Journal of Transportation Safety & Security

ISSN: 1943-9962 (Print) 1943-9970 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utss20

Effect of traffic roundabouts on accident rate and

severity in Arizona

Michael Mamlouk & Beshoy Souliman

To cite this article: Michael Mamlouk & Beshoy Souliman (2018): Effect of traffic roundabouts
on accident rate and severity in Arizona, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, DOI:
10.1080/19439962.2018.1452812

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2018.1452812

Accepted author version posted online: 02

Apr 2018.
Published online: 18 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utss20
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2018.1452812

Effect of traffic roundabouts on accident rate

and severity in Arizona
Michael Mamlouka and Beshoy Soulimanb
a
Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
USA; bCrown Castle, Phoenix, Arizona USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Although roundabouts have been used at many locations around crash data; infrastructure
the world, the safety of roundabouts under different conditions design; operation;
has not been fully understood. In this study, 17 roundabouts in roundabouts; traffic injury
five cities in Arizona were evaluated, out of which 11 are single
lane and six are double lane. Most of the intersections of single-
lane roundabouts were controlled by two-way stop signs before
roundabout conversion, whereas most of the intersections of
double-lane roundabouts were controlled by traffic signals.
Accident data were collected and broken down into five
categories: damage without injury, minor injury, nonincapacitating
injury, incapacitating injury, and fatality. Equal number of years
were used before and after the roundabout conversion at each
location. The average rates of accidents, damages without injury,
injuries and fatalities per year and per million vehicles were
evaluated. It was found that single-lane roundabouts reduced
the accident rate, whereas double-lane roundabouts increased the
accident rate. The results also showed that single- and double-lane
roundabout conversions reduced the severity levels of accidents.
Considering accident rate and severity level, warrants need to be
developed for roundabout conversion and number of roundabout
lanes under different traffic conditions.

1. Introduction
Although roundabouts have gained popularity recently in many urban areas in the
United States, they are still relatively unknown among most of the American pub-
lic. Because of this, many misconceptions exist about roundabouts, as they are
often confused with older style traffic circles and rotaries.
It has been noticeably recognized that cities around the United States, or even
around the world, are requesting changes and solutions for their traffic congestions
and delays. Standing at a traffic light for a long time increases not only congestion
and wastes people’s time on a daily basis, but also igreenhouse gas emissions,

CONTACT Michael Mamlouk mamlouk@asu.edu Professor, Civil, Environmental and Sustainable

Engineering Program, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873005, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/utss.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC and The University of Tennessee
2 M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

which is a big environmental concern nowadays. Studies have been conducted to

find solutions for these issues. Roundabouts have been used in many countries
around the world in an attempt to reduce accidents, traffic delays, fuel consump-
tion, and air pollution, while increasing capacity and enhancing intersection
appearance. Roundabouts have also been used in residential neighborhoods to con-
trol traffic speeds and increase safety Waddell (2015).
If a roundabout is properly placed and designed for the site condition, it can
provide a safer right-of-way control device in place of a stop sign or a traffic signal.
Under these conditions, studies have shown the significant reduction roundabouts
achieved for rates of collision, injury, and fatality.
The design of modern roundabouts resembles that of older traffic circles (rota-
ries) in certain ways but differs in other ways and are gradually replacing them
(Turner, 2011; Waddell (2015b)). For example, modern roundabouts give vehicles
within the roundabout the right of way, just like older circles in most jurisdictions
since the 1960s or 1970s (but not in some states). This may prevent traffic from
locking up and allows free flow movement, depending on the traffic demand pat-
tern. Also, the diameters of modern roundabouts are smaller (ranging from 105–
160 ft) than the older editions of rotaries, which used to range between 300 and
400 ft (Figure 1). Currently, space is a very important demand within city limits,
where modern roundabouts may partially solve the issue of consuming large areas.
Modern roundabouts are designed to reduce crashes and improve traffic flow.
Optimum results can be achieved through learning and understanding how round-
abouts work and how to drive through them (Arizona Department of Transporta-
tion [ADOT], 2015b). However, many state and local agencies throughout the
United States have been hesitant to install roundabouts due to lack of objective
nationwide guidelines on planning, warrants, performance, safety, and design.
Currently, the public’s opinion is split between supporters and opposers.
Although one of the benefits of using roundabouts is to improve safety, more
information is needed on accident rates and severity levels under different condi-
tions. For example, under what conditions a stop sign or a traffic light needs to be
converted to roundabout? Is single-lane roundabout better than multilane round-
about and under what conditions? Although many studies have been conducted in

Figure 1. Typical modern roundabout versus large traditional rotary or traffic circle (Rodegerdts
et al., 2010 and Plowman, 2015, respectively).
 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 3

the last few decades on roundabouts, the safety of roundabouts under different
conditions has not been fully understood. Note that accident rates are not a very
good comparison because expected accident rates vary greatly with the percentage
turning vehicles and somewhat with the number of million entering vehicles
(MEV). For example, a crash rate of 0.4 per MEV may be very good whereas
another location with a rate at 0.3 per MEV may be way above reasonable.
Although for a specific location, one can compare crash rates before and after
reconstruction to avoid this issue.
The literature include some guidelines showing good conditions applicable to
roundabout installation, but the decision is often more subjective than decisions to
put in stop signs or traffic lights. Currently, there are no warrants in the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD; 2012) to inform agencies when to
use the roundabout. Therefore, engineers use the available guidelines together with
previous experience to decide if a roundabout is suitable at an intersection. War-
rants make the decision easier, consistent, and more objective. Also, because
roundabouts are relatively new in the United States, drivers are confused on who
has the right of way, which lane to use in case of a multilane roundabout, or chang-
ing lanes inside the roundabout.

2. Method
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of using roundabouts on
crash rate and severity in Arizona. The effect on rates of accidents, damages with-
out injury, injuries, and fatalities of single-lane and double-lane roundabouts are
evaluated. Also, the effect on the accident severity level is evaluated.

2.1. Literature review

According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA; 2000), roundabouts have
fewer vehicular accidents and lower severity than other intersection forms on aver-
age. The reason for this reduction is that roundabouts have fewer conflict points
than traditional intersections as shown in Figure 2. A conflict point is defined as a

Figure 2. Comparison of traffic conflict points between a traditional intersection and roundabout.
4 M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

location where the paths of two motor vehicles, or a vehicle and a bicycle or pedes-
trian queue, diverge, merge, or cross each other. Three types of conflicts are avail-
able: crossing, merge, and diverge. Crossing conflicts are often the most severe in
terms of vehicular injuries and fatalities, followed by merge then diverge. At a tra-
ditional intersection these accidents most often occur when a driver fails to adhere
to a stoplight or stop sign. By eliminating crossing conflicts, roundabouts can, by
their design, largely lower the incidents of injuries and fatalities associated with
conflict points. In addition to the reduction of conflict points, roundabouts require
lower operating speeds for the driver entering the roundabout and the driver driv-
ing from the circle.
Rodegerdts et al. (2007) reported a 35% reduction in crashes at 55 sites where
traditional intersections were converted to roundabouts, from 1,122 to 726 per
year. Moreover, a 76% reduction in severe injury crashes was observed, from 296
to 72. They found no reduction in overall accidents at signalized intersections in
urban areas after roundabout conversion, but a 60% reduction in severe injury
crashes. At suburban signalized intersections, however, a dramatic 67% reduction
in overall crashes occurred after roundabout conversion (from 292 to 98). There
was not a significant amount of data on severe injury crashes for these locations.
At rural intersections, researchers found an 87% reduction in severe injury crashes
after the installation of a roundabout.
Since mid-1990s, studies on the safety of roundabouts emerged from the United
Kingdom. In 1977, crash data were collected from 114 roundabouts built before
1972 (Waddell, 2015). Analysis showed that roundabouts reduced injury crashes
by 46% at sites formerly under priority control, and by 62% at formerly signalized
sites. However, sites previously controlled by large-island roundabouts showed
noticeably increased crash rates when they reduced the size of the central island.
The first roundabouts in the United States were constructed in Summerlin
(north of Las Vegas), Nevada, in 1990. The project involved two roundabouts that
were designed for a high-traffic volumes of 6,000 and 3,000 vehicles per hour.
Large amounts of research studies conducted recently on the safety of round-
abouts (Rodegerdts et al., 2010). Flannery and Datta (1996) analyzed crash records
from six U.S. roundabouts converted from another form of control. The study
showed that roundabout conversion reduced crashes from an average of 3.75 per
year to an average of one per year, a crash reduction of 73%. The reduction was
statistically significant at a 99% level of confidence.
McIntosh (2011) evaluated the performance and safety effectiveness of round-
abouts within the State of Michigan. The study showed that roundabouts reduced
the number and severity of crashes, as well as positively affecting the operations of
intersections. However, there were still some concerns with roundabouts and how
they were constructed and utilized by the road users.
Persaud et al. (2001) and Retting et al. (2001) evaluated the changes in motor
vehicle crashes following conversion of some intersections from stop sign and traf-
fic signal control to modern roundabouts. The studies showed highly significant
 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 5

reductions of 40% for all crash severities combined and 80% for all injury crashes.
Reductions in the numbers of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes were esti-
mated to be about 90%.
A new type of multilane roundabouts that has been introduced recently is the
turbo roundabout (Fortuijn & Salomons, 2015). Turbo roundabouts provide an
amplified flow of traffic, requiring drivers to choose their lanes before entering the
roundabout. The authors first introduced that type of roundabouts in the late
1990s as a safer and more efficient alternative to the standard multilane round-
abouts. In 1990, the Netherlands installed the first turbo roundabout that soon
became so popular that the Dutch government developed its own design guide-
lines. Currently, there are about 300 turbo roundabouts in the Netherlands. East-
ern Europe, Germany, and some parts of North America shared the spread of
turbo roundabouts as well within the last decade. Turbo roundabouts limit weav-
ing maneuvers, which ultimately reduce any crashes related to changing lanes.
Also, turbo roundabouts reduce the number of conflicting points, which also help
in reducing crashes inside the roundabout.
In summary, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of con-
verting traditional intersections to roundabouts on safety. Most of these studies
showed safety improvements due to converting traditional intersections to round-
abouts with different degrees of success. However, accurate information on rates of
accidents, damages without injury, injuries and fatalities are not known for single-
and multilane roundabouts. Also, the effect of roundabout conversion on accident
severity at different condition is not well known.

2.2. Data collection

Data on roundabouts were collected from Arizona, where 80 roundabouts are scat-
tered in several cities around the state (ADOT, 2015b; Scottsdale, 2015; Sedona,
2015). To have valid analysis on the effect of roundabouts on accident rates, data
had to be screened. The selection criteria that were used are:
1. Availability of roundabout historical and geometrical data, such as location,
date of roundabout conversion, number of lanes, previous traffic control,
and so on.
2. Availability of accident data for several years before and after roundabout
conversion, broken down by damage without injury, different levels of
injury, and fatality.
3. Availability of traffic data, especially the average annual daily traffic (AADT)
in the major street and the growth rate.
Following these selection criteria, 17 roundabouts in five cities, which are Scotts-
dale, Sedona, Phoenix, Cottonwood, and Prescott, were used in the analysis. The
roundabout historical and geometrical data were obtained and separated into two
categories: single-lane (11 roundabouts) and double-lane (six roundabouts)
(ADOT, 2015b). Each single-lane roundabout connects two 2-lane roads, whereas
6 M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

each double-lane roundabout connects a 4-lane road with either a 2-lane road, a 3-
lane road or a 4-lane road. The locations of most single-lane roundabouts were
controlled by 2-way stop signs before roundabout conversion. Also, the locations
of all double-lane roundabouts were mostly controlled by traffic signals.
The reasons for converting these intersections to roundabouts were not investi-
gated in this study. In general, agencies usually convert stop sign or signalized
intersections to roundabouts because there were concerns with congestion, delay,
and/or safety. In this study, however, a simplified approach is used to compare
between accident rates before and after roundabout conversion without consider-
ation of the actual reason for conversion.
Accident data were obtained either from the ADOT database or city records.
The accident data and location were broken down by route, milepost, and year.
Therefore, a search was made to match the roundabout location with the milepost.
Accidents were reported at five levels of severity, commonly referred to as
KABCO scale (FHWA; 2018):
1. Damage without injury
2. Minor injury
3. Nonincapacitating injury
4. Incapacitating injury
5. Fatality
ADOT publishes an annual report showing crash facts in Arizona. The 2014
report shows the average economic cost per incident for different levels of severity
as shown in Table 1 (ADOT, 2015a). The table shows a large difference between
the costs of the different severity levels. For example, one fatality accident has an
equivalent average cost of about 160 times the average damage accident without
injury.
In the accident rate analysis, three accident levels were used: damage without
injury (level 1), minor and nonincapacitating injuries (levels 2 and 3), and inca-
pacitating injuries and fatalities (levels 4 and 5). However, the accident severity
analysis considered all five accident levels. The AADT values in the major street
at each roundabout was obtained for the year 2014 or 2015 either from the
ADOT website (ADOT, 2015b) or city records. The data showed that only one
fatality occurred before roundabout conversion for each of the single- and dou-
ble-lane roundabouts before roundabout conversion. No fatalities occurred after
roundabout conversion. Table 2 shows the roundabouts used in this study

Table 1. Average 2014 economic cost per incident in Arizona.

Accident Severity Cost ($)

Damage without injury 9,486

Minor injury (possible injury) 13,872
Nonincapacitating injury 24,480
Incapacitating injury 76,398
Fatality 1,530,000
 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 7

together with their locations, number of lanes, year of conversion, analysis

period, and average AADT values before and after conversion. Most of the
roundabouts were built in 2006 to 2008.

3. Analysis of results
To study the effect of roundabout conversion on accident rate, equal number of
years were used before and after the roundabout construction at each location.
Because the accident data were available up to 2014 or 2015, the number of years
after conversion was calculated at each location and a similar number of years
before conversion was used for comparison.
The latest available AADT data was obtained for either 2014 or 2015, depending
on the available sources. The ADOT database (ADOT, 2015c) shows an average
traffic growth rate of 1.5% per year during the analysis period. Therefore, the most
recent AADT value at each location was used to back calculate the average AADT
value in the period before conversion at each intersection and the average AADT
value in the period after conversion.
Several approaches were used to analyze accident data:
1. Average rate of accidents per year and per million vehicles
2. Average rate of damages without injury per year and per million vehicles
3. Average rate of combined minor and nonincapacitating injuries per year and
per million vehicles
4. Average rate of combined incapacitating injuries and fatalities per year and
per million vehicles
5. Normalized average accident rates for different severity levels

3.1. Single-lane roundabouts

3.1.1. Accident Rate
Table 3 shows the average accident rates per year for different categories before
and after single-lane roundabout conversion.
The results show that single-lane roundabouts resulted in decreasing the acci-
dent rate, injury rate and fatality rate. The damage without injury rate was slightly
increased by 2%.
Table 4 shows the average accident rates per million vehicles for different cate-
gories before and after single-lane roundabout conversion.
In can be seen that the single-lane roundabouts resulted in decreasing the rates
of accidents, injuries and fatalities per million vehicles.

3.1.1.1. Accident severity. To evaluate the effect of roundabout conversion on

accident severity, the total number of accidents with different severity levels were
normalized by dividing the total number of accidents for each severity level by the
total number of accidents before and after roundabout conversion. Figure 3 shows
the normalized accident rates for different severity levels before and after
 8

Table 2. Roundabouts used in the analysis and their features in Arizona.

