Optimisation of signalised intersection-roundabout distance using

microsimulation approach
Mirna Klobučar1, Aleksandra Deluka-Tibljaš1, Sanja Šurdonja1
1
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department for Transportation Engineering,
Construction Management and Technology and Architecture, Radmile Matejčić 3, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

Abstract

Keywords: roundabouts, micro-simulations, traffic models, intersection distance

1. Introduction

In today's urban and suburban areas, traffic congestion is a growing concern, and traffic designers
are frequently faced with the challenge of modifying existing intersections or creating new ones. While
roundabouts have emerged as a modern solution to alleviate these traffic issues, it is important to
consider both their benefits and drawbacks. Roundabouts offer advantages such as improved traffic
flow, reduced delay and travel time (RETTING et al., 2006), lower environmental impact (Jackson &
Rakha, 2012), enhanced safety (Brilon, 2016; Elvik, 2003), and lower maintenance (Ariniello & Przybyl,
2010). However, it is important to note that not all intersections are suitable for roundabouts. For
example, an intersection with highly unbalanced traffic flows (that is, a very high traffic volume on the
main street and very light traffic on the side street) may not be an ideal candidate for a roundabout.
The same is true for isolated intersections in a network of traffic signals (CERTU, 1997; Federal Highway
Administration, 2000; Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014; Kennedy et al., 2005). When a roundabout
is at or near its designed capacity, it generally does not work well and causes traffic jams. Therefore,
the estimation of the maximum capacity under a certain level of traffic volume would be helpful for
the design and management of roundabouts (Li et al., 2011). Various countries have established
guidelines for the upper limits of traffic volume that roundabouts can handle. For instance, in Norway
(Ministry of Transport, 2009), roundabouts with one traffic lane have an Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) limit of 25 000 vehicles per day, with the peak hour accounting for no more than 10% of the
daily traffic. The maximum number of vehicles that can pass through during peak hour theoretically is
2700 vehicles per hour, although in practice it has been shown to be around 2000 vehicles per day. In
the USA, single-lane 4-legged roundabouts have a maximum capacity of 15 000 vehicles per day, with
the ability to handle up to 1000 vehicles per hour. It is recommended that the circulating flow in single-
lane roundabouts should not exceed 1800 vehicles per hour, and if exit flow exceeds 1200 vehicles per

1
hour, a double-lane exit may be necessary (according to the (Federal Highway Administration, 2000)).
Finally, Slovenian (Direkcija Republike Slovenije za ceste, 2012) and Serbian guidelines (Javno
preduzeće Putevi Srbije, 2012) for medium-sized urban roundabouts dictate an AADT of 20,000
vehicles per day.
In the planning phase, it is necessary to check the justification of using a traffic solution with a
roundabout (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014). Croatian Guidelines for designing roundabouts
(Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014) define eight groups of criteria that should be considered:
functional, urbanistic, traffic flow, technical design, traffic safety, capacity and level of service,
environmental and economic criterion. One of the most important indicators is the Level of Service
(LOS) criterion because, in addition to a better LOS resulting in smaller delays, the negative impact on
the environment is also reduced. In addition to micro-location, it is crucial to consider the functional
criterion and consider the position and role of the intersection in the wider road network, as well as
the influence of adjacent intersections.
Although the literature (Federal Highway Administration, 2000; U.S. Department of Transportation,
2000) (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014) (Ning, 1998) states that the placement of a roundabout
between two adjacent traffic lighted intersections should be avoided, there are no specific guidelines
for the acceptable distance between the traffic lighted intersection and the roundabout. The problem
can be capacity if the roundabout is planned close to traffic lighted or standard at-grade intersection
in the way that there is influence from one of the intersections (standard) to the functionality (level of
service) of the nearby roundabout (Lenters, 2014; Ministry of Transport, 2009). Roundabouts and
signalised intersections are both types of traffic control systems used to manage traffic flow at
intersections. However, they function differently and have distinct impacts on traffic flow and safety.
Roundabouts are designed to promote continuous traffic flow - vehicles enter the roundabout when
there is a gap in traffic and proceed in a counterclockwise direction, yielding to vehicles already in the
circle. This design minimises stops and delays, leading to smoother traffic flow (Demir & Demir, 2020;
Lenters, 2014). On the other hand, signalised intersections use traffic signals to control traffic flow,
causing vehicles to stop and start based on the signal phases. This can lead to more frequent stops and
delays, disrupting traffic flow. The designing process of intersections generally follows the principles
of isolated intersection design, but modelling requires two steps. The first step is providing a model as
an isolated intersection – deterministic model. The second, often overlooked, step is analysing the
model as a system – stochastic model, on which the traffic microsimulation methods are based
(Lenters, 2014; Šurdonja et al., 2015). The second step becomes all the more important if we have two
different intersections nearby.
Given that there are no clear recommendations in the available scientific and professional literature
on what is the optimal or, better to say, safe distance between a roundabout and an adjacent signalised

2
intersection, the idea for this paper is to investigate that area using microsimulation models with
varying level of traffic load and different distances between roundabout and standard at grade
signalised intersection.
The Guidelines The main goal is to analyse to what extent and in which traffic conditions (volume,
traffic structure) there is a negative impact between these two types of intersections. Different
distances between the roundabout and at grade signalised intersection will be analysed to theoretically
establish a critical distance at which it is impossible to avoid mutual negative influence (Cilj još urediti).

3
2. STATE OF THE ART

When determining the optimal intersection type for a specific location, various factors are taken
into account, such as traffic volume, road layout, safety concerns, and the transportation system's
overall objectives. In recent research, increasing attention is being paid to the mutual influence of
intersections - especially in America, where corridor intersections are particularly common. (Federal
Highway Administration, 2009; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000). This literature review
examines research primarily related to optimising the distance between intersections and analysing
the functionality of roundabouts using traffic microsimulations.

2.1. Signalised intersection and roundabout in close proximity

In urban areas, although a more significant number of intersections are signalised, the more
common solution in reconstruction is a roundabout. The literature emphasises that positioning a
roundabout between two adjacent signalised intersections should be avoided (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o.
Zagreb, 2014; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000). (Lenters, 2014) and (Hallmark et al., 2010)
express concern that a roundabout in a coordinated signalised corridor will disrupt continuous traffic
flow: downstream signals can more efficiently process vehicles in a platoon, and roundabouts disperse
rather than form platoons. Unnecessary queuing may result when roundabouts are downstream of
signalised intersections. On the other hand, if operating at or below capacity, roundabouts experience
less queuing than signalised intersections - the queues for the signals will govern and, in the case of a
more significant amount of traffic, have a negative impact on the roundabout capacity. At
roundabouts, no reconstruction or subsequent signalisation would improve capacity, so it is important
to analyse and predict the increase in traffic volumes in the project period at the very start and, if
possible, expect an even more significant increase than that at regular intersections (Hrvatske ceste
d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014). While the roundabout may solve safety and operational problems at one
intersection, it may adversely affect another intersection upstream or downstream or corridor
performance as a whole (Hallmark et al., 2010). As a result, consideration should be given to how
roundabouts affect traffic operations in a corridor. Two case studies were developed and analysed by
(Hallmark et al., 2010) – comparing existing corridor geometry with the implementation of a
roundabout at one intersection along the corridor. Results were evaluated with the microsimulations,
based on the suggestion that a roundabout between two signalised intersections (distance 320 m, 481
m, 774 m) would not provide a significant advantage in traffic operation through the corridor. The
effect of coordinated signalised arterial when a roundabout (single-lane, outer radii 23,5m) is inserted
within an arterial corridor is studied in (Bared & Edara, 2005). A roundabout within a signalised,
coordinated arterial placed a quarter mile from adjacent signals showed better performance (average
delay) than a signalised intersection. However, when the roundabout approaches are operating near

4
capacity, the fully signalised intersections have a slightly lower overall delay. In the Report (Isebrands
et al., 2008), two corridors were evaluated using microsimulations (Grand Avenue Corridor and Radio
Drive, USA), implementing four-legged roundabouts. Both analyses show only slightly less stopped
delay and travel time. It was concluded that the roundabout did not provide a significant advantage
over adding left turn lanes and optimising signal timing.(KIM et al., 2015) suggests that a minimum
distance of 40 meters between roundabouts and adjacent signal crosswalks is necessary for the safety
of pedestrians, particularly in areas like school zones.

2.2. Microsimulations

The behaviour of traffic systems is stochastic and depends on numerous factors. However,
conducting experiments on real traffic networks can be time-consuming and pose safety risks. While
various models have been developed to analyse different aspects of traffic flow, roundabout modelling
has not received as much attention as signalised intersections (Ištoka Otković, 2011). To evaluate the
functionality of roundabouts, traffic microsimulations are typically used. These simulations consider
various variables and parameters and model the movement of individual vehicles within a roundabout
to provide a detailed view of traffic flow. Analyses can assess how well a roundabout handles traffic
under different conditions by simulating vehicle behaviour, such as acceleration, deceleration, lane
changes, and merging. Microsimulations also allow for the evaluation of a roundabout's capacity and
efficiency, including the determination of queue lengths, delays, and the number of vehicles that can
pass through the roundabout over a given period (Li et al., 2011; Luo et al., 2023; Šurdonja et al., 2015).
Furthermore, microsimulations can identify potential safety issues with a roundabout's design by
simulating conflict points and assessing accident likelihood, thus proposing safety improvements.
Chapter 2.1 highlights the benefits of incorporating microsimulations when planning corridor
roundabout implementation. Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of utilizing
microsimulations during the planning stage to assess the safety and operational impact of novel
roundabout designs, such as those in the European road networks (Giuffrè et al., 2017).
Microsimulations, with correct input parameters, very realistically depict the actual situation, but the
results show that capacity changes drastically with traffic factors. Therefore many researchers are
focusing on establishing improved capacity models for calibration of microsimulations (Li et al., 2011;
Rui-jun, 2006; Tollazzi et al., 2008).
While there is currently no research exploring the effect of signalised intersections on roundabouts
within urban areas, existing studies emphasize the necessity of conducting thorough analyses prior to
implementing any intersection changes. It is crucial to consider the broader traffic context when
making these decisions. While the highway corridors in America differ from the urban zones of

5
European cities, they do demonstrate the viability of incorporating roundabouts into signalized
networks in certain circumstances.

6
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The microsimulation model developed in VISSIM was used to research different variants. VISSIM is
a microscopic simulation program that analyzes and optimizes traffic flows and capacity of
intersections. Unlike other microsimulation models, which are based on intersections and connections,
the VISSIM network model is structured through links and connections, allowing for complex
intersection modeling. The model employs a stochastic, discrete, time-adjusted approach that factors
in psychophysical characteristics of car following and algorithms based on driving rules for vehicles
joining from minor direction (Šraml & Jovanović, 2014). Stochastic methods are commonly used in
traffic engineering to account for uncertainties and variability in traffic patterns and behaviors,
incorporating randomness to better reflect real-world scenarios (PTV GROUP, 2018). To define the
input parameters for the VISSIM model, a preliminary analysis of seven roundabouts was conducted.

3.1. Preliminary analysis

The research study gathered data from seven roundabouts and six regular three-leg intersections
located in the wider area of the city of Rijeka, Croatia (as shown in Figure 1). Croatian Guidelines
(Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014) classify this size as medium-sized urban roundabouts (with outer
radii ranging from 15 to 20 meters). Those type of roundabouts are typically constructed at
intersections in urban areas that experience higher traffic loads. Their design and technical elements
are selected to permit speeds of up to 40 km/h, and they have an estimated capacity of 20 000 vehicles
per day (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014). Traffic data collected in the field, as well as geometric
elements, are presented in Table 1. for every roundabout (RB) as follows: number of approaches (APP),
outer radii (R), circulatory roadway width (u), entry radius (Ren), exit radius (Rex), posted speed limit
major/minor direction (PSL), vehicle composition on major and minor direction (VehComp), traffic
volumes per day (VehNum), peak hour traffic volume (morning and evening), traffic flow ratio of the
major and minor direction (TFR) at peak hour.

7
 Figure 1: Position of the analysed roundabouts (Rijeka, Croatia)

Table 1: Geometric and traffic parameters of analysed roundabouts

Peak hour TFR
R u Ren Rex PSL VehComp VehNum
(veh/h) Major:Minor
RB APP
16-
m m m m km/h * major minor veh/day 7-8h %
17h
14 16 car 92,2% 99,2%
12 15 truck 5,2% 0,3%
I 3 15 8 50/50 13866 1122 1227 90:10
14 18 BUS 1,0% 0,5%
HGV 1,6% 0,0%
13 16 car 94,8% 97,2%
16 16 truck 3,7% 1,6%
II 3 16 7 50/50 16886 1263 1494 68:32
16 16 BUS 1,0% 0,9%
HGV 0,5% 0,2%
14 14 car 97,5% 98,8%
14 16 truck 1,5% 0,7%
III 4 18 7 40/40 13167 965 1179 60:40
14 15 BUS 1,0% 0,5%
11 15 HGV 0,0% 0,0%
14 14 car 98,1% 94,4%
14 16 truck 0,2% 4,4%
IV 4 15 6 50/40 9552 648 985 87:13
12 15 BUS 1,2% 0,4%
15 16 HGV 0,5% 0,8%
16 18 car 85,8% 96,0%
V 4 18 6,5 70/50 18821 1462 1480 93:61
18 18 truck 10,4% 2,6%

8
 16 16 BUS 1,0% 1,0%
18 18 HGV 2,9% 0,4%
14 16 car 98,2% 94,2%
12 16 truck 0,5% 4,4%
VI 4 16 6,5 50/40 23063 1544 1594 56:64
14 18 BUS 1,0% 0,7%
14 16 HGV 0,3% 0,7%
12,6 15 car 94,8% 87,3%
18 11,1 truck 3,0% 10,3%
VII 4 15 6,5 40/40 10166 752 930 89:11
7,6 18,5 BUS 1,0% 1,0%
12,5 13 HGV 1,2% 1,3%
* HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicles (> 13m)

To ensure the quality and integrity of the database, field measurements were conducted using
Datacollect SRD radar traffic counters without interrupting the traffic flow (Figure 2). On each
approach, traffic counters were placed on a street light pole or traffic sign pole at a height of 2,20 m.
Data was recorded in continuation for 24 hours on an average day (Wednesday and Thursday). Upon
analyzing the data in Table 1, it was discovered that between 10 000 and 23 000 vehicles pass through
the roundabouts daily. To determine peak traffic hours, when congestion is at its highest due to
increased traffic volume (Allen, 1991), a more detailed analysis of the intersections was conducted.
Traffic counter reports indicated that the morning peak hour typically occurs between 7 and 8 a.m.,
while the evening peak hour is between 4 and 5 p.m. Further analysis revealed that, on average, the
afternoon peak hour experiences 1,19% more congestion, which served as the reference point for
additional data analysis. Traffic counters also provide insight into the traffic structure, revealing that
the main flow consists of an average of 94,5% cars, 3,5% trucks, 1% buses, and 1% Heavy Good Vehicles
(HGV >13 m), while the minor flow comprises 95,3% cars, 3,5% trucks, 0,7% buses, and 0,5% HGV on
average. Based on traffic volumes, it was determined that between 7,5% and 9,7% of the total daily
traffic passes during the peak hour. The ratio of traffic load in the major and minor directions is very
diverse among the observed roundabouts. Accordingly, different ratios were observed in further
analysis (Chapter 3.2).

9
 Figure 2: Position of the traffic counters on the approach

3.2. Traffic microsimulation model

The microsimulation model was built using a standard urban roundabout od medium size, featuring
an outer radii of 17 m. The model used the average geometric and traffic parameters of the
roundabouts analyzed in Chapter 3.1, which are listed in Table 2. The speed limit within a roundabout
of this size, as specified by the Guidelines (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014), is 40 km/h. The defined
approach speed for the main flow is 50 km/h, while for the minor flow, it is 40 km/h; all approaches
are two-way. Šurdonja et al.(2013) determined that the geometry of the intersection plays a significant
role in the capacity of the roundabout itself, especially the design of the entrance and exit of the
roundabout, that is, the distance achieved between the inflow and outflow points. For less complex
and more relevant results, the ideal approach position without pedestrian interference was used (as
shown in Figure 3). Although traffic counters do not differentiate between cars and motorcycles, the
microsimulation model factored in motorcycles to achieve accurate results. The Ministry of the Interior
of the Republic of Croatia (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 2015) reported that
motorbikes make up 10% of passenger vehicles (1 to 7 meters in length). Thus, the vehicle composition
was obtained by averaging the traffic counter data while accounting for motorbikes. In major
directions, the traffic breakdown is as follows: 10% motorbikes (MB), 84.5% cars, 3.5% trucks, 1% buses
(BUS), and 1% heavy goods vehicles (HGV, greater than 13 meters in length). In the minor direction,
the vehicle composition is 10% MB, 85,3% cars, 3,5% trucks, 0,7% buses, and 0,5% heavy goods vehicles
(Table 2).

10
 It should be noted that the Guidelines (Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb, 2014) recommend against
using a roundabout if more than 75% of daily traffic passes through the main direction. Ideally, the
traffic volume should be uniform at 50%. The Guidelines, however, do not provide any restrictions on
the number of vehicles during the peak hour.
After analysing the peak hour traffic, the model was set for 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9% and 10% of the
maximum capacity of a medium-sized urban roundabout (20 000 veh/day), which equates for 1000
veh/h, 1200 veh/h, 1400 veh/h, 1600 veh/h, 1800 veh/h and 2000 veh/h as a peak hour traffic volume.
Given the limitations and preliminary data, the paper examines three possible major-to-minor flow
ratios - 70:30, 60:40, and 50:50, as shown in Table 3. In accordance with recommendations from (PTV
GROUP, 2018), ten simulations of the process were carried out for each variant, with the average value
being utilized. In total, 180 simulations of a single roundabout and 1620 simulations of the impact of a
signalised intersection on an adjacent roundabout were carried out. The total number of
microsimulations is 1800.
Chapter 4.1 showcases the outcome of the analysis for the single roundabout, while the chapter
4.2 shows the analysis of the influence of a signalised intersection on the capacity of the adjacent
roundabout.

Figure 3. Geometry of the microsimulation model (left); VISSIM model (right)

Table 2: Geometric and traffic parameters of the model

Circulary Entry Exit Vehicle Composition Veh
Outer radii PSL
RB Approach roadway radius Radius Num
m m m m km/h Class major minor veh/day
MB 10% 10%
4
Model 17 6 15 16 50/40 Car 84,5% 85,3% 20 000
(two way)
Truck 3,5% 3,5%

11
 BUS 1% 0,7%
HGV 1% 0,5%
* HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicles (> 13m)
* MB – Motorbike (According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Croatia (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike
Hrvatske, 2015)

Table 3: Microsimulation model variants

Traffic flow ratio
Roundabout % of daily traffic Traffic volume in
Variant Major to Minor Flow
model in the peak hour peak hour (veh/h)
(%)
A 1000 70:30
1 B 5% 1000 60:40
C 1000 50:50
A 1200 70:30
2 B 6% 1200 60:40
C 1200 50:50
A 1400 70:30
3 B 7% 1400 60:40
C 1400 50:50
A 1600 70:30
4 B 8% 1600 60:40
C 1600 50:50
A 1800 70:30
5 B 9% 1800 60:40
C 1800 50:50
A 2000 70:30
6 B 10% 2000 60:40
C 2000 50:50

Following the successful modelling of a single roundabout, the subsequent step involved
conducting a microsimulation to evaluate the effect of a signalized intersection on the adjacent
roundabout. A three-leg signalised intersection was integrated into the network, with the distance
between the roundabout’s central point and the signalised intersection ranging from 40 to 120 meters,
as illustrated in Figure 4. The minimum distance of 40 meters was established as the threshold for
fitting both intersections' geometric elements, while the upper limit of 120 meters was determined
based on previous research (Klobučar & Deluka-Tibljaš, 2022), which indicated that mutual influence
no longer exists beyond that distance.

12
 Figure 4. Network for the model (left); Traffic lights near the roundabout (right).

Determining the most effective cycle length for a traffic signal with two phases is dependent on a
variety of factors, such as traffic volume, intersection geometry, and any unique conditions or
attributes (Builenko et al., 2018; Li et al., 2004). Typically, the cycle length ranges between 60 to 90
seconds (Hrvatske ceste, 2001). To determine the optimal cycle time, signalized intersection was
analysed by SIDRA Intersection program. The best level of service was obtained for a cycle of 70
seconds. Through the calculation of green time duration, it was determined that the first phase's green
light lasts for 44 seconds, while the second phase's green light lasts for 16 seconds. The sequence of
losses in the phase includes a 2-second yellow time, a 2-second red-yellow time, and a 1-second all-
red time (as depicted in Figure 5).

13
 Figure 5. Optimal Cycle Time (left); Signal sequence (right)

The Level of Service (LOS) indicates the quality of transportation from the perspective of the
traveller. According to the Highway Capacity Manual , LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections
is defined based on the average vehicle control delay. Although LOS can be calculated for any
intersection configuration, it is only defined for signalized and all-way stop configurations when
considering the intersection as a whole. The quality of service is divided into six categories, ranging
from A (free flow) to F (unstable flow, operating at capacity), as shown in Table 4 (PTV GROUP, 2018;
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2010).

Table 4. LOS for At-Grade Intersections (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
2010)
Vehicle Delay [s]
LOS Signalised Unsignalised
Intersection Intersection
A ≤10 ≤10
B 10-20 10-15
C 20-35 15-25
D 35-55 25-35
E 55-80 35-50
F >80 >50

In order to create the model, in addition to the geometry, it was necessary to determine the traffic
parameters, traffic light cycle, traffic distribution and finally vehicle traffic routes (refer to table 5). A
distinct model was devised for every traffic load variation and distance of the roundabout and

14
signalised intersection, amounting to a total of 54 models. Subsequently, each model variation
underwent testing with varying TFR ratios.

Table 5: Traffic distribution by vehicle routes

AP Route 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C
R1 119 94 69 143 113 83 167 131 97 190 150 111 216 169 125 240 188 139
T2 190 150 111 228 180 133 267 210 155 305 240 178 345 270 200 384 300 222
R4
R3 119 94 69 143 113 83 167 131 97 190 150 111 216 169 125 240 188 139
T3 48 38 28 57 45 33 67 53 39 76 60 44 86 68 50 96 75 56
T2 60 80 100 72 96 120 84 112 140 96 128 160 108 144 180 120 160 200
T3 8 10 13 9 12 15 11 14 18 12 16 20 14 18 23 15 20 25
R1
R3 38 50 63 45 60 75 53 70 88 60 80 100 68 90 113 75 100 125
R4 45 60 75 54 72 90 63 84 105 72 96 120 81 108 135 90 120 150
T2 60 80 100 72 96 120 84 112 140 96 128 160 108 144 180 120 160 200
T3 8 10 13 9 12 15 11 14 18 12 16 20 14 18 23 15 20 25
R3
R4 45 60 75 54 72 90 63 84 105 72 96 120 81 108 135 90 120 150
R1 38 50 63 45 60 75 53 70 88 60 80 100 68 90 113 75 100 125
T3 17 17 17 20 20 20 24 24 23 27 27 26 29 30 30 32 34 33
R1 42 42 41 50 50 50 59 59 58 67 67 66 72 76 74 81 84 83
T2
R4 67 67 66 81 81 79 94 94 92 108 108 106 116 121 119 129 134 132
R3 42 42 41 50 50 50 59 59 58 67 67 66 72 76 74 81 84 83
T2 50 50 50 60 60 60 70 70 70 80 80 80 90 90 90 100 100 100
R1 19 19 19 23 23 23 26 26 26 30 30 30 34 34 34 38 38 38
T3
R4 38 38 38 45 45 45 53 53 53 60 60 60 68 68 68 75 75 75
R3 19 19 19 23 23 23 26 26 26 30 30 30 34 34 34 38 38 38

15
4. RESULTS

The microsimulation results have been divided into two distinct phases. The first phase entails
analysing the capacity of the single roundabout to understand its functionality under a given traffic
load. The second phase involves observing the impact of the signalised intersection on the adjacent
roundabout's capacity.

4.1. Analyses of capacity of single roundabout

For a roundabout to function effectively, it must be able to handle the expected traffic volume. To
obtain the most realistic results, ten simulations for each variant of the traffic load were conducted,
which totalled 180 microsimulations. The results from VISIM model are presented in Table 5, which
includes the Average Queue Length (QLen), Maximum Queue Length (QLenMax), Number of vehicles
passed through the roundabout (VehPass), Level of Service (LOS), Vehicle Delay (VehDelay), Stop Delay,
Number of stops (Stops), Emission of CO (EmissCo) and Fuel Consumption (Fuel).
The results of microsimulations showed that significant traffic congestion occurs at roundabouts
with 9% and 10% daily load (model variants 5 and 6). Between 14% to 23% were unable to pass through
the roundabout, as depicted in Graph 1. Additionally, variant 6 displayed a significantly higher vehicle
delay (3,57 times higher on average than variant 1). Upon closer examination of the vehicle delay data
(Graph 2), it is apparent that variants 1, 2, and 3 perform optimally when the traffic ratio is evenly split
between the main and secondary directions. However, this trend does not hold true for variants 4, 5,
and 6, as not all vehicles pass through the intersection in these scenarios. Therefore, it is advisable to
exercise caution when interpreting the results of variants 4, 5, and 6 as they are not comparable to
other results.

Graph 1: Number of vehicles passed through the roundabout

1A Model NumVeh Model NumVeh
6C2000 1B Variant Pass Variant Pass
6B 1500 1C
1A 98% 4A 89%
6A 1000 2A
1B 99% 4B 92%
500
5C 2B 1C 100% 4C 94%
0
2A 98% 5A 82%
5B 2C
2B 99% 5B 84%
5A 3A
2C 100% 5C 86%
4C 3B
3A 96% 6A 77%
4B 3C
4A 3B 98% 6B 78%
Simulation results (veh/h) Theoretical capacity (veh/h) 3C 99% 6C 79%

16
Table 5. Microsimulation result – Single roundabout – peak hour
Peak
Model TFR QLen QLenMax VehPass LOS VehDelay StopDelay Stops EmissCO Fuel
hour
Variant
% % m m veh - s/veh s/veh - g L
A 70:30 2,25 73,80 980 A 8,31 2,07 0,45 727,96 39,37
1 B 5% 60:40 2,19 62,69 991 A 8,05 2,22 0,45 730,33 39,49
C 50:50 1,98 54,51 1001 A 7,61 2,00 0,45 724,93 39,20
A 70:30 5,75 88,75 1176 B 13,55 4,24 0,80 1131,72 61,20
2 B 6% 60:40 5,14 84,13 1182 B 12,50 4,20 0,76 1086,99 58,78
C 50:50 4,71 81,37 1199 B 11,73 3,84 0,74 1072,90 58,02
A 70:30 17,11 97,40 1349 D 26,54 10,20 1,69 2045,72 110,63
3 B 7% 60:40 16,16 96,80 1369 D 25,38 10,32 1,64 1992,19 107,73
C 50:50 13,77 98,13 1391 C 22,46 8,91 1,47 1845,38 99,79
A 70:30 28,12 101,26 1427 E 38,21 16,45 2,42 2815,09 152,23
4 B 8% 60:40 34,19 101,60 1470 E 43,86 19,76 2,79 3189,06 172,46
C 50:50 31,21 103,69 1504 E 40,40 17,63 2,68 3076,43 166,37
A 70:30 33,39 99,82 1480 E 42,40 18,24 2,77 3206,57 173,40
5 B 9% 60:40 41,99 101,22 1511 F 50,82 22,94 3,33 3745,94 202,57
C 50:50 45,41 109,34 1544 F 53,36 24,38 3,48 3935,83 212,84
A 70:30 37,82 100,70 1537 E 46,28 20,05 3,09 3598,85 194,62
6 B 10% 60:40 48,50 110,73 1553 F 56,26 25,44 3,73 4209,63 227,65
C 50:50 53,50 120,02 1575 F 60,41 27,21 4,01 4518,42 244,34

