Abstract
PURPOSES : This study compared two measures of traffic flow effectiveness on roads with roundabouts and signalized intersections and determined the more appropriate measure. METHODS : In addition to average delay time, the conventionally used measure, average travel time was introduced to measure traffic flow effectiveness because it is able to be obtained through field survey and reflect different travel distances and speed limits of roundabouts and signalized intersections. Using the two measures, roundabouts and signalized intersections were compared through simulations in terms of traffic flow effectiveness. RESULTS : For one-way single-lane roads, the two measures indicated consistent results that roundabouts were more effective than were signalized intersections when the traffic volume was less than 300 vphpl but vice versa when it exceeded 450 vphpl; however, the measures yielded inconsistent results when the volume was 350~400 vphpl. For one-way double-lane roads, the two measures indicated consistent results that roundabouts were more effective than were signalized intersections when the volume was less than 200 vphpl but vice versa when it exceeded 400 vphpl; however, the measures yielded inconsistent results when the volume was 250~350 vphpl. The results obtained using the two measures differed substantially for double-lane roads because behaviors such as weaving and lane changing at roundabouts are more common in double-lane roads than in single-lane roads. CONCLUSIONS : The average delay time would be lower on roads with roundabouts, but average travel time would be lower on roads with signalized intersections. Thus, evaluating the relative effectiveness of roads with roundabouts and signalized intersections by using average delay time alone would be inappropriate, whereas using average travel time as the evaluation index would yield fairer results.