No. of Lanes in Year of Prior Traffic Analysis Period Before or After Average AADT Before Average AADT After
Intersection City Roundabout Conversion Control Conversion (Years) Conversion Conversion

94 St. & Union Hills Scottsdale 1 2006 2-way stop 9 2454 2806
M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

96St. & Cholla Scottsdale 1 2006 2-way stop 9 7688 8791

96 St. & Sweetwater Scottsdale 1 2006 4-way stop 9 4744 5424
100 St. & Cactus Scottsdale, AZ 1 2008 2-way stop 7 8467 9397
104 St. & Cactus Scottsdale 1 2008 2-way stop 7 5901 6550
108 St. & Cactus Scottsdale 1 2008 2-way stop 7 5559 6170
AZ 179/Arrow Dr./Morgan Sedona 1 2008 2-way stop 6 7347 8033
AZ 179/Back O’Beyond Rd. Sedona 1 2008 2-way stop 6 7172 7842
AZ 179/Canyon Dr. Sedona 1 2008 2-way stop 6 8571 9372
AZ 179/Chapel Rd. Sedona 1 2008 2-way stop 6 9183 10041
AZ 179/Schnebly Hill Rd. Sedona 1 2008 2-way stop 6 8396 9181
AZ 89 A/AZ 179 Sedona 2 2008 Signal 6 10058 10998
AZ 89 A/Brewer Rd. Sedona 2 2008 Signal 6 8527 9324
99th Ave. & Lower Buckeye Phoenix 2 2009 2-way stop 5 4293 4625
AZ 89 A/Verde Heights Dr. Cottonwood 2 2009 Signal 5 19676 21196
Hayden Rd. & Northsight Scottsdale 2 2013 Signal 2 35384 36453
SR 89 & Willow Lake Rd. Prescott 2 2009 Signal 5 9069 9770

Note. AADT D Average Annual Daily Traffic.

 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 9

Table 3. Average accident rates per year for different accident categories before and after single-
lane roundabout conversion.
Average Accident Rate Before Average Accident Rate After Percent
Accident Category Roundabout/Year Roundabout/Year Change

All accidents 0.71 0.58 –18

Damage without injury 0.56 0.57 2
Minor and nonincapacitating injury 0.34 0.19 –44
Incapacitating injury and fatality 0.040 0.015 –63

roundabout conversion. It can be seen that the normalized accident rate for sever-
ity level 1 increased after roundabout conversion, while the rates of severity levels
2 through 5 decreased. Because severity level 1 is less severe than other levels, the
results indicate that the single-lane roundabout conversion reduced the severity of
accidents.

3.2. Double-lane roundabouts

3.2.1. Accident rate
Table 5 shows the average accident rates per year for different categories before
and after double-lane roundabout conversion.
The data show that double-lane roundabouts resulted in a large increase in acci-
dent rate and injury rate. However, the injury and fatality rates were decreased.
Table 6 shows the average accident rates per million vehicles for different catego-
ries before and after double-lane roundabout conversion. Similar to the case of
accident rates per year, the double-lane roundabouts resulted in a large increase in
the accident and injury rates per million vehicles. However, the injury and fatality
rates were decreased.

3.2.2. Accident severity. Similar to the case of single-lane roundabouts, the total
number of accidents with different severity levels was normalized by dividing the
total number of accidents for each severity level by the total number of accidents
before and after roundabout conversion. Figure 4 shows the normalized accident
rates for different severity levels before and after roundabout conversion. It can be
seen that the normalized accident rate for severity level 1 remained approximately
the same after roundabout conversion, while the rates of severity levels 2 through 5

Table 4. Average accident rates per million vehicles for different accident categories before and
after single-lane roundabout conversion.
Average Accident Rate Before Average Accident Rate After Percent
Accident Category Roundabout/Million Vehicles Roundabout/Million Vehicles Change

All accidents 0.27 0.22 –19

Damage without injury 0.23 0.22 –4
Minor and nonincapacitating injury 0.11 0.07 –36
Incapacitating injury and fatality 0.012 0.005 –58
10 M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

Figure 3. Normalized accident rates for different severity levels before and after single-lane round-
about conversion.

decreased. This indicates that the double-lane roundabout conversion reduced the
severity of accidents in general.
Note that the results of this study are based on the analysis of a limited number
of roundabouts taken from one states. More studies are needed to include larger
number of roundabouts and covering more states under different conditions.

4. Summary and conclusions

Seventeen roundabouts in five cities in Arizona were used to study the effect of
roundabout conversion on intersection safety, out of which 11 single-lane round-
abouts and six double-lane roundabouts. Most of the locations of single-lane
roundabouts were controlled by 2-way stop signs before conversion, whereas most
of the locations of double-lane roundabouts were controlled by signals. Accident
data were collected and broken down into five categories: damage without injury,
minor injury, nonincapacitating injury, incapacitating injury, and fatality. Equal
numbers of years were used before and after the roundabout conversion at each
location. The most recent AADT value at each location was used to back-calculate
the average AADT values in the periods before and after roundabout conversion.
The average rate of accidents, damages without injury, injuries and fatalities per
year, and per million vehicles were evaluated. Also, the effect of roundabout con-
version on the severity of accidents was evaluated.

Table 5. Average accident rates per year for different accident categories before and after double-
lane roundabout conversion.
Average Accident Rate Before Average Accident Rate After Percent
Accident Rate Roundabout/Year Roundabout/Year Change

All accidents 5.98 9.67 62

Damage without injury 6.17 9.86 60
Minor and nonincapacitating injury 1.76 1.57 –11
Incapacitating injury and fatality 0.172 0.028 –84
 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 11

Table 6. Average accident rates per million vehicles for different accident categories before and
after double-lane roundabout conversion.
Average Accident Rate Before Average Accident Rate After Percent
Accident Rate Roundabout/Million Vehicles Roundabout/Million Vehicles Change

All accidents 1.74 2.70 55

Damage without injury 1.48 2.47 67
Minor and nonincapacitating injury 0.44 0.41 –7
Incapacitating injury and fatality 0.024 0.008 –67

The following observations were derived:

1. For single-lane roundabouts, the average rate of accidents decreased by 18%
per year and 19% per million vehicles after roundabout conversion. The
average rate of damage without injury did not largely change after round-
about conversion. The average rate of minor and incapacitating injuries
decreased by 44% per year and 36% per million vehicles after roundabout
conversion. The average rate of incapacitating injuries and fatalities
decreased by 63% per year and 58% per million vehicles after roundabout
conversion.
2. For double-lane roundabouts, the average rate of accidents increased by 62%
per year and 55% per million vehicles after roundabout conversion. The
average rate of damage without injury increased by 60% per year and 67%
per million vehicles after roundabout conversion. The average rate of minor
and incapacitating injuries decreased by 11% per year and 7% per million
vehicles after roundabout conversion. The average rate of incapacitating
injuries and fatalities decreased by 84% per year and 67% per million vehicles
after roundabout conversion.
3. One fatality incident occurred before roundabout conversion for each of the
single- and double-lane roundabouts before roundabout conversion. No
fatalities occurred after roundabout conversion

Figure 4. Normalized accident rates for different severity levels before and after double-lane round-
about conversion.
12 M. MAMLOUK AND B. SOULIMAN

4. For all roundabouts, the normalized accident rate for severity level 1 either
increased or remained approximately the same after roundabout conversion,
whereas the rates for severity levels 2 through 5 decreased. Because severity
level 1 is less severe than other levels, the results indicate that the single-lane
and double-lane roundabout conversions reduced the severity of accidents.
In evaluating “safety” one cannot only look at crash rate without looking at
severity. An accurate judgment on crash impact can be obtained when all factors
are considered, especially if the crash involves health and well-being of humans.
The human element and the pain and suffering that crashes cause to individuals
involved and their families have to be a primary consideration within the full con-
text of all crashes. For example, one injury or one fatal crash is much more severe
than a property damage only crash. Unlike people, cars can be easily repaired or
replaced. With this in mind, single-lane roundabouts did not largely affect the rate
of damage without injury, but double-lane roundabouts increased it. However,
both types of roundabout decreased the rates of injury and fatality. This can be
viewed as a road safety success.

Acknowledgments
Appreciation is also given to Paul Basha, Andrew Merkley, and George Williams of the City of
Scottsdale, AZ; Roxanne Holland of the City of Sedona, AZ; and Kerry Wilcoxon of the City of
Phoenix, AZ.

Funding
This project was partially funded by the National Transportation Center @ Maryland
(NTC@Maryland), one of the five National Centers that were selected in this nationwide com-
petition, by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S.
Department of Transportation (US DOT). The cost share contributed by Arizona State Univer-
sity is greatly appreciated.

References
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) (2015a). 2014 Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash
Facts for the State of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, Retrieved from http://www.azdot.gov/docs/
default-source/mvd-services/2014-crash-facts.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) (2015b). Transportation Safety - Roundabouts.
Phoenix, AZ, Retrieved from http://azdot.gov/about/transportation-safety/roundabouts/
overview.
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) (2015c). Data and Analysis, Phoenix, AZ,
Retrieved from http://www.azdot.gov/planning/DataandAnalysis.
City of Scottsdale, Arizona. (2015). Roundabouts in Scottsdale. Retrieved from http://www.scotts
daleaz.gov/traffic/roundabouts
City of Sedona. (2015). News and updates: Roundabouts. Retrieved from http://www.sedonaaz.
gov/Sedonacms/index.aspx?recordidD721&pageD473
 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY & SECURITY 13

Federal Highway Administration. (2000, June). Roundabouts: An information guide (FHWA-

RD-00-067). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration. (2015). Modern roundabouts – FHWA safety program.
Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/.
Federal Highway Administration. (2018, March). Planning: Project Prioritization, Washington,
DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec4.cfm.
Flannery, A., & Datta, T. K. (1996, January). Modern Roundabouts and Traffic Crash Experi-
ence in the United States. Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Vol. 1553). Wash-
ington, DC. Retrieved from http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1553-15
Fortuijn, L. G. H., & Salomons, A. M. (2015, January). Signalized turbo circle; Design and perfor-
mance. Paper presented at the Annual Transportation Research Board meeting, Washington,
DC.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2012). Fed-
eral Highway Administration, Washington, DC. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/
pdf_index.htm
McIntosh, K. (2011, December). Evaluating the Performance and Safety Effectiveness of Round-
abouts. Report No. OR 09083 (H-U0316.02), Michigan Department of Transportation, West
Bloomfield, MI.
Persaud, B. et al. (2001, November). Safety Effect of Roundabout Conversions in the United
States: Empirical Bayes Observational Before-After Study. Journal of the Transportation
Research Board (Vol. 1751). Washington, DC, Retrieved from http://trrjournalonline.trb.
org/doi/abs/10.3141/1751-01.
Plowman, A. (2015). The Roundabout Craze. WSB & Associates, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved
from https://www.wsbeng.com/wsbpedia/blog/the-roundabout-craze.
Retting, R. A. et al. (2001, April). Crash and Injury Reductions Following Installation of Round-
abouts in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(4) Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446639/.
Rodegerdts, L. et al. (2010). Roundabouts: An informational guide (NCHRP Report 672).
National Cooperative Highway Research Board (NCHRP), Washington, DC.
Rodegerdts et al. (2007). Roundabouts in the United States (NCHRP, Report 572). National
Cooperative Highway Research Board (NCHRP), Washington, DC.
Turner, D. (2011). Roundabouts: A literature review. Retrieved from http://www.danielrturner.
com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Roundabouts.pdf.
Waddell, E. (2015). Evolution of roundabout technology: A history-based literature review.
Michigan Department of Transportation, West Bloomfield, MI. Retrieved from http://www.
k-state.edu/roundabouts/research/Waddell.pdf.