 |
 |
Tale a look at this. I haven't actually looked at it myself, but it sounds about right. -J Georges Jacquemart, Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice, No. 264 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998). Jonathan L. Gifford Associate Professor of Public Management and Policy, Department of Public & International Affairs Director, M.S., Professional Studies in Transportation Policy, Operations & Logistics, The School of Public Policy North American Editor, International Journal of Transport Management (Elsevier Science) George Mason University, 3401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 249, Mail stop 3B1, Arlington, VA 22201 (U.S.A.) Tel: 703-993-2275; fax 801-749-9198 E-mail: mailto:[log in to unmask] Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~jgifford M.S. Professional Studies in Transportation Policy, Operations & Logistics Web site: http://transport.gmu.edu/ -----Original Message----- From: Information list. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alan J Horowitz Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 4:09 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Multilane Roundabouts A student of mine and I have been trying to expand upon the capacity relationships for one-lane roundabouts found in the US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM essentially treats roundabouts as a series of yield signs on entering approaches. Roundabouts are rather new in the US and we have been having difficulty finding any information on how the HCM procedure might extend to multilane roundabouts. A critical element for such a procedure would seem to be the lane distribution of the circulating traffic. Can you point us in the direction of literature that might clarify this issue for us? Alan Horowitz Professor of Civil Engineering University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee