Chapter 3 Chapter 3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY PURPOSE

Transcription

1 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Formatted: Heading 1, None, Space Before: 0 pt TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Formatted: Heading PURPOSE (1) The Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Form (Form No ) provides a procedure to determine input into the decision of whether or not conditions at an intersection warrant the installation or the continued operation of a traffic signal. ThisThe form provided in this chapter summarizes data previously collected at the intersection. This data is drawn from a larger set of data which can later be used to determine the proper design and operation should signalization be warranted. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic (a) Traffic signals should not be installed unless one or more of these elevennine warrants are satisfied. Because these are minimum requirements, satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification or a mandate for a traffic signal. An engineering study must validate that the installation of a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. Delay, congestion, crash experience, confusion, or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Geometric changes which may eliminate the need for a signalalternatives to traffic control signals should be considered. Section 4B.04 of the MUTCD provides a list of possible alternatives. (2) A warrant is a set of criteria which can be used to define the relative need for, and appropriateness of, a particular traffic control device (i.e.g., STOP or YIELD sign, traffic signal, etc.). Warrants are usually expressed in the form of numerical requirements such as the volume of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. A warrant normally carries with it a means of assigning priorities among several alternative choices. There are two fundamental concepts involved in this determination: (a) (b) The most effective traffic control device is that which is the least restrictive while still accomplishing the intended purpose. For instance, geometric changes alone may negate the need for a traffic signal. Driver response to the influences of a traffic control device has been previously identified by observation, field experience, and laboratory tests under a variety of traffic and driver conditions. (3) Warrants should be viewed as guidelines, not as absolute values. Satisfaction Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-1

2 of a warrant is not a guarantee that the device is needed. The warrant analysis process is just one of the tools to be used in determining if a traffic signal is warrantedneeded. Engineering judgementjudgment should be exercised in making the final determination. The application of warrants is effective only when combined with knowledgeable engineering judgementjudgment considering all pertinent facts as noted in Section 1A-4.09 of the MUTCD. In all cases, at least one or more warrants must be fully met before a traffic signal installation is considered THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY (FFORM NNO ) (FORM NO ) (1) There are nine traffic signal warrants available in the Traffic Signal Warrant Summary (Form No ). This form corresponds to the warrants for traffic signal installation presented in the MUTCD 2009 Edition. Samples of each warrant are shown as Figure 3-1 through Figure All warrants need not be completed if the engineer determines they are not applicable. However, the Not Applicable box should be checked in order to complete the documentation. A summary checklist for all nine warrants is provided at the end of Figure (2) The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location. Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic (3) (4)(2) (1) There are elevennine traffic signal warrants which appearappearing in the Traffic Signal Warrant Summary. This form corresponds to the warrants for traffic signal installation in the MUTCD. We have completed samples for 2009 Edition. Samples of each warrant and they are shown as Figures 3-1 through 3-9. All warrants need not be completed if the engineer determines they are not applicable. However, the Not Applicable box should be checked in order to complete the documentation. (d) In Warrant 6 the minimum pedestrian volumes can be reduced to 80 percent of the values in the 100% column or the 50% column of Warrant 3, whichever is applicable. These values are enclosed in parenthesis in the Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-2

3 respective columns. To help document the analysis, the engineer should circle the appropriate values with which the counted volumes are compared. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Nearnear a Grade Crossing Formatted: Heading APPROACH LANES (1) The exact text is as follows: The analysis should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor -street approaches. should be carefully considered in the study. Engineering judgementjudgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is subtracted deducted from the minor street traffic count when evaluating the count against the above warrants. listedpresented abovein this chapter. (2) The analyst should consult Section 4C.01 of the MUTCD, paragraphs 08, 09 and 10 while applying engineering judgment for deducting or including right turn volumes, and determining the number of lanes and lane assignments. (3) The methodology presented in Section 3.4 of this Manual shall be followed if it is determined that the right-turning movement volume should be deducted. The methodology aids to determine how to deduct right-turn volumes from minor approaches to intersections based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-3

4 (HCM). This methodology was agreed upon the STEO and District Traffic Operations offices. The District Traffic Operations offices shall oversee the preparation of Signal Warrant studies to comply with the methodology. (4)(3) Intersections with approaches consistconsisting of one lane plus one right-turn or one left -turn lane.the site should be carefully analyzed with the application of engineering judgment. Site-specific traffic characteristics will dictate whether an approach should be considered as a one lane approach or a two lane approach. For example, for a minor street approach with one through-lane plus a left -turn lane with minor traffic, engineering judgment would indicate that it should be considered as a one -lane approach if the traffic using the left turn lane is minor.. In such a case, judgementjudgment would also indicate that only the volume of traffic in the thruthrough/right turn lane should be considered against the warrants. Conversely, it wouldif the left-turn lane has sufficient length to accommodate all left turn vehicles and approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left, the approach should be considered as a two lane. A similar rationale couldshould be applied to a minor street approach with one shared through/left-lane plus a right -turn lane. JudgementEngineering judgment in the case of right -turn lanes, must also be exercised relative to the degree of conflict of minor street right -turn traffic with traffic on the major street. ThusIf the right -turn traffic would not be included infrom the minor street volume if the movement operated as a merge, semi-merge or even, with typical intersection geometrics, enteredenters the major street with a minimum of conflict. In such cases, the right-turn volume would not be included and only the traffic in the through/left-turn lane would be considered. Otherwise, the approach would be evaluated as a onetwo lane approach. (5)(4) The following factors should be considered when applying engineering judgementjudgment to determine the portion of right turn volumes included in the minor street volume: 1.30 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Number of lanes on the minor street approach Presence or absence of exclusive right turn lane Presence or absence of free flow right turn Availability of gaps in major street traffic Sight distance available to right turning vehicles Percentage of minor street traffic which turns right Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes Formatted: Numbering ABC, Line spacing: 1.5 lines Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines Formatted: Normal (h) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-4

5 (i) 3.4 Right-Turn Volumes Deduction Methodology 1.31SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES SHALL NOT DEDUCT RIGHT TURNS FROM THE MINOR APPROACHES BY DEFAULT. THE METHODOLOGY PRESENTED HERE SHOULD BE UTILIZED TO DETERMINE IF THE RIGHT TURNS FROM THE MINOR APPROACH ARE SIGNIFICANT; IF THEY ARE, THEN 50% OF THE RIGHT TURNS FOR ALL HOURS SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR EACH OF THE HOURS CONSIDERED IN THE SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES. 1.32Signal warrant analyses often deduct the entire right-turn traffic volume from the minor approach count data of unsignalized intersections. This discounting method shall be applied when the right-turning movement volume is able to freely turn the major street without being impeded or delayed by other vehicles on the approach. However, a review of traffic studies and turning movement count data sometimes reveals that the rightturn volumes are high enough to not justify the free-flow or no-delay assumptions. 1.33Chapter 19 (Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections) of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) presents the computation of potential capacity of a movement; these calculations are based on the gapacceptance model provided in Equation of HCM and presented below: 1.34 { ( ) } 1.35WHERE 1.36 POTENTIAL CAPACITY OF MOVEMENT X (VEH/H), 1.37 CONFLICTING FLOW RATE FOR MOVEMENT X (VEH/H), 1.38 CRITICAL HEADWAY FOR MINOR MOVEMENT X (S), Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-5

6 1.39 FOLLOW-UP HEADWAY FOR MINOR MOVEMENT X (S). 1.40EXHIBITS AND OF THE 2010 HCM PROVIDE THE BASE CRITICAL HEADWAYS AND BASE FOLLOW-UP HEADWAYS FOR A COMBINATION OF VEHICLE-MOVEMENT AND NUMBER OF LANES. FROM EXHIBIT 19-10, 6.2, 6.9 AND 7.1 FOR RIGHT- TURN MOVEMENTS FROM THE MINOR STREET INTO TWO-LANE, FOUR-LANE AND SIX-LANE LOCATIONS RESPECTIVELY, WHILE FROM EXHIBIT 19-11, 3.3 RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS FROM TWO- AND FOUR-LANE MINOR STREETS AND 3.9 FOR SIX LANES MINOR STREETS. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT (HCM 19-16) WHERE 1.43 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR HEAVY VEHICLES (0.9 FOR MAJOT STREETS WITH ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION, 1.0 FOR MAJOR STREETS WITH TWO OR THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION); AND 1.44 PROPORTION OF HEAVY VEHICLES FOR MOVEMENT (EXPRESSED AS A DECIMAL; E.G., P HV = 0.02 OR 2% HEAVY VEHICLES) 1.45USING EQUATION AND THE CRITICAL AND FOLLOW-UP HEADWAY VALUES, THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY FOR THE THREE LANE-COMBINATIONS CAN BE COMPUTED, PROVIDED THE CONFLICTING FLOW RATE IS KNOWN. CONFLICTING FLOW RELATES TO VEHICLES MOVING ALONG THE MAJOR ROADWAY AND THEREBY NECESSITATING THE MINOR APPROACH VEHICLES TO FIND GAPS FOR MAKING THE RIGHT-TURN MOVEMENT. TABLE 3-1 SHOWS THE CONFLICTING FLOW RATE, THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY AND 70% OF THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY. 1.46FOR APPLYING THIS METHODOLOGY, THE PEAK HOUR MAJOR STREET COUNT SHOULD BE USED AS THE CONFLICTING FLOW VALUE. FOR MULTIPLE LANES, DIVIDE THE TRAFFIC EVENLY Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-6

7 ACROSS THE LANES. DEPENDING ON THE LANE GEOMETRY, THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY AND THE 70% OF THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY ARE DETERMINED FOR A TWO-, FOUR-, OR SIX-LANE CONFIGURATION. THE TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA ARE THEN EVALUATED FOR PERCENT RIGHT-TURNS FROM THE MINOR APPROACH. FOR A GIVEN CONFLICTING FLOW RATE, IF THE PERCENT OF RIGHT-TURNS FROM THE FIELD DATA EXCEED THE 70% POTENTIAL CAPACITY VALUE SHOWN IN TABLE 3-1, THE PREVAILING TRAFFIC CONDITION SHALL BE TREATED AS SIGNIFICANT-ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE RIGHT-TURN MOVEMENTSS AS EXPERIENCING REASONABLE DELAY. 50% OF THE RIGHT-TURN VOLUME SHOULD THEN BE ADDED BACK TO EACH OF THE HOURS CONSIDERED FOR THE SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS COMPUTATIONS Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-7

8 1.49TABLE 3-1. RIGHT-TURN CAPACITY 1.50CONFLIC TING FLOW (VEH/H) 1.51POTENTIAL CAP. (VEH/H) LN LN LN % CAPACITY(VEH/H) LN LN LN , , Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-8

9 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-9

10 VOLUMES (1) The volumes of traffic should be the actual Turning Movement Counts (TMC) taken for the highest 8 to 12 hours in an average day (a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location). Approach Road tube counts should be conducted first in order to determine, (1) the need for TMC s (i.e., if the volumes are too low then 8 to 12 hours of TMC s are not needed and the warrants may be completed based on the road tubeapproach counts only); and (2) the appropriate time periods for conducting collecting TMC s. In all the warrants where hourly volumes are to be entered, any hourly period may begin on any quarter hour (7:15, 7:30, 7:45 etc.), as long as there is no overlap among warranted hours WARRANT 1: MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME EIGHT- HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Formatted: All caps Formatted: All caps Formatted: Heading 2 Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Normal Formatted: All caps Formatted: All caps (1) The Eight Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are detailed in Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-10

11 Section 4C.02 of the MUTCD. The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A is intended where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B is intended where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. (2) Under circumstances where Conditions A and B are not satisfied for a specific location, the combination of Conditions A and B can be applied. This combination lowers the volume threshold recommended recommended for traffic signal installation but requires both Conditions A and B to be met. Both conditions shall be met by meeting the required vehicles per hour and highervolume minor-street approaches for the 80% columns under both conditions. The volumes shall be the same for the 8 hours for each condition but do not necessarily have to be the same under both conditions. On the minor street the higher-volume minor-street is not required to be the same approach during each of the 8 hours. The major and minor street volumes shall be the same for the same 8 hours for each condition. Nonetheless, Tthis standard should only be applied after an adequate trial of other alternatives has failed to solve the traffic problems at the particular location. (3) Figure 3-1Figure 3-1 Condition A and B shows the portions of Form No needingthat need to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. This warrant should be completed based on hourly traffic volumes recorded for each approach to the intersection. The hour of the count should be noted above the appropriate columns where volumes are entered. The use of 56 percent volumes for the combination of Conditions A and B is not allowed. Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold Field Code Changed Formatted: Justified, Space After: 14.5 pt, Line spacing: At least 14.3 pt, No widow/orphan control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Font Alignment: Baseline Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-11

12 Formatted: Numbering, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Not Bold Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-12

13 Figure 3-1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Centered, Space After: 14.5 pt, Line spacing: At least 14.3 pt, No widow/orphan control, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Font Alignment: Baseline Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-13

14 Condition B Formatted: Don't keep with next Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-14

15 Formatted: Heading 2 (2) THE WARRANT IS SATISFIED WHEN, FOR EACH OF ANY 8 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY, THE REQUIRED TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXIST ON THE MAJOR STREET AND THE HIGHER VOLUME MINOR STREET APPROACH. THE HIGHER VOLUME MINOR STREET APPROACH MAY VARY WITH THE HOUR. WHEN THE VOLUMES EQUAL OR EXCEED THE VALUES SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS, 80 PERCENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND THIS MAY BE USED AS A PORTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WARRANTS 6 (SECTION 3.10) AND 8 (SECTION 3.12). THE ENGINEER SHOULD PLACE AN X IN THE APPROPRIATE WARRANT SATISIFED BOX TO INDICATE IF THE MINIMUM VEHICLE VOLUME WARRANT IS SATISFIED, OR IF 80 PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM VOLUMES ARE MET WARRANT 2: INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFICFOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (1) The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant is intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant conditions are detailed in Section 4C.03 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-2 shows the portion of Form No needing to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. The engineer should include a checkmark in the appropriate Satisfied box indicating whether the Warrant was met or not. Formatted: All caps Formatted: All caps Formatted: Numbering, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Field Code Changed Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: List Paragraph (1) Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Figure 3-1) applies to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay greater than 60 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. Warrant 2 is determined similar to Warrant 1 by using traffic volumes as the basic criteria for warranting a signal installation. Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 0" Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-15

16 (2) IfThe Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant is intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant conditions are detailed in. Formatted: List Paragraph Figure 3-2 shows the minimum volumes are met and a signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street, appropriate studies should be conducted as partportion of Form needing to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant to evaluate the delay and/or hazards that the minor street traffic experiences in entering and crossing the major street. Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: First line: 0" (3) Warrant 2 is satisfied when: (a) During any 8 hours of an average day, the required traffic volumes for Warrant 2 exist on the major street and on the higher volume minor street approach. The higher volume minor street approach may vary with the hour, and; (b) a signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street, and; (c) delay is greater than 60 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle. (4). The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if this Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant is satisfied, or if 80 percent of the minimum volumes are met. If the signal is to be installed based only on the satisfaction of this warrant, the delay and/or crash study should accompany the report. The report should show excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. box. Formatted: List Paragraph Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-16

17 Formatted: Normal WARRANT 3: MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUMEPEAK HOUR (1) The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities attracting or discharging large numbers of vehicles over a short time. The warrant conditions are detailed in Section 4C.04 of the MUTCD. (2) If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours the volume criteria of this warrant are not met. (3) Figure 3-3 Figure 3-3 shows the portion of Form No needing to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Numbering Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic (4) (1) When the volume of pedestrians crossing an intersection is the principal consideration, Warrant 3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume (Figure 3-2) should be examined. This warrant should only apply to those locations where the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet and where a new traffic signal at the study location would not unduly restrict the platooned flow of traffic. (5) (6) (2) This warrant should be completed based on the hourly volumes as determined by the Pedestrian Volume Count Study (Chapter 9). The hour of the count should be noted above the appropriate columns where volumes are entered. The Pedestrian Group Size Study (Chapter 10) and the Vehicle Gap Size Study (Chapter 8) shall also be conducted as part of this warrant to evaluate the number of adequate gaps per hour in the traffic stream. The engineer shall also observe the predominant pedestrian crossing speed. If the speed is less than 3.5 feet per second the pedestrian volume may be reduced 50 percent. (7) (8) (3) Warrant 3 is satisfied when: (9) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-17

18 (10) (a) During any four hours of an average day the pedestrian volumes crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location are met, or; (11) (12) (b) During any one hour of an average day the pedestrian volumes crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location are met, and; (13) (14) (c) There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross during the same time period when the pedestrian volumes are satisfied. (15) (16) (4) Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrian refuge, the adequate gaps required shall apply separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. Where coordinated signals on each side of the study location provide for platooned traffic which result in fewer than 60 gaps per hour of adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the street, a traffic signal may not be warranted. (17) (18) (5) A signal installed under this warrant should be of the traffic actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed within a coordinated signal system, it shall also be coordinated. (19) (20) (6) The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if the Minimum Pedestrian Traffic Warrant is satisfied, or if 80 percent of the minimum volumes are met. (21) The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic 3.8 WARRANT 4: SCHOOL CROSSINGS Formatted: Numbering (22) (23) (1) If a traffic signal is under consideration in an established school crossing, and is not justified by another warrant, Warrant 4, School Crossings (Figure 3-2) should be examined based on data collected using the Pedestrian Group Size Study (Chapter 10) and the Vehicle Gap Size Study (Chapter 8). If no school crossing is involved, place an X in the Not Applicable box. (24) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-18

19 (25) (2) Warrant 4 is satisfied when it is determined that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when school children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period. (26) (27) (3) When traffic signals are installed entirely under this warrant, the following conditions must be met: (28) (29) (a) Pedestrian indications shall be provided at least are such that for each crosswalk established as a school crossing. (30) (31) (b) At an intersection, the signal normally should be traffic actuated. As a minimum, they should be semi-traffic actuated, but full actuation with detectors on all approaches may be desirable. (32) (33) (c) At non-intersection crossings, the signal should be pedestrian actuated. Parking and other obstructions of sight distance should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. (34) (35) (4) The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if the School Crossings Warrant is satisfied. of 1 hour of an average day, the minor (36) (37) 3.9 WARRANT 5: PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (38) (39) (1) If progressive movement of traffic is a consideration, Warrant 5, Progressive Movement (Figure 3-3) should be examined to determine whether or not a signal should be installed in order to maintain proper grouping of vehicles and effectively regulate the speed of these groups. Analysis using PASSER II, TRANSYT-7F, NETSIM, SYNCHRO, or CORSIM must verify that the proposed signal will provide a progressive signal system. (40) (41) (2) Warrant 5 is satisfied when: Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-19

20 (42) (43) (a) Adjacent signals on a one-way street or a street with predominantly one-way traffic are spaced so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning and speed control, or; (44) (45) (b) Adjacent signals on a two-way street do not provide the proper degree of platooning and speed control, and the proposed and adjacent signals could constitute a progressive signal system. (46) (47) (3) The installation of a signal according to this warrant should not be considered where the resultant signal spacing would be less than 1000 feet. (48) (49) (4) The engineer should record the distance to the nearest signal in each direction ontraffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street and place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate whether the Progressive Movement Warrant is satisfied.. This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual (50) (51) 3.10 WARRANT 6: CRASH EXPERIENCE (52) (53) (1) If crash experience at an intersection is a principal consideration, Warrant 6, Crash Experience (Figure 3-3) should be examined. This warrant should be completed based on a thorough investigation of crash experience and the vehicular and pedestrian traffic data collected for Warrants 1, 2, and 3. (54) (55) (2) Place an X in the appropriate boxes and enter the average number of crashes involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash. (56) (57) (3) Warrant 6 is satisfied when: (58) (59) (a) Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-20

21 observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency, and; (60) (61) (b) Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal (any involving failure to yield right of way), have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involved personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash, and; (62) (63) (c) There exists a volume of vehicular or pedestrian traffic not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified either in Warrant 1, 2, or 3, and; (64) (65) (d) The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. (66) (67) (4) Any traffic signal installed solely on the Crash Experience Warrant should operate as semi-traffic actuated (with control devices which provide proper coordination if installed at an intersection within a coordinated system) and normally should operate as fully traffic actuated if installed at an isolated intersection and should include features to correct the operational problem identified. (68) (69) (5) The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if the Crash Experience Warrant is satisfied. (70) (71) 3.11 WARRANT 7: SYSTEMS WARRANT (72) (73) (1) When the intersection of two or more major routes is of primary concern, the Warrant 7, Systems Warrant (Figure 3-4) should be examined. This warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing (or immediately projected) entering volume, on all approaches, of at least 1000 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical weekday or each of any five hours on a Saturday and/or Sunday. (74) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-21

22 (75) (2) Enter the appropriate sums of peak hour volumes entering the intersection based on the turning volume summary, and place an X in the appropriate box indicating whether or not this condition is fulfilled. A major route, as used in Warrant 7, has one or more of the following characteristics: (76) (77) (a) It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traffic flow. (78) (79) (b) It includes a rural or suburban highway outside, entering, or traversing a city. (80) (81) (c) It appears as a major route on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. (82) (83) (3) Place an X in either the Route 1 or Route 2 columns to indicate if any of the three major route characteristics are applicable. If each of the intersecting streets meet any one of the three major route characteristics (not necessarily the same characteristic) indicate so by placing an X in the Yes box. (84) (85) (4) Warrant 7 is satisfied if both the entering volume and the major route conditions are met (at least one major route condition must be met for each route). The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if the Systems Warrant is satisfied. (86) (87) 3.12 WARRANT 8: COMBINATION OF WARRANTS (88) (89) (1) In exceptional cases, signals occasionally can be justified where no single warrant is satisfied, but both Warrants 1 and 2 meet 80 percent of the minimum volumes. Place an X indicating which of these warrants meet 80 percent or more of the minimum volumes. Adequate trial of other remedial measures which cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of signals under Warrant 8, Combination of Warrants (Figure 3-4). (90) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-22

23 (91) (2) Warrant 8 is satisfied if both Warrants 1 and 2 meet 80 percent of the volume requirements. The engineer should place an X in the appropriate Warrant Satisfied box to indicate if the Combination of Warrants is satisfied. Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-23

24 (3) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-24

25 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-25

26 Figure 3-2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-26

27 Figure 3-3. Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-27

28 Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-28

29 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-29

30 Formatted: Heading WARRANT 4: PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial (1) The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended where the traffic volumes on a major street are so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delays in crossing the major street. The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. (2) A traffic signal at an intersection or midblock shall be considered using the following criteria which should be plotted in the corresponding figures with the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) as the x coordinates: (a) Any four hours of an average day (Figures 4C-5 and 4C-6) Formatted: Numbering ABC (b) One hour (or any four consecutive 15-minute period) of an average day (figures 4C-7 and 4-8) (2)(3) The total pedestrians crossing the major street along with the major street traffic volume should be plotted on Figure 4C-5 or 4C-7 from the MUTCD, depending on the criterion criterion being evaluated. If the posted, statutory or 85 th percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7. The warrant conditions are detailed in Section 4C.05 of the MUTCD. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 Figure 3-4 shows the portions of Form NumberNo that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian countdown signal heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E of the MUTCD. Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Numbering Formatted: Hyperlink (3) (4) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-30

31 Figure 3-4. Pedestiran Four-Hour Volume Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-31

32 Figure 3-5. Pedestiran Peak Hour Volume Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-32

33 Formatted: Heading WARRANT 5: SCHOOL CROSSING (1) The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant conditions are detailed in Section 4C.06 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-6Figure 3-5 shows the portion of Form Numbero that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. Formatted: All caps Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: All caps Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Figure 3-6. School Crossing Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-33

34 Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-34

35 WARRANT 6: COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM (1) Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic signal at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet. The warrant conditions for this warrant are detailed in Section 4C.07 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-7 Figure 3-6 shows the portion of Form NumberNo that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Figure 3-7. Coordinated Signal System Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-35

36 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-36

37 WARRANT 7: CRASH EXPERIENCE (1) The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for applications where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant conditions for this warrant are detailed in Section 4C.08 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-8Figure 3-7 shows the portion of Form NumberNo that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Figure 3-8. Crash Experience Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-37

38 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-38

39 WARRANT 8: ROADWAY NETWORK (1) Installing a traffic signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. The warrant conditions for this warrant are detailed in Section 4C.09 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-9Figure 3-8 shows the portion of Form NumberNo that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Figure 3-9. Roadway Network Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-39

40 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-40

41 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-41

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raffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-42

43 WARRANT 9: FOUR HOUR VOLUMES (1) WARRANT 9, FOUR HOUR VOLUMES IS SATISFIED WHEN FOR EACH OF ANY FOUR HOURS IN AN AVERAGE DAY, THE PLOTTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FALL ABOVE THE CURVE FOR THE EXISTING COMBINATION OF LANES SHOWN ON THE WARRANT 9 SUMMARY. THE ENGINEER SHOULD FILL OUT THE FOUR HOUR VOLUME DATA AND PLOT THE FOUR POINTS ON THE PROPER GRAPH. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO SUMMARY SHEETS FOR WARRANT 9 (FIGURES 3-5 AND 3-6) FIGURE 3-5 IS FOR AN INTERSECTION IN AN ISOLATED COMMUNITY WITH A POPULATION LESS THAN 10,000 OR A MAJOR STREET 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED GREATER THAN 40 MPH. IF NEITHER OF THESE CRITERIA IS MET, FIGURE 3-6 SHOULD BE USED. ONLY ONE OF THESE SHEETS IS APPLICABLE FOR ANY INTERSECTION STUDIED (2) THE ENGINEER SHOULD PLACE AN X IN THE APPROPRIATE WARRANT SATISFIED BOX TO INDICATE IF THE FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT IS SATISFIED WARRANT 10: PEAK HOUR DELAY (1) WARRANT 10, PEAK HOUR DELAY (FIGURE 3-7) IS SATISFIED WHEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST FOR ONE HOUR (ANY FOUR CONSECUTIVE 15-MINUTE PERIODS) IN AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY: (A) THE TOTAL DELAY EXPERIENCED BY THE MINOR Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-43

44 STREET OR PRIVATE DRIVE APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY), CONTROLLED BY A STOP SIGN, EQUALS OR EXCEEDS FOUR VEHICLE HOURS FOR A ONE-LANE APPROACH AND FIVE VEHICLE HOURS FOR A TWO-LANE APPROACH, AND; (B) THE VOLUME ON THE SAME SIDE STREET APPROACH (ONE DIRECTION ONLY) EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 100 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR ONE MOVING LANE OF TRAFFIC OR 150 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR TWO MOVING LANES, AND; (C) THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES ENTERING THE INTERSECTION DURING THE HOUR EQUALS OR EXCEEDS 800 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR INTERSECTIONS WITH FOUR OR MORE APPROACHES OR 650 VEHICLES PER HOUR FOR AN INTERSECTION WITH THREE APPROACHES (2) THE ENGINEER SHOULD FILL OUT WARRANT 10 AS SHOWN IN FIGURE 3-7. THE ENGINEER SHOULD PLACE AN X IN THE APPROPRIATE WARRANT SATISFIED BOX TO INDICATE IF THE PEAK HOUR DELAY WARRANT IS SATISFIED WARRANT 11: PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (1) WARRANT 11, PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (FIGURES 3-8 AND 3-9) IS SATISFIED WHEN FOR ANY ONE HOUR (ANY FOUR CONSECUTIVE 15-MINUTE PERIODS) OF AN AVERAGE DAY, THE PLOTTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FALL ABOVE THE CURVE FOR THE EXISTING COMBINATION OF LANES SHOWN IN FIGURES 3-8 AND 3-9. AS IN WARRANT 9, THERE ARE TWO SUMMARY SHEETS FOR Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-44

45 WARRANT 11, ONLY ONE OF THESE SHEETS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO EACH INTERSECTION STUDIED (2) THE ENGINEER SHOULD FILL OUT THE PEAK HOUR VOLUME DATA AND PLOT THE ONE POINT ON THE PROPER GRAPH. THE ENGINEER SHOULD PLACE AN X IN THE APPROPRIATE WARRANT SATISFIED BOX TO INDICATE IF THE PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT IS SATISFIED : INTERSECTION NEARNEAR A GRADE CROSSING (1) This signal warrant is intended for intersections where a with a proximate grade crossing exists on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and none of the other eight traffic signal warrants are met. It should only be applied after evaluating other alternatives as a solution and these do not address safety concerns related to the grade crossing. The warrant conditions for this warrant are detailed in Section 4C.10 of the MUTCD. (2) Figure 3-10Figure 3-9 shows the portion of Form NumberNo that needs to be completed in order to satisfy this warrant. (2) 3.14 FORMS ACCESS (1) A reproducible copy of the Traffic Signal Warrant Summary, Form No is available in the Department's Forms Library. Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-45 Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Hyperlink Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Numbering, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.5"

46 Figure Intersection near Grade Crossing Formatted: Centered Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-46

47 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-47

48 Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-48

49 Figure 3-9 Intersection near Grade Crossing FORMS ACCESS Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-49

50 3.14 forms access A reproducible copy of the Traffic Signal Warrant Summary, Form No is in the Appendix. This form is also available in the Department's Forms Library.. Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 3-50