Making Compact Two-Lane Roundabouts Effective for Vulnerable Road Users: An Assessment of Transport-Related Externalities

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 52)


Compact two-lane roundabouts are increasingly popular. Designing cycle lanes at two-lane roundabouts may not benefit motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists simultaneously. This study addresses environmental and operational aspects for accommodating bicycle treatments at compact two-lane roundabouts, namely: (i) sharing bicycles with the motor vehicle lanes; (ii) sharing bicycles with pedestrian pathways; (iii) dedicated bicycle lanes separated from pedestrian paths and motor vehicle lanes. Each scenario was subjected to different traffic, pedestrian and cyclist volumes. Using a microscopic traffic model, the operational performance of the above designs was compared. Then, a microscopic emission methodology based on vehicle-specific power and a semi-dynamic model were used to estimate pollutant emissions and traffic noise, respectively. It was found that cyclists travel time increased with the adoption of separated bicycle lanes since this design led to longer paths. However, average intersection travel time, emissions and noise decreased when compared to other designs.


Roundabouts Cyclists Pedestrians Emissions Noise 



The authors acknowledge the projects: PTDC/EMS-TRA/0383/2014, that was funded within the project 9471-Reinforcement of RIDTI and funded by FEDER funds; Strategic Project UID-EMS-00481-2013-FCT and CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-022083; MobiWise project: From mobile sensing to mobility advising (P2020 SAICTPAC/0011/2015), co-financed by COMPETE 2020, Portugal 2020 - Operational Program for Competitiveness and Internationalization (POCI), European Union’s ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), and the FCT. This work is financed by ERDF Funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness and Internationalization - COMPETE 2020 and by National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology within the scope of the POCI-01-0145-FEDER-16740 project.


  1. 1.
    Transportation Research Board: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Second Edition. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report NCHRP 672. Transportation Research Board, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brilon, W.: Safety of roundabouts: an international overview. In: TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sakshaug, L., Laureshyn, A., Svensson, A., Hyden, Ch.: Cyclists in roundabouts—different design solutions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42(4), 1338–1351 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zahabi, S., Strauss, J., Manaugh, K., Miranda-Moreno, L.: Estimating potential effect of speed limits, built environment, and other factors on severity of pedestrian and cyclist injuries in crashes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2247, 81–90 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernandes, P., Fontes, T., Pereira, S.R., Rouphail, N.M., Coelho, M.: Multicriteria assessment of crosswalk location in urban roundabout corridors. Transp. Res. Rec. 2517, 37–47 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Findley, D.J., Searcy, S.E., Schroeder, B.J.: Investigation of crosswalk design and driver behavior at roundabouts. In: TRB 96th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knoop, V.L., Daganzo, C.F.: The effect of pedestrian crossings on traffic flow. In: TRB 96th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang, N., Nakamura, H.: Estimation of roundabout entry capacity that considers conflict with pedestrians. Transp. Res. Rec. 2517, 61–70 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schroeder, B., Rouphail, N., Salamati, K., Bugg, Z.: Effect of pedestrian impedance on vehicular capacity at multilane roundabouts with consideration of crossing treatments. Transp. Res. Rec. 2312, 14–24 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandes, P., Guarnaccia, C., Teixeira, J., Sousa, A., Coelho, M.: Multi-criteria assessment of crosswalk location on a corridor with roundabouts: incorporating a noise related criterion. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 460–467 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salamati, K., Schroeder, B.J., Geruschat, D.R., Rouphail, N.M.: Event-based modeling of driver yielding behavior to pedestrians at two-lane roundabout approaches. Transp. Res. Rec. 2389, 1–11 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polders, E., Daniels, S., Casters, W., Brijs, T.: Identifying crash patterns on roundabouts. Traffic Injury Prev. 16(2), 202–207 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silvano, A.P., Ma, X., Koutsopoulos, H.N.: When Do Drivers Yield to Cyclists at Unsignalized Roundabouts? Empirical Evidence and Behavioral Analysis.
  14. 14.
    Stanek, D.: Operations and Safety of Separated Bicycle Facilities at Single Lane Roundabouts.
  15. 15.
    CROW: Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. Dutch Information and Technology Platform. Crow, Netherlands (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fernandes, P., Coelho, M.C.: Pedestrian and cyclists impacts on vehicular capacity and emissions at different turbo-roundabouts layouts. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 452–459 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Planung Transport Verkehr: PTV VISSIM 9 User Manual. Planung Transport Verkehr, Karlsruhe (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quartieri, J., Iannone, G., Guarnacci, C.: On the improvement of statistical traffic noise prediction tools.
  19. 19.
    Silva, A.B., Seco, Á.M.: Dimensionamento de Rotundas-Disposições Normativas. Instituto de Infra-Estruturas Rodoviárias, Lisbon (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Transportation Research Board: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Science, Washington (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vasconcelos, A.L., Seco, A.M., Silva, A.B.: Comparison of procedures to estimate critical headways at roundabouts. Promet - Traffic Transp. 25(1), 43–53 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Chandra, S., Bharti, A.: Speed distribution curves for pedestrians during walking and crossing. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 104, 660–667 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    United States Environment Protection Agency: Methodology for Developing Modal Emission Rates for EPA’s Multi-Scale Motor Vehicle & Equipment Emission System. Report EPA420-R-02-027. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fernandes, P., Salamati, K., Rouphail, N.M., Coelho, M.: The effect of a roundabout corridor’s design on selecting the optimal crosswalk location: a multi-objective impact analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11(3), 206–220 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emisia. Mission For Environment.
  27. 27.
    Anya, A.R., Rouphail, N.M., Frey, H.Ch., Liu, B., Anya, A.: Method and case study for quantifying local emissions impacts of transportation improvement project involving road realignment and conversion to multilane roundabout. In: 92nd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coelho, M.C., Frey, H.Ch., Rouphail, N.M., Zhai, H., Pelkmans, L.: Assessing methods for comparing emissions from gasoline and diesel light-duty vehicles based on microscale measurements. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 14(2), 91–99 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guarnaccia, C.: Advanced tools for traffic noise modelling and prediction. Trans. Systems 12, 121–130 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winnie, D., Christine, B., Serge, P.: Traffic Simulation and Data: Validation Methods and Applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Mechanical Technology and AutomationUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations