Full bus bays (3.

25m by at least 12m, plus 20m end tapers) may be provided at bus stops in urban
areas; however, the appropriateness of this provision is dependent on the traffic volumes on the
road in question.

4.8.7 Kerbs
A kerb (as termed as curb) is a vertical or sloping member along the edge of a pavement or
shoulder, forming part of gutter, strengthening or protecting the edge, and clearly defining the
edge to vehicle operators. Its functions are:

a) To facilitate and control drainage;

b) To strengthen and protect the pavement edge;
c) To delineate the pavement edge;
d) To present a more finished appearance;
e) To assist in the orderly development of the roadside.

Kerbs are classified as ‘barrier’ or ‘mountable’. Barrier kerbs are designed to discourage vehicles
from leaving the pavement. The face may be vertical or sloping and the height may range from
15cm to 25cm. Mountable kerbs are those which can be easily crossed by vehicles if required.
They are used at medians and channelizing islands.

4.8.8 Camber
Camber, also known as cross fall, facilitates drainage of the pavement laterally. The pavement can
have a crown or a high point in the middle with slopes downwards towards both edges. This is
favoured on two-lane roads and wider undivided roads. On divided roads, the individual
carriageways may be centrally crowned separately or a unidirectional slope may be provided
across the entire carriageway width. The amount of camber to be provided depends upon the
smoothness of the surface and the intensity of rainfall. In the UK, a value of 2.5% is generally
adopted for design. A cross fall for the shoulders should be generally steeper than for the
pavement by about 0.3 – 0.5% to facilitate quick drainage. The UK practice is to provide 5% slope
on the shoulder [Kadiyali, 2006].

4.8.9 Side slope

According to O’Flaherty (2002), soil mechanics analysis enables the accurate determination of
maximum slopes at which embankments or cuts can safely stand. However, these maximum
values are not always used, especially on low embankments not protected by safety fences. The
slopes of embankments and cut sections depend upon the type of soil and the height of
embankment or depth of cuttings. A flatter slope is conducive for erosion control, but is costly.
Flatter slopes of embankments promote safety of traffic. Ordinarily, 1.5:1 to 2:1 in mild slope
conditions and 2:1 to 3:1 in overwhelming slope conditions will be adequate.

4.9 Intersection Design and Capacity

4.9.1 General
An intersection is defined as the general area where two or more highways join or cross, within
which are included the roadway and roadside design features which facilitate orderly traffic
movements in that area. An intersection leg is that part of any one of the highways radiating from
an intersection which is outside of the area of the intersection.

66
 The importance of intersection design stems from the fact that efficiency of operation, safety,
speed, cost of operation and capacity are directly governed by the design. Since an intersection
involves conflicts between traffic in different directions, its scientific design can control accidents
and delay and can lead to orderly movement of traffic. Intersections represent potentially
dangerous locations from the point of view of traffic safety. It is believed that well over half the
fatal and serious road accidents in built-up areas occur at junctions [Kadiyali, 2006].

The following principles should be considered in a good design:

a) The number of intersections should be kept to a minimum. If necessary, some minor roads
may be connected with each other before joining a major road;
b) The geometric layout should be so selected that hazardous movements by drivers are
eliminated. This can be achieved by various techniques such as channelizing and
staggering;
c) The design should permit the driver to discern quickly either from the layout or from
traffic signs about which path he/she should follow and the actions of merging and
diverging. This can be achieved by good layout, traffic islands, signs and carriageway
markings. Good visibility improves safety;
d) The layout should follow the natural vehicle paths. Smoothness, in contrast to abrupt and
sharp corners, should guide minor streams of traffic into stopping or slowing down
positions;
e) The number of conflict points should be minimised by separating some of the many
cutting, merging or diverging movements;
f) Vehicles that are forced to wait in order to cross a traffic stream should be provided with
adequate space at the junction.

4.9.2 At-grade and Grade Separated Junctions

An intersection where all roadways join or cross at the same level is known as an at-grade
intersection. An intersection layout which permits crossing manoeuvres at different levels is
known as a grade separated intersection.

The choice between an at-grade and grade separated intersection at a particular site depends upon
various factors such as traffic, economy, safety, aesthetics, delay etc. Grade-separated junctions
generally are more expensive initially, and are justified in certain situations. These are:

a) On high type facilities such as expressways, freeways and motorways;

b) Certain at-grade intersections which have reached the maximum capacity and where it is
not possible to improve the capacity further by retaining the at-grade crossing;
c) At certain locations which have a proven record of bad accident history when functioning
as at grade junctions;
d) At junctions where the traffic volume is heavy and the delays and economic loss caused
justify the provision of grade-separation;
e) At certain specific topographical situations where it is logical to provide a grade-separated
structure rather than an at-grade intersection, which may involve considerable earthwork or
acquisition of land.

