed.

Step 7: Convert Lane Flow Rates and Capacities into Vehicles per Hour
The capacity for a given lane is converted back to vehicles by first
determining the heavy-vehicle adjustment factor for the lane and then
multiplying it by the capacity in passenger car equivalents (Equation 22-14). For
this example, because all turning movements on the eastbound and westbound
entries have the same fHV, each of the lanes on the eastbound and westbound
entries can be assumed to have the same fHV, 0.952.
𝑐𝐸𝐵,𝑅 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑅 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝐸𝐵 = (709)(0.952) = 675 veh/h
Similarly, cEB,L = 675 veh/h; cWB,L = 964 veh/h; and cWB,R = 964 veh/h.
Because all turning movements on the northbound and southbound entries
have the same fHV, each of the lanes on those entries can be assumed to have the
same fHV, 0.980.
𝑐𝑁𝐵 = 𝑐𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = (619)(0.980) = 607 veh/h
Similarly, cSB,L = 651 veh/h, and cSB,R = 723 veh/h.
Calculations for the entry flow rates are as follows (Equation 22-13):
𝑣𝐸𝐵,𝑅 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝐸𝐵,𝑅 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝐸𝐵 = (427)(0.952) = 407 veh/h
𝑣𝑁𝐵 = 𝑣𝑝𝑐𝑒,𝑁𝐵 𝑓𝐻𝑉,𝑒,𝑁𝐵 = (247)(0.980) = 242 veh/h
Similarly, vEB,L = 361 veh/h; vWB,L = 421 veh/h; vWB,R = 358 veh/h; vSB,L = 316
veh/h; and vSB,R = 421 veh/h.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-16 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

Step 8: Compute the Volume-to-Capacity Ratio for Each Lane

The volume-to-capacity ratio for each lane is calculated from Equation 22-16
as follows:
242
𝑥𝑁𝐵 = = 0.40
607
316
𝑥𝑆𝐵,𝐿 = = 0.48
651
421
𝑥𝑆𝐵,𝑅 = = 0.58
723
361
𝑥𝐸𝐵,𝐿 = = 0.53
675
407
𝑥𝐸𝐵,𝑅 = = 0.60
675
421
𝑥𝑊𝐵,𝐿 = = 0.44
964
358
𝑥𝑊𝐵,𝑅 = = 0.37
964

Step 9: Compute the Average Control Delay for Each Lane

The control delay for the northbound entry lane is computed from Equation
22-17 as follows:
3,600 242
3,600 242 242 2 ( )
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = + 900(0.25) [ √
−1+ ( − 1) + 607 607]
607 607 607 450(0.25)

242
+5 (min [ , 1])
607
𝑑𝑁𝐵 = 11.8 s/veh
Similarly, dSB,L = 13.0 s/veh; dSB,R = 14.6 s/veh; dEB,L = 14.0 s/veh; dEB,R = 16.1
s/veh; dWB,L = 8.8 s/veh; and dWB,R = 7.8 s/veh.

Step 10: Determine LOS for Each Lane on Each Approach

On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, the LOS for each lane is determined as shown in
Exhibit 33-11:

Critical Lane Control Delay (s/veh) LOS Exhibit 33-11

Northbound entry 11.8 B Example Problem 2:
Southbound left lane 13.0 B LOS by Lane
Southbound right lane 14.6 B
Eastbound left lane 14.0 B
Eastbound right lane 16.1 C
Westbound left lane 8.8 A
Westbound right lane 7.8 A

Step 11: Compute the Average Control Delay and Determine LOS for
Each Approach and the Roundabout as a Whole
The control delay for the northbound approaches is equal to the control
delay for the entry lane, 11.8 s, as the approach has only one lane. The control
delays for the other approaches are as follows (Equation 22-18):

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental Example Problems

Version 6.0 Page 33-17
Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

(13.0)(316) + (14.6)(421)
𝑑𝑆𝐵 = = 13.9 s/veh
316 + 421
(14.0)(361) + (16.1)(407)
𝑑𝐸𝐵 = = 15.1 s/veh
361 + 407
(8.8)(421) + (7.8)(358)
𝑑𝑊𝐵 = = 8.3 s/veh
421 + 358
On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, these approaches are respectively assigned LOS
B, LOS B, LOS C, and LOS A.
Similarly, control delay for the intersection is computed as follows (Equation
22-19):
(11.8)(242) + (13.9)(736) + (15.1)(768) + (8.3)(779)
𝑑intersection =
242 + 736 + 768 + 779
𝑑intersection = 12.3 s/veh
On the basis of Exhibit 22-8, the intersection is assigned LOS B.

Step 12: Compute 95th Percentile Queues for Each Lane

The 95th percentile queue is computed for each lane. An example calculation
for the northbound entry is given as follows (Equation 22-20):
3,600 242
242 √ 242 2 ( 607 ) (607) 607
𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 900(0.25) [ − 1 + (1 − ) + ]( )
607 607 150(0.25) 3,600

𝑄95,𝑁𝐵 = 1.9 veh

For design purposes, this value is typically rounded up to the nearest
vehicle, in this case two vehicles.

Discussion
The results indicate the intersection as a whole operates at LOS B on the basis
of control delay during the peak 15 min of the analysis hour. However, the
eastbound approach operates at LOS C, as does the right lane of the eastbound
approach. The analyst should consider reporting both the overall performance
and those of the individual lanes to provide a more complete picture of
operational performance.

Example Problems Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental

Page 33-18 Version 6.0
 Highway Capacity Manual: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis

4. REFERENCES

1. Rodegerdts, L. A., A. Malinge, P. S. Marnell, S. G. Beaird, M. J. Kittelson, and Many of these references can
be found in the Technical
Y. S. Mereszczak. Assessment of Roundabout Capacity Models for the Highway Reference Library in Volume 4.
Capacity Manual: Volume 2 of Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the
United States. Report FHWA-SA-15-070. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., Sept. 2015.
2. Rodegerdts, L., J. Bansen, C. Tiesler, J. Knudsen, E. Myers, M. Johnson, M.
Moule, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, S. Hallmark, H. Isebrands, R. B. Crown, B.
Guichet, and A. O’Brien. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational
Guide, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2010.
3. Tian, Z. Z., F. Xu, L. A. Rodegerdts, W. E. Scarbrough, B. L. Ray, W. E.
Bishop, T. C. Ferrara, and S. Mam. Roundabout Geometric Design Guidance.
Report No. F/CA/RI-2006/13. Division of Research and Innovation, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif., June 2007.

Chapter 33/Roundabouts: Supplemental References

Version 6.0 Page 33-19