Graph 2: Comparison of functional indicators

1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C

250,00

200,00

150,00

100,00

50,00

0,00
QLenMax [m] VehDelay [s] StopDelay [s] Fuel [L]

17
4.2. Analysis of the influence of a signalised intersection on the capacity of the adjacent
roundabout

By introducing a signalized intersection to the traffic network, a complex situation of mutual

influence was observed. Microsimulation results indicated that significant traffic congestion occurred
at roundabouts when daily loads reached 9% and 10% (model variants 5 and 6 – chapter 4.1.). Between
12% to 23% of vehicles were unable to pass through the roundabout. The worst traffic congestion was
observed at shorter intersection distances of 40 and 50 m, and a traffic ratio of 70:30 in the main and
secondary directions. In variant 6A (10% of daily traffic, 70:30 ratio) with the smallest intersection
distance of 40 m, even 500 vehicles (23%) failed to pass through the traffic network (graph 3). Although
LOS is better in case 6B and 6C, it is important to note that significantly more vehicles passed through.
Table 6 displays the simulation results and highlights the most favourable distances for each variant. It
can be observed that the optimal intersection distance is 60 and 70 m. Increasing the distance to 100,
110, or 120 m does not lead to better vehicle delay values.

Table 6. Microsimulation result –– peak hour

Model Distance QLen QLenMax Veh LOS VehDelay StopDelay Stops EmissCO Fuel
Variant m m m veh s s g L
40 2,41 68,77 1055 B 12,71 5,29 0,69 927,73 50
50 2,25 68,32 1055 B 12,25 4,92 0,65 907,64 49
60 2,22 69,00 1055 B 12,10 4,75 0,64 901,75 49
70 2,15 68,14 1055 B 11,92 4,53 0,63 894,57 48
1A 80 2,38 75,03 1055 B 12,47 4,73 0,67 920,65 50
90 2,50 77,32 1055 B 12,74 4,81 0,68 928,36 50
100 2,47 71,13 1055 B 12,63 4,74 0,66 919,90 50
110 2,58 74,72 1055 B 12,96 4,86 0,69 940,85 51
120 2,73 81,00 1054 B 13,42 5,10 0,71 957,47 52
40 2,51 62,65 1063 B 12,95 5,60 0,71 942,43 51
50 2,35 63,24 1063 B 12,26 5,08 0,67 917,02 50
60 2,27 60,80 1063 B 12,00 4,88 0,66 907,10 49
70 2,33 61,38 1063 B 12,23 4,90 0,67 918,08 50
1B 80 2,38 65,38 1063 B 12,37 4,89 0,67 920,34 50
90 2,50 66,28 1064 B 12,61 4,94 0,68 929,25 50
100 2,52 63,30 1062 B 12,61 4,95 0,67 926,92 50
110 2,53 62,62 1063 B 12,65 4,94 0,69 935,53 51
120 2,61 66,34 1063 B 13,04 5,06 0,71 952,03 52
40 2,51 61,00 1069 B 12,72 5,52 0,71 936,16 51
1C
50 2,27 57,78 1069 B 11,94 4,98 0,66 905,20 49

18
 60 2,18 55,18 1070 B 11,75 4,78 0,65 899,13 49
70 2,20 55,72 1069 B 11,71 4,70 0,64 897,35 49
80 2,27 52,51 1069 B 11,98 4,80 0,65 906,94 49
90 2,35 56,69 1069 B 12,23 4,90 0,67 916,13 50
100 2,40 55,67 1070 B 12,25 4,84 0,67 918,15 50
110 2,49 57,79 1069 B 12,46 4,93 0,68 927,70 50
120 2,60 58,33 1068 B 12,95 5,18 0,71 946,74 51
40 5,49 87,94 1265 B 18,16 7,98 1,03 1382,36 75
50 4,82 87,29 1268 B 16,73 6,95 0,95 1321,75 72
60 4,69 85,37 1267 B 16,47 6,63 0,93 1310,03 71
70 7,23 92,04 1375 C 20,15 8,53 1,20 1628,59 88
2A 80 5,19 86,34 1265 B 17,26 6,53 1,00 1358,07 74
90 5,53 87,60 1263 B 17,89 6,82 1,02 1379,20 75
100 5,59 88,07 1264 B 17,81 6,70 1,02 1377,36 75
110 9,23 93,11 1369 C 23,04 9,60 1,39 1782,33 97
120 6,16 88,74 1262 B 19,26 7,46 1,11 1451,59 79
40 5,33 87,00 1270 B 17,87 8,15 1,02 1363,70 74
50 4,40 85,63 1273 B 16,06 6,90 0,93 1291,14 70
60 4,43 82,73 1273 B 16,11 6,86 0,93 1290,66 70
70 4,26 84,60 1273 B 15,68 6,36 0,92 1279,71 69
2B 80 4,53 86,39 1273 B 16,18 6,56 0,94 1297,58 70
90 4,74 86,14 1273 B 16,61 6,69 0,97 1324,24 72
100 4,88 84,08 1272 B 16,73 6,71 0,97 1325,09 72
110 5,03 82,35 1272 B 17,23 6,91 1,01 1355,74 73
120 5,35 86,95 1271 B 17,93 7,24 1,04 1385,30 75
40 5,16 85,22 1284 B 17,47 7,99 1,02 1354,30 73
50 4,39 78,13 1285 B 15,95 6,97 0,93 1287,79 70
60 4,27 77,64 1284 B 15,62 6,67 0,92 1274,86 69
70 4,17 72,53 1283 B 15,42 6,37 0,90 1262,60 68
2C 80 4,29 75,28 1284 B 15,70 6,44 0,92 1280,01 69
90 4,43 77,40 1283 B 16,16 6,66 0,95 1301,98 71
100 4,58 83,93 1284 B 16,23 6,63 0,94 1301,66 70
110 5,19 85,28 1283 B 17,28 7,19 1,03 1359,84 74
120 5,40 85,91 1283 B 18,10 7,59 1,06 1391,40 75
40 15,59 97,37 1447 C 33,30 16,89 1,85 2362,13 128
50 11,89 96,29 1458 C 27,08 12,36 1,57 2089,50 113
60 10,91 94,87 1466 C 25,53 11,06 1,52 2045,10 111
3A 70 11,68 96,88 1461 C 26,53 11,39 1,60 2100,29 114
80 11,85 95,66 1451 C 26,37 10,65 1,63 2099,49 114
90 12,97 94,68 1437 C 28,07 11,14 1,76 2190,70 119
100 13,37 93,90 1441 C 28,55 11,42 1,80 2232,94 121

19
 110 14,20 95,52 1439 C 30,01 12,44 1,84 2278,02 123
120 15,46 96,50 1432 C 32,27 13,69 1,96 2385,30 129
40 15,21 99,86 1461 C 32,47 16,62 1,84 2327,13 126
50 11,96 96,64 1471 C 27,25 12,85 1,63 2115,86 115
60 10,20 95,13 1473 C 24,40 10,96 1,47 1973,41 107
70 9,81 94,62 1474 C 23,91 10,54 1,45 1950,69 106
3B 80 11,02 93,17 1472 C 25,46 10,80 1,59 2057,94 111
90 11,43 93,96 1473 C 26,18 11,08 1,63 2102,66 114
100 11,91 95,08 1472 C 26,79 11,39 1,67 2138,84 116
110 13,54 97,73 1466 C 29,13 12,69 1,78 2240,90 121
120 15,47 98,88 1461 C 32,41 14,60 1,97 2407,08 130
40 14,52 99,15 1468 C 31,57 15,91 1,84 2283,72 124
50 10,91 97,97 1478 C 25,67 12,21 1,52 2001,68 108
60 10,05 94,85 1477 C 24,23 10,85 1,48 1963,46 106
70 9,59 96,11 1485 C 23,59 10,45 1,45 1931,41 105
3C 80 9,17 95,18 1485 C 22,82 9,76 1,42 1900,75 103
90 10,28 95,09 1482 C 24,35 10,38 1,52 1981,07 107
100 11,20 94,96 1477 C 25,72 11,00 1,59 2062,14 112
110 12,53 98,18 1476 C 27,62 12,01 1,73 2159,65 117
120 13,89 98,84 1474 C 30,17 13,43 1,85 2280,05 123
40 27,50 99,91 1524 D 48,74 26,43 2,61 3273,13 177
50 25,15 98,91 1570 D 44,19 22,31 2,50 3203,23 173
60 22,63 98,54 1584 D 40,57 19,32 2,38 3073,48 166
70 21,72 98,74 1583 D 39,17 18,13 2,34 3010,42 163
4A 80 20,35 97,38 1554 D 36,96 15,75 2,33 2903,05 157
90 19,36 96,68 1534 D 35,75 14,81 2,28 2806,87 152
100 19,72 96,54 1542 D 36,66 15,33 2,31 2862,67 155
110 22,18 97,36 1528 D 40,10 17,55 2,53 3039,88 165
120 23,82 98,49 1519 D 42,82 19,21 2,62 3136,50 170
40 28,25 100,63 1544 D 48,92 25,94 2,79 3382,10 183
50 26,17 102,51 1595 D 44,93 22,82 2,64 3307,91 179
60 25,53 99,66 1610 D 43,64 21,39 2,60 3284,05 178
70 24,85 99,46 1625 D 42,41 20,09 2,59 3280,46 178
4B 80 26,40 102,56 1605 D 44,05 20,21 2,77 3383,06 183
90 25,21 101,19 1600 D 43,16 19,26 2,78 3350,62 181
100 25,86 100,29 1595 D 43,72 19,49 2,81 3373,78 183
110 28,08 100,78 1572 D 47,18 21,78 2,97 3505,96 190
120 28,59 102,14 1561 D 48,49 22,64 3,02 3541,81 192
40 25,24 101,99 1574 D 44,34 23,46 2,55 3151,09 171
4C 50 23,61 101,69 1611 D 41,26 20,52 2,47 3100,11 168
60 23,83 100,74 1626 D 41,16 19,94 2,52 3156,65 171

20
 70 23,38 100,66 1635 D 40,11 18,74 2,51 3144,96 170
80 24,42 101,25 1632 D 41,47 19,07 2,62 3235,60 175
90 25,96 101,47 1629 D 43,56 19,83 2,78 3372,52 183
100 26,25 101,59 1620 D 44,00 19,97 2,81 3385,01 183
110 26,57 100,89 1585 D 44,88 20,66 2,85 3368,40 182
120 27,37 101,83 1568 D 46,29 21,54 2,92 3404,45 184
40 30,82 101,31 1567 D 51,70 27,59 2,88 3574,88 194
50 28,63 100,09 1614 D 47,89 24,46 2,73 3506,13 190
60 27,09 99,39 1632 D 45,33 22,28 2,65 3434,62 186
70 25,88 99,60 1636 D 43,28 20,35 2,60 3358,38 182
5A 80 23,97 99,36 1617 D 41,18 18,51 2,57 3245,75 176
90 23,26 97,54 1602 D 40,93 17,85 2,60 3222,82 175
100 23,76 100,10 1596 D 41,28 18,11 2,63 3246,54 176
110 26,56 98,37 1587 D 45,38 20,67 2,83 3441,21 186
120 27,57 98,88 1578 D 47,37 21,60 2,95 3539,83 192
40 33,10 99,80 1603 D 54,30 29,38 3,05 3781,49 205
50 32,59 101,43 1652 D 51,50 26,24 3,04 3825,06 207
60 32,57 102,23 1667 D 51,05 25,18 3,08 3869,45 210
70 32,41 101,49 1673 D 50,19 23,87 3,12 3885,45 210
5B 80 32,24 101,59 1664 D 50,60 23,65 3,18 3900,04 211
90 31,75 100,63 1665 D 50,17 22,87 3,22 3909,68 212
100 32,64 103,13 1655 D 50,90 23,22 3,27 3943,53 214
110 33,50 101,17 1626 D 52,56 24,25 3,35 3970,44 215
120 33,88 102,28 1615 D 53,88 25,06 3,43 4024,73 218
40 33,80 101,79 1624 E 54,67 29,58 3,11 3833,82 208
50 33,61 101,19 1662 D 52,68 27,00 3,11 3871,63 210
60 34,23 101,24 1682 D 52,84 26,06 3,22 3988,16 216
70 35,01 102,31 1677 D 53,37 25,58 3,37 4077,93 221
5C 80 35,65 102,60 1680 D 54,09 25,52 3,42 4125,53 223
90 36,08 102,89 1685 E 54,70 25,24 3,53 4218,12 228
100 36,59 101,23 1678 E 55,25 25,59 3,53 4217,00 228
110 36,52 102,23 1642 E 55,92 26,07 3,59 4188,79 227
120 36,65 100,71 1634 E 57,07 26,90 3,61 4211,81 228
40 33,52 100,31 1630 E 54,42 29,00 3,07 3881,78 210
50 31,95 99,60 1672 D 50,89 25,65 3,03 3874,55 210
60 30,86 99,75 1688 D 49,54 24,70 2,93 3805,60 206
70 29,81 100,12 1702 D 47,59 22,75 2,88 3760,22 204
6A
80 28,01 101,29 1681 D 45,72 21,12 2,86 3642,15 197
90 25,96 98,34 1672 D 43,14 19,23 2,74 3485,62 189
100 27,41 99,13 1667 D 45,33 20,43 2,89 3621,59 196
110 30,66 100,20 1651 D 49,84 22,96 3,16 3867,91 209

21
 120 31,31 99,95 1638 D 51,35 23,82 3,21 3906,12 212
40 37,14 100,08 1670 E 57,62 30,93 3,29 4156,37 225
50 36,72 101,68 1704 E 55,91 28,56 3,33 4215,15 228
60 36,82 100,43 1725 E 55,36 27,37 3,40 4300,57 233
70 37,41 101,75 1730 E 55,88 26,85 3,47 4367,47 237
6B 80 36,87 102,59 1725 E 55,45 26,34 3,49 4346,52 235
90 37,51 102,60 1722 E 56,42 26,41 3,60 4422,51 239
100 37,78 102,72 1715 E 56,57 26,09 3,63 4436,24 240
110 37,72 104,12 1692 E 57,16 26,80 3,65 4410,35 239
120 38,59 100,79 1670 E 59,11 27,95 3,74 4461,38 242
40 40,05 101,64 1669 E 60,82 32,78 3,50 4305,17 233
50 40,40 101,80 1722 E 59,85 30,98 3,56 4457,65 241
60 40,65 100,33 1725 E 59,28 29,44 3,65 4513,78 244
70 41,67 104,15 1736 E 60,08 29,29 3,72 4607,32 250
6C 80 42,11 102,42 1732 E 60,80 28,95 3,86 4688,57 254
90 42,78 101,88 1726 E 61,71 29,04 3,95 4751,11 257
100 42,73 102,12 1723 E 61,63 28,88 3,95 4737,72 257
110 42,85 100,88 1693 E 62,39 29,79 3,91 4661,92 252
120 43,08 102,93 1679 E 63,98 30,40 4,05 4750,73 257

Graph 3. Number of vehicles that passed through the roundabout

2100

1900

1700
NumVehPass

1500

1300

1100

900

700
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Theoretical Capacity

The Level of Service (LOS) overview presented in Table 6 provides a comprehensive perspective on
intersections in all directions. However, it is crucial to highlight the direction that requires immediate
attention. Analysis indicates that R1, the minor direction where vehicles attempt to enter the

22
roundabout, is the most critical. LOS for approach R1, for every variant and for different intersections
distances, is shown in Graph 4.

Graph 4. Level of Service for the most critical approach R1

Upon analyzing the data collected, it was discovered that there exists a significant positive
correlation between multiple parameters such as Vehicle Delay, LOS, Stop Delay, Number of Stops,
Emission of CO, Fuel Consumption, number of vehicles arriving at the intersection (VehEnter) and
passing through the traffic network (VehExit), and Queue Length (Table 8). As a result, a more
comprehensive analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between the vehicle delay
parameter and traffic load, major to minor flow ratio, and the distance between the intersection. By
observing the behavior of the Vehicle Delay function, it was determined that it follows a fourth-order
polynomial for all model variants (as shown in graph 5).

Table 8. Correlation between selected parameters and Vehicle Delay

Veh Veh Stop Emiss QLen Veh
LOS Stops Fuel QLen
Enter Exit Delay CO Max Delay
VehEnter 1
VehExit 0,9564 1
LOS 0,9449 0,9237 1
StopDelay (s) 0,9508 0,9130 0,9607 1
Stops (s) 0,9645 0,9370 0,9725 0,9786 1
EmissCO (g) 0,9748 0,9470 0,9746 0,9823 0,9982 1
Fuel (L) 0,9748 0,9470 0,9746 0,9823 0,9982 1 1
QLen (m) 0,9607 0,9170 0,9705 0,9886 0,9950 0,9956 0,9956 1

23
 QLenMax (m) 0,8389 0,9306 0,8019 0,7992 0,8225 0,8297 0,8297 0,7890 1
VehDelay (s) 0,9644 0,9318 0,9726 0,9928 0,9958 0,9965 0,9965 0,9971 0,8195 1

Ovdje dodati što prikazuje graf I prokomentirati

Graph 5. Vehicle Delay parameter function

4.3. Statistical Analysis of Collected Data

4.4. Model for Vehicle Delay

In next step the idea was to develop regression model based on the data generated from
VISIM model.

Model for defining vehicle delay (VehDelay) as a function of distance (d) between signalised
intersection and the roundabout:

𝑽𝒆𝒉𝑫𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚 = 𝑨 ∙ 𝒅𝟒 + 𝑩 ∙ 𝒅𝟑 + 𝑪 ∙ 𝒅𝟐 + 𝑫 ∙ 𝒅 + 𝑬

Note: Distance between 40 and 120 m.

Considering that the coefficients A, B, C, D and E depend on the traffic load and the major-
to-minor flow ratio, the connection between these two input parameters is called factor f.

𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝑓= 100
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜

Note: Traffic Volume from 1000 to 2000 veh/h. Traffic Flow Ratio 70:30, 60:40 or 50:50.

Using multiple regression, the relationship between the factor f and the necessary coefficients A,
B, C, D and E was obtained. The coefficient E is determined from the associated table 9.

𝑓 = 82,8555306900927 + 1355001273,8961 ∙ 𝐴 + 10162001,540428 ∙ 𝐵 + 73610,8573272823

∙ 𝐶 + 479,953290353995 ∙ 𝐷 + 𝐸

24
𝑓 = 91,4708 − 56501721,2290 ∙ 𝐴 + 1,2998 ∙ 𝐸
𝑓 = 89,712 + 164828,94 ∙ 𝐵 + 1,3233 ∙ 𝐸
𝑓 = 87,012 − 1439,7924 ∙ 𝐶 + 1,4462 ∙ 𝐸
𝑓 = 83,5263 + 32,5311 ∙ 𝐷 + 1,7122 ∙ 𝐸

Table 9. Coefficient E
Traffic Volume Traffic Flow Ratio E Traffic Volume Traffic Flow Ratio E
70:30 27,18592 70:30 71,56425
1000 60:40 33,50447 1600 60:40 103,7454
50:50 31,52789 50:50 95,62262
70:30 56,52967 70:30 45,8288
1200 60:40 50,96601 1800 60:40 88,76633
50:50 43,05986 50:50 105,8855
70:30 160,4976 70:30 24,9362
1400 60:40 139,2938 2000 60:40 100,5115
50:50 107,4554 50:50 106,7841

For easier calculation, the values of the coefficients with regard to traffic volume and traffic flow
ratio are given in table 10.

Table 10. Coefficients A, B, C, D and E

Traffic Volume Traffic Flow Ratio f A B C D E

70:30 102,33 3,15E-07 -0,00011 0,013892 -0,76321 27,18592

1000 60:40 101,50 4,78E-07 -0,00016 0,020526 -1,10318 33,50447
50:50 101,00 4,1E-07 -0,00014 0,017954 -0,98873 31,52789
70:30 122,33 8,88E-07 -0,0003 0,038248 -2,06 56,52967
1200 60:40 121,50 6,66E-07 -0,00023 0,03036 -1,71263 50,96601
50:50 121,00 4,8E-07 -0,00017 0,022055 -1,287 43,05986
70:30 142,33 2,63E-06 -0,00092 0,118352 -6,61808 160,4976
1400 60:40 141,50 2,05E-06 -0,00071 0,093291 -5,39317 139,2938
50:50 141,00 1,11E-06 -0,00041 0,057504 -3,62412 107,4554
70:30 162,33 6,09E-08 3,55E-06 0,002373 -0,67835 71,56425
1600 60:40 161,50 9,1E-07 -0,00032 0,043106 -2,64961 103,7454
50:50 161,00 6,58E-07 -0,00027 0,039763 -2,48887 95,62262
70:30 182,33 -7,4E-07 0,000262 -0,02817 0,89647 45,8288
1800 60:40 181,50 6,33E-07 -0,00021 0,027919 -1,6832 88,76633
50:50 181,00 1,2E-06 -0,00041 0,051713 -2,76983 105,8855
2000 70:30 202,33 -1,1E-06 0,000411 -0,04851 2,081743 24,9362

25
60:40 201,50 1,09E-06 -0,00036 0,043347 -2,30667 100,5115
50:50 201,00 1,19E-06 -0,0004 0,048547 -2,5303 106,7841

26
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

27
REFERENCE

Allen, W. G. (1991). Analysis of Corridor Traffic Peaking. Transportation Research Record.

Ariniello, A., & Przybyl, B. (2010). Roundabouts and Sustainable Design. Green Streets and Highways
2010: An Interactive Conference on the State of the Art and How to Achieve Sustainable Outcomes
- Proceedings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference, 389, 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)8
Bared, J., & Edara, P. (2005). Simulated Capacity of Roundabouts and Impact of Roundabout Within a
Progressed Signalized Road. Undefined.
Brilon, W. (2016). Safety of Roundabouts: International Overview.
Builenko, V., Pakhomova, A., & Pakhomov, S. (2018). Optimization of the method for collecting source
data to calculate the length of the traffic light control cycle. Transportation Research Procedia,
36, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRPRO.2018.12.048
CERTU. (1997). Guide les mini-giratoires: Textes et recommendations.
Demir, H. G., & Demir, Y. K. (2020). A Comparison of Traffic Flow Performance of Roundabouts and
Signalized Intersections: A Case Study in Nigde. The Open Transportation Journal, 14(1), 120–132.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447802014010120
Direkcija Republike Slovenije za ceste. (2012). Tehnička specifikacija za javne ceste - krožna križišča. In
Ministarstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor, Republika Slovenija.
Elvik, R. (2003). Effects on Road Safety of Converting Intersections to Roundabouts: Review of Evidence
from Non-U.S. Studies. Https://Doi.Org/10.3141/1847-01, 1847, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.3141/1847-01
Federal Highway Administration. (2000). Roundabouts: an Informational Guide.
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Giuffrè, T., Trubia, S., Canale, A., & Persaud, B. (2017). Using Microsimulation to Evaluate Safety and
Operational Implications of Newer Roundabout Layouts for European Road Networks.
Sustainability 2017, Vol. 9, Page 2084, 9(11), 2084. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9112084
Hallmark, S., Fitzsimmons, E. J., Isebrands, H. N., & Giese, K. (2010). Roundabouts in Signalized
Corridors: Evaluation of Traffic Flow Impacts. Transportation Research Record.
Hrvatske ceste. (2001). Smjernice za prometnu svjetlosnu signalizaciju na cestama.
Hrvatske ceste d.o.o. Zagreb. (2014). Smjernice za projektiranje kružnih raskrižja na državnim cestama.
Izrađivač: Građevinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci.
Isebrands, H., Hallmark, S., Fitzsimmons, E., & Stroda, J. (2008). Toolbox to Evaluate the Impacts of
Roundabouts on a Corridor or Roadway Network. http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/200824.pdf

28
Ištoka Otković, I. (2011). Using Neural Networks in the Process of Calibrating the Microsimulation
Models in the Analysis and Design of Roundabouts in Urban Areas.
Jackson, M., & Rakha, H. A. (2012). Are Roundabouts Environmentally Friendly? An Evaluation for
Uniform Approach Demands.
Javno preduzeće Putevi Srbije. (2012). Priručnik za projektovanje puteva u Republici Srbiji.
Kennedy, J. V, Peirce, J., & Summersgill, I. (2005). International Comparison of Roundabout Design
Guidelines.
KIM, Y. B., LEE, D., Jun, J. W., & Cho, H. (2015). An Estimation of the Minimum Distance Between a
Roundabout and Signal Crosswalk Using VISSIM. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation,
33(4), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.7470/JKST.2015.33.4.337
Klobučar, M., & Deluka-Tibljaš, A. (2022). Preliminary analyses of the optimal distance between a
roundabout and signalized intersection. 6th My First Conference.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363925001_Preliminary_analyses_of_the_optimal_
distance_between_a_roundabout_and_signalized_intersection
Lenters, M. (2014). Roundabouts near Traffic Signals. TexITE Meeting.
www.ghd.comwww.ourston.com
Li, H., Li, J., Yang, Z., Wu, J., & Chen, X. (2011). Micro-simulation study on capacity of roundabout. IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, 852–857.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2011.6082918
Li, H., Wang, D., & Qu, Z. (2004). Research on the Optimal Method of Cycle Length for Signalized
Intersection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Advanced
Technologies in Transportation Engineering, 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1061/40730(144)70
Luo, H., Deng, M., & Chen, J. (2023). Queue Length Estimation Based on Probe Vehicle Data at
Signalized Intersections. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3241207
Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske. (2015). Broj vozila po vrsti vozila i vrsti goriva u
RH.
Ministry of Transport, P. W. and W. management. (2009). Roundabouts-Application and design A
practical manual.
Ning, W. (1998, January). Estimation of queue lengths and their percentiles at signalized intersections.
3rd International Symposium on Highway Capacity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259997454_Estimation_of_queue_lengths_and_the
ir_percentiles_at_signalized_intersections
PTV GROUP. (2018). PTV VISSIM 10 USER MANUAL. www.ptvgroup.com

29
RETTING, R., MANDAVILLI, S., McCartt, A. T., & Russell, E. R. (2006). Roundabouts, traffic flow and
public opinion. Traffic Engineering & Control, 47(7).
Rui-jun, G. (2006). A New Calculation Method of Capacity of Roundabout—Settled Proportion
Interweave Section Volume Restrict Method. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and
Information Technology.
Šraml, M., & Jovanović, G. (2014). Mikrosimulacije u prometu. Fakulteta za gradbeništvo.
https://dokumen.tips/documents/mikrosimulacije-u-prometu-radni-udzbenik-s-primjenom-
vissim-apdf.html
Šurdonja, S., Deluka-Tibljaš, A., & Babić, S. (2013). Optimization of roundabout design elements.
Tehnički Vjesnik, 20(3), 533–539.
Šurdonja, S., Nežić, D., & Deluka-Tibljaš, A. (2015). Mikrosimulacijski model proračuna kapaciteta
kružnog raskrižja. Pomorski Zbornik, 49–50(1), 143–165.
Tollazzi, T., Šrami, M., & Lerher, T. (2008). Roundabout Arm Capacity Determined by Microsimulation
and Discrete Functions Technique. Promet - Traffic&Transportation, 20(5).
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (2010). American Highway Capacity
Manual. www.TRB.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guid.

30