4.9.3 Basic Forms of At-grade Intersections

Intersections can be divided into the basic forms shown in Figure 4.16 below. From a design
aspect these intersections can also be divided according to whether they are controlled, priority
controlled (stop, Give Way), space-sharing (i.e. roundabouts), time sharing (i.e. traffic-signal
controlled), or grade-separated (including interchanges) [O’Flaherty, 2002].

67
 Figure 4.16: Basic Intersection Forms
Source: O’Flaherty, 2002

4.9.4 Overview of the Design Process

The at-grade intersection design process involves data collection of both traffic and site
conditions, the preparation of preliminary designs from which a layout is selected, and the
development of the final design using appropriate design standards.

Traffic data gathered for design purposes normally include peak period volumes, turning
movements and composition for the design year, vehicle operating speeds on the intersecting
roads (these are needed for sight-distance/ speed-change lane design) pedestrian and bicycle
movements (these affect the layout/traffic control design), public transport needs (e.g. bus priority
measures and bus stop locations affect the layout/traffic control design), special needs of oversize
vehicles (the selected design may have to cope with the occasional heavily loaded commercial
vehicle with a wide turning path), accident experience (if an existing intersection is being
upgraded), and parking practices (especially in built-up areas).

Site data collected typically include topography, land usage, and related physical features (natural
and manufactured), public and private utility services (above and below ground), items of special
interest (e.g. environmental, cultural and historical features), horizontal and vertical alignments of
intersecting roads (existing and future), sight distances (and physical features which limit them),
and adjacent (necessary) accesses.

The preliminary design phase is essentially an iterative one. It involves preparing a number of
possible intersection layouts and generally examining each in terms of its operating characteristics
(especially safety and capacity), ease of construction and likely capital cost, and environmental
and local impacts that might affect the design selection. The most promising of the rough layouts
are then selected for further development and analysis (including road user and vehicle operating
costs, if appropriate), refined and examined in greater detail until that considered most suitable for
the intersection is selected for detailed design and preparation of final construction plans and
specifications [O’Flaherty, 2002].

4.9.5 At-grade Intersection Types (from a design perspective)

Different at-grade junction (intersection) types will be appropriate under different
circumstances depending on traffic flows, speeds, and site limitations.

68
 a) An Access
According to MoWH&C (2005), an access is defined as the intersection of an unclassified road
with a classified road and shall generally be provided within the road reserve boundary of the
classified road. Access roads are used to connect properties etc. to the road network. Accident
risk increases with the frequency of access roads, so they should, as far as possible, be
discouraged on higher classes of roads. The lay out and location of the access must satisfy the
visibility requirement for "stop” conditions given in Figure 4.17 below.

Figure 4.17: Typical Access Layout showing Visibility Requirements

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

b) A Junction or an Intersection
A junction is the intersection of two or more classified roads on the same surface / at grade. At
grade intersections can be classified in to two main intersection categories based on the type of
control used. For each category, there are a number of intersection types as shown below.

Table 4.10: Types of At-grade Intersections as recommended by MoWH&C

Intersection Traffic control

Intersection types
category Major road Minor road
A Unchannelised T-intersection
Stop or give way
Priority intersection Priority B Partly Channelised T-intersection
sign
C Channelised T-intersection
D Roundabout
Control intersection Traffic signals or give way sign E Signalised intersection
Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

i) Priority Intersections
Priority intersections will be adequate in most rural situations. Three types of T intersections are
given below:

Unchannelised T-Intersection (A)

The unchannelised design is suitable for intersections where there is a very small amount of
turning traffic. It is the simplest design and has no traffic islands (see Figure 4.18).

Partly channelised T-Intersection (B)

The partly channelised design is for intersections with a moderate volume of turning traffic. It
has a traffic island in the minor road arm. In urban areas, the traffic island would normally be
kerbed in order to provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the road.
69
 Channelised T-Intersection (C)
The fully channelised design is for intersections with a high volume of turning traffic or high –
speeds. It has traffic islands in both the minor road and the main road.

Unchannelised Partly channelised Channelised

Figure 4.18: Typical T-Intersections

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005
The crossroads form of priority intersection must not be used. It has a very high number of
conflict points, and has a much higher accident risk than any other kind of intersection. Existing
crossroads should, where possible, be converted to a staggered intersection, or roundabout, or be
controlled by traffic signals [MoWH&C, 2005].

ii) Control Intersections

Control intersections are mostly used in towns and trading centres. However, roundabouts can be
used in rural areas in intersections between major roads or other intersections with high traffic
volumes. There are two types of control intersections:

Roundabout (D)
Roundabouts are controlled by the rule that all entry traffic must give way to circulating traffic.
The ratio of minor road incoming traffic to the total incoming traffic should preferably be at least
10 to 15%. Roundabouts can be of normal size, i.e. with central island radius 10 m or more, or
small size, i.e. with central island radius less than 10 m (see Figure 4.18).

Signalised Intersection (E)

Signalised intersections have conflicts separated by traffic signals. No conflicts are allowed
between straight through traffic movements.
Typical design of control intersections is shown in Figure 8.3.

Roundabout Signalised intersection

70
 Figure 4.19: Typical Designs for Control Intersections
Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005
c) Design Requirements
The design of at-grade junctions must take account of the following basic requirements:

• safety
• operational comfort
• capacity
• economy

i) Safety and Operational Comfort

A junction is considered safe when it is perceptible, comprehensible and manoeuvrable.
These three requirements can generally be met by complying with the following guidelines.

Perception
• The junction should be sited so that the major road approaches are readily visible;
• Early widening of the junction approaches;
• The use of traffic islands in the minor road to emphasize a “yield” or “stop” requirement.
• The use of early and eye-catching traffic signs;
• Optical guidance by landscaping and the use of road furniture, especially where a junction
must be located on a crest curve;
• The provision of visibility splays which ensure unobstructed sight lines to the left and right
along the major road;
• The angle of intersection of the major and minor roads should be between 70 and 110 degrees;
• The use of single lane approaches is preferred on the minor road in order to avoid mutual sight
obstruction from two vehicles waiting next to each other to turn or cross the major road.

Comprehension
• The right of way should follow naturally and logically from the junction layout;
• The types of junctions used throughout the whole road network should be as much as possible
similar;
• The provision of optical guidance by the use of clearly visible kerbs, traffic islands, road
markings, road signs and other road furniture.

Manoeuvrability
• A1l traffic lanes should be of adequate width for the appropriate vehicle turning
characteristics. To accommodate truck traffic, turning radii shall be 15 meters minimum;
• The edges of traffic lanes should be clearly indicated by road markings;
• Traffic islands and kerbs should not conflict with the natural vehicle paths.

ii) Capacity
The operation of uncontrolled junctions depends principally upon the frequency of gaps which
naturally occur between vehicles in the main road flow. These gaps should be of sufficient
duration to permit vehicles from the minor road to merge with, or cross, the major road flow. In
consequence junctions are limited in capacity, but this capacity may be optimized by, for example,
channelisation or the separation of manoeuvres.

iii) Economy
An economical junction design generally results from a minimization of the construction,
maintenance and operational costs.

Delay can be an important operational factor and the saving in time otherwise lost may justify a
more expensive, even grade separated, junction.

71
 Loss of lives, personal injuries and damage to vehicles caused by junction-accidents are
considered as operational "costs" and should be taken into account.
The optimum economic return may often be obtained by a phased construction, for example by
constructing initially an at-grade junction which may later become grade separated [MoWH&C,
2005].

d) Selection of Intersection Type

i) General
These selection guidelines provided by MoWH&C mainly deal with traffic safety. The ministry
recommends that other important impacts such as capacity/road user costs, environmental issues,
investment and maintenance costs should also be taken into consideration.

The selection is divided into two steps; selection of intersection category (priority or control) and
selection of intersection type. It is based on the following assumptions:
• Priority intersections can be safe and give sufficient capacity for certain traffic volumes and
speed limits;
• If a priority intersection is not sufficient for safety and capacity, the major road traffic must
also be controlled.
Depending on location, traffic conditions and speed limits, different types of priority or control
intersection should be selected.

ii) Selection of Intersection Category

Based on Safety
The selection of intersection category should mainly be based on safety. The selection can be
made by using diagrams with the relationships between the safety levels and the average annual
daily approaching traffic volumes (AADT in veh/day) based on accident statistics. The diagrams
shown in Figure 4.20 are for T-intersections on 2-lane roads with 50, 80 and 100 km/h speed limit.
The diagrams are, as already stated, based on general European experience on relationships
between speed, safety and traffic flows. They are judged reasonable to be used in Uganda until
sufficient local research is available.
Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day

6000 Q3 50 km/h 3000 Select control 80 km/h

Select control intersection Q3
Q1 Q2 intersection
4000 Q1
2000 Q2

Consider control Consider control

intersection intersection
2000 1000
Select priority Select priority
intersection intersection

5000 10000 5000 10000

Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day

Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day

3000 100 km/h

Select control
intersection
2000 Q3
Consider
control Q1
intersection Q2

1000
Select priority
intersection

5000 10000
Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day

Figure 4.20: Selection of Intersection Category based on Safety

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

72
 Based on Capacity
The selection of intersection category based on safety should be checked for capacity. It can be
made by using diagrams with the relationships between the capacity and the approaching traffic
volumes during the design hour (DHV in pcu/design hour). The diagrams shown in Figure 4.21
are for T-intersections on 2-lane roads with 50, 80 and 100 km/h speed limit. The desired level
refers to a degree of saturation (actual traffic flow/capacity) of 0.5. The acceptable level refers to a
degree of saturation of 0.7.

The diagrams are based on Swedish capacity studies with findings similar to other European
countries. It is judged reasonable to be used in Uganda until sufficient Ugandan research is
available.
Minor road approaching DHV, Q3 pcu/design hour Minor road approaching DHV, Q3 pcu/design hour

50km/h 80km/h
400 Control or grade-separated
400 Control or grade-separated
Acceptable
intersection needed intersection needed
Acceptable

Desired
Desired
200 200
Q3

Q3
Q1 Q2
Q1
Q2

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
Major road approaching DHV,Q1+Q2 pcu/design hour Major road approaching DHV,Q1+Q2 pcu/design hour

Minor road approaching DHV, Q3 pcu/design hour

400
100km/h
Acceptable Control or grade-separated
intersection needed
200
Desired
Q3

Q1
Q2

0
0 500 1000 1500
Major road approaching DHV,Q1+Q2 pcu/design hour

Figure 4.21: Selection of Intersection Category based on Capacity

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

iii) Selection of Intersection Type

Priority intersections
The selection of priority intersection type should mainly be based on safety. The selection can be
made by using diagrams with the relationships between the safety levels and the average annual
daily approaching traffic volumes (AADT in veh/day) based on accident statistics. The diagrams
shown in Figure 4.22 are for T-intersections on 2-lane roads with 50, 80 and 100 km/h speed
limit. Crossroads should be avoided. The number of right turners should obviously also impact the
decision. The diagrams are based on general European findings on safety effects of right turn
lanes. It is judged reasonable to be used in Uganda until sufficient Ugandan statistics are
available. Note however they are only a starting point for determining the most appropriate form
of intersection.

73
 Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day

6000 Q3 50 km/h
Q1 Select channelised
Q2
T-intersection
4000

Select unchannelised
2000 or partly channelised
T-intersection

5000 10000
Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day

Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day

3000 Q3 80 km/h
Q1 Q2

2000
Select channelised
T-intersection
1000
Select unchannelised
or partly channelised
T-intersection

5000 10000
Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day

Minor road approaching AADT, Q3 veh/day

1500 100 km/h

Q3

1000 Q1
Q2
Select channelised
T-intersection
500

Select unchannelised
or partly channelised T-intersection

5000 10000
Major road approaching AADT, Q1+Q2 veh/day

Figure 4.22: Selection of Priority Intersection type based on Safety

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

Partly channelised T-intersections should normally be used if needed to facilitate pedestrian

crossings and also if the minor road island is needed to improve the visibility of the intersection.

Control intersections
Roundabouts are suitable for almost all situations, provided there is enough space. Roundabouts
have been found to be safer than signalised intersections, and are suitable for both low and
medium traffic flows. At very high traffic volumes they tend to become blocked due to drivers
failing to obey the priority rules. Well-designed roundabouts slow traffic down, which can be
useful at the entry to a built-up area, or where there is a significant change in road standard, such
as the change from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway.

Traffic signals are the favoured option in the larger urban areas. Co-ordinated networks of signals
(Area Traffic Control) can bring major improvements in traffic flow and a significant reduction in
delays and stoppages. However, they must be demand-responsive, in order to get the maximum

74
 capacity from each intersection. Observance of traffic signals by Ugandan drivers is reasonably
good, and could be improved through enforcement campaigns.

For some traffic distributions, for example high traffic volumes on the major road, the total delay
can be shorter in a signalised intersection than in a roundabout. The diagram in Figure 8-8 shows
the traffic conditions for which signalised intersections are most suited, based on Kenyan and UK
experience.

Minor road approaching AADT, veh/day

15 000

10 000
Interchange
needed

Roundabout

5 000
Consider
Signalised
Intersection

0
0 10 000 20 000 30 000
Major road approaching AADT, veh/day

Figure 4.23: Selection of Control Intersection Type

Source: Uganda Road Design Manual, 2005

If a signalised intersection is considered due to planning conditions or traffic volumes, a capacity

analysis and economic analysis should be made. This should include road construction and
maintenance costs, accident costs, travel time costs, vehicle operating costs and environmental
costs [MoWH&C, 2005].

4.9.6 Capacity of a T-Junction

The capacity of a T junction is primarily dependent upon the ratio of the flows on the major and
minor roads, the critical (minimum) gap in the main road traffic stream acceptable to entering
traffic and the maximum delay acceptable to minor road vehicles. As traffic builds up on the main
road, headways between vehicles decline, fewer acceptable gaps become available, and delays to
vehicles on the minor road increase accordingly, theoretically to infinity.

Field measurements on single carriageway roads indicate that the critical time gaps accepted by
minor road vehicles at the head of a queue average about 3 seconds for left turn merging with, and
4 to 5 seconds for right turn cutting of, the traffic stream in the nearside lane of the main road.
Empirical research has resulted in predictive capacity equations for T-intersections, which were
derived from traffic flow measurements and from certain broad features of junction layout.

A T-intersection has six separate traffic streams (see Figure 4.24 below), of which the through
streams on the major road (C-A and A-C) and the left-turn stream off the major road (A-B) are
generally assumed to be priority streams and to suffer no delays from other traffic, while the two
minor road streams (B-A and B-C) and the major road right-turn stream (C-B) incur delays due to
their need to give way to higher priority streams. Predictive capacity equations for the three non-
priority streams are as follows:

627 14 0.364 0.114 0.229 0.520  … . 4.38

745 0.364 0.144                                                                        … . 4.39

75
 745 0.364                                                                        … . 4.40

Where;
1 0.0345                                                                                                                         … . 4.41

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120 1 0.006 1 0.006 150   4.42

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120                                                 … . 4.43

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120                                                 … . 4.44

Figure 4.24: Selection of Control Intersection Type

Source: O’Flaherty, 2002

• The superscript s (e.g. qsB-A) denotes the flow from the saturated stream i.e. one in which there
is stable queuing.
• The geometric parameters wB-A and wB-C denote the average widths of each of the minor road
approach lanes for waiting vehicles in streams B-A and B-C respectively, measured over a
distance 20m upstream from the Give Way line;
• wC-B denotes the average width of the right-turn (central) lane on the major road, or 2.1m if
there is no explicit provision for right turners in stream C-B.
• The parameters VrB-A and VlB-C denote right and left visibility distances, respectively, available
from the road;
• VrC-B is the visibility available to right-turning vehicles waiting to turn right from the major
road;
• W is the average major road carriageway width at the intersection; in the case of ghost or
raised islands, W excludes the width of the central (turning) lane;
• WCR is the average width of the central reserve lane at the intersection on a dual carriageway
road.

All capacities and flows are in passenger car units per hour (pcu/hr) and distances are in meters.
One heavy vehicle is considered equivalent to two (2) pcu for calculation purposes. Capacities are
always positive or zero; if the right-hand side of any equation is negative, the capacity is taken as
zero. The ranges within which the geometric data are considered valid are as follows: w = 2.05-
4.70m, Vr = 17 – 250m, Vl = 22 – 250m, WCR = 1.2 - 9m (dual carriageway sites only), W = 6.4 -
20m.

76
4.9.7 Design Reference Flow (DRF)
One of the methodologies used to assess the adequacy of the capacity available to a non priority
traffic stream is the ratio of the design reference flow (DRF) to the capacity called the reference
flow to capacity (RFC) ratio. For the satisfactory operation of any given approach lane it is
generally considered that reference flow to capacity ratio should not exceed 0.85. DRF value
considers the function of the road. The 200th highest hourly flow in the design year is used on
recreational roads, the 50th highest hourly flow on interurban roads and the 30th highest hourly
flow in the design year on urban roads. It would be economically and/or environmentally
undesirable to design for the highest hours in the design year. For an existing intersection the DRF
values are often determined from manual counts (including classifications and turning
movements) of the existing flows which are grossed up to the design year using appropriate
factors.

4.9.8 Delay
An estimate of the total 24 hour delay due to congestion, D24x, at an existing T-intersection can be
estimated from the empirically derived equation

                                                                                                                          … . 4.45
8

Where; D3 = total intersection delay (h) during the peak three hours, and P32 = ratio of flow in the
peak three hours to the 24-hour flow. The above formula assumes that delays are inflicted only on
minor road vehicles, which have to yield priority to the major road streams.

T-Junction Example
A new industrial complex is planned to be sited adjacent to an existing priority intersection. The
width of the main carriageway is 8m. The width of the carriageway for traffic movements B-A, B-
C and C-B are 3, 3 and 2m respectively. The visibility distances at the drivers’ eye height for the
junction are: VrB-A = 60m, VlB-A = 75m, VrB-C = 60m, VrC-B = 60m. The width of the central
reservation is 2m wide. The design flows (in pcu/hr) are represented in the figure below.

You are required to determine the following:

i) Calculate the capacities of the turning movements; qsB-A, qsB-C, qsC-B, for the priority
intersection shown in the figure above.
ii) Asses the arms of the junctions and advise on which arms have sufficient capacity and
which ones do not.

77
Solution
1.0 Summary of Design Data
W = 8m VrB-A = 60m qA-C = 800pcu/hr qB-A = 100pcu/hr
WB-A = 3m VlB-A = 75m qA-B = 500pcu/hr qB-C = 400pcu/hr
WB-C = 3m VrB-C = 60m qC-A = 800pcu/hr qC-B = 400pcu/hr
WC-B = 2m VrC-B = 60m qC-B = 400pcu/hr WCR = 2m

2.0 Capacities of Turning Movements

627 14 0.364 0.114 0.229 0.520   . .    

745 0.364 0.144                                                                           . .

745 0.364                                                                                    . .

Where;
1 0.0345                                                                                                                                 . .
1 0.0345 8 0.7240                                                                                                                      

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120 1 0.006 1 0.006 150  . .

1 0.094 3 3.65 1 0.0009 60 120 1 0.006 1 0.006 75 150 0.4885         

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120                                                        . .

1 0.094 3 3.65 1 0.0009 60 120   0.8882                                                           

1 0.094 3.65 1 0.0009 120                                                     . .  

1 0.094 2 3.65 1 0.0009 60 120 0.7993                                                            

Substituting the above values in equation (i), (ii) and (iii), the required turning movement
capacities can then be obtained as shown below;

0.4885 627 14 2 0.7240 0.364 800 0.114 500 0.229 800 0.520 400
59 /                                                                                                                                                      

0.8882 745 0.7240 0.364 800 0.144 500 428 /                                             

07993 745 0.364 0.7240 800 500 322 /                                                            

3.0 Assessment of Junctions Arms

The method used to assess the adequacy of the capacity available to a non priority stream is
the design reference flow (DRF) to capacity ratio called RFC (i.e. Reference Flow to Capacity
ratio). For satisfactory operation of any given approach lane, it is generally considered that
RFC should not exceed 0.85. The critically affected arms are:

Arm B-A
1.69 0.85                                              

Arm B-C
0.93 0.85                                         

Arm C-B
1.24 0.85                                         

78
 Based on the reference flow capacity ratios obtained, it is apparent that all the arms have
exceeded their capacities and therefore need to be redesigned.

4.9.9 Rotary Intersections (Roundabouts)

A roundabout is a form of channelization intersection in which vehicles are guided onto a one-way
circulatory road about a central island. Entry to the intersection is controlled by Give Way
markings and priority is now given to vehicles circulating (clockwise in Uganda) in the round
about.

The main objective of roundabout design is to secure the safe interchange of traffic between
crossing traffic streams with the minimum delay. The operating efficiency of a roundabout
depends upon entering drivers accepting headway gaps in the circulating traffic stream. Traffic
streams merge and diverge at small angles and low relative speeds. For this reason, accidents
between vehicles in roundabouts rarely have fatal consequences [O’Flaherty, 2002].

a) General Usage of Roundabouts

Roundabouts are most effective as at grade intersections in urban or rural areas that have all or a
number of the following characteristics:

• High proportions and/or volumes of right turning traffic;

• Priority is not given to traffic from any particular road;
• Presence of accidents involving crossing or turning movements;
• Traffic on the minor roads is delayed by the use of ‘Stop’ or ‘Give Way’ signs;
• Where they cause less overall delay to vehicles than traffic signals;
• Where there is a marked change in road standard e.g. from a dual to a single carriageway
road.

Roundabout intersections are not appropriate at the following sites:

• Where there is inadequate space or unfavourable topography that limits a good geometric
design;
• Where traffic flows are unbalanced, e.g. at major/ minor T-Intersections;
• Where they follow a downhill approaches. The approach should be at least a 2% grade and
should be flattened at least 30m to the intersection.
• Where there are heavy volumes of vehicular traffic and where there is heavy cyclist and
pedestrian traffic
• Between traffic controlled signal intersections which could cause queing back into the
roundabout exits.

b) Types of Roundabouts
In Uganda there are two types of roundabouts namely:

i) Normal roundabouts with a centre island radius greater than or equal to 10m. The central
island radius should normally be between 10m and 25m otherwise it becomes difficult to
control speeds for a radius bigger than the above range and puts pedestrians and cyclists at
risk. The width of the circulating carriageway depends on whether it is one or two lane.
ii) Small roundabouts with a central island less than 10m. The inner central island radius
should be at least 2m.

79
c) Design Features of Roundabouts
• For small roundabouts, the central island should be approximately 1/3 of the inscribed circle
diameter (1/3D);
• At larger sites the proportion should be >1/3 to limit the circulatory width to a maximum of
15m;
• The circulatory width around the roundabout should be constant at about 1.0 to1.2 times the
highest entry width subject to the above maximum of 15m;
• Steep downhill gradients should be avoided at roundabout approaches;
• The frequent occurrence of roundabouts on high speed rural roads should be avoided;
• Mini roundabouts must only be used at existing junctions where there are space limitations
and where the 85 percentile approach speed on all approaches is less than 50km/hr;
• Entries should be flares. Single and two lane approaches should become 3 and 4 lanes
respectively at the give way line;
• The entry flare taper should be approximately 1 in 3. Each lane should be 2.5m to 3.5m wide
at the give way line dependent on site conditions. The taper width at the Give Way line should
never be less than 3m. The best entry angle is approximately 30 degrees. Lanes may be
tapered to 2m width (minimum) on the roundabout approaches;
• The entry width of an approach arm at a roundabout is one of the major factors apart from
approach carriageway half width that affects capacity. Flares on the approaches to roundabouts
should be designed in such a way that maximum entry widths are not greater than 10.5m on
single carriageway roads and 15m on dual carriageway approach roads. A typical flare length
on a rural road is 25m. The length can be as low as 5m on urban roads;
• Pedestrian crossing places (including zebras) should normally be within the flared approach
but as far from the Give Way line as pedestrian convenience will allow. This reduces the road
width to be crossed by pedestrians. A central refuge should always be provided wherever
possible. A deflection island may fulfil this function but should be at least 1.2m wide;
• Pedestrian guard rail should be used, where necessary to control haphazard pedestrian crossing
of the traffic streams. It also improves safety.

d) Capacity of Roundabouts
The capacity of a roundabout as a whole is a function of the capacities of the individual entry
arms. The capacity of each arm is defined as the maximum inflow when the traffic flow at the
entry is sufficient to cause continuous queuing in its approach road.

The main factors influencing entry capacity are the approach half width, and the width and flare of
the entry, while the entry angle and radius also have small but significant effects. The predictive
equation used with all types of single at-grade roundabouts is

                                                                                       … . 4.46

0                                                                                                            … . 4.47
Where;
Qe = saturation or capacity entry flow (pcu/h);
Qc = circulating flow across the entry (pcu/h);
k = 1 - 0.00347(ϕ-30) – 0.978[(1/r)-0.05];
F = 303x2; where; x2 = v + (e – v)/(1+2S) and S = 1.6(e –v)/l’;
fc = 0.210tD(1 + 0.2x2) where tD = 1 + 0.5/(1 +M) and M = exp[(D-60)/10].

The symbols e, v, l’, S, D, ϕ and r are described in Table 4.11. Qe and Qc are in pcu/h, and one
heavy goods vehicle is assumed equivalent to 2 pcu for computation purposes.

80
 Table 4.11: The Limits of the Parameters used in Roundabout Capacity Equation
Geometric Parameter Symbol Unit Practical Limits
Entry width e m 4 - 15
Approach half-Width v m 2 -7 .3
Average effective flare length l' m 1 - 100
Sharpness of flare S - 0 - 2.9
Inscribed circle diameter D m 15 - 100
Entry angle ϕ deg 10 - 60
Entry radius r m 6 - 100
Source: O’Flaherty, 2002

From the roundabout equation above, entry capacity decreases as circulation flow increases. The
sharpness of flare, S is a measure of the rate at which extra width is developed in the entry flare.
Small ‘S’ values correspond to long gradual flares and big ones to short severe ones. The angle ϕ
acts as an alternative for the conflict angle between the entering and circulating traffic streams.
The entry radius, r is measured as the minimum radius of curvature of the nearest kerbline at
entry.

e) Design Reference Flow (DRF)

When designing a roundabout intersection, the entry angle for each arm of a trial layout is
compared with the hourly flow for the design (DRF). The reference flow to capacity ratio (RFC) is
an indicator of the likely performance of an intersection under the future year traffic loading. If an
RFC ratio of 0.85 occurs, it can be expected that queuing will automatically be avoided in the
design year peak hour in five out of six cases.

Roundabout Example
The table below shows measured turning movements in the AM peak period as recorded in a
traffic survey at a four arm roundabout. The survey was carried out in 2005. The expected rate of
traffic growth is 2%. It is assumed that funding will be readily available and that if any redesign
and reconstruction is needed, the roundabout will be reopened to traffic in the same year the
survey was carried out. The roundabout is being assessed for capacity to carry peak flows in 2019.
The geometric parameters for arms A and B are as shown below:

Geometric Parameter Symbol Unit Arm A Arm B

Entry width e m 14.0 9.0
Approach half-Width v m 8.0 4.5
Average effective flare length l' m 40.0 40.0
Sharpness of flare S - - -
Inscribed circle diameter D m 30.0 30.0
Entry angle ϕ deg 30.0 40.0
Entry radius r m 40.0 30.0

The base year traffic survey carried out in 2005 revealed the following traffic flows in pcu/hr.

To (Destination)
A B C D
From A - 220 450 210
(Origin) B 200 - 320 450
C 550 250 - 320
D 100 420 220 50

81
The general layout of the roundabout is shown below

Determine the following;

• The design flows for the year 2019
• The approach capacity of arms A and B of
the roundabout.
• Establish which of the two arms still has
capacity and which one does not.

Solution
1.0 Summary of Design Data
a) Traffic growth rate, r = 2%
b) Design life, Y [= (2019-2005)+1] = 15yrs
c) Geometric parameters of Arm A and B as shown in the table

2.0 Sketch Drawing

As shown in the diagram above

3.0 Traffic Assessment

3.1 Design Flow, DF

1.125   1.125 1                                                                                        

Where;
P = present flows (in pcu/hr);
r = traffic growth rate (in %);
Y = design life (in years);
DF = Design Flow (a modification of the future traffic flow);
DRF = Design Reference Flow.

The design flows, DF in 2019 are presented in the table below using the above formulae

To (Destination)
A B C D
From A 0 333 681 318
(Origin) B 303 0 485 681
C 833 379 0 485
D 151 636 333 76

3.2 Entry Capacity, Qe

                                                                                                         
0                                                                                                                             

The parameters k, F, fc, and Qc are determined as follows

82
a) Values of k
1
k 1 0.00347 30 0.978 0.05                                                                                    
r
1
  : 1 0.00347 30 30 0.978 0.05 1.0245                                           
40
1
  : 1 0.00347 40 30 0.978 0.05 0.9816                                           
30

b) Values of F
F 303                                                                                                                                                  
Where;
1.6 e v 1.6 14 8 1.6 9 4.5
S SA  A 0.240,   SA  B 0.180  
l 40 40

e v 14 8
x v x  A  A 8 12.054                                           
1 2S 1 2 0.24

9 4.5
x  A  B 4.5 7.809                                       
1 2 0.180

  : 303 12.054 3652.362                                                                                              

  : 303 7.809     2366.127                                                                                              

c) Values of fc
f 0.210 1 0.2x                                                                                                                    

Where;
60
M exp MA  A e 0.0498,   MA  B e 0.0498   
10

And;
0.5 0.5
tD 1   t D A  A 1 1.476,   t D A  B 1.476   
1 1 0.0498
Therefore;
  : 0.210 1.476 1 0.2 12.054 1.057                                                     
  : 0.210 1.476 1 0.2 7.809 0.794                                                        

d) Circulating Capacity Qc
Arm A: Qc = QBB + QCC + QDD + QCB + QDB + QDC
= 0 0 76 379 636 333 
= 1424  /

Arm B: Qc = QAA + QCC + QDD + QDC + QAC + QAD

=   0 0 76 333 681 318 
= 1408  /

Finally, the entry capacity, Qe for;

  :    1.0245 3652.362 1.057 1424  2200pcu/hr                                

  :    0.9816 2366.127 0.794 1408   1225 pcu/hr                       

83
 3.3 Approach Capacity, Q
Arm A: Q = QAA + QAB + QAC + QAD
= 0  333 681 318  
= 1332 /h

Arm B: Q = QBA + QBB + QBC + QBD

= 303  0 485 681
= 1469 /h

3.4 Capacity Check, RFC

For sufficient capacity;
Q
RFC   0.85                                                                                                                                         
Q

Q 1332
Arm A:        RFC 0.61 0.85             
Q C
2200

Q 1469
Arm B:        RFC 1.20 0.85          
Q D
1225

4.0 Conclusion
Arm C has a RFC ratio of 61% which is less than 70%, implying that queuing on this arm will
be avoided for 39 out of 40 peak hours.
Arm D, on the other hand, has a RFC ratio of 120% which is far greater than 85%, implying
that queuing will occur on this arm of the roundabout in all the peak hours.

4.10 References
1. Banister, A. and Baker, R, 1998, Surveying, 7th Edition, Longman limited, Singapore.
2. Irvine W, H, 1998, Surveying for construction, 4th Edition, Patson press, Great Britain.
3. Kadiyali, L.R., 2006. Principles and Practices of Highway Engineering (including Expressways
and Airport Engineering), 4th Edition. Khanna Publishers, New Delhi.
4. Ministry of Works, Housing and Communications, 2004. Draft Road Design Manual.
5. Ministry of Works, Housing and Communications, 2005. Road Design Manual Vol.1,Geometric
Design Manual, Republic of Uganda, Kampala.
6. O’Flaherty C.A., 2002. Highways: The Location, Design, Construction and Maintenance of
Pavements. 4th Edition, Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
7. Rogers, Martin 2003, Highway Engineering, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
8. Thagesen, B., 1996. Highway and Traffic Engineering in Developing Countries. 1st Edition. E &
FN Spon Publishers, London, Uk.
9. Transport Research Laboratory, 1988, A Guide to Geometric Design, Overseas Road Note 6,
Crowthorne, England.
10. Uren, J, and Price, W.F, 1989, Surveying for Engineers, 2nd Edition, Macmillan Publishers, Hong
Kong.